A meeting of the Sharon Board of Health was called to order on Monday, April 10, 2006, at 7:20 P.M., in the Sharon Town Office Building, with the following members in attendance: Anne Bingham, Chair, Elizabeth Barnett, M.D., Vice-Chair, Suzi Peck, and Stan Rosen. Jim Andrews, Health Agent for Engineering, was also present.
Community Center Septic System
Tony Stella, P.E., Site Engineering Consultants, Inc., presented revised plans for the Community Center septic system. Maureen Doherty, Project Manager, was also present. Mr. Stella stated that, on the average, per day, there will be a maximum of 50 people present in the building at any one time. No variances are required from either Article 7 or Title 5.
Discussion about sizing of system...
Anne Bingham: ?COA kitchen to be used for warming only (residential stove)? (Norma Fitzgerald was present for this discussion.) .She suggested that additional conditions be included....added to the standard conditions the BOH includes: very precise/monitoring of water use on the building; Minimum of annual pumping; low flow on all plumbing fixtures;
Suzi Peck expressed concern that the calculations have not been done in accordance with planned uses for the building. Anne Bingham noted that the site will not allow a larger system without variances....and suggested that the BOH approve the design and then carefully monitor the flows; she reviewed that a maximum double-counting had been used in the calculations....and noted that this is a unique situation.
VOTED:(Bingham/Barnett) unanimously.....to approve the plans dated 4/8/06 with the following conditions:
an accurate flow meter be installed...daily log be kept of flow and submitted to BOH monthly; all toilets, dishwashers, all other water using-fixtures be as low-flow as possible; that the system be pumped and results be provided to BOH annually; grease trap serviced every 3 months...regular assessment to determine whether more frequent pumping is needed; if design flow is exceeded more than 5 times by any amount in any 30 day running average that the BOH be immediately contacted to discuss either limiting use of the facility or installing additional water saving devices including, but not limited to composing toilets.
379 South Main St...variance hearing
Atty. William O’Connell; Homeowners David and Amy Scullane.
Mr. And Mrs. Scullane purchased the property in November 2005 ...they were under the impression that it was a 3 bedroom home. They are looking to add a second floor addition with a bedroom on the second floor...would require a property line setback..they are scheduled to meet with ZBA later in April. The system was upgraded in 2005 with a maximum feasible compliance variance and can accommodate a 3 bedroom home. However, the property is listed on the Assessors’ card as having been taxed as a 2 bedroom home. Anne Bingham explained that Title 5 provides for overbuilding systems
Anne Bingham explained that the Board has not allowed adding of bedrooms....has used the assessors’ records as a guideline. She stated that the Board cannot approve an additional bedrooms (i.e., 3 bedrooms) unless it can be proven that at any point in time the home was listed as a 3 bedroom home (in the Assessors’ records); she suggested that the homeowners return to the Assessor to see if the home was ever listed, taxed, and assessed as a 3 bedroom. The hearing was continued pending further request of the applicant.
Variance Hearing - 2 Tamarack Way
Barbara Thissell, P.E., and Steve Margolis, TRAC Enterprises...and owners Norman and Lois Gordon.
Request for variance was made due to concern about grade issues with water running towards the house. The Board did not see any rationale to reduce to a 4 foot separation.....the engineer agreed to resubmit the initial plans with the 5 foot separation....no variances required.
253 South Walpole Street - Variance Request
David Oberlander, P.E., BDO Engineering; and Richard Godmintz, Homeowner.
Homeowner proposes to change garage into inlaw apartment....Assessors’ card shows 4 bedrooms...but homeowner has not used 4 bedrooms; only 3 rooms being used as “bedrooms”. The proposed septic design is sized for 5 bedrooms – but there are only 4 “bedrooms”proposed. Homeowner would agree to a deed restriction to 4 bedrooms...and to minimize wall between sitting room office and master bedroom.
VOTED:(Bingham/Rosen) unanimously to approve plans dated 3/2l/06; the wall between sitting room office and master bedroom must be minimized; Deed use restriction to 4 bedrooms; all new plumbing fixtures must be low flow; the tank must be regularly pumped and maintained.
Dunkin’Donuts - 17 P.O. Square
Kevin Rains, property owner; .Carlos Andrade, proprietor .
Mr. Andrade stated that he has 103 Dunkin’ Donuts locations; for this facility he would plan to bake cookies, bagels, and brownies.(all directly from freezer to oven).
Jim Miller, P.E., noted that both he and Ben Puritz attempted to contact the owner of Pizzigando regarding the idea of a shared system discussed at the last meeting, but they had received no response.
Title 5 requires system capacity of 1000 gpd for new construction for a fast-food restaurant. Jim Miller provided some information from a comparable Dunkin’ Donuts: 249 gallons water used/day; 185 gallons/day go to the system..balance leaves in cups of coffee. He also researched Honeydew-Stoughton Center....14 seats....walk up window....no public restroom....prepare donuts onsite...averages 49 gpd water usage; according to the owner 35 gpd is used for coffee which leaves the site; Jim Miller asked: if can provide further documentation and details on these sites, will the Board be satisfied to allow proposal to go forward? Anne Bingham stated that the numbers don’t indicate actual flows to be significantly less. She asked for picture/floor plan/really well documented water
records. She said the Board is looking for comparables to show that the 1000 gpd state requirement is way off. Suzi Peck and Anne Bingham stated that it is highly questionable as to whether or not DEP would allow less than 1000 gpd system (even if the BOH were to provide a variance........and a decision from DEP would take months.
Stan Rosen suggested that Ben try again to make contact with the owner of Pizzigando. Anne Bingham noted that, even with approval to use the unused capacity of Pizzigando, this would create a “shared system”...requiring state as well as local approval. Suzi Peck stated that the Board of Health can’t approve something which would not be allowed under state or local rules.
Phil Kopel, Chair of the Downtown Revitalization Committee, questioned “...how to make this happen?...” Anne Bingham stated that it would be much more likely to happen if the design flow numbers were incorporated as the touchstone of a system. A change of use will generate more wastewater.
Anne repeated that the BOH job is to uphold the code. Per Title 5, the facility must be designed for
1000 gpd......or the applicant can go through appeal process to prove to DEP that this is not the appropriate figure for a fast food restaurant. She explained that this is a change in design flow.....”new construction”.....going from approximately 200 gpd to 1000 gpd. She reviewed that the facility would need variances for a 1000 gallon system from both Article 7 and Title 5. In her opinion, DEP is unlikely to grant such a variance for new construction; and the BOH has been very strict about not granting variances for new construction.
Stan Rosen questioned whether it might be possible to interpret this proposed (property line) variance differently than the typical residential variances, since there are no abutting residences . He stated that the case could be made that this is a unique piece of property. Suzi Peck noted that this may be a unique piece of property because it is not a safe place to put a septic system.
Anne Bingham stated she will discuss this issue further with Brett Rowe of DEP....to try to ascertain whether or not DEP might consider this variance.
Anne Bingham summarized the options as follows:
l. Establish pre-existing design flow >200.
2. Find a place to install a 1000 gpd system without the need for variances.
3. Kevin Rains (property owner) has the opportunity to argue that manifest injustice is different for this property (property line setback is the only variance required)...uniqueness of the piece of property. (However, she added, it would be difficult to argue the loss of all economic value of the property.).
4. To argue to DEP that the 1000 gpd requirement is wrong for this type of facility. (She stated this would take time;a good deal of data would have to be gathered;but this might be the most promising solution.)
Jim Andrews provided information from Title 5: 15.405 (2)P. 554....re local upgrade approvals where property line setback is requested....only statement is that abutters must be notified; Anne will review and discuss this issue with Brett Rowe; as well as that the only variance needed would be the property line setback...and re the DEP requirement for a 1000 gpd for a fast food restaurant (for new construction).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.
| 
