Board of Health Meeting - December 17, 2025

Today is Wednesday, December 17, 2025.

This is the Dartmouth Board of Health.

It is 4:30 p.m. Um, and I am going to move to open the meeting with a roll call. So, Emily Michelle Olmstead, chair, is present.

Susan Murray present.

And as a reminder to all, uh, this meeting is being recorded.

Okay. So, looking at our agenda, the first item we have is to approve and accept the warrants for the bills payable period ending November 19th, 2025 through December 12th, 2025.

Bear with me. I'm scrolling up here. Um, I don't think I did not have any questions or issues with any um of of the items here. Um, um, I guess I'll I'll for pattern sake, Chris, I'll jump to you. Do you have any um notes you want to share with us on this?

Nope. These are just customary bills uh that we have to pres that you know for efficiency reasons um that were presented to the board uh we are allowed to have certain um statutory um provisions that allow us to sign up to a certain amount and anything over that amount which is $400 would either be signed by the board signatory or approved by the board. So uh this is just a running agenda item for those

items that we haven't sought prior approval on at the beginning of each um reorganization of the board um or you know asking the board to come in. So this is just uh efficiency and it's all routine uh expenses.

Great. Thank you. Um uh Susan Murray, do you have any questions, comments, issues you want to talk about for this one?

Nope.

Excellent. Um, and then I Chris, I believe the uh the the if if since we seem so moved um the wording is um to move to um approve and accept the warrants. Is that correct?

Yes. For the u the bills payable November 19th through December Got it.

Both.

All right. So then I move to approve and accept the warrants for the bills payable period ending November 19th, 2025 through December 12th, 2025, finding that there are no outstanding issues. Can I get a second?

I second.

All right. Now we'll vote. All those in favor?

I.

Any opposed?

Any abstain? The motion passes.

Excellent. Okay. The next item we have is to approve and accept the meeting minutes of November 19th, 2025.

I did not notice anything um incorrect about the minutes. Um very detailed. I know we had a lot going on in that meeting. Uh, Susan Murray, do you have any um issues or questions about the minutes?

No issues or questions. I'm all set on the minutes.

Excellent. Okay, then I move to approve and accept the meeting minutes of November 19th, 2025, finding that there are no corrections. Can I get a second?

I second.

All right. Now we'll vote. All those in favor? I I.

Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion passes.

All right. We're moving now into section uh I which is our appointments. Um the 432 appointment. We're running pretty on time today. 433. We're going to start with Civil and Environmental Consultants Inc. Plat 9, lot 40 at 656 Horsene Neck Road in Dartmouth, which is a waiver from 310 CMR15.

Um, I'm going to ask that uh if if either the applicant or someone representing the applicant is here to speak, please identify yourself for the record, unmute and uh go ahead and tell us about this please.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is David Kelly with Civil Environmental Consultants. Uh here with me is Diesa Van Laovven uh representing Round the Ben Farm. Um, this project in summary is an existing dwelling at the property and it needs a septic uh upgrade and it needs a new drinking water well. Uh in designing the septic system, we first looked at a conventional system, right,

with basically zero waivers and in doing so required an extremely elevated mounted leech field with um substantial grading and a few additional waivers would be required uh to reduce the grading to reduce the mounting of the leech field. We have proposed a presby advanced advanced environmental system.

It's an approved secondary treatment device uh in the state of Massachusetts commonly used for uh repairs and uh upgraded systems.

Uh that has drastically reduce the height of the mound. It has reduced the amount of grading in the rear of this property. So that is what we are here to discuss this afternoon. We have also proposed the new well up in the front of the property near Horsene Neck Road. uh it's greater than 100 ft from any existing leech fields uh in the surrounding properties.

Um the existing dwelling does uh utilize composting toilet facilities. So the actual uh gallons per day coming out of this house is going to be substantially less than what it's designed for. And with the uh presby advanced treatment leech field the uh treatment of the ephilent will be far superior than a conventional system would be because of the depth to groundwater 28 in or the the testing that was done. The

septic tank and the pump chamber the inlets and outlets of those tanks would be approximately a foot from groundwater. So therefore, watertight boots are proposed on those uh two structures on the inlets and the outlets. And that is the waiver that we are here to discuss or you discuss anything else that might be of concern from the board.

Excellent. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um I do um so this is this is more curiosity. So there's it's composted toilets. So essentially gray water is just going to be what's going to the system.

Correct.

Neat.

Yep. Um the advantage of utilizing the presby is it allows um the reduction in the size of the leaf field, the separation of groundwater depth as well. Um but it also even if those were kept to where standard designs were required to be at the uh treatment of the effluent is far superior than standard system.

Do you have the D transmitt number? Um I'm I I have a apologize I have a small screen. I'm trying to find it just to make sure. But that is one of the things I just want to um do want on pretty much anyone's plans who's using any sort of alternative.

Yes, it is on the plan. And I can share my screen if you want to show where it is on the plan. But the transmitt number is 21- CM dash 0000 73-app.

Great. Okay. And it's included on there.

That's excellent. Um, in my experience, um, it's important to put that on there to make sure everybody's on the same page about what what approval you're following. So, thank you. Y just for for your reference on the plan right hand side it says board of health stamps in rather large lettering.

Yep.

On the first set of text directly above that. So got okay thank you. I've seen engineers put it in a couple different spots so that helps me. And then I by the time we get into the meeting I'm a little jumbled. Um so excellent. Um Chris um I have one question and then I would like your feedback if that's all right. Um uh the watertight boots are already proposed on this plan. Um would we need

any condition? Um depending on how you know we as a board feel tonight, would it be beneficial for us to condition that as well? Because that that would be the one thing I would personally look for given this this waiver that's asked for.

I'm sorry. Um what was the condition?

Because it kind of broke up a little bit on our end down here.

The engineer has it is already included in the plan that watertight boots are proposed. I I um do we need to also condition that as a board if we are concerned about it.

Um if it's proposed on the plan, we do not need to condition it.

Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Chris, do you have any other things you want to note about this one?

It's a very difficult site and I believe you know in my professional opinion the engineer has done the best he can to uh navigate the uh limitations of the site and install a system um you know with the with proposal um you know it's you know there was some earlier editions of this plan and um they were kind of horrific uh with retaining walls. So, um, you know, this is a, you know, I

really believe a a a good design, um, given the limitations on this lot, you know, with on-site well, off-site wells and lot area and and a really slow perk rate.

Excellent. Thank you. Um, Susan Murray, questions, comments, concerns. How do you feel?

I don't have any at this time.

Great. Is there anyone else here um to speak on this uh item? Um remember to unmute yourself and please identify yourself for the record.

Uh I'm Diesa Vanerhovven. I'm the executive director and the co-founder of Round the Ben Farm. Um and so yeah, I'm just here to speak on and just in terms of your question around the the composting toilet, we really believe in sustainability and social justice. Those are our two sort of threads that weave us together. And um the first one of the first things that we did was remove

there's only one flush toilet in there and we replaced it with a Phoenix composting toilet. And you know thinking about our groundwater is extremely important to us. Um we think about all of our decision making for for that. And this is a tiny tiny postage stamp of our property. Um it's obviously very close to our farm. Um, so that's why and housing is a real issue um for you know

us in terms of and I know a lot of nonprofits and you know farms and people that work on the margins it's hard to afford. So we've been very fortunate to try to provide uh a substantial amount of housing for our teammates and and one of our teammates is currently living there now. So excellent. Thank you. Um, okay. Then I'm going to um I don't see anyone else who uh seems to be unmuting and trying to

speak, so I'm going to move us forward.

Um so um finding that um this is an upgrade that um that the engineer um attempted um to do this without any waiverss but found extreme mounding that um an advanced um alternative uh septic uh alternative uh soil absorption system is being used and that uh it will be mostly for gray water because of the use of composting toilets on the site. um finding that watertight boots have been

proposed and that it is the professional opinion of uh the health director that the engineer has done the best possible solution. I move to approve the u plan for 159 Woodcock Road uh in Dartmouth. Can I get a second?

665 Horsene Neck Road.

Oh, excuse me. Thank you.

656.

Thank you.

656.

Thank you.

Chris, do I need to reread all the conditions or or the findings or can I just change the uh the address?

That's correct. You can just change the address. That's fine.

Thank you. Sorry, everyone. I looked at the wrong spot on the agenda and then and then just roll call vote the um for the final approval.

Yep. I I with those findings, I move to approve the plan for 656 Horsene Neck Road in Dartmouth. Can I get a second?

I second.

Now we'll vote. All those in favor?

I.

Any opposed?

Any abstain? The motion passes. Thank you everyone.

Excellent. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to the 4:34 p.m. This one is uh the Zenith Consulting Engineers Plat 28, lot 18 at 159 Woodcock Road in Dartmouth um which includes a waiver. So I will first go to um to see if there is either the applicant or um someone representing the applicant to speak on this first.

Please unmute yourself and say your name for the record.

Uh good afternoon madam chair. I'm N ZA from Zenith Consulting Engineers representing the homeowner at this property.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Um so we uh again have a again for the record now Zer from Zenith. Uh we're here uh regarding the property at 159 Woodcock Road uh for a septic repair um with this property has an existing four bedroomedroom uh single family residential home and uh we are looking to upgrade the system that is located in the rear of the property. The property is serviced by uh private on-site well um as well as there's a significant

amount of on-site wells uh surrounding the area.

Um, we designed this based off of uh using a uh infiltrator quick four chamber system which does allow for somewhat of a reduction in the footprint of the size of the leeching field. Um, and we were able to raise the plumbing in the existing home by just about a half a foot. Um, that's about all we could get out of it. Um, and we were able because there is a little bit of

exposed uh, concrete on the home at the existing foundation, we were able to um, grade back to the home without causing any ponding um, back at the house because obviously that would be a concern. And so we did as much as we could, but unfortunately we couldn't pick it up enough to not to to avoid a pump. Um so the only other option we have uh in a situation like this is to

reduce it uh as for a local upgrade from and in this case it was a less than two prep rate. Uh there's a good uh good soils out here. Um so we're asking for a reduction uh from 5T to 4T. And in doing so that allows us to um provide the system as a gravity-fed system in using a you know a pump system. Um it also obviously keeps the

grading down um on the on the lot. Um reduces any you know flow off site. It is being raised up a little bit but very little. Um it's almost kind of generally matching natural grade. um at least raising up about a half a foot to almost a foot at the end the far end of the leeching field, the proposed leeching field. Uh where you can see a little bit of tree clearing there. Um we are

proposing an HDP liner right around the edge of the um the overdig um just to provide for less grading um and impact to the you know impact uh to the tree line and and to the neighbor.

Um so we feel as though that you know this was the the best suited uh you know system for this scenario. Um luckily we were able to meet all other requirements you know we meet all the setback to any property lines all the wells um things of that nature. We are we were able to meet all other requirements just unfortunately we could not meet that that separation and that is why we're

here before you. Um, so we'd be happy to answer any um questions or concerns that you have.

Thank you. Um, two just off the bat, hopefully not too difficult. Um, similar to the other engineer, do you have the transmitter number for the infiltrator chambers? Again, I apologize.

So again um where to the right side where all the notes are it will be note number 14.

Um yeah it talks about the it'll talk about the remedial uh as well as the uh the standard conditions and it has the transmitt number with the issue date there.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Okay.

And then um I believe I know the the answer to this but you you meet the setback for all the wells. Um I mean that would that would be its own um variance if you didn't but that is correct. Yes that is correct. Absolutely.

Excellent.

Yeah we uh we show just so you so you can kind of see the circles the circles are 100 foot back 100 foot set back. Yeah.

Yeah. That's correct. It just makes it a little clearer to see where the footprint is as to what you're working with.

For sure. You mentioned all the wells in the area. So just wanted to be absolutely certain.

Of course. Um, okay. Uh, Chris, I'm going to bounce to you. Um, and then Susan Murray. Um, uh, do you have, um, comments, things you would like to point out to us as board members?

Uh, we I do not have any concerns and it's it's an aspect of the code that I unfortunately we have to deal with. I do believe it's a little bit of an error in the code because um, new construction has a lower standard, which is unusual.

If this was new construction, um this would not be before the board because new construction allows for the um invert to be placed within an inch as a byite approval.

That's that's for the other one, right?

This is this one this is for a a reduction in um in in vertical separation in groundwater, right? The other one was um that is correct.

Yeah. Sorry. Yeah.

No, no worries. Just making sure I'm on the same page, too. Okay. Yeah. Um but on as far as the groundwater, this is a really tight law again with on-site wells, you know, matching up with existing plumbing. Um trying to keep it, you know, blending with the black backyard so you don't have to deal with excessive grades. So I I believe they've done all they can. Um so anything more would be dealing with some uh site

grading and other issues.

Excellent. Thank you. Uh Susan Murray, I'll jump to you next. Questions, concerns, thoughts on on this one.

I do not have any questions or concerns on this.

Excellent. Um at this point, I want to see if there is uh anyone else in the audience. As a reminder, please um unmute and say who you are for the record.

I don't um to see again. This is uh this is Woodcock. 159 Woodcock. 159 Woodcock.

Let me look through and see. I don't see anyone unmuting.

Um I Hello there.

Hi there.

Um I believe this was under my wife's name, Jennifer Collins. I'm her husband.

We um had applied for a permit for animals in our backyard.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes, we're not on to any animal permits. We're on My So I wasn't sure.

No problem. Not on that one yet. We're on 1519 Woodcock Road. Let me just make sure there's none.

Okay. My apologies.

No worries. Quite. All right. Uh let me see. I don't see anyone else.

Excellent. All right. Thank you all. All right. So, um uh I'm going to move forward with a motion then. So, um finding that um this is um a repair and that um uh that uh because the engineer has found um concrete on the on an unexpected part of the site um and has raised the system and the um grade back to the home, you know, to reduce as much concerns as possible. Finding that

engineer has put a liner around the edge of the overdig to reduce um the impact to the neighbor. finding that um u an alternative um soil absorption system has been used and finding that it is the opinion of the health director that this is a tight lot with multiple on-site wells that the engineer has done um all that can be done. I move to approve the plan for 159 Woodcock Road in Dartmouth. Can I

get a second?

A second.

All right. Um and now we'll vote. All those in favor? I I any opposed? Any abstain? Motion passes.

Thank you. All right.

Thank you very much. Have a great night.

Thank you. Okay. And um let me see.

Bear with me. I looking at the agenda, but I just want to make sure I have the right one in front of me. Okay. Yes.

Okay. 436. Excellent. Okay. Uh 436 appointment, which for which we're a little bit late. I apologize. This one is Jennifer Collins, flat 41, lot 43-1 at 17 Fisher Pines Way in Dartmouth, which is a domestic animal permit request for the following. One large hooped animal, eight small hooed animals, 10 chickens, hens, game birds, and 10 water fowl. Um Chris, would you this is a little bit different than a

septic plan. Would you like me to go to the applicant first or would you like to offer comments first? I think going to the applicant first is fine.

Excellent. All right. So, um I think I know who it is, but if you are here for this one, can you please um uh unmute, identify yourself for the record, and go forward with speaking.

Hi there. I'm Cameron Walker. Uh like you said, 17 Fisher Pines Way. Um we just we run a looking to run a small little homestead over here. I homeschool my son and I'm just, you know, we we use the animals for educational purposes and so we're hoping to get a permit for it.

Excellent. Thank you. Um, okay. At this point, um, Chris, is it all right if I jump to you? Can you, um, as I pull this one up, can you give us a summary on this please?

Sure. Thank you.

So, you know, the major concern right now, um, you know, as well as, um, why we permit is to manage nuisances.

And what are we looking at when it comes to permitting domestic animals in, you know, densely populated areas or subdivisions in town and that's to minimize conflict, uh, to allow the keeping, but also to minimize conflict with people. Um so you know the primary things that we focus on are odors, vectors um and noise. Um, so right now, you know, the concern that we have following our inspection is that there

is some material, some of it might be long-term material beyond the fence, um, that, you know, whatever arrived there, um, really isn't our focus. Um, when we look at, you know, waste materials, um, you know, or a yard dumping area that can exist in many areas, you know, we we focus on the now, not the past. So, if we're going to be permitting animals at this location, while there may not be

evidence of rodents now, um our concern is later because the last thing we want to do is have, you know, hobbridge and then increased animals. I know that there's a few animals there now, um but there's additional animals requested is that we end up with a rat infestation.

So, what I would ask the board to do is um in considering this application to set a reasonable time frame uh for that area to be addressed and to withhold adding any additional animals onto the property until that area is addressed.

The difficulty right now is um you know, yeah, we got snow on Sunday and it's going away. Um winter weather forecast can change in 72 hours. it can look great and next thing you know you're riding the edge of the jetream and we got a foot of snow on the ground and then it's here. So I would ask and keep my fingers crossed that um you know we can maybe give them till April 1 to

remove um if the weather continues the way it looks in the long range forecast.

Yes, we got holidays. So um I think we got to be sensitive to that. But if everything continues to track the way it's been going, u maybe by the middle of January, um everything could be um you know, taken care of. But if by some chance the weather does turn very um cold and snowy, um hopefully April 1 will cover it. Um you know, I am kind of thinking about that 2016 winter where we

ended up with snow well into April.

Let's at least I'll keep my fingers crossed it does not happen.

That's all.

So, I just want to make sure Chris I understand um that would be the the condition we could consider would be that the applicant must um remove all debris in the back of the property um beyond the fence um by April 1st, 2026. Is is that is that timing or um or even wording um in line with what you're suggesting?

That is accurate. Thank you.

Okay. Um you said um you think that no further f animals no more animals should be um added to the property until that time. Is that is that what I also heard that you were recommending?

Yes. Um because you know it's you know with more animals comes more waste comes more you know food being placed out for feeding. Um, and if we have this rodent hobridge, you know, I think it's a good balance myself and knowing that, you know, when we we get into birds, ducks, chickens, they sometimes they can be a little bit messy with their food, especially in the winter time where

things rain, you know, grain gets on the ground, it kind of builds up a paste.

So, um, you know, if he's able to get everything kind of cleaned up quickly, if the weather cooperates, then certainly then it would allow for an onboarding sooner.

Um, what I'm sorry, what animals are there now versus um, which ones? Because the the permit covers everything that um is requested, but there are some animals that are there now and some that are planned in the future. Is that correct?

That is correct. Yes. Can you tell me what animals are there now, please?

Um, two alpacas, four goats, and one sheeper.

And then this application is also for it's the difference between what you just named is birds. Is that correct?

Yes.

So 10 chicken, 10 game birds, and 10 water fowl. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

So then um this question is for Chris.

So then we could um that that wording I suggested a moment ago, we could also include um um well would would we want to include how how would we cover it such that if the applicant does clean up that debris sooner that um that they could get their um in this case birds sooner? Is there if um would they um how would we cover that situation? So, there's one thing I just kind of um need

to backtrack on because Okay.

Um from the time of the inspection and application. Um it seems as though there's been a shifting in the number of animals.

Um Okay.

Um so, this is a question for the applicant. Did you say two alpacas?

Yes, I've Yep. two alpacas. Yes.

Because when we were there, there was one. Um and in the in the application, it just Yes. My my apologies. I'd already purchased I had brought I bought two brothers. One of them was too young to for me to to receive yet, so I had to wait until he was of age. Um so I didn't have the second one yet.

Chris, does that change the process that um that we need to do? Does because then does that make the application we have in front of us incorrect? Yes, it does.

It says one large hooved animal and and and the alpacas count as large.

Yeah, but Oh, wait. I thought I thought it says eight small hooked animals.

Yeah, I have a question about that. So, application says one large hoved animal, eight small hooved animals, and number of kids per year, too.

Um, but you have two alpacas, four goats, and one sheep.

And uh there's it says that the uh males are weathers are castrated.

I'm so sorry if you were just speaking to me. I just lost service and I didn't hear anything you just said. I'm sorry about that.

Okay. Just I just want to um make sure I understand the number of animals you have and the number of animals you anticipate having. So the application says one large hoofed animal, you have two, the alpaca.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

And then it says eight small hoofed animals, but you have five, right? Four goats, one sheep.

Correct. I just they told me just put for future reference. And so I thought, you know what, maybe one day I'll want to breed them. Um I have two females.

So, I have two males, two females. So, I thought maybe one day I'll want to breed the females. And so, I just put, you know, eight just in case.

Okay. Are your two male goats, are they actually weathers? Are they castrated?

They're castrated. Both are castrated.

Yep.

Okay. So, you're not currently capable of having No, it'd have to be planned.

Yeah.

Do you have intentions of getting intact males?

No, I don't. I No. No. That's too much for me. No.

Okay. Okay. I was going to say that and and male goats really stink. Like you can walk into a neighborhood and be like, "Someone here has an intact goat mail."

Yeah. They stink and they don't they don't know how to behave. Not that the the uh cashated ones are much better, but they're a bit better. So, yeah. Okay.

So um I I'll bump it to Chris because I know there needs to be a change in the application.

So the problem here is that to act on this application if he is going to keep a second alpaca is going to require another application before the board because alpacas count as as large not small hooked animals.

Correct.

Uh, no. I Is there any way I mean is we're all here now. Is there any way you could just change it to two?

It's been placed on the agenda. Um, and it's to me it's a substantive change that would justify it.

Um, I'm just trying to pull up the agenda to look at specifically how it's worded.

Yeah.

Um, yeah. So, it's it's it'semized on the agenda and you know that would be a problem for us to for the board to approve in excess of what's been itemized on the public agenda.

Um, I'm I'm sorry to call technicalities here. I have I I'm looking to at the the actual animal permit and I I don't again I I I obviously defer to Chris but for large hooked animals the example underneath in parenthesis is horses, ponies, donkeys, mules, cattle and that's one large hooed animal. For small hooed animals it says eight and then it says example goats, sheep, llama, alpaca. So if

alpaca is considered a small hooed animal, doesn't don't doesn't he fit the criteria? Am I misunderstanding this? I can share my screen.

No, she's right. You're You know, you're right on that. I'm looking So, I'm looking at your I'm looking at the application and I Yeah, the llamas and the alpacas got batched into um small hooved and I don't think that they should be considered small hooved.

So, that's an error within the application. Um so um I think the best thing to do would be to um you know deny with without prejudice and we could resubmit this so that we have a proper posting at the next meeting and we can correct the application um so we don't have any issues with the uh public notice of the meeting.

And it would and you know I because it my recommendation would be no additional fee paid.

Yes. Okay.

To correct this.

Go ahead, Susan Murray.

Um I mean it's our fault that it's wrong.

So I push back a little bit that there could there be a way to condition this that going forward any renewals would put the alpaca under large toughed animals.

I feel like if I filled this out and I I did it according to what the application say says it would be you know it I mean it's it's our that's the it's our application.

Yeah. So with unfortunately sometimes when you try to be um flexible you we end up tying ourselves up in a knot. So, in the past, we were very itemizing in the permitting of the animals that are listed on the permit. So, in other words, if someone came in for a permit for I just want to have two sheep and then we do the barn book inspections at the end of the year and there's

two goats out there, we had to go back to the board. Um, so that's where we tried to build in this flexibility and just say, let's deal with it by the animal um, type. So, you know, if we're looking at, you know, small hooved animals, let's just give them that flexibility so we don't have to keep coming back before the board.

Um, because from a nuisance perspective, is there with the exception of the billies, um, is there much of a difference between, you know, a sheep and a goat? So that's where this started and um fortunately we've got this issue today.

Right. But so if you count because on our application it lists an alpaca as a small hooked animal. He's got seven small hooved animals.

So it would fit in with what is on the agenda.

Steph, right? So, two alpacas, four goats, and a sheep.

And he put in for eight small hooved animals.

So, I would just asked to strike the one large hoof then if um you know, at this time, but the board could approve it that way. Um because there's no intent here to have a cow, a dunkey, a mule, or a horse.

Uh, if I may, I would I would definitely be on board with that. There's no intention to have any large hoofs animals by that definition.

And then we would, you know, we we we're going to overhaul this application obviously for the next um, you know, permit request before the board.

So, I would just go back to just working with that April 1st time frame um so that we could allow for some time to get that material cleaned up in the back.

Okay. So, that helps. So, um yeah. So, so jumping now that um I I'll just pause and say Susan Murray, it it sounds like we're we're good with this technicality and and our agents know correcting this going forward. Um, are you okay with that technicality wording part?

Yes.

Excellent. So, yeah. So, let's jump back to this. So, I um the way I'm I'm I'm leaning right now is um I I understand the concern for Rodent Harbor giving a deadline of April 1st. My question to you, Chris, is let's say the applicant is very moved because if if we condition it such that no um water fowl and no more um chickens, hens, game birds can come onto the property since they're not

there now until the debris is cleaned up. How would we cover it wording wise such that if the applicant is very motivated to clean up the site, he he she they could have um their birds even sooner. Is there a way to cover that wording wise in a condition? Does that question make sense?

Yes. So, upon uh satisfactory cleaning of the uh agent of the board um prior to April 1st.

Okay.

A board's agent um prior to April 1st.

Clean.

Okay. Let me sorry, let me write that down agent.

Okay, thank you. Um, let me look at the other notes. So, I because because I remember that road and harbridge from the debris was one concern. I think I saw some notes as well though from the inspection that I just want to make sure. Um, so there was there's talk about manure as well. Um, and I, um, I think there was a suggestion by our agents to have an area marked out on a

plan for where the manure is going to be spread or distributed. So, I suppose um, if I'm understanding this correctly, I suppose this is probably a question to the applicant um, and then afterwards to Chris about how how we word it as a condition to you, the applicant. U, Mr.

Walker, I believe your name is. Um, yes.

I apologize if that's incorrect. Okay, good. Um, could you supply us um with a plan for where the manure is going to be distributed so that way we have that um on on record and we are um comfortable with that as a board because I think manure even though I've been told um the manure is not as offensive as say a larger hooved animal, it is still a concern um again for for a lot of the

things Chris went over at the high density etc. Is that something you could supply?

Yes. So, I have behind my fence a little less than an acre of land and I'm in the process of having that land cleared, but I'm I've just been evenly spreading it throughout that area um to fertilize the ground for future growth and future, you know, whatever I may need in the future.

So, I've just I've been evenly spreading it amongst that acre. I tried to draw for you guys in my um I'm a horrible artist, but my little sketch I tried to to illustrate where I was going to spread it out.

I know she I I I think when they came there was a pile of grass clippings right behind the fence and I think that she may have thought that that was a pile of manure, but it's really just grass clippings from the uh you know from over the summer from my my lawn guy. But so I I evenly spread out all my my pine shavings throughout that acre of wooded area. If that answers your question.

Um I guess I'll bounce to Chris at this point. I I I think I see within our packet now um it seems to be a uh a satellite image. Um it calls out potential duck chicken coupe and and there it's handwritten for 17 Fisher Pines Way. Is this um is this enough detail? What are your thoughts on this part of uh of the application?

So alpaca, so the hoofed animals will generate the greatest amount of manure. Um you know, so alpaca and goats have a very benign manure. Um but too much of anyone thing, you know, benign turns into a problem.

So I think we can work, you know, we're going to have to re the board's going to have we're going to essentially the, you know, if the board decides to approve on the April 1st and then allow additional the flexibility to onboard additional animals, we will still revisit this uh because it's a temporary permit um again on April 1st um or whatever the board's able to u meet um on before. or if

everything is ready in March, then you know we can discuss this and uh the board could take a full vote. So, you know, we can um as part of our visits back to the site, um you know, we can, you know, get a better understanding of what he wants to do.

And, you know, maybe there'll be some of that clearing going on that he's talking about. And, you know, assess that area as being suitable or needing um potentially, you know, some cases we've addressed manure management by off-site management. Um and in some cases, you know, do you have to have an area that's designated away from the um sensitive receptors be it the neighbors?

So, so then you know, yeah, there is some uncertainty with this, you know, in the concern. Um, and I think it's, you know, with that we're in that cold time of the year right now and, you know, we can assess and, you know, work with the applicant, um, you know, so that, you know, if you know, a spot is chosen, um, you know, it can be identified and if there's concern

with that spot, then, you know, we can address it in April. So I guess what I'm saying is is um you know since this is temporary I think you know we can revisit that aspect in April with the consideration of the full permit.

Right. Okay. So that we as a board could condition that the applicant um um communicates or or comes up with a plan for the manure with the board of health or its agents um before uh April 1st 2026.

Yes. Yeah. because, you know, I want because once we get that area cleared out, that might open up opportunity. It sounds like he's got, you know, this it's not so much that the animals are um you know, it sounds like he wants to expand. So, let's kind of get a better understanding of the master planning of this site um and you know, see how the next couple months play out um while

focusing our our greatest attention on that um debris that needs to get cleaned up.

Okay.

Um, Susan Murray, do you want to say anything talk anything at all about um the manure at the moment?

Uh, no. I I agree with Chris. You know, it sort of depends how the site clears out. I did notice there was um a letter from uh I think the Concom um just about Oh, yeah.

keeping the manure out of that 100 foot buffer zone for that water.

Um, but other than that, I I think Chris, you know, is right waiting till, you know, that area is cleared and and seeing what's the best plan for manure.

Excellent. Okay. And then I'm going to jump back to the notes again that um I think Donna and Ariel seem to have signed. Okay. So, we talked about the placement of, we talked about the debris.

Um, uh, oh, okay. So Chris, if I'm understanding, there's a note about um roosters. So um I know that the applicant has not asked for roosters, but it sounds like this was um perhaps um named as a consistency um that we that we say something that that no keeping of roosters as a condition because they're not even called for in this application. Is that correct?

This is to Chris who is muted right now.

where um in the application you know game birds and chickens are all batched together. So just to make sure there's no confusion um you know making that a condition because so the condition is no no keeping of roosters.

Correct.

Thank you. Okay.

Or if the applicant wants to get some later that would be a different that would be a new application.

Correct.

Excellent. And then the last note. Oh, Susan Murray, do you have anything to note about the roosters? I'm just working off the notes we were given in our packet.

No, but it's it's you're getting you want ducks and chickens. Is that the aim?

That's correct. I have no plans for a rooster ever.

Ever.

And then the last um note that we seem to have from the walkthrough is about placing bait boxes on the exterior of the fence and monitoring those bait boxes. Um again, I'm assuming that that ties into rodent harbor. Um Chris, I'm guessing we would we would make that as a condition. Do you think that they're um would it could it be as simple as um applicant must place bait boxes on the

exterior of the fence and replace as necessary or do we need more detail than that?

That's fine.

Without without, you know, explicit details is fine.

Okay. Susan Murray, do you have any um thoughts on this one?

Nope.

Bear with me. I'm writing a bunch of notes.

Okay.

So, I think I I'm just going to go over the notes um really quickly because there's there's a lot to this one. So, it sounds like if if Susan Murray and I are on the same page. And actually, I'll I'm sorry. I'll I'll pause at this point and I'll Susan Murray, I'm going to jump to you first to see is there anything we didn't cover that you want to talk about right now?

Not currently.

Okay. Thank you. And then I also um do want to open this up. If there is someone here to speak on this item, please um unmute yourself and say um your name and um and and address or affiliation for the record through. I don't see anyone unmuting.

Okay. Excellent. All right. So, so here very quickly here are the notes that I have and then Susan Murray if we're on the same page about this. So, if we are so moved to approve this, um the the condition has to be that um the applicant must remove the debris um uh that that is this is a temporary permit until April 1st, 2026. um that the applicant must remove

um the debris from the side of the fence um by April 1st, 2026 and that um upon satisfactory cleaning by um acceptable to the board of health agent, the applicant can have additional animals only at that time.

um with the condition that um that the applicant has to work with the board of health agents regarding a regarding a plan for the newer manure um by April 1st, 2026 that there shall be no keeping of roosters and they must place bait boxes. That's that's what I have for notes for everything that is going to be part of this approval. Does that align with what striking the one large hoof animal?

Oh, okay. We we are officially striking that. Okay.

Um, is that a condition, Chris? It's a move to strike the large um hooved animal.

Nope. That would just you're just approving the application without the hooded animal.

Okay. So, I would I would move to approve and then I just name all the animals. Um, it would be move to approve eight small hooved animals.

Correct.

So then, so I'm not even going to name the chicken, hens game birds, or 10 waterfall at this time.

Nope. You'd name all of the animals. So essentially we'd list everything except for the large food animal.

Got it. Okay. All right. I think I got it. Sus any anything else?

All right. Here we go.

So finding that um that uh the concern of the board of health is to manage nuisance especially in densely populated areas to minimize conflicts. Um, I move to approve the domestic animal permit for plat 41, lot 43-1 at 17 Fisher Pines Way for eight small hooped animals, 10 chickens, hens, game birds, 10 water fowl with the following conditions.

One, that this is a temporary ferment until April 1st, 2026.

that the applicant must remove debris from the side of the fence by April 1st, 2026 and that upon satisfactory cleaving clean cleaning acceptable to the board of health agent, the applicant can then have additional animals that are not currently on the site with the condition that the applicant must work with the board of health agents regarding a plan for the manure uh by the end of the

permit April 1st, 2026 that there shall be no keeping of roosters and that the applicant must place bait boxes on the exterior of the fence and replace them as necessary.

Can I get a second?

I second.

All right. And now we'll vote. All those in favor? I I.

Any opposed?

Any abstain?

The motion passes. Excellent. Thanks, everyone. Okay, jumping back to the agenda.

All right, 4:38. We are running late, but um here we go. This is uh the continued hearing on the Dartmouth Board of Health well regulations where we vote to approve, deny, table, revise well regulations.

Um Chris, do you want to um go ahead and speak on this?

Sure. Thank you.

So the well regulations that are before the board tonight for consideration are an edited version based on the discussions at the last meeting. What been removed from the regulations before the board tonight are those sections which include and I'll just summarize the provisions on pressure tanks that has been removed.

There was language also on bulk storage of pesticides that has been removed. And I would just like to add, should someone be listening that wasn't part of the broader the law the earlier discussions because it might seem that it's kind of um counterintuitive to the board's mission.

Um when we started looking at and talking to industry professionals within um state agencies, bulk storage um was hard to define with concentrates. Now, um we're we're not seeing 55gallon drums of pesticides um like for direct application.

So, it really um wasn't necessary to include bulk storage of pesticides. So, that has been removed. And lastly um after a lot of discussion on what analytes would be regulated under in private drinking water supply wells um the requirements to test for the per and poly floral alkal substances uh was removed and I'll just add a little bit you know to summarize those discussions um you know this does still seem to be a

contaminant I hate to say emerging Um, but I think from a regulatory perspective, it's still an emerging contaminant because it is still being introduced into the environment um, on the front end. And, you know, a lot of the discussions were about the pervasiveness of these compounds in our day-to-day lives. um and to you know begin to regulate it you know it seems more appropriate to begin regulating it

at the source um and then looking at it more holistically. Um so that is a summary of um the regulations that are before the board um that were discussed at prior meetings and hearings.

Thank you.

Excellent. So, um I um just to make sure that um I'm clear on on what we need to do tonight. Um and and how we word it.

Um we could as a board move to um is the word approve them? I mean, is it is it does the word um make them official? like what what what and then and then and then then I think at the end I see where we sign and then that there's a date on there that they become effective. So what um I guess what what are our options regarding that Chris?

So the board is uh at this point has satisfied all of the requirements um in Mass General Laws to adopt if the board so chooses adopt. Okay. So um to adopt the regulations uh would require a motion and then a roll call vote with an individual calling of each member uh and their um respective vote on that um and then a majority and this at this time the board has two members.

We have a vacancy following uh an affirmative vote of the board. Um we would need the signatures. a summary of the regulations would appear in a newspaper of uh general circulation to the area. Um and we would have to send a copy of those regulations to the local regional office of mass D. Um these are all statutory requirements.

Um but um again, you know, it's each member's respective vote as to how they uh decide to vote on this proposal tonight. Um but again, individual call out by roll call.

Okay. So, instead of voting all as one, we would we would have to do it um as a by our names and titles, please.

Okay. And we don't we don't need to um say when um we don't need to decide when they um shall be effective.

If the board wished to delay um the regulations effectiveness um okay, then yes. um if not then they would become effective um upon publication and with the holidays upon us and advertising deadlines and um you know the newspaper of general circulation being Dartmouth weekly um it may you know I don't know if we'll meet their publication deadline for the next so it could actually you

know you know for the 20 I think it would be the 19th is when they they typically circulate the hard copy. So then, you know, would we be looking for the 26th or the 1st? Um, so any one of those three Fridays could be the possible uh effective date. Um, as being the soonest. Um, but if the board wished to lead them in a little bit more time, um, that would

need to be made in the motion, seconded, and then majority vote. Um, so that's at the pleasure of the board. But if I'm understanding correctly, and I will confer with my my fellow board member in just a moment, we we could either delay it or otherwise um would we would we could could we say it should be adopted as you know as soon as possible and and without giving you a specific date? Is that acceptable?

So if unless the board wished to impose a um a delay, then you would you would not need to um state a time frame because you would be have we would then have to follow the statutory provisions.

Got it. Thank you very much. Okay.

Um great. I I mean so so I am I'm on board with adopting them. You know, we we put a lot of work into these. Not to mention Passwords have put a lot of work into these. Um uh you know I I thank thank Chris and his staff for you know making the adjustments. Um so that that is where I currently stand. Um Susan Murray I I turn the floor to you.

Make a motion.

Yeah. All right. So but I will So is this this is a hearing though, Chris. So um I I am required to open it up to other comment. Is that correct?

if you want to close the hearing and then open it up following you know open up the hearing close the hearing and then um after that then uh solicit for a motion and and I'm sorry it's it's a I have to move to open the hearing for the Dartmouth well regulations and then we have a motion close if you're going to solicit input. Yes.

Yes.

Got it. Got it. Okay. But this isn't um just trying to be cognizant because there are other people in this meeting.

Um but we we have we have fulfilled our obligation for public comment at this time. So um plus and plus giving the the writing. So um so okay so it would be opening another public hearing if we decided to do that public dis um the will of the chair. Um there's never any harm in um you know allowing for public input should any be present.

Okay. Susan Murray, are you okay with with my doing that then and opening for any public discussion? I mean I I do believe we've given ample time but um I see other people who are on this meeting and I want to be aware of that.

Sure.

So then um and I'm sorry Chris I I it needs to be a formal motion for me to open the discussion or as chair I can just say I'm opening this the discussion as as chair that is thank you. Okay then as as chair I am opening the discussion on the proposed um Dartmouth Board of Health um well regulations. Um if you are here to speak on them I'm going to ask you to um

unmute um we'll go one at a time as we see fit. Um, say your name for the record please.

All right. I see no one unmuting.

Um, can I just offer one thing?

Sometimes struggle with um unmuting. So, sure.

Anyone is struggling with unmuting. Um, there is a chat dialogue box. If you could put something in the chat now, uh, then we would be able to see that and work with you. So if we could just give a you know maybe 10 15 seconds for a chat to appear you can just type you know help and then we'll we'll know that you need assistance.

Good idea. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay. So I see I'll just read this aloud. Um, we've got a liaison from um, FinCom Financial, I'm guessing, and they have no comments. So, thank you.

Okay. Um, all right. Well, then, um, I, you know, that that seems to be enough time and thank you. Proves that the chat works. So then, um, given that I, as the chair, I'm going to close the public discussion on this. Um and then I'm going to move forward with making um a motion because it sounds like Susan Murray that you were on the same page.

So um finding that um all of the edits um are acceptable post the the the very detailed u public hearing that we previously held. I move to adopt the um the the well regulations um final draft.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Thank you. And now we're going to vote with a roll call. So Emily Michelle Mstead, chair votes I.

Susan Murray votes I.

And the motion passes.

So um uh Chris. So then our next move is that um both Susan Murray and I have to come into the office to sign it. That is correct.

That is correct.

Okay. Excellent. Will you um will you let us know by email when um they are ready for us to sign or um can we come in as soon as tomorrow?

I would say anytime after uh 9:00 tomorrow we'll be good. Just give us Excellent.

Print it off.

Great. Thank you so much.

Okay. All right. Going back to our agenda. We're going now into section two, which is new business. Item A is 158 Little River Road, Plat 15, Lot 44, new construction, a rescending of the previous grant of restrictive covenants.

Um, uh, Chris, do you want to um speak on this one first or should I go to the applicant first? I I'm not even sure this.

So, uh, the applicant isn't here, uh, today.

Okay.

And the reason why this is before the board is that at a point in time, this property utilized a section of the code for um a grant of restrictive covenant.

This property is up for a title transfer.

In other words, a property sale. As part of the property sale, they inspected the septic system. The septic system was met failure criteria. So they have designed a septic system to serve the dwelling at this property. That septic system design is in full compliance. So it's what I call a byright approval. It's not a discretionary approval. They fully comply. So approval cannot be withheld.

They have complied with all of the terms for new construction to add a bedroom.

So with that, we have this relic document um for a lesser number of bedrooms.

So, that needs to get removed from the chain of title for clarity. Um and that's why this is on the board's agenda tonight. Um, we would need the board to vote and then to come in and sign uh the document that would be the recision of the grant of restrictive covenant that the applicant would then record at the registry of deeds and clear the title of that so that it wouldn't create a

conflict with the system that they're proposing. Um, so the only thing I'd like to add is when I mentioned on the prior agenda topic about coming in tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Um, do is that document ready?

So that document's ready. So yeah, we we'd be good for 9:00 a.m. tomorrow for both documents.

Fantastic.

Um, that answers all of my questions, Chris. That was very concise. Thank you.

Um, Susan Marie, thoughts, questions, concerns?

I don't have any thoughts or comments.

Okay. Um, let's see if anyone else is here for it. We have We seem to have more people today than I expected. Um, if you're here for this item, unmute and identify yourself, please or put it in the chat.

Okay, I see no comments. So then um um finding that um uh that the system is fully compliant for um new construction and that the um the grant for restrictive covenants is um you know pertaining to um outdated information and that it needs to be removed for clarity. I move to um approve rescending the previous grant of restrictive covenants for 158 Little River Road. Can I get a second?

I second.

All right. Now we'll vote. All those in favor? I I.

Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion passes.

All right. Um we're going on to section two of new business. Excuse me. Section um item B of new business which is um health and sanitary inspector recommendation to appoint Mallalerie Kieran. Chris, can you speak on this one please?

So ordinarily this is part of our um routine um reorganization of the board. We we handle some matters um at the beginning of each um new board cycle and um at this point we had a vacant position and the um with the resignation of Ally um with her moving uh out of state. So now we have a new uh employee uh Miss Kieran and to carry out the the duties of the

board um the agent status would need to be um voted on.

Right? So just as we usually at the beginning of each year when we have our new board that we name all of ourselves as agents and name all of you as our official agents. We need to she's been hired and we need to name her officially as an agent of the board of health.

Correct.

Or specifically um we move to appoint her as the health and sanit sanitary inspector. What or or we named to move her as a board of health agent. Sorry, let's get this wording right.

Yeah. So, health and sanitary inspector is a um it derives from the Dartmouth County Employees Association contract.

Um Okay. and it really doesn't uh join in with the uh statutory provisions of the board um appointing an agent. Um so all the board needs to do is appoint an agent um to carry out um so you know the health and sanitary that kind of falls into the uh the CBA the collective bargaining agreement. So that that's not needed. Um only the Thank you.

It's appoint her as an agent of the board of health.

Correct.

Okay. Um, Susan Murray, thoughts, questions comments concerns?

No questions.

Okay. Um, all right. So then, um, um, you know, finding that we have a new staff member, um, I move to appoint finding that we have a new health and sanitary inspector. Excuse me. I move to appoint um, Mallalerie Kieran as an agent of the board of health. Can I get a second?

I second.

All right. Now we'll vote. All those in favor? I I.

Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion passes.

All right. Section two, new business item C, which is discuss date for the board's next meeting to be held in January 2026.

Um, so Chris, um, do you, um, I think when I looked, we're four weeks from today would be January 14th or 15th 14th. That week is four weeks. Is that what we're aiming for? Do you have a couple of of dates that um sometimes you'll suggest a couple of possibilities and we kind of choose from that? Um do you have anything to to give us a ballpark for or so? So, I I'll mention some matters uh

with the consideration for the selection of the next meeting. Um not for deliberation purposes, but just for the board to consider because I do think we're going to probably have maybe a need to meet um maybe twice in January.

Um so, we know that we have a vacant um seat right now. The board of health at their last meeting did send notice to the select board advising the select board of the vacancy uh so that the board of health could participate in the appointment of the new person. I know that that um is been um put out to the public uh by the select board and the thought is is that hopefully by sometime

in early January, middle of January um you know maybe some people will come forth. So I think the 14th is good. Um just want to offer it out that we may have a popup a need for a popup meeting um maybe to discuss that one topic. Um, so that you know whether it's going to be a joint meeting with the select board or if the select board says you know if there's

multiple people um I guess we just got to see how that plays out. Um okay and be adaptive um so that you know if the board wants to see that seat filled and participate. Um and then the other thing is is that um we I've mentioned this a few times over the last ye um over this term of this board about uh we do have another set of regulations that

have been in the works and this board has instructed to continue pursuing those regulations under the pri that that um generate from prior directives of other board terms. So um those are the tobacco eggs. So those regulations are ready to go um to the board at a meeting of the board's choosing. I would recommend so that it allows for easier participation of the public um to have

that meeting in person. Um so that those are ready to go to the 14th meeting if the board wanted to, but I would just recommend that that meeting be in person.

Chris, I know it's hard to foresee things at all at all points, but um I mean, at least for the the public hearing that we had on the well regulations, we wanted to give people ample time. So, I think the question I'm ultimately trying to ask is um do you foresee um a lot of issues um or or other matters um for January or is January typically um a light month for

other matters um and permits that coming before the board?

So the big thing that is time that's timesensitive um are septic system approvals and um because there is a there's a statutory time frame that we need to act or defaults approves and permit applications. So as long as we fall within the 28 days we're pretty good. The other thing right now is with the holidays um you know we wouldn't have any default approvals. Um, and you know, with the holidays and property

closings and whatnot, I don't see much going on in the next two weeks. So, I think 28 days, while it seems kind of far away, um, with the next two weeks ahead after this week, um, it'll be on us before we know it.

So, I think we're fine um, with that with that date.

Yeah. and that um that we would be discussing there wouldn't be open an open meeting discussion on the tobacco regulations. Correct. We discuss it internally first and then then you have to advertise it. Is that correct or no?

So they're ready to go to hearing.

Ah gotcha.

And I in earlier in this board cycle I had circulated them to the members. Um yes, Donna had um so they're you know aside from the correction of some typos um they are they are identical.

Okay.

And and similar just so that I understand too um um if we wanted to we don't have to propo we don't have to give um notification to um or or um a certain time frame for adcom to to look this over but similar to the well regulations because these have already gone through town council um our most um optimal timing if you will be we as a board could decide that we don't um move

forward with them but we um the the easiest thing we could do would be to strike certain sections. If we wanted to add anything, it would need to go through town council again and restart the the public hearing process. Is that correct Chris?

Um, so let me just kind of back up a little bit on the statuto provision.

Sure.

Would rather not answer that question because I deliberations and this is this is not an item.

Okay. All right. All right. All right.

Um, so if any want to reach out to me and talk to me afterwards um day on that, I'd happy to talk to them individually. Um then that that okay that's fine then then yeah you know what don't worry about my question then um I guess so Susan Murray um I guess I'll direct this to you. But maybe we start um do you want to start with let's let's pick a

date and time first and then decide after um if if we want those on the agenda um for the public hearing for the tobac tobacco rags on the agenda or would you rather decide if we want tobacco regs on the agenda first and then pick the date?

Uh I would just caution um I I oh yeah so um what am I doing? Yep. So, no, just the chair sets um you know, customarily the chair sets agendas. Um Okay.

And I you I just want to just kind of keep things, you know, as bulletproof as we can.

Yes. Okay.

I would caution on answering that because I uh you know, it could be argued that that's a deliberation.

Got it. Okay. So, right now, the only thing we can do is pick the date and time for the next meeting.

you know, and you know, if if if it was selected to be in person, um, you know, and then the chair so chose then, you know, to put the hearing on that meeting. So, but the chair the chair does select um the items for the agenda.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Um, yes, let's let us comply with open meeting law for sure. Thanks everyone for bearing with us. So then, um, Susan Murray, um, looking at the week of January 11th to the 17th, I mean, do you do you want to try for exactly four weeks from today, a Wednesday, Wednesday, January 14th? Does that potentially work for you? Do you like this time slot?

Yeah.

Um, it would be helpful if it could just be a little later. Maybe like five o'clock.

Okay. Five o'clock. And then Chris, does um would 5:00 work for for you folks?

We are here at your pleasure. So, yes.

Do we Susan Murray, are you okay with holding it in person um in case the need arises for anything?

Excellent. All right. So, then we'll do an in-person meeting on Wednesday, July July January 14th at um 5:00 p.m.

Um you Chris, you were not suggesting Oh, we So, and it's probably we're not we're only picking January right now, especially because we don't know about what's going on with the third member.

Correct.

We January. Yeah, we could set, you know, a a four-week, you know, meeting for February for routine and then anything out of the ordinary we could address in between. So, you know, I I think it does work well for staff and the public if we do have some degree of um you know, scheduling ahead of the January meeting. You know, it's nice at least if we have like, you know, two or three meetings scheduled.

Okay. Sure. Um I'm looking at a calendar. So 4 weeks after that um January 14th meeting would be um Wednesday, February 11th. Um Susan Murray again, does that does that would a Wednesday work for you or do you want to could that could that work? Yeah.

Um do you like the five o'clock slot better?

Yeah.

Um we don't have to decide if that one yet is in person or remote. Correct, Chris.

Correct.

Okay. So, let's we'll just hold the spot for now. So, so then for February at um a 5:00 board of health meeting on Wednesday, February 11th, 2026.

Okay.

Okay. Great.

All right. And then there's nothing else that we that needs to be that we just picking the dates and times. So we did that right Chris?

Yes. And then I guess the only other thing I'll kind of throw a curveball as I'm kind of thinking about things more holistically is you know the potential for a new board member. So if we set we could end up you know running into conflict and then having to so maybe just kind of sticking with this tenative schedule right now. Um sure you know and then see what plays out um

you know with this um period where we're looking to fill a seat.

Okay.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. So, oh, screens. Okay. Um, all right. So, now we're moving on to uh section three, old business. Um, and it looks like um item A is not applicable. So, then I'm going to move on to section four, which is any item not known 48 hours in advance.

Chris, do you have anything for this?

None.

Okay.

I don't think I have anything either.

Susan Murray, do you have anything for this?

Nope.

Okay. Um All right. Well, that seems to be the end of uh the agenda. So, all right. This is uh Wednesday, December 17th, 2025. It is 5:51 p.m. Um I move to adjourn the Dartmouth Board of Health meeting. Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. Now, we'll vote. All those in favor? I I.

Any opposed? Any abstain? All right, the motion passes. We are adjourned. Happy holidays everyone.