Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br />wlashyee, -Massachusetts oz649 <br />Mr. Balzarini stated when the Board tried to pass this the drawings were not well received. In <br />the flood zone you have to be 14 feet, and they didn't understand that. People on Shore Drive <br />don't want columns they want the foundation with a level yard, that's why they are using fill. <br />Two new permits were given in his neighborhood, and they are still giving Title V permits. <br />With the changes for sewer and septic occurring, how come alternative systems are not being <br />considered? One house is on the boat landing, four houses down from the river, with a Title V <br />for 5 bedrooms. <br />Mr. McManus commented under Regulation 30 for prevention of pollution, allows a parts per <br />million range requirement for all nutrient loading. Septic system leaching, storm water runoff, <br />and fertilizer, everything that contributes to nutrient loading on a given lot, will have to meet <br />the parts per million range. This is based on consultation with the Health Agent. That will <br />require any septic upgrade to go to an IA system. The only issue is the scenario that leads to <br />an upgrade like a failure with no expansion or increase in flow, is that reason to require an IA <br />system in that circumstance. New development and pitching a Title V system is a perfect <br />scenario to require an IA system. They are currently figuring what is justified and what is <br />burdensome. As far as the parts per million, the threshold started as five. He is unsure if the <br />state is going along with this. With the range, which would still reduce impacts, the range of <br />parts per million is lower than what is typically being seen with all inputs, not just septic, but <br />everything that contributes to nutrient loading within a lot. They do know the original five parts <br />per million is unachievable and not feasible to get that low in the absence of sewering. You do <br />not want to introduce something that is unenforceable. A range will reduce nutrient loads and <br />empower the Commission to not just recommend but also require IA systems. <br />Mr. Richardson wants to make sure everybody in town has an opportunity to speak on this. <br />He supports the idea, but he doesn't think it's a Public Meeting with the 10% of people who <br />read The Enterprise. It will take longer to execute via Town Meeting, but that seems like the <br />right approach. A Public Meeting at night will not attract anyone. He doesn't want to be <br />criticized for not allowing people the ability to speak and vote on this. <br />Mr. Fulone is having the same reaction. Early summer verses October is not much of a <br />difference. Based on the way things move, how confident are we this timeline is accurate? <br />The town should have the opportunity to vote on these. <br />Ms. Faulkner sees both sides and understands both members want to have people showing <br />up. She feels a public notice will not gain appearance, they will need a media campaign, and <br />she will let Mr. Lehrer speak on that. With 625 responses to the LCP survey and 300 people <br />at Town Meeting, they have to do whatever they can to wake up the masses. This is about the <br />quality of life here and now is the time to come forward. <br />11 <br />