Board of Health Meeting November 19, 2025

All right.

Good evening everyone. It is 4:36 p.m.

on Wednesday, November 19th, 2025.

Um I'm going to um open the meeting for the Dartmouth Board of Health with a roll call. So Emily Michelle Olmstead, chair is present. Susan Murray, present.

Excellent. Um, so as a reminder, this meeting is being recorded. Um, and uh, two, um, if you haven't been to at least one of the Dart Bo meetings before, as the chair, we try and keep order. So, uh, I request that you raise your hand before speaking. I'm going to give my best, um, to give everyone a chance to speak.

All right, going based on the agenda, we're going to go with the first item, which is approve and accept the warrants for the bills payable period ending October 20th through November 15th, 2025.

Uh Chris, do you want to speak on any of this? Otherwise, they're all just customary bills.

Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Um then, uh so as as the chair, I certainly I didn't have an issue um with with any of them that were noted. Um, so I would um and the the motion would be to um approve the warrants. Is that correct?

Um Susan Murray, I turn to you. Do you have any um notes, questions, comments about um the warrants for bills?

I do not.

Okay. Excellent. So I have my Where did my notes go? Here we go.

So, um, uh, finding that these are standard items, I move to, uh, accept the warrants for the bill's payable period ending October 20th through November 15th, 2025. Can I get a second?

Second.

Excellent. All right. Now, we'll vote.

All those in favor? I I.

All those opposed, abstain. All right.

The eyes have it. The motion passes.

All right. the next item which is approve and accept the minutes from October 20th, 2025.

Um I did not see anything. Um I didn't have any issues or corrections with the minutes. Susan Murray, did you?

No, I did not.

All right. Uh so finding no issues or corrections, I move to approve and accept the Dartmouth Board of Health meeting minutes from October 20th, 2025.

Can I get a second?

A second.

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

The motion passes. Excellent. All right.

Section I, appointment uh 432. We are a bit late. Thank you for bearing with us.

Uh okay. So we are with Jamie Besonette, PE from Zenith Consulting Engineers, Plat 23, lot 48-2 at 80 Horseneck Road in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. A variance request from 310 CMR uh 15 of title 5, which the var the variance is 15.211, 211 which requires that the soil absorption system be at least 10 ft from the property line. A reduction from 10 ft to 5 ft is requested in accordance

with 310 CMR 15410 and 310 CMR 15411. In this case, I'm going to go to the applicant first or uh the engineer whoever is um um you know speaking on behalf of them. Please identify yourself for the record.

Jamie Zena.

Thank you. You guys, there's a microphone. Yeah, the microphone will be great. Thank you so much.

All right. Again, Jamie Beset, Zenith Consulting Engineers. For the record, um we have a variance for a setback to a property line from a soil absorption system in front of you tonight. It is new construction, so it is a variance.

um we submitted a packet uh demonstrating or outlining why we believe that the variance um should be approved and um items that we've done to get us um either further in compliance that's then that's typically needed. Um let me step back and just talk a little bit about the project. We've gone through with conservation had the resource areas delineated and approved.

um did the existing condition survey. Um I think there's been two rounds of perk tests done out on site. Beautiful sands and gravels. Water table is very low.

We're on a nice hill of sand.

Um that being said, um because of the setbacks, um under the Dartmouth regulations, um they're a little bit more stringent than Title 5. The that's requiring the variance due to the 100 foot setback, I believe, um to the to the resource area over in here. This is it's pushing us back over in this area here. So, um in looking at it and trying to find out what was most feasible, Title 5 talks about how um

when you're doing a true variance, you need to find um something that's going to be environmentally equivalent in protection. Um, so a setback to the front property line, the right of way between the road and the leeching field doesn't have any environmental benefit to it. It's just a it's a setback.

There's not it's not a setback to a well or a resource. So, we felt that the request going to um the front property line setback as opposed to closer to a resource area or close closer to any other uh item or reducing the size of the system under a variance. um this would be the most environmentally positive thing to do. On top of that, what we've done is we've introduced a denitrification system being in a rank

oax-20. It's in mode 3B. I believe you're very familiar with advanced treatment if if I remember correctly.

So, um that does ditrification. It fantastic for TSS removal and and um and treatment altogether. It's probably my favorite advanced treatment for residential use. Um and we just the system itself will meet the setbacks. It's the reserve area that we actually need the five- foot reduction to. So um that's really about it.

Part of the justification also talks about um trying to show that we would um that it would be manifestally unjust.

Well, it's a beautiful lot. It's it's a lot that we'd like to be able to build on without being able to fit a septic system. We have a non-buildable lot. Um so getting relief from that for the five foot reduction is is what we're asking for. So we believe denial of which would be manifestly unjust. So that's uh that's about it, but I'm happy to try to go over concerns or questions that you may have.

Thank you. Um Chris, can I um turn it over to you for your notes, please?

Sure.

So oftentimes um the public looks at regulations as uh singularly um restricting on the public. Um however there are instances and in many regulations where uh the regulations also govern the actions of um government. So in the cases of an application um under the terms of 310 CMR 1500 for a variance um we have to refer to 310 CMR 410 um standard review of variances and in paragraph one um it say variances

shall be granted only when in the opinion of the approving authority two terms are met. Um the first as Mr.

Bette said um is about the manifest injustice. The second becomes the demonstration that there's an equal level of um environmental protection and public health protection.

However, to get to the second really requires you to get by the first. So, we would have to the board has to consider, you know, what is manifest injustice?

um you know what uses um of the lot become manifest in justice or is it all use of the lot um being deprived a manifest in justice. So, um, this is a three-bedroom design. Um, you know, the code does allow under section 203 for smaller designs, even though, you know, market rate might be for, you know, bigger homes. Um, the code does have, um, a provision in there for the the two-bedroom.

And, um, you know, that becomes a discussion of the board to decide um, you know, on that whether or not it's a manifest injustice.

Thank you.

And whether or not, you know, can the lot support a two-bedroom without relief from the code or would the same level of relief be required?

Certainly.

We do have Are is that you done for now, Chris? Thank you. Um we do have uh town council here. Um uh Brian Cruz. Um would you be able to uh speak on this matter, please?

Certainly. Uh good afternoon, Madam Chair. Can you guys hear me? I am on my headphones. Just want to make sure you can hear me.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Okay, great. [snorts] Um uh so as Chris said, um you know, there's a lot of discretion involved in the various standard under uh title 5. Um there's some balancing factors for you to weigh.

Uh there are some limitations for you as well. Um what I can say is um from a case law perspective I'm very comfortable uh if the uh board wants to uh stand on the position that um absent a demonstration that a two-bedroom can't fit on the property, there is no manifest injustice. um manifest injustice is essentially um you know you are inhibiting their ability to use the property for any reasonable purpose and um

that they don't get the number of bedrooms they want is not a manifest injustice. That's you know no different than that even if they were complying with all the regulations if the system can't meet their their desire for a five-bedroom house and they don't get a five-bedroom house. Uh the bottom line is um it's impossible for the board to know whether the variance standard has been met

discretion or not um without knowing whether or not uh they would need a variance anyway for a two-bedroom house.

It's you guys really can't do your evaluation in the absence of that information is what I would say.

[snorts] and how you come about whether or not you think a variance uh they'd be entitled to one anyway. That that that's a discretionary determination that is ultimately in your court. What I will say is I don't see how you can even get to that determination in the absence of all the information about what's possible on the site. And right now you guys don't know whether or not a two-bedroom is even possible. So you

can't weigh that in your determination of variance.

I I can tell you a two-bedroom is possible.

Thank you. Okay. So, do you did you explore a two-bedroom design?

We did. Yes.

Okay.

Yep. A two-bedroom will fit. We can meet the setbacks for it.

Um without any variances?

Yeah. Without the variance that we're asking for the one. Yeah.

Um yeah, again, the threebedroom is preferred. Um, we have a large site and um, and you know, that's what we're asking for, but yes, we can fit the two-bedroom if need be.

Okay. Um, normally I um, I like to go to the audience um, or you know, see who else is here to speak on it. I do just want to make sure. So, septic stuff is is kind of my forte. I absolutely understand. Are you following along?

Does this all um, make sense?

Yeah, I'm going to have some questions, but I'm not there yet. Sure. We want to like continue the conversation so I can form my questions. Absolutely.

Yeah.

So, it is um it is possible, Chris, if since the engineer has stated that um that he could design it for two bedrooms without any variances. Understandably, that's not the first choice, but that could be done. Then we as a board could um um I suppose what would our options be? We would we would table it or um deny it. What could could you provide a little bit of guidance on that? Because

again if if that gets to the heart of the problem that if he can design something without a variance that that puts us in a whole different situation.

Correct.

So um yeah I'll answer this in two parts. So the first thing is is that you know as you know I mentioned earlier and I believe attorney Cruz had mentioned um you know mass D um put limitations on a board of health.

Um the code calls it the approving authority in the consideration of a variance and it requires the local board of health to determine that there is a manifest injustice and then to also determine that the design is equally environmentally protective and equally protective of public health. So, you know, we first have to get by the manifest injustice. And it sounds as though that there's some discussion that

there is use of this property um in full compliance.

We we can fit a two-bedroom on there.

Correct.

Um and and Madam Chair, if I could add the the the important factor in this case is it's a new construction. So there is a secondary consideration under the variance standard under title 5 which is that if it's a new construction the only way you can demonstrate manifest injustice is if the lack of the variance will deprive the property of all of substantially all beneficial use. So that's the only way they can show

manifest injustice is if no variance means substantially all beneficial use of the property is eliminated. Which is why my concern was about whether or not they could do a two-bedroom because it's my feeling it just as a matter of case law that um if if they can do a two-bedroom as opposed to the three they prefer, they cannot demonstrate that substantially all beneficial use of the

property would be eliminated in the absence of the variance. Um and so that's that's a secondary standard that title 5 imposes on you. Um so that you'll have to make that consideration as well is you know how how do you view this in terms of um whether they can use the property for any substantial purpose at this point. Um so um please keep that in mind as well.

I think I'm I'm a bit confused. Um uh I I believe I understand the two sections in title 5 and and yes with new construction we have to we have to be very careful as a board. But if um if the engineer is saying that he could change the design um would would that not um essentially end this conversation because then he could if then if he could excuse me if he could then design something that

could then which we wouldn't see before us tonight um we would then um there wouldn't be any variances and so he would if he could comply with everything in title 54 new construction if he could do that.

Yeah. Let So what am I missing?

Rephrase that. So um you know right now we have an application for a subsurface sewage disposal construction permit before the Dartmouth Board of Health.

Yes.

Uh there's a requirement once the um there's a statutory requirement of 45 days 45day action on any application for subsurface sewage disposal construction permit. Um and title 5 does have a provision whereas um that 45 days stop upon the public notice.

Okay.

So the board does have to act on this.

However, what title 5 is deficient on is um whether or not a a revision to this plan um for two bedrooms would need to be a separate application.

Um, and the reason why I'm asking that this is that if the board doesn't, you know, and this is a question for attorney Cruz, would the two would a two-bedroom revision could that be included in this since we're looking at this as a variance application even though that would be full compliance or would the board need to act on this application and that would have to come in as a separate application?

I So [snorts] I guess there's two ways to play it. Um, they could withdraw the application and submit a new one for a two-bedroom.

Alternatively, I suppose you could approve it with the condition that it only be two bedrooms, but it's kind of hard for me to see the purpose of that because then you would be granting them the setback variance.

So, it as it's a variance application, I don't see how you can approve anything that doesn't grant them the variance in some way. So, if you don't want the variance, you don't think it meets the standard, um the options are to deny it and have them file a new application or them simply withdraw it and file a new application. But even if they brought a new plan in for a two-bedroom, it's

still technically a variance application at that point. Um, so if the ideas for that, it'd be one thing if they were if if if you know it was, hey, we're going to need a variance no matter what, but we could redesign for two bedrooms and make it less adversive and we can do that as part of this application. But if the idea is they don't need a variance at all for two

bedrooms, and you want to see that instead, that's a new application. I don't see how you can effectuate that under the current application.

Can I ask a question?

Go ahead. Um so the reason that we're we need to make the request for the variance from the state regulation of from 10 to five feet is because of the local border health regulation going from 50 feet to 100. Would the process be easier asking for the variance from the state component of the setback to the resource from 100 to less than 100 and maintain the state requirement of 10 ft.

So for example over here uh we have a 100 foot buffer zone to the resource here. So we're maintaining the setback to that but that's a town requirement under title five not a state. The state is the 50oot requirement which is further back. We probably would need 5 to 10 feet into that but the town has doubled the state's requirement for setback in that area. So what we did was

we were looking at the area that would maintain the biggest separation to resources, thinking that a setback to a property line would be the least environmentally impactful. But if it would be easier for process-wise for us to ask for a waiver from the local regulation, then we'd be happy to revise the plan and do such.

I see what you're asking. Um, at this point there's a lot on the table to talk about. I want to jump back to that. Um I do want to open it up um because we do have some other folks uh in the audience here. So if anyone would like to speak um I go ahead and raise your hand. I'm seeing some shaking heads. No, go ahead.

Um so okay so that it is then can I can I bounce to you Chris on that question because it's it's still new construction. I see his point. Instead of asking for a state variance, you know, we're looking for a from from a local regulation.

Thoughts on that?

We are still bound by the terms of uh those um sections that have been discussed earlier about standards of review.

Okay. All right. We have to we I I understand. We still have to deal with what is in front of us before we even think about where we go from there.

Okay. I understand.

And if I could add, Madam Chair, just for clarification, the there really is no for from a administrative perspective and a variance application perspective, there is no distinction between the Title 5 state regs and the local supplementals.

The local supplementals are fully integrated into Title 5 for all purposes, including whether they're entitled to a variance, how they apply for a variance. So, it's not like there would be a a less stringent standard.

They would simply be asking for a different variance, but you'd be looking at the exact same way.

Got it. Okay.

All right.

Let me just try and and mle this all out and um put this into the way I understand it as well. If only sometimes that's how I like to process. So, um we have before us, you know, we have to act on on this in front of us. So, so the fact that the engineer may be able to do this as a two-bedroom design later um that would have to be treated as a

completely different um you know application essentially. So we as a board we we are bound by title 5 and so even if we you know as people have some sort of opinion we have to act per title 5 as the board of health. And so the two things that have to be proven are manifestally unjust, which means that yeah, that that if we said no to this, they couldn't use the property at all,

which I do not believe is the case from everything I've heard tonight. Um, and then the second part of it, if if we decided that that one was irrelevant, um, we would then have to make sure that it's environmentally protective um, to an equal degree since we're not going to get there and we're not meeting manifest injustice. Again, according to what I understand from Chris and what I

understand from um town council, we are not there. We cannot approve this as a board. It's um we could um as an as an option, Chris, we could um if we wanted to require ask for more information um if we wanted to chase man or not chase manifest injustice, but if we wanted to make sure that there weren't wasn't another system that could fit on the property. Correct.

Um, you know, ordinarily in a situation like this, we may look to try, you know, if if Mr. Besonette hadn't offered up the information about the ability to site a two-bedroom, um, we would go down the 53G route where we would, you know, I would, you know, advise the board to retain a independent consultant and to, you know, run it to see if it could support that lower in demonstration of

that manifest, you know, depriving of all beneficial use. Sure. Um so it's kind of unique because um you know we Mr. Bisette has you know advised us that [clears throat] um so I guess you know you know is that enough um evidence for the board um for the board um to take action on it if they so choose um you know on the proving or disproving of manifesting justice and depriving of all beneficial use of the

property.

Okay. Do you have anything you need to add, Dave?

Um, all right. I'm going to ask, um, my my fellow member to speak. And, uh, just as a reminder to, um, we do want to make sure we can hear everybody. So, um, uh, Susan Murray, do you questions, comments, where are you thinking with this? I'm just really curious to to now that I better understand the concept of um manifest injustice, why again do you believe knowing that hearing what the council said and knowing

um that a two-bedroom could fit on this, you know, what is what is your take on this and why it should be seen as manifest injustice?

Um [clears throat] there's from town to town and from health department to health department there's different interpretations in title five. The one that sticks out to me mostly is the minimum design flow requirements in title five. There's towns that uh will not allow two bedrooms for new construction. They want 330. they believe even with the deed restriction that's intended for um

repairs on substandard lots or something along those lines. Um when we looked at this um we had had discussion you know about coming in and asking for this as the process which we've done um and and we felt that we had a pretty good case for this to be a three-bedroom and and to hold a three-bedroom for new construction. So that essentially that was the thought process is um coming in

meeting the minimum 330 which I know there is a caveat that says if you provide a deed restriction for two bedrooms um some towns don't give that to you by default. So that was the thought process what we would like to do if possible because um we would like to I I have not showed my client nor have I showed the Dartmouth Board of Health the two-bedroom design. So, if we could hold

off on closing the hearing tonight and allow me to submit just to make sure that they don't see any issue with the two-bedroom meeting all the standards before we say that it cannot work. Um, so that we don't close out the door on the u manifestally unjust part of things. If I'm if I'm understanding your request correctly, you were asking us to to table this until you have um spoken to

your client, gone through the the notion of figuring out about the two-bedroom um and then it would keep this open and not have us deny it tonight. Is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. We would I'd like to just make sure before we determine it's definitely not manifestally unjust that somebody's eyes besides mine look at it and like I'd like to show Chris or Ariel make sure that they look at it and say yeah there's you're missing this or there's a flaw here. You can't make this work. So if the board would be so kind.

I do see a hand. Can you um come up and identify yourself please? Thank you.

Uh David SA 34 Farm Drive. from the applicant. Um, so just I want to put it out there. The original intention with this submitt was to build a four-bedroom house. That was the original goal. So, you know, realistically that's not that's not that's not in the application here, but that's that was the, you know, idea when, you know, putting this lot under agreement to build our home. So,

reducing it down to three is is is making an exception. I know it doesn't make a difference with the rules, but you know, going to to a two-bedroom house is definitely not ideal, you know, in the scenario. Um, I, you know, that's where I'm coming from. And, you know, the difficult part here is because this house would pass statewide, right? So, it's like we're just we're in this town,

the rules are specific to this item are restricting this from happening, which is that alone is unjust on its own. And and and secondly, you know, um the um you know, this system is ending up because of all the other regulations around it. You know, riverfront repairarian wetlands where the lot I mean it's a twoacre lot, but this is literally only a small little sliver to build on. So if you know, realistically,

you know, we've put this thing into a corner where it can't go anywhere else.

Um you know, so it just kind of is what it is. you know, Jamie's done a great job at, you know, making this happen.

Um, and like the idea of pushing it to a safer, more, as he refers to his positive zone versus going towards, you know, 5 feet or 10 feet in the other direction is is, uh, I really don't know where else to go with this at this point. So, um, but yeah, that's it.

That's my comments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I'll Well, let's let Susan Murray, do you have more questions, comments, thoughts?

I do. Yeah, go ahead.

I have two. Um, one is intent. Um, and so I, you know, just curious if it was like did did the person building the house, did they buy the buy it and then seek out I want to build a fourbedroom or was this bought by a developer and then brought in a buyer? And whoever, I guess, owns the land, did they do the due diligence to look at what you could build on this land using town

regulations? Do you want me? Do you want me to answer?

So, he's the buyer. He's, but he has not purchased it yet. It's under agreement.

He's also the builder building it for himself.

It's going to be for his house. Um, and he's doing the due diligence because that was part So, he's in the due diligence phase right now.

Um, and then the second one, let me see if I can remember this. Um, I guess I'm not fully understanding the difference between the state regulations and the town regulations, how they interact and what that mandates for us because council said that there's essentially no difference, but there is a difference and I I'm just not understanding the differences between the state and the town.

Hold on one sec. Uh, I'm going to have Brian Cruz speak first, please. Thank you.

Sure. Uh, Chris can speak to the technical details. What I'll say is for clarification purposes from your perspective of whether of how a variance would be obtained, there's no procedural difference, whether it's the local regs or the state regs, because when you pass local supplemental regulations for enforcement and administrative purposes, they are integrated into Title 5. So they are the

same in that respect, but they are more restrictive for our local purposes in terms of their substantive obligations and that's what Chris can speak to.

So they're more restrictive. Um the 100 foot setback has been a longstanding setback. Um predates my time. Um I'd say it probably even goes into the 1980s.

And um discussions on justification for the setback um have always been um focused on one public health, two this is the only aspect of um regulations that we have a hand in that are protective of the environment. So um when we're looking at protection of public health um primarily we're looking at wells um you know it's a saltwater wetland around it but we do have bathing waters downgradient of it.

Um we do have um waters that are downgradient that um have potential for shellfish um harvesting and some just outside of the mouth that have um open designation by division marine fisheries. Um so that's the environmental um that's the public health side of it. on the environmental side of it. You know, we have a lot of attention um a few years ago, had a lot of attention a few years

ago on the Sloum River um and many years before that where there was a um a study on the Slokum River as part of the mass estuaries project and that the um resulted in the Sloum's River TMDL that was approved by D around 2019 or 2020 and it designated the Slokums River as being impaired for total nitrogen and um right now we're trying to duplicate those results. Um you know it's ultimately it's going to

take a three-year round but you know if I had to say you know we've completed our first year and I don't think you know the results are going to show that we've had marked improvement um the more we continue to um develop the watershed the more nitrogen that we add to it. Um so this becomes the other side of why we have the 100 foot setback is to protect the environment and we know that the

Slou's River as so far most of our major wersheds in Dartmouth are impaired by nitrogen the Westport River being the second one.

There's um can I interrupt your your train of questions for something that um I understand the intent of title five and this I I don't maybe this hasn't been clearly said new construction building new houses or adding a bedroom is treated very differently than um than houses that already exist and their system is failing and needs they need to put a new system. It applies to everyone

that if you need to when you build a house um on a lot that hasn't had one before, you have to you have to meet all of the the requirements in the code, which again, as I'm understanding from um Chris and Brian are includes our supplemental regulations because we can go more stringent. So, everyone regardless of intent with if they're building a new house has to meet everything in there. And if they don't

meet the requirements then um then essentially they have to prove okay well us saying no to anything is manifestally unjust a legal term or and um and that it has to be u again we haven't gotten to this part really but you know same environmental protection. So um and then I've heard D at seminar say you could theoretically have like a bird watching station on a lot and then that would be

a beneficial use to the property. So, um I I wanted to make that clarification because um you know I absolutely have sympathy for what people want and what people want for when they buy houses, but that's literally like that's in the definition of title five. So that's what I think we have to keep in mind as as a board what what we have to consider um regardless of of intent when buying I suppose.

Um, then I interrupted you. I want to keep you going.

I I got all my answers.

Okay. Um, as far as tableabling, so normally I don't have an issue with tableabling. Um, I I at this moment I understanding, so Brian was was kind enough to come on tonight and you know, we're here in the discussion. I don't think that we are at the point of hear anything for a manifest injustice. So that tableabling is just going to kind of kick this down the road and prolong

it. Um I don't I don't really see um a benefit of of keeping it open as opposed to denying it and then having them reapply for the two-bedroom, but I want to I see you're kind of it looks like you have a thinking face on. Um, what would be the drawbacks if we as a board were to deny this tonight based on the findings of um, uh, of, you know, of not meeting the criteria for manifest

injustice? Um, or or if we didn't do if we didn't do a denial, is there anything else you would recommend to us as a board to do even if then the applicant maybe withdrew their application? Does my question make sense?

It does. And you know, I I know with some uh decisions by public bodies, uh a denial can carry a lot of weight um like a board of appeals decision.

Um so, you know, I understand what Mr. Besette is saying that before they withdraw, he wants to, you know, fully pull it, put it on paper, have something tangible to look at.

Yes.

Um so I Is there anything um so I I would have a question for attorney Cruz. Um because again, Title 5 has some deficiencies in it when it talks to administrative procedures. Um if the board was to act on a three-bedroom variance application tonight and by denial, would that prevent them from resubmitting the same plan within a few weeks or a few days?

Unlike that with like the board of appeals.

Brian, I don't know if you know this, you are currently on mute and then we can't see your mouth, so I can't tell if you're moving or speaking.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, they they would have an obligation if they didn't like the denial to appeal it. And beyond that, I'm not going to speak to the details on a uh in a public forum because that would be discussing what essentially litigation strategy. So um what I would say is it's my position that if they don't like the denial of the variance that they have to appeal it. Um that being said, um

you know, you have 45 days from the receipt of the application uh to avoid a constructive approval. I don't know when the application came in. Um, if you are, what I will say is this.

Right now, you have for your evidence of uh lack of manifest injustice. You have the verbal statement of the engineer that they could do a two-bedroom with the caveat that he wants to make certain of that in consultation with Chris.

So you don't have your own independent analysis of that and the only assertions being made by the applicant, but he definitely caveed it after the fact. So, I don't think there's anything wrong with continuing this within those 45 days to get certainty between the engineer and Chris that in fact a two-bedroom is possible and then there's no dispute that would be grounds for an appeal later. Um, if we were up against

the gun on the 45 days, I would say yeah, but Chris, I'm assuming that uh this would go to another date or no. So yeah, I think by the time the board will reconvene, unless they were to call a special meeting, um we'd be we would be beyond the 45 days from the application being complete.

Title 5 does have a provision in it. It says that the application is not complete until um a better notice is sent.

And when did that happen?

Do you have the file?

It's about 11 days ago, wasn't it? 10 12 days.

These are them, right? November 3rd.

November 3rd.

Okay.

So, so then you would have time. Are you guys meeting monthly or semionthly?

Wednesday, December 17th is our next meeting as scheduled.

Okay. Yeah. So, you'd have to that beef.

That's cutting it close. I I if you were going to do this, I would say have another meeting in two weeks.

So, if I if I'm if I'm understanding you, Brian, um if if we were to decide to table this, um we would need to um meet again before our next meeting.

Correct.

Yeah. Yeah. I I would have a I would meet in two weeks um and uh to give them time. And again, the reason why, you know, you're not required to, but the reason I if I would see it as beneficial is that um there is a uh a concrete analysis of the two-bedroom possibility as opposed to just a statement that was made at the public hearing without anything behind it. that the engineer has already somewhat walked

back by saying he's essentially he's pretty sure or you know he wants to confirm it. Um so um I don't think there's any harm since you guys have the time for it to get more certainty on that if that's what you're going to base your decision off of.

Okay. And the and the action we could I'm sorry where you finished. I just want to clarify. Go ahead. The action we could take is um table it for two weeks which would give the engineer time to come back having tested it out and if that um tested out a two-bedroom design and if at that point we had different information we would act on it then uh yeah at at that point I you know

I can let me rephrase my question the the engineer coming back to us as the person um who would re having giving giving him the chance to redo the design is would um potentially be um the evidence that we um Yeah. So, I I am as I'm thinking about this, I'm more and more concerned because I don't want you guys put in the position where uh it's we're coming up

on the deadline. It's 2 weeks later and the engineer has actually said, "Actually, no, I don't think a two-bedroom is possible." And they're basically walking back everything that was stated today. So, in my mind, honestly, what it would be is if the either the applicant is acknowledging today unequivocally that a two-bedroom is possible and that's it.

Or alternatively, I think there needs to be if if if they want to if they want certainty of whether two bedroom is possible before this gets withdrawn, then I would say they need to actually uh provide 53g money for a third party consultant to do it.

And then you would get that data in for the two for the continued hearing in two weeks because I don't want you being in a position where you're relying upon the applicant's engineer for confirmation that then they don't provide you.

Mhm.

And then you're kind of stuck because you don't have your own analysis at that point.

So that that's that I feel like there there's a little bit of you're you're kind of stuck here because on the one hand you're trying to rely upon them because they made a statement but on the other hand that statement can be withdrawn.

Um, and if they want the certainty of knowing that a two-bedroom would pass muster and they wouldn't have a problem with that, then it feels to me almost like you guys should just go ahead and get your third party consultant to do that and then everyone knows for certain. Um, [clears throat] and you guys can proceed accordingly.

That that that's that's my offthe cuff advice at this point, I think. So if I'm understanding sorry I I like to clarify and put in my own words.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

What if if we are concerned about the question of manifest injustice then what we can do as a board is require um a third party consultant um um in instead of going down the route of tableabling um so that way we don't um force our our our force ourselves into a corner. Is that correct Brian? Is that what you were saying? Is that a possibility for us?

Yeah. If if you're going to if you're going to not make a decision today.

Yeah.

Because you want more certainty about whether or not um a two-bedroom is or is not possible without a variance.

I don't think it should be simply relying upon the applicants engineer and Chris to figure that out.

Okay.

Because what if they disagree?

Sure.

Then you don't have any definitive evidence. you're you're basically in an argument and you've wasted two weeks.

Mhm.

Um so I I think it should simply be and plus that then you're in a weird situation where it's almost like the applicant's presenting a new application without actually presenting a new application. Um so I almost feel like almost like Chris said at the beginning, it makes sense to have a third party consultant funded by the applicant for confirmation of whether a two-bedroom is possible. and that will provide the

definitive information that you need. Um and um you know it's at that point it's your it's your consultant. You're not relying upon the applicant hear the information separately and you can take the information and make a decision accordingly.

Okay. Do you want to speak on that before I I do see a hand raised?

Yeah. So you know again um this is you know the the board does have some limitations put on it. Um you know mass D has regulated the board um as well as the legislature with the 45 days. Um this is a complex application and it because it's a it's a variance and we have to go through those two part the board has to D is requiring the board on those two

parts, the manifest injustice and is it protective of public health in the environment. And to get to part two, you're going to get to part one. Um there is a component in this plan that we have not discussed yet. Um and that is [snorts] the 4T of naturally occurring pvious material.

They demonstrated that four feet of naturally occurring pvious material exists on this lot. Um the lot has some very steep and dramatic grades to it. Um and with its pre-development conditions, they've demonstrated that. But in order to kind of develop the site and work in that small area um outside of or limited incursion into buffer zones with all of the development with you know the

driveway, the house, the grading to flatten or scalp the top of that hill um is requiring the loss of some of that of that naturally occurring pvious material. So there is a note on this plan that requests um approval conditioned upon demonstration of um 4 ft of naturally occurring material um after approval. Am I correct?

Um I would have to see somewhere around here because you're the the cut depth is I see what you're saying right there.

Yeah. the bottom of um excavation 19.

We've got down to you're down to elevation. Well, we got to get into which test pit we're at.

Yeah.

Yeah. Cuz we build 11 ft 10 ft plus on each one.

So, sure. Thank you.

Cutting down to 20. You know, you're gonna you you got a 25 here and test pit.

The numbers are that looks like test pit A.

So test P A is 295 and we're going down to 255. Uh 25 with the um the grade there, which would be at least a 4ft cut.

Yep.

So that doesn't exist then.

Note construction. Yeah. So you have a note um note in the soil logs engineer proposing Ariel. That note in the soil logs. Was that in the um forms? Yeah.

I think it was it is on the plan.

It's on the plan. I see it right here.

Okay.

19.

So, where I'm going at at this is with with that note on the plan and the crowding of the grades and showing so much detail within probably what a one and 30 scale.

It seems as though that the designer has some uncertainty with all the cutting if whether or not four feet exist.

Okay.

um after they remove four feet of that hill. Sure. Potentially more. Yeah.

Um with the test bits that we did in the pre-development conditions.

Um so that [snorts] might be something that we need to look at further. Um and then if that is the case where there isn't four feet of material in two weeks then that is something that for new construction um under the terms and I think it might be section 4 415 um conditions under which no variance may be granted 415 or 414 um the board can only approve a plan when 4T of material exists

naturally. Correct. For new construction for new construction. new construction that is so we're completely limited. So at this time with that uncertainty um on this plan um we would need more detail just in and of itself four bedroom three bedrooms or two bedrooms.

Understood. Yeah, I mean that's Yeah, we can adjust for that and but yeah, I understand what you're saying. So but this also kind of helps with the clock as well, doesn't it? Because it's looking for revisions which is starts the 45 days off. Well, I would say that if you don't give us anything in two weeks that and you don't have four feet of material.

Mhm.

Um, you know, that that in of itself, but there's some uncertainty that I have with that because I can't tell by the grades out here. There's just so much going on.

I can do a zoom in view and make it very clear. And if we have to make adjustments, we can.

So, because we're pumping the system anyways so but I understand the the intention on our end, just so you know. um is for us to see if the two-bedroom system works because I think it's been it's pretty obvious to us that it's going to be a denial unless we can show the manifest unjust and the manifest unjust you're saying if we can fit a two-bedroom without variances seems to be the

direction the board's heading in. Well, on the other So, if if that is the case, then what we would be willing to do is step back, take a ask for a continuence, look to see if we can get the two-bedroom done, show the board. If the board agrees that the two-bedroom is doable, then we would withdraw the variance petition.

I think if I understood what Brian Cruz said is even even if we table it, we're putting ourselves in kind of a trickier position if if in two weeks we come back and um which we don't know for sure what's going to happen in the future despite good intentions. That puts us in a tricky spot um with this application.

That's that's my Brian. Is that is that a good summary or that this is all assuming that you that the engineer will come back and indicate that yeah here this is how it will work.

Are you guys okay with this?

Um um you know I'm just you know sorry for doing things on the fly here but in looking at test pitch strata A um the bottom of test pitch strata A is 17.5.

So that's about 1.8 ft of naturally occurring pvious material beneath that.

Sure. Yep, I understand.

Um, so that in of itself would be grounds for a denial. Um, yeah. Well, I mean it'd be grounds for us making So I guess I'm going at the if the whole twobedroom, threebedroom. Um, and I understand I'll get to this in a second.

Um but at this point in time looking at the only test pit that is within the primary area being test pit A with an elevation of 295 with pvious material beginning at 26 and then the bottom of system shown here at 19.3. We do not have 4T of pvious material underneath. Yep.

Right.

Understood.

So this would give you a chance if scheduling allows to demonstrate that.

Yep. Understood.

Um and then also you know with one test pet and the you know and we you I myself understand the um the level of forecasting that goes into soil meth you know soil evaluations um the puress of the code is two. So, you know, on those two points, um there's clear citation within title 5 that um if the applicant didn't demonstrate 4 ft of material and provide the two test holes

per disposal area, then they could deny that just on that alone and without worrying about the setback to the sideline of the reserve area.

I understand. Yeah. So what you're saying is that that gives you the ability to deny us if we don't make good on our two irrespective of the variance which keeps the board out of a tough spot in two weeks. In two weeks irrespective of the two versus the three understood.

Okay. So if I understand what you're saying, Chris, because of this, we could we could table because we then would um for then meet in two weeks and then deny based on that alone. Is that and that would also that so that would give the applicant some time, keep it open, but not stick us into a corner.

Correct. Because the board can't even consider a variance for four for less than four feet of naturally occurring previous material. And let me just get into why they weren't able to obtain that depth. Um if anyone's driven by the lot, you look at the topography out there and you know given all the resource areas they've tried to you know do the least disturbance possible which is always the goal to to go out

there and to dig a hole. Now to demonstrate 4T of pvious material below elevation 19 is going to require you know not a three or a five ton excavator. It's going to require probably a 15 ton or greater excavator.

Massive. massive.

It's going to be doing some substantial alterations. Um, even just with the grade because of the steep ridge back, but the obligation is on the applicant to do that.

Yep.

Understood.

Chris, just to clarify, to be clear, they haven't asked for a variance from that requirement. So, it's not technically in front of the board.

That is correct.

So, it's it's not something it's not something the board's voting on. So, you know, honestly, given that, given the fact that um they still want to look back at the two-bedroom issue themselves, it honestly feels like the easiest situ if they don't want to pay for a 53G consultant, the easiest situation is just have them withdraw it right now and then they can go get their ducks in a row and come back and decide

for themselves, do we want to fight on whether a two-bedroom is possible? and then if that's the fight they want to have, the board can look at that. But right now, it feels like you're trying to juggle multiple options in a tight time frame under what is really just a variance application under a very narrow provision of the local requirements.

And there there's no prejudice to the applicant if he withdraws it and you accept a withdrawal without prejudice.

And then he can just if they if they decide afterwards, hey, you know what?

We've looked at it. We looked at it, Chris, we really don't think a two-bedroom is possible. We're proceeding with a three-bedroom variance request. They can just file it again.

Um, but this this feels like trying to shift the entire concept of the application on the fly. And that really worries me from a potential litigation perspective.

And there's no pause for a minute. Would would you like you haven't had a chance to speak. Would you like to speak and uh please identify yourself? Thank you so much. Thank you, Jamie.

I'm Christian Gavush SA with South Coast and Associates, 45 Sloum Road, Darmouth, Mass. We would be the contractor of this if this all goes through. Um, as for this whole thing between whether we postpone to or or table this two weeks from now or hire a consultant or whatever may be, we feel confident that that Jamie and Zenith Land surveyors will be able to within the next two weeks determine if a two-bedroom system

can go here. So, I don't think it makes sense for us to have to go to to withdraw now and then in two weeks from now, have to reapply with all the applications, renotify all the abutters, renotify everyone even though we were able to get the work done in time. I would say it'd be more productive to still schedule to have this meeting in two weeks and then hey, if for whatever

reason we don't make good on our word at that time, we can then withdraw the application if that's what it means. But we all feel confident that he'll be able to have that answer between now and then. And then as for bringing in a consultant, I don't think bring in a consultant who's going to have to familiarize themselves with this project. We have the holidays coming up.

I don't think they're going to have that answer within two weeks. I think we'll have it a lot quicker than a consultant would who we're now going to be bringing into this very, very complicated project. So that's just my two cents, but um thank you.

Go ahead.

So, and to back to uh David Svaris, uh 34th Soc Farm Drive, the I'm the applicant. Um you know, the manifest unjust, I do want to look back at that as well too. And I know the respect, the sequencing here is that you first have to prove the manifest unjust, then you'll look at it the second component, which is the bedrooms or whatever that the variance itself. But, you know, to

me, you know, this this pro this project is located in uh in this green area here on the Sony map, single residence A or B or whatever it is, you know, I don't know the last time I built a two a two-bedroom house, you know, and a manifest unjust indicates fairness.

Justice just means fairness. What's fair is what is typical, what's common for most people. Two-bedroom house is not common for new construction. what's typical is a three-bedroom home or larger. So, I'm kind of in that position that that's manifest unjust, that we're being forced because of the stringent regulations of Dartmouth to build a house that's not common, which to me is unjust. So, I want to explore that

avenue with my engineer, with my attorney. And then also if if if we're told at that point in time that we can't that it your theory doesn't work then we can go to this other scenario of a two-bedroom. But you know I just don't agree with the general direction of this and I I do agree with tableabling this.

I I I I feel a tableabling of this matter is is a fair thing to do here to give us the time to gather ourselves here. Thank you.

Jamie, I I did you want to say something before I ask a question. So is there's no are we sure that there's no mechanism to extend the 45 days?

It's from it's from the abutter notification. Correct. It's um the butter notification.

Yeah. the statute, you know, says, you know, action within 45 days uh by the board and that the application by the terms in title five, the u application period starts when a buttons are notified.

Okay.

Of the date, time, place of the hearing.

Um so that's that's it.

I'm assuming calendar days and not business.

It's calendar days, not business.

Yeah. So my question is in I mean realistically in a lot most board of health but in all boards we there's um constructive approval time frames and there's statutory requirements but there's almost always a provision for an extension. The only one I'm unaware of is with an approval not required through planning board everything else once you run up to the 45 days or the allotted time frame at the if the applicant so

willing they can sign and say we're willing to extend that time frame. I just had duo planning board on a special permit.

I'm wondering if there's a mechanism like that so that the board's not in a tough spot and that we're able to move forward and try to just get the level of comfort we need on our end.

There's no specific language in Title 5.

So, um you know, unless it's something that I'm I'm unaware of, but I've never seen any language in Title 5. It just says it, you know, the stat it goes back to the dis the only language in title five, excuse me, is the uh the beginning of the application period when abundant notes are required um as being the complete application and then it defaults back to the statute.

And does it is it the same if you were to write us a letter saying that, you know, changes needed to meet be made to the plan, for example, the the four feet of material, would that restart the clock? For example, you're stating a deficiency with the plan. So therefore, we need to provide an updated plan, which would then warrant you having another 45 days. Does that apply? Just trying to find a way that works for

everybody here without without pressure on on the board.

Yeah, I'm I'm unaware.

I'm all about um you know finding that middle ground. But if if I'm understanding Brian Krugs who is our town council, they literally are here for the town of Dartmouth and the board of health. Brian, if I am can can again you were saying that the clearest way forward is for us not to table. Is that correct? Or is there anything that's since been said? There's there's two options in my mind that are workable

because what what I the one thing I don't want to have happen for you is that you show up in two weeks and the only additional evidence you have is now the applicant.

Oh, hold on. We can't hear you. Hold on.

Pause. Brian, what happened?

The case that a two-bedroom is possible.

I'm sorry, Brian. You you cut out for that. I do apologize.

Not a problem. Uh I was saying the the only scenario I do not want you in is in two weeks you come in with the applicant saying actually now we don't think a two-bedroom is possible.

Um so and I know there everyone's talking good faith but you know and about likely scenarios but that's a possibility I have to entertain.

Yeah. So, in my mind, the two possibilities are you quickly get a board consultant determination on whether two-bedroom is possible, paid for by the applicant or they agree to withdraw the application without prejudice. The board votes on that as effectively the application decision.

Um and then they are free to look into whatever they want. And if they decide two-bedroom is possible, they can then apply for that. And if they stand by their assertion that uh that if after looking at they come to conclusion it's not possible, then they can reapply for the three-bedroom. But I I have to advise against the board relying on the applicant to make the final evidentiary inquiry about whether

a two-bedroom is possible. Um you that can't be the only information the board receives. It was fine when they were saying it was possible because you know then it that's evident [snorts] that's not evidence that's uh going to harm the board's decision in any way. But I don't want the board in the position where in 2 weeks the only evidence you have on the crux of the matter, which is is a

two-bedroom possible, is a negative statement from the applicant.

Um, you really need some independent evidence of whether that's possible unless the the applicant's going to concede the point unequivocally.

Now, um, and I and I know that's, you know, that doesn't make things easy, but Oh, pause. Hold on.

I don't think you can hear us either.

Oh, really? Okay. I wonder what's is that they withdraw at this point. Um I apologize, Brian. You did cut you cut out again. I'm not sure technologically what's going on. Say I don't know. I'm I'm sorry about that.

That's not your fault. Could you repeat that last part again?

Sure.

that what I was saying is if the applicant wants to be the one to do the inquiry into the definitive termination of feasibility of a two-bedroom system, then I really feel like they need to withdraw the application without prejudice.

Uh you cannot be relying upon them to be bringing that evidence in two weeks as part of this application.

because if it if if they suddenly change their mind, that puts you in an untenable situation.

Um, so the choices really are they fund a consultant to quickly do an independent review and provide you with that analysis in two weeks or they simply withdraw. You approve that withdrawal as the decision of the application. it's without prejudice and in two weeks if they or in a month or whenever they decide that a two-bedroom is is possible, they file for a two-bedroom. If they come to conclusion

it's not possible, they can always refile for the same variance and we can start the process over with the board getting a consultant um at that time.

But um continuing this for 2 weeks where the only thing that's going to happen is the applicant will look into whether two-bedroom is possible and give you their opinion is potentially a very problematic situation the board could find itself in and I just can't recommend you doing that.

Brian, let me let me ask one clarification for Brian. Sure. Is there is there only um opportunity to withdraw without prejudice now in this moment in this board meeting or could we could we as a board um move to get a board consultant and then they confer have further discussions and then decide to withdraw after.

So as long as it's something the board agrees to votes on and that's essentially the decision on the application you they can withdraw it without prejudice at any point. Um, but I would if if it's not going to be now, then you do need to I would say vote on telling them they need to fund a consultant. Um, and then if they refuse to fund the consultant, that could be a

basis for denying the variance. But that vote needs to happen today if they're not going to withdraw. Um, so that at least it's on the record that that's an Oh, I don't know.

No, the video isn't on. He can't see us.

Oh, it's not. He can't even see. Oh, okay. Thank you.

I froze again, didn't I? It's great.

Or one of us did.

Every time an email comes in like getting Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um is it is it okay so I I will try this again and I apologize profusely. Um the board if if they're not going to withdraw it today then the board needs to vote in my opinion to require them to fund the board's consultant. So at least that's on the record now. And if they choose not to fund the consultant that's a basis for denial.

So conceivably they could say, "Hey, we're not going to fund the consultant because we're going to go get our own confirmation."

And then they could provide that confirmation to you and never have funded the consultant. But if what they bring back to you doesn't work for you, their failure to fund the consultant is a basis for denial.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Does that make sense? like at least you've put a line in the sand saying we think you need to fund the consult and they could choose not to and that would be grounds for you later to act but it may end up being unnecessary because they're going to confirm what they think is the case which is that a two-bedroom response.

Sure.

If I can I might be able to make this quick. We're willing to withdraw without prejudice, but we're hoping that if we do need to file for a variance again that the fees would be waved and we've already paid, I believe, for the application for the septic review.

Um, we're hoping that that would be waved with the submittal if we do go with a two-bedroom with a two.

I don't think I've ever been request for for fees to be waved. Is that is that um within our purview or is that even is that what are your thoughts on that Chris?

That would be a decision of the board.

It would be a decision of the board.

Okay.

Um precedence has has have fees been waved before for folks who have resubmitted applications.

We've never found ourselves in this territory.

Oh, okay. Excellent.

Um Susan Murray, one thing I'll add to cut you off if that's okay. um that you know part of the fee is to cover the inspection. You know there's a small amount of fee in the upfront and there's a large amount of the monies are on the back side especially with the IIA. Um so you know we're having this discussion on the front end now. Um so there's a lot

of funds that have been paid in for the theoretical construction of this.

So they couldn't they couldn't be reused that you know you know it's when we have not invested fully into this.

Okay.

Because it's it's the application fee for a subsurface sewage disposal construction permit which is everything from the time of the our work from the time that the application hits us to when we issue the certificate of compliance. Okay.

So it's so beyond today there's still a lot of work that would entail with this.

Yeah. that if they withdraw it will not happen, will not be born on the town.

Could we Is it Is it too complicated if we say if they just resubmit only fees that that would then have to be redone and then anything else could be waved?

Is that getting too complicated? Does that question?

There's going to have to be future test bits um out there unless we unless you change the grades.

Correct.

So, could we um help me out here because I want to be reasonable, but I also understand I don't want a hardship for our agents. So, um is it is it possible to would we need to state which ones which fees should be waved?

So, right now, so the Yeah. So, if like if he's asked on the application fee.

Okay.

Um you know, as far as the um going out in the field, that's another amount of time. Um but he's only asked specifically on the application fee.

Okay. Which includes um the the staff hour payment for you folks to look over the to do the review the plans which is going to have to happen again with another even if they withdraw because they would have to submit another plan. Correct.

Yeah.

I want to clarify. Did you I thought I heard a different fee too. Was it just the application fee or Well, there was a variance fee as well.

if we file for another variance and that I mean all the fees are they're high. Um so we're hoping to if we file if we withdraw tonight if we file for another variance you know shortly for the same site that the variance fee would be waved as well. So the application fee and the variance fee correct.

What does the variance fee cover for staff time like?

So it covers you know just some of the auditing also in situations you know for the new construction. It is a fee that is explicit to new construction. So you know obviously town council's on tonight.

Oh okay. Okay. Sorry.

You know Ryan, do you want to weigh in on fees?

Fair enough. Thank you.

I do not.

Okay.

That's that's a that's a local board concern. That's administrative thing.

That's I I'm not going to tell you. um what to do in that scenario. That's that's kind of that's a more practical thing. Um I did want to mention before I forgot sure because it had been raised earlier regarding uh can we just extend this out longer than the 45 days. Chris had mentioned you know there's nothing in title 5. That's correct. Additionally, the other um approval processes that

were mentioned like zoning specifically by statute uh provides for a mutual extension of the deadlines by the applicant and the board. So that's that's a statutory process that's actually laid out. Um so there's nothing equivalent under title 5 that I'm aware of where the board and the applicant agreed to extend the time frame before there's a constructive approval. Um it's just a it's a quirk of

title 5. Um, which is, you know, gives me great concern because I don't want you guys being in a situation where you thought you agreed to an extension, but what actually happened was you basically backed yourself into a constructive approval.

Sure.

Um, the last question I have for you, Chris, because I'm Yeah. I'm trying to make sure I understand. What are the downsides to us um, waving the fee for him, either for precedents or for your staff?

None.

None. Okay.

As far as our staff know, you know.

Okay.

Doesn't Oh, there's not. So there's not a downside if we allow the the the application fees individually.

Okay.

In our professional capacities or you know so it's okay.

It's just it's fees that the board sets as cost recovery.

Okay. Okay.

I think I understand then there there's not a drawback to that. Um would that would that have to be a motion or if if my stating that uh because there don't seem to be um drawbacks to our staff our a our agents um on waving the application and variance fee um that do I need to make that as an official um motion um because that sounds like it's sounds like that's what the applicant is

then basing their decision on.

It would be nice to have that as part of the record. It would be a motion though, motion two ways.

And I would s I would s madam chair I would actually suggest that it be part of the motion approving the withdrawal without prejudice. It' be all one motion.

Got it.

That it's that it's a motion it it that they request to withdraw and as the and then as part of the decision you uh approve the withdrawal as the decision on the application without prejudice allowing them to refile in the future if they so chose. And if they did file with the same exact plan in the future and the same exact variance request, then you would wave the fees for that renewed application.

And that way it's all tied together. Um, and it's clearly showing the nature of the decision on the current application.

Okay, I think I got all that.

Susan Murray, do you have anything else before hopefully?

All right. I think I think we understand. So I think I think I know what happens next.

Which is is it does the withdrawal? Does the applicant withdraw and then we accept it? Is that correct?

Yeah. So I Yeah. So we're officially requesting a withdrawal without prejudice.

um is with the fees being waved for the next submitt um as discussed.

Can you name the two fees again please?

Well, the the application fees which has multiple I think it's variance and the variance IIA component IIA component there's basically a checklist you guys have of fees that we go down so to say application fees would be fine correct thank you so then I move to approve the withdrawal without pre prejudice for plat 23 lot 482 at 80 Horsene neck road Dartmouth um if with the condition that

if the applicant refiles um with uh that uh the fees are um the application fees are waved. Can I get a second?

I second that including the variance fee.

Yes. Um all right. And now we vote. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion passes.

Thank you all.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Brian. I'm not sure if we need Brian to stick around, but um we do not. Um I don't think so.

Okay, great.

Yeah, that's all you guys asked for.

Thank you so much, Brian.

Thank you. Have a good night.

You too. All right. Uh far past our time, but that's all right. Um the appointment 4:34 p.m. Charlie Men from the uh Soul Kimchi process.

They also requested to be continued to the next meeting. Okay.

The deadline. Sure. Sure. Okay. Um so then it's it's a table. Okay. So So finding that um um one of our agents has stated that the applicant um wishes um for more time to gather documents. I move to um table um Charlie men from the sole kimchi process.

Yeah. And also they're um it's difficult for them to also get here. So in hopes that the next meeting.

Sure.

Thank you. Understood. Okay.

He's not hybrid.

This one here just happened to be Okay.

Um I did just officially make the motion. Do you um should I restate it?

Would that be helpful?

Sure. No problem. So finding that um that our agent has heard from the applicant that they wish for more time and the possibility of a um remote uh access whereas this meeting is in person. I move to uh table um the the kimchi process for Charlie Min from the soul. Can I get a second?

Second.

All right. And then we'll vote. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion passes.

Okay. Do we have any I don't know if I can chime in. Is there uh is there going to be a language issue? Do we have any precedent for um someone translating just to make sure everything gets across?

He's been in the office.

I believe we should be fine.

There is, you know, you just kind of have to keep reiterating, you know, some of the concerns if you have any concerns or I just want the owner to fully understand what's going on.

And I I don't know what the if the town has anything in writing for accessibility for all people, including language accessibility.

You know, the town does have an ADA coordinator. Um this is not um within that realm. Um, you know, it is something that cities are grappling with more. Um, you know, I think it's something that we're going to be dealing with very soon. But we've had had conversations with him and I'm confident that we can we have had conversations with him the field. Um, I don't know. we can ask him, you know,

we, you know, reach out to him, let him know that this is potentially adise him if that's what the board's decision is going to be.

There are some like electronic devices that I was going to suggest that could could we direct you to or well honestly and I I hate to say it, but even like a almost like a Google translator equivalent. Um if so, so and kind of maybe state that to the applicant from the beginning if you and in his preferred language um it is identifies as a he but okay but but

do you see what I mean? If we were to say we are going to try and speak clearly and slowly but if you have something um you were encouraged to Yeah. which may make it difficult.

he may need to set it up on his end if there's an app because with us on our end you know I'm just not like in person it might be easier like you know I think Don has done like we chat um before but to try to do it through the through the remote meeting I think I I don't know um I think I would hate to say that yes he does

like understand but then after if we're having the meeting if he he doesn't sure what we can do is just talk to him and just if if If if we need to see if we can work with technology for translation, then it may drive a public um an inerson public meeting versus the uh remote.

Sure. Do would that be helpful if we talked now about our December 17th meeting? Because was it is it a possibility? Could we could we um say um we'll set it for in person, but then if he needs it, I think the other piece was it's hard for him to make in person. So Oh, shoot.

You're right. Okay.

So, maybe help him up to get the to the Zoom link so that he could still be there at the restaurant.

Rats. Yeah, you're I totally forgot that. Okay.

Maybe, you know, the other thing is, you know, we could talk between now and then because maybe he could have someone that could assist him.

Is there is there I think a niece or a daughter-in-law that works, but she got that time she was saying she'll be picking up her daughter from school. So, by the time she gets back to um back to the restaurant, there may be another gentleman that also works at the his name is Brandon who was going to help possibly hook him up for the Zoom link. So maybe we could

talk to Brandon and make sure that he's there, you know, to do any sort of translation or to help with any sort of question.

Yeah. Yeah. This is tricky. Um yeah, I mean I I think if if it sounds okay, you know, if you folks can, you know, yeah, communicate with him and just do your best to gauge um if there's an issue because then I mean I don't know on the computer when you're if he can do some sort of transcribe his language as folks are talking it would translate into Korean for him.

Sure.

Right.

Yeah. I'm not sure either. Is that something that you could potentially explore again after speaking with the applicant?

Inspection at the beginning of December.

So maybe we can just kind of brand in there.

Sure.

To figure out whether or not you can do the caption.

Okay.

Yeah. Does that work? Yeah. It sounds like there's not quite a I mean it's hard, right? We don't want to um undo burden on the people we're working with. And at the same time, if if there, you know, if there's if we can somehow help with language and just to make it go smoother. But I don't I also don't want to make this burdensome for him if it's um if there isn't, you know, a

language barrier. So, it's like trying not to create problems, but um you know, it's someone's livelihood, right? Yeah. It's business, right?

And I don't You know, it's important. It's important that that he understands, you know, Yeah.

thing that the board is going to be requesting from him.

For sure. For sure. Okay.

Thank you. Um Okay. Um, moving on to uh the 4:35 PM appointment, which is the continued public hearing on the Dartmouth Board of Health uh board of health law regulations.

Um, excuse my mis misspeaking. Um, okay.

So, um, we don't have Richard Romero. We do have Quorum. Um, I do want to move forward with this. Um um Susan Murray, I don't know how you feel about it, but I think um and I think Chris spoke to this last time. I mean, these these well regulations were started before any of us came on the board. Um and I think um I I do want to vote on them tonight. I

think, you know, to a certain point uh we will always be um considering a lot, but um I would like to move forward with discussing them and voting on them. Are you of the same opinion or Okay. Excellent. Um I think so what I did is I um I made some notes on on each of the individual comments and then maybe what would be um helpful is because at least the first three for

example um I I didn't necessarily think that we needed to take an action. So, I guess ultimately what I'm saying to kind of organize this and how do we go about this is um if we just um go through the comments going over anything quickly if we seem to be in agreement and then you know pro more likely settling on those that will need more discussion. Um do you do you think that that's a good way

of going about it or did you have a different um idea in mind? Okay.

Okay. Um do you have the comments in front of you if I start referencing them? Yeah. Cool. Awesome. So, I thought that um one, two, and three, we didn't need any action on them. Um those were my notes. Um on number four, I thought um accepting the edit um that was suggested from the town meeting comments.

Um question five, and actually I'll just pause for a second. Um when we um at at the end of this obviously depending on how things go are we would we um move um to do we like move to do something on like on comment one etc or um what do you think like well so what would have to happen is let's just say you know and I'm just I think the item that has received the um

the component of the draft regulations that has received the most discussion um prior to the public hearing Um, and then during the public hearing is the forever compounds section. So if if the board or a board member felt as though that they wanted that section removed, then what would have to happen is is that you know it would be a motion to adopt the regulations um as um provided

accepting and I'm just going to you know section 6 D you know and remove those sections from um the approved draft regulations.

Go ahead.

But I think to um to your thoughts, you have made some changes to it based on these comments like comment four, you removed the um underground fuel. It says underground fuel storage and removed the language on bulk storage for pesticides and herbicides. So, do we need to approve those changes? So if if if the board so moves. Yes. So that is the board's decision. Um so you know that's why I

kind this was a very uh different way in which we've done regulations. Um every board is different. Every board member is different. We're agents of the board.

Um so you know having been involved with numerous public hearings with the state um you know I learned something from that and I said maybe we should be following some of what the state's doing. They don't do it quite like this.

um they push that out after the fact. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but every comment made at a state public hearing has to be addressed as part of the final adoption of the regulations.

Okay.

Um do they with that being said, they'll consolidate in batch and then paraphrase. So someone may, you know, repeatedly say, I think a 100 foot buffer zone is too much for a wetland, and I want it down to 20 feet. And, you know, 50 people may say it, but in different um verbiage.

That's all going to get consolidated into one single comment um in the final presentation of comments and responses. Um so I've done that here um as well because we did receive you know especially on the forever compounds we did receive um feedback from the audience at the hearing um several times.

Um you know and for example with the um fuel storage tanks um that was I think mentioned by just one member of the public. Um so when I presented that and I found reason that well you know and then talking to um colleagues and state agencies that's where I said well it's ultimately these are the board's regulations um I provided that language in there to help you make your decision

whichever way you'd like. Is that clear or am I just kind of staying too in my lane?

Maybe another way of asking if I if I may is if if if um if we as a board are in agreement um when when we come to make our our final motion tonight, if we are so moved, can we say can can we instead of um batching them together in just one sentence? Um, are we able to instead just for organizational um purposes um we say accept the edits in

in public comment number four and um number seven or whatever or or do you need us to actually state what they say?

Yeah, I would I would you know you know and just you know okay to make sure that we're bulletproof um and we don't create any confusion down the line. Um there's there's two things that I'm thinking of. The first would be is to cite the treaty of everything you know and by treaties like the laundry list of items that you want removed.

Okay.

The second I this if you want to adopt tonight. The other alternative would be is that you give you know you give me direction on you know these are the sections that you know the board at this time is in agreement that we would like to see removed.

I will remove those from the draft and present that to the board at the next meeting for which you could just make a simple motion.

Oh, okay. So, we wouldn't even we wouldn't necessarily vote on them tonight because we would just take the and I think I think that would be the um cleanest way of doing it unless you want to spend a long time reciting.

No, I understand that makes sense. I understand.

But we would have to direct you to remove which and you could do that by the comments.

You could say I, you know, we could say number four on fuel storage tanks as you noted in uh comment. I'm going to use letters just so that it doesn't look like I'm trying to be directing. Um a um so and let's just say that pertains to the bulk storage for pesticides.

And then what? So that that'll consolidate your motion and then it'll make the approval of the regulations. um the decision to approve or deny the regulations um at the next meeting um easier.

Yeah, I think that I think that makes sense. Um so then um is there anything else you want to note before I again I think that we'll just we'll go through whichever ones and then discuss them out as as need be. Sound good? Okay. So um I I didn't think that we would need to take um action on one, two, or three. I I thought just um those are fine. For

four, I I thought we would accept the edit which is omit the language and the draft regulations on the bulk storage for pesticides and herbicides.

Okay.

So, omit four.

Yes. Um and if it helps I mean I I wrote notes on this too. Okay.

Yep.

Sure. Yep. Um yes. Yes. Accept the edit and four.

Accepting your omission your suggestion for eding which is to omit the language in the draft regulations. I can I can give this to you after if you want. Okay, I'm good.

Cool. All right. No problem.

Um on five. Um I wasn't sure if you had um more if you if if you wanted to weigh on this more. Yeah.

I mean I like where does the 500 feet come from? Is there some scientific study that shows 500 feet is like an I know. I mean that's kind of an ownorous thing to say but um do we do we have any data on I guess how far lie travels or if this is I just don't want this to be a very ownorous I get there's some bad actors right but there's also some people doing

some good composting And with small obviously I'm thinking agricultural which is like where a lot of the exceptions are in the composting universe you know farmers can get away with a lot more. Um that's not the right way of saying it. Um but you know farming on small acreage would you know if a farm needs a well and they're also composting say my farm composting chicken manure um I don't

think there's a place on the you know it would make it very difficult to find a place to compost and a place to have a well if there's a 500 foot and to be far enough away from a butters and and just like we're we're functioning on smaller spaces. So, I'm just really curious um and I get that the you know in your comments that it's it's not it is a problem and it's not well regulated.

So, where that came from. So, EBDAR is not charged with protection of the public health and the environment.

Um, you know, I've I've spent a lot of time diving into the mandate with the provision in statute to create the agricultural um demonstration program um the mandate um and looking at the regulations that we have here in the Commonwealth for composting versus what other um states have um Long, New York, Maryland, I think Alabama, um just to name a few.

Some of those states have composting regulations that are um promoting of composting while at the same time being protective of the environment of the public health and they require.

So the concern with this when we create a setback is a pollutant and in those states they have requirements for the management of leech. Massachusetts we have zero requirements.

Um so some states have you know 300 foot setbacks. Um, some have two.

So, I'm going to jump on this. A composting facility where at a farm where someone's just, you know, actively managing manure um does not necessarily require an MDR registration.

When you get that MDR registration or a general permit from D, that opens you up to do a lot more. Now you can take in I think I can end this. Okay. So you're talking about only MDAR composting facilities, not I'm composting, not a backyard composting.

Okay.

So under 310 CMR 16.03 there are exemptions and within those exemptions it allows for still moderate scale composting that is completely exempt. We wouldn't even touch that. And it even allows you to bring in a certain small tonnage per week tonnage which is still Yeah.

So that's all if it's used on farm you can't sell it.

Those are all under the exemption.

Yeah. So this 500 and and so how would I mean I guess it wouldn't even come into the con but you you go to inspect to see like oh the well is where you say it's going to like you've done your due diligence and you see a compost pile are you going to say if you're on site oh we can't do this it would have to be an MDR it would have to have an official approval

okay so it's only for MDR approved compos posting facilities or general permits, D general permits.

Right. Right.

Yeah.

Do you know, again, totally out of the blue, but do you know roughly how many of those exist in town?

We've seen a retraction on those because of um some unfortunate circumstances. Um but that you know, unfortunately in so far as it involved a lot of government resources.

So, at this point in time, I am only aware of um an agricultural operation um two agricultural operations on the far south end of town.

Mhm.

Um by MDAR and one operation that's transitioning from MDAR to D.

At one point about 10 years ago, I believe we had maybe upwards of eight operations.

Okay.

And as a result of some coordinated efforts, some of those operations have um surrendered their permits or their one surrendered a permit, the other one um was not renewed by MDAR and um they're not operating at this time.

Okay. Some of the others have just kind of fallen off the wayside.

Okay, that I I can be okay with that knowing that it's not I mean basically I'm worried about someone trying to do the right thing with manure management but but they're also up against needing to new well and they're like in conflicted and with the um incident up in Westminster with um with the forever compounds you know so how far do certain compounds travel that is just way beyond on the 500. Um, right.

So, you know, even a 500 wouldn't have protected there.

Yeah. Um what I'm looking at is when I you know and I there was at a public hearing a number of years ago regarding the um MDAR composting regulations.

There was some interesting testimony by a person and he had a science background who lived next to an operation and he alleged that he had data that demonstrated that once that operation started that he steadily saw an increase in tannins in his um drinking water well.

I mean leaf leaf matter.

Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I I think I can um not can I'm I'm okay with this one.

So we just take note we leave as is. Um don't we don't direct Chris to take any action.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah. I I definitely def I I I like like enjoying listening to that and I will go along with that too. Um number six um I underline it to reserve this convent for um future consideration for thresholds for a minute. Um, let me I guess unless you understand the suggestion suggest to the board to reserve this comment for future consideration so as to not delay the updating of portability standards in

Dartmouth. So you're saying um we accept that they said this but but keep keep the wording in there um for the threshold yield in gallons per minute of well depth. I think this was if I remember like I was asking about this and that was I think it was more my not understanding um the functionality of of gallons per minute and hydro fracking. So I'm if this is in response to like some of the questions I

was asking I'm okay. They were really clarification questions.

Okay. So then so then no action there.

Okay.

Um number seven I think I wrote uh uh except to uh accept the edit to remove subsection C which is the suggestion um due to advancements in pressure tanks.

Are you okay with that? Excellent. Okay.

Does that make sense to you too?

Yes.

Excellent. Um comment on testing requirements

number nine is what I wrote. So hang on.

Let me just um refresh my memory on questions or excuse me comments eight and nine. So comment on testing requirements section 9.

Okay should be tested for this. Okay.

And so the response was uh the section was inserted into the draft in response to an issue we saw many years ago and when we had more well oh excuse me I'm on um that was seven I apologize eight testing requirements in this section is based on the initial testing requirements for anthropogenic sources of contamination. If a detection occurs and exceeds groundwater standards then

the applicant needs to come back to the board with a proposal. Okay. Uh and the board can condition that proposal including post filtration tests. So, I think that's okay. I understand my own notes now. So, because um I think I was leaning toward leaving this one because um it allows some flexibility for the owner to then kind of come forward with a proposal which does not require the

post filtration test. I think that's that seemed to be my understanding. What What are your thoughts on this one?

Vagely remembering.

Okay. I know.

I know.

But that's but I thought this if I remember correctly like you said it left some more flexibility in it and was better.

Yeah that okay.

Yes.

Yeah. So I think I think yeah having that so if someone were to test and find it um find something then we would you know we have that ability to correct entertain.

Yeah. And I I really like that the way it works because it gives the person, you know, you demonstrate to us that it's working. So you put it in if let's just say you have TCE triclorene in there. Um probably going to be a carbon filter that you install. They're going to, you know, purchase a carbon filter.

Probably have some extensive conversations with D. You know, hopefully things work. We do have a few of those in town serving that very purpose. um and then they demonstrate it to us. Um the alternative is that they would, you know, if we didn't require the testing, they wouldn't know that they're drinking it, but they'd be exposed to it. Um we're not condemning the law outright, saying, you know, they do have that

option um to put it in there.

Okay.

So then, yeah. So then no action, we just leave it as is.

Right. Okay. Excellent. So that's eight.

All right. PAS I think do you want me to go first?

So I think um I go back and forth on this one so much but I think ultimately what I was waiting for was for these public comments and and and we heard on them which is um you know they are ubiquitous. So at this moment I am of the opinion again knowing too that um we can't edit without going back to um ad commission etc. Um I think I'm of the

opinion that we move to the remove them at this time but then um we can bring them in um at a future point. Um you know especially because from everything I understand it is the science is changing quickly for it. Um so that is where I stand.

That's where I stand.

Okay.

So does that make sense? We'll omit and then the PAS requirement.

Okay.

And then 10 comment on testing requirements for agricultural suitability.

Kind of bounce to you on this one. What are your thoughts? Um testing I get the answer, but I'm not sure I remember the specific question and it may have even been my specific question.

Um uh and I think this probably kind of got a little bit co-mixed but it wasn't clear from the audience and I know there was some comment on that from the audience and I think the concern was about the whole PAS component.

Right. Right.

So I did segregate this into its own question.

Got you. Because there is this is the water we use for irrigation and for washing is regulated by the FDA through FSMA. So and that is controlled theoretically controlled by MDAR. And so there are people that are considered exempt and they've weakened the testing rules, but they still exist that all, you know, everyone's going to have to come into compliance on the water rules and it's

constantly changing as well. Like I think they've put out the final rule, but water used for all water used on a farm on a vegetable farm is falls under FDA regulations.

This would apply to even let's say um not just you know produce but if someone was putting a well in to you know fill a stock tank right and if the PAS are removed what we would be looking to test would be you know standard portability um as well as um the recrome metals eight and the VOCC's right my if if I have to pull a number out right now and say what do I think the

total cost of that package would be standard portability recra eight metals and VOCC's you know to make sure to have a little bit of wiggle room in it you know I don't think it's going to exceed $650 isn't that part of the testing you do once you get a well though if you do agriculture right now none Oh, I my well is test I had one in town that was done.

It should ideally but the it was part of the well drillers what he did is he tested it. Um and then but he submitted that as part of the paperwork to the town too. I thought like he considered it was optional.

Okay. Okay. Um and this would be a one time Right. So, you know, sometimes I've heard some comments about should we require annual testing or should we require testing at point of property transfer.

I believe that those sorts of governmental endeavors should be statewide and not local. It makes it too hard for compliance. So, this would only be at the time of installation. after that we know that water con uh wellwater constituents can change um but we just don't have the government resources to to police that.

So remind me again what they would be testing for. They would be doing standard portability which would be you know you know the real the big ones in standard portability are going to be your um bacterial your pH um and nitrogen nitrates nitrates excuse me um and then on the recra eight those are your eight metals that are problematic that's going to be like lead for example chromium right um

on your VOCC C's um we state the methodology the EPA methodology it's it's your 24 most common VOCC's one of which is you know TCE it's chlorinated solvent um you know many communities westport we got a small area we're familiar with it years ago the Cape Cod base um and that'll be just testing for those okay I'm yeah I'm okay with it I mean I I thought Yeah.

And a lot of other communities have um this all, you know, VOCC's in as a baseline, right?

And so if it comes back testing positive for any of these, they would have to remediate.

That's correct. Um and they would come back with during that separate process where they'd have to come back in and demonstrate to us. Right. The good thing is is I believe that the most common VOCC's are addressed through carbon filters. Um metals we haven't had to address that fortunately and hopefully we never do.

Okay.

So are you okay to leave that as is then and take no action? Okay. Um that is the last of the comments. So I think we um addressed everything right. Number 10 is is what I have.

Okay. Um is that is that clear to you?

Yes.

Do you um what should we do as a board of it would be then a motion to take the um uh the action we just discussed on the comments or do you need me to reiterate it?

You could just say you know you could just list the comments. Okay.

And just say you know comment for comment you know.

Sure. and the sections of the regulations within comment four such and such and such and such um you know strike those from the draft and present the revised draft at the next meeting.

Okay.

Okay. So then before I make that formal motion I just because once I make it I just want to make sure. So here's what I wrote. I have one, two, and three no action. Four is accept the edit um to omit the language in the draft regulations on bulk storage for pesticides and herbicides. Um five and six are no action. Seven is to um uh accept the um removal of subsection C.

Eight is uh no action. Nine is to um remove um uh PAS forever chemicals um um from the regulation and 10 is no action.

So essentially I would just I wouldn't say anything about um in the motion about the no action ones. I would say accept edits, remove etc. Um and present them the new well regulations at the next meeting that match what you have.

Okay.

All right. So um um yeah I guess finding the um the in-depth discussion um I move to direct our uh board of health staff um to um make the following um edits on the pen um Dartmouth border Dartmouth Board of Health private well supply regulations um with um based on public comment number four to omit the language in the draft regulation on bulk storage for pesticides and herbicides

on um um public comment number seven to um accept a suggestion to remove subsection C and then um based on comment public comment number nine um to remove um references to um forever compounds commonly called um PAS. Um and then after doing these edits to um provide the board of health with a an organized um draft of the well regulations at the next board of health meeting. Can I get a second?

Second.

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

Any abstain? The motion passes.

Excellent. Okay. Uh okay. So let's see.

Uh sorry. Section two, new business. Um item a vice chair Richard Romero resignation.

Um we can proceed on this even though he's not here. Correct.

Correct.

Okay. Um do you want to speak on this Chris?

Sure.

Go ahead. Let me pick up my pen. Sorry.

So the town the organization of the town's um multi-member boards uh is governed by the town charter. Uh the town charter does have provisions when a member of the board of health. Um well the town bylaws also have terms for eligibility to serve on a public body which you know is the cause for Mr.

Romero's um resignation because he's moving.

So he has submitted his resignation.

The charter then provides that the board of health upon the vacancy of a member has 30 days to notify the select board of the vacancy.

If the board of health does that then at a point in the future the select board will call for a joint meeting of the board of health and the select board to then appoint for the remain a new member to the board of health for the remainder of the election cycle.

So the board the remaining board members need to notify the select board. So that's where the language is a little confusing. Um because you know and that's why we have this on the agenda because to me it implies that it's it's a a joint action and that in order for you to act jointly you're acting in quorum and that's why it's on our agenda tonight. So if the board wishes to be

part of the process for the selection of the appointed board of health member to fill out the remainder of Mr. Romero's election cycle, excuse me, this election cycle. And what I mean by that is April of 26. His term ends in April of 27.

So whoever is selected will serve until April of 26 would have to run and then they will serve out the remainder of the term which is a year and they'll have to run again in 27.

Wait, say that again.

Yeah. So they're going to they're gonna have to continue to run. Um, so they will whoever gets appointed will have to pull papers and run at the April election. They're only appointed until the next election.

Oh, I think that's a piece I was missing. I thought they were appointed to finish out the term.

No, no, no.

But they don't pull papers after they get appointed. They just do it to fulfill that last year of Richard Romero's term.

So someone could just say, "Hey, you know what? I'll fill it until, but you know, after that it's got to go. You know, we've we've encountered this situation um at least twice. Um you know, historically, you know, people that have been appointed to serve on the board of health have typically u proceeded to run um for the remain for the balance of the term and then run for subsequent terms.

I just thought of this. Could theoretically then someone could choose because my term is up. Um so two members up in April.

Yes. So theor theoretically no I'm not going to go down that road. Never mind.

Okay.

So if the board of health does not notify the select board then the select board would meet individually and appoint the next member.

Okay.

I would like to be a part of that decision.

I agree. So then it sounds like we would make a motion um for um our remaining our remaining member um members, excuse me, us to send notice of the vacancy to the select board with the help of our agents.

Yes. Okay. Be a simple and we would again we would sign it probably. Um and then and he should include his last day of eligibility in that letter.

I believe he did December.

Okay. We I'm sorry. We would we would include that in our letter. Okay. I think that's what we do. Okay. So then um I I move for the um um oh finding that Richard Romero has um as uh indicated that he is moving which u makes his um uh makes him ineligible based on residency requirements. Um I move um for the remaining Dartmouth Board of Health members to um send a notice of vacancy

containing his um last day of being eligible um through its its board of health agents. Can I get a second?

Excellent. All right. Um and now we'll vote. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion passes.

Excellent. Okay.

Um Donna, you said that um the next business to new business. Um item B is 158 Little River Road, Plat 15, Lot 44, new construction. Um Donna, you would you like to speak on this or or can I um reiterate that? Um go ahead. Um so we received an email from the engineer this morning requesting that the board um table the discussion on resistant um he's spoken with the owners of the

property to the realtor they would like to revisit the design.

Okay.

Um and come back at the next meeting.

Okay. And there's not an issue with that. We don't have the same sort of timeline issues that we talked about earlier.

So the question becomes uh when was that plan submitted?

The original plan was received on the 12th and revisions received on the 17th.

12th of November.

So, so we would be good.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Great. Questions, comments, concerns? All right. Um so finding that the uh applicant has reached out to one of the board of health agents um requesting more time um I move to table the um I move to table 158 Little River Road plat 15 lot 44 um can I get a second second now we'll vote all those in favor I any opposed any abstain motion passes okay uh fee schedule for title five

sorry section two new business item fee schedule for title 5. Would you like to take this Chris to start us off?

Sure, thank you. So, we have a very exhaustive fee schedule. Um, the purpose of fees, as I kind of mentioned a little bit earlier, is not to generate profit.

Um, it is merely it's cost recovery, but services of the town. Um you it's if so what I mean by cost recovery is is that you know you got a big town there's a lot of need for um administration of regulations that have been bestowed upon various aspects of um government divisions border health for example and that in order to be the third party to the public to protect the public health we have things like

permitting for restaurants or permitting for subsurface sewage disposal construction permits. And with that, we are allowed to charge a fee and the fee has to be commensurate with the expected services that would go into it. Now, the comm the services that go into it are not necessarily at face value. There are other things that we're looking at. Um, so it's not like we just do a straight hourly rate. it's actually

a multiplier. Um, and that multiplier um is based on things like benefits, for example. Um, so with that being said, I've gone into our title five section of our fee schedule and look to not only consolidate it, but to look at what our rates are and what the cost of services are and to update that. Um you at the last meeting we removed that $50 fee. Um and the board directed to go as response to that

removal of the $50 fee for the annual filing, we would take a look at the overall fee structure within the title five um section and um we've made some adjustments there. um you know, particular, you know, for example, with the IIA systems, we're going to we're going to uh reverse from annual filings of uh $50 to an upfront fee. Um and that's in the attachment for the board.

So, what I did is I just kind of put what the proposal is in red if there is a change.

Sure. I I think I'm of the opinion, you know, I I trust your professional judgment. I think if um you know everything gets a little bit more expensive over time and um you have to keep up. So I don't I don't think I had any questions on any particular fee. Um if if Well, I'll ask that question. I'll I'll bounce to Susan Murray first. What are your thoughts, questions, concerns?

Um I just uh just for my own clarification um I was a little confused on um the septic subsurface sewage disposal construction permit fee application uh which was 180 going to I'm not reading it right. It's an additional the first page. Oh, sorry. Page two top.

Page two top. Okay.

I guess I I don't fully understand. Um there's a $180 fee but an additional 540 and so you want to restructure so it's just 500.

That's for the innovative alternative septic systems.

Mhm.

But I see Yeah, I see what she means though. So you you name 180 here and then this the fee at this time is in addition to the Y I'm sorry on the 180 um and pressure distribution. So right now we charge we so the black is we charge 180 um so the 180 is all a car so you're so that's why I did the the that additional verbiage in in black

which probably made things confusing. So what I'm proposing is is just to strike that um that 180 and bump it to 500 for the IIA systems. They would still you know that's it and it's still all a car and we're doing that 500 because at the last meeting rather than paying $50 in perpetuity they're paying a base upfront.

Okay management in perpetuity.

What's the 540 or 450 application fees below.

So, yep. So, the 540 and the So, that's the subsurface. So, like I bet you the alakot. So, you're going to pay the base price of the 54 the the application fee, right?

And then if you're putting IIA system in, you're paying 500 on top of that.

Okay? And that's instead of paying, you know, so if you have it for 20 years, great. You've kind of won out. But if you have it for under 10 years, you're actually paying a little bit more, but it's averaging out.

And these systems here, these IIA advanced treatment units are so far we haven't the only ones that we've seen removed in town is when sewer came in.

I was going to say if you have a septic system for less than 10 years, you got you got bigger issues than than not getting your money back on a fee.

Well, I mean, if you're if you move, right, and you didn't get the benefit of the Yeah.

Okay. So, sorry.

Go ahead. Um, so I look at it as when um we charge a fee, especially when it comes to like a fee for a property improvement that affects whether it be public safety or public health or, you know, so whether it's a building department fee for a new house, a border health fee for a septic system, a conservation filing fee, um that fee, you know, while it's borne by the

applicant is for the benefit of the of for the benefit of the people. Yeah. Um I was just I just wanted to clarify.

Okay. It was just confusing.

Yeah.

Um and then is that that's not associated with the variance table though, right?

We're kind of consolidating the variance table because it's it's a it there's a lot in there and we're going to just bring it down to one variance fee.

So everything's going to be 360.

Yes.

Just straight across board. Okay.

Yeah. And we're going to strike out submetering. So, I know you gave me the directive on just title five.

Yeah.

But I it was hard to just go into title five because we have that variance. I said this is the opportunity to straighten out the mess and variances.

Um we're not allowed to charge for submetering and we haven't been because we're not allowed to. So submetering.

So submetering um a number of years ago um as part of an initiative by landlords um a bill I get it. Yeah. So, it now allows a landlord to charge tenants for water and sewer provided that they submit a form to the board of health and say that all the fixtures are lowflow fixtures.

This fee predates my time. It was something that was put in. But yeah, there is a little bit of services that we we provide, but we we don't have a regulation that says that we're allowed to charge.

Okay.

That's why I'm removing it from there.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay. Um so then um if it sounds like Susan Murray and I are in agreement, um it would be um a motion to accept the proposed fees. Is that correct? Or accept the the proposed fee schedule as outlined. Okay.

Hope I got it. Okay. I feel like my brain. Okay. Uh so, uh um finding that there, um any questions have been answered by the board of health and there aren't any concerns, I move to um accept the uh fee schedule for Title 5, um as outlined. Can I get a second?

Second.

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

Any abstain? The motion passes.

Yes, Chris. So, um before we close out this topic, um it's been a number of years since we've gone into our fee schedule. Um you know, we should be updating it from time to time as cost of um the town the services goes up. Um and also look for, you know, consolidation. Um it is ridiculous. I think we've got on legal size that it's probably like eight font. Um, so you

know, if the board would like, I think to try to tackle our fee schedule entirely is exhaustive, but if we could kind of pick away at it bit by bit, um, would be helpful. So, if the board would like to direct, and it wouldn't need to be a vote, it could just, you know, that at a at a meeting um in the next 60 days, 60 to 75 days, you know, we could

present another um category of changes and my recommendation would be um food service since that's the biggest.

Sure. I I I absolutely think that makes sense. I know I write a bunch of documents for for work and it's amazing how fast that time goes by and then you need to change things and update them.

Great. So then yes, you have the director from the board of health to please continue to look into uh the fee schedule and um if it is convenient to go next with um food safety inspections.

Okay, thank you. Um, all right. Now, we're moving on to section three, which is old business, which um item A, the next board of health meeting uh to be determined in person or Zoom. And as a reminder, the next board of health meeting is Wednesday, December 17th, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. Um, I I think because we want to make sure that um at least one of our applicants has access and it

should be um Zoom or uh remote. You okay with that?

Excellent. And we don't need a motion on that, correct? Okay. Um, all right. That's section three. Section four is any item not known 48 hours in advance. Um, Chris, do you have anything?

Nothing.

I think the only thing I have to say, and he's not here, but we typically thank our members when um it is their last meeting. So, Richard Romero is not here, but for the time that I've served with him, um, I have appreciated um, you know, his his um, you know, open-mindedness and his willingness to listen and and to serve.

So I I thank him even though he is not here.

I second that.

I appreciate his thoughtfulness for sure. Um are do you have anything for um again uh any item not known 48 hours in advance? Okay. Excellent. Well, it is uh 6:49 p.m. again on Wednesday, November 19th, 2025. And I move to adjourn the Dartmouth Board of Health meeting. Can I get a second?

All right. We'll favor. Excuse me. We'll vote. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion passes. We are adjourned.