Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> wells within 150' of the SAS. <br /> Mr. Doherty then went back to one of the original issues regarding this variance <br /> request. How did the BOH want to certify that the system was in fact on the <br /> property? Did the BOH want the corners staked by the surveyor? Then have the <br /> engineer certify that it is within the bounds of the property. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that they could have it staked and certified by a land <br /> survey if the BOH members so wished. <br /> Mr. Doherty then asked the other BOH members if they had opinion on this <br /> issue? Now you are calling a surveyor out twice. Should you call the land <br /> surveyor out once and give it to the engineer to certify that it isn't over the <br /> property line? <br /> Mr. Ball then asked Mr. Doherty what his preference was. <br /> Mr. Doherty stated that he didn't want to run into a problem. But, on the other <br /> hand, he didn't want to overly burden a homeowner with lots of extra things. <br /> The engineer is the man who is going to put his name on this. The other <br /> example was an emergency repair situation with no drawn plans. It was a <br /> completely different situation. But, the engineer has to certify that what's on <br /> paper is what's in the ground. <br /> Mr. Harrington then suggested that the land surveyor stamp the "as built" also. <br /> The property corners in the front property can be established prior to <br /> construction and have the land survey stamp the as built. The engineer will say <br /> it has been installed according to the plan but the land surveyor will certify <br /> according to location. <br /> Mr. Doherty made a motion to approve a 0' variance from the street line and a <br /> 5' variance from the BVW pending two conditions: (1) that the corner bounds be <br /> marked and certified by a surveyor; (2) verify town water or no wells in the area. <br /> Mr. Ball so moved the motion. Mr. Santos seconded it. Variance granted. <br /> 3. Variance Request: 23 Shore Drive (Ocean Bluff Drive) <br /> The Phoenix Group was requesting a variance for relief from the requirement <br /> for designating a reserve leaching area due to site constraints. This lot is <br /> subject to the same issues and requirements for connection to the New Seabury <br /> wastewater treatment plant as addressed in our submittal to your office for the <br /> adjacent lot (25 Shore Drive, a.k.a. Ocean Bluff Ave.) <br /> Mr. Ball stated that if he understood this situation right. This is a temporary <br /> situation. When the treatment plant is completed they will connect with the <br /> plant. <br /> Mr. Harrington replied that 23 and 25 Shore Drive have the same variance <br /> request. <br />