Laserfiche WebLink
19 <br /> all the payment and install an innovative system in. It does consider existing at <br /> the time of transfer. They are not intending to do it twice. <br /> Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Santos if he was of the same opinion as Mr. Ball. <br /> Mr. Santos confirmed that he was in agreement with Mr. Ball's opinion. <br /> Mr. Doyle continued by showing the BOH members an old well. He suggested <br /> that he might bring it back as a monitoring well. The flow direction is in the <br /> same area. <br /> Mr. Ball recommended that he make it part of his proposal. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that if they provide an innovative system he is in <br /> compliance. He would be in compliance and wouldn't need a monitoring well. <br /> The only monitoring required would be of the system itself. <br /> Mr. Doyle continued by suggesting that they re-visit regulation 5.1. <br /> Mr. Harrington backtracked by stating that Mr. Doyle was correct. He would still <br /> have to verify that the effluent leaving does require a monitoring well. He is <br /> correct in what he is saying. <br /> Mr. Doyle continued that he had been told that it could be a big problem to <br /> bring this well back. Therefore, if he could prove to the BOH members that 10- <br /> PPM up at the system is going to be better at the exit of the property. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that he was going to have trouble with the Fast System <br /> keeping it below the 10 PPM especially since the facility is seasonal. If it were <br /> year around it would be different. Seasonal places have problems keeping the <br /> bacteria up to keep up that type of result. He continued by stating that if that <br /> well were still there it would be worth investigating the opportunity to open it up <br /> for monitoring purposes. <br /> Mr. Doyle stated that the BOH should expect that he would be back with a plan <br /> showing that type of a system with a request for a variance. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> D. Gary Tavares Main Street <br /> Mr. Jack Cauley-Landers was present he wanted to discuss obtaining a variance <br /> or a waiver requirement. This BOH granted an approval for a Title V system that <br /> the BOH members didn't need to approve because it had all of the requirement <br /> of Title V. However, since he didn't practice in Mashpee that often he had <br /> forgotten that commerical property regulations required a reserve area. <br /> Consequently, he had a couple of questions. <br /> His client, Mr. Gary Tavares, didn't understand why he was being required to <br /> put in a reserve area. Mr. Tavares stated that he was putting in an office so that <br /> he can receive people, do some building and not much more. <br />