Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> Mr. Santos stated that it was requested of them months ago to send up all of the <br /> information that they needed to work with the selectman and the DPW on this <br /> issue. The intent was that it would be a two-part bid for budgetary reasons. It was <br /> going to be "our" piece of the pie and "their" piece of the pie so there was no conflict <br /> or confusion on building. It would be one RFP but two separate prices and two <br /> separate billings. For some reason, communication never got up there or got <br /> thrown in the trashcan. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that there is already confusion in billing. When the transfer <br /> station was taken over by the DPW they essentially inherited the entire budget for <br /> the landfill. The BOH is still trying to work out how they are going to pay for each <br /> of the line items. <br /> Mr. Doherty interrupted stating that they were not supposed to get that portion of <br /> it. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that they know that. There are steps being taken before the <br /> next budget to rectify the situation. But, until then to pay for the monitoring or by- <br /> monthly inspections, they will need to institute procedures to have the BOH sign <br /> off and Gregg Taylor sign off as the department head. They would like to get this <br /> bidding straightened out. <br /> b. 307 Shore Drive, Maushop - SAS Over Property Line <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that the homeowner called up requesting that he re-visit this <br /> issue. He then wanted to do this on a discussion basis to get the BOH members <br /> opinions first before they take this back to a formal meeting. Just some history on <br /> this, the homeowners came before the BOH in July and October of 2000 because <br /> the leaching portion of the septic system was installed over the property line. Mr. <br /> Harrington feels that two thirds of the septic system was installed over the property <br /> line. It wasn't just one chamber as had been explained. <br /> He noticed a couple of things in the minutes going back researching this that kind <br /> of disturbed him. Furthermore, on a factual basis in July of last year, he wasn't <br /> sure if the BOH members fully rested their laurels on their opinion that the septic <br /> system was let go because the rights of their property was extended to the center of <br /> the road. That is not the case at all. Again, there is a letter in file from their <br /> attorney stating that the septic system is over the property while the right of way <br /> was the New Seabury ownership in a common space. New Seabury came back and <br /> did not grant them an easement. It still lies that there it is that possibility that if <br /> New Seabury turns around and puts utilities in that street there could problems. <br /> Mr. Ball then asked what the date was on the letter. <br /> Mr. Doherty asked if there were plans. <br /> Again Mr. Ball asked what the date was on the New Seabury letter. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that the letter was dated prior to the October meeting. <br />