Board of Health - September 28, 2026

ready. Okay. Uh good afternoon and welcome to the Westport Board of Health uh September 28th, 2026 meeting, which I'm calling to order at 1:15 p.m. Thank you. Um under Mass General Law, Chapter 3A, Section 20F, this meeting is being recorded and please join me in the I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay. Um, we have Matt's written report. Um, um, why don't we just go right to your updates Matt?

So, um the transfer station was closed on Saturday due to the storm. Um but all was good. Uh just a little bit of flooding down below, but nothing major.

They reopened up on Sunday with no issues. Today with no issues. So, um so all good is there out there. Animal control. Um our new animal control vehicle is getting delivered on Wednesday morning. Um, from there, it's going to probably take another 3 to 4 weeks before we see the plates and we're able to get it on the road, but at least it'll be here and ready to go. Uh,

and, uh, Board of Health has been trying to stay with the perks and the inspections and all of that, but, uh, we're doing the best we can, trying to keep everybody, um, you know, give them what they need and, um, just all we can do. you know, we're all working a lot and trying to get things done.

Okay. And you have um somebody starting tomorrow. We have uh a for the grant person again coming through the staffing agency um starting tomorrow and um her role will be an inspector an inspector position for the grant group spending uh pro predominantly the first week to two weeks in Westport um training and getting ready to go out in the field. Uh hopefully after those two weeks she's

still with us and still here working for us and um we'll keep her in Westport Monday, Tuesday and Wednesdays and the other communities on Thursdays and Fridays and if there's a need for her to go to another community on another day, we'll make it work. Um so that she's starting and hopefully that all works out cuz we could use definitely need the help. We'll get her trained up on

witnessing perks and all of that. I did send out this morning the um the request for quotes um and the scope of work for the um to three different companies for the perks to bring somebody in so we can get more done than we're doing now. But um no guarantees anybody's going to submit anything. So we'll just have to wait and see on that.

Okay. All right. And um the clerk will start in November, right?

Yeah. after the elections. I think a week maybe the week after the elections or two weeks after the elections was our part-time clerk will be starting and that'll be a big help to get us caught up with scanning and filing and other things.

Okay, great. Um okay, then uh we'll move on to director approved plans.

Okay, we have a threebedroom repair on a 20,000 foot lot at 73 Ridgeline Drive for a Joe Vanellis.

Um, it's been through Concom. This one is uh had a civ analysis and a deed restriction, a three-bedroom deed restriction is required.

We have a three-bedroom upgrade on a 32,000 square foot lot on 79 Summer A for Diane Pavo.

This has been through Concom. Um, this one's adding an ADU.

We have a one-bedroom new construction on 217 Sodom Road for an Evan Lambit.

This one is just a stand uh new construction for an ADU on a 60,95T lot.

We have a three-bedroom repair on a 20,767T lot on 19 Majoka Drive for Michelle, I'm sorry, Michael Reposa. Um, this one's been through Concom and a three-bedroom deed restriction is required. It'll be four bedroomedroom new construction on a 60,452 foot lot on Metobrook Lane for Sharon Carmichael and uh this one has been through Concom.

Okay. Um, just a quick question on the 79 Summer A.

Mhm.

The ADU is on top of the existing number of bedrooms or did they um shut down one bedroom? They shut down a bedroom.

Okay. So, no increase in flow.

No.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions?

No. All right. Trying to take a crack, please. Um, so I move to improve the um plans approved by the director at 73 Richine Drive um with a civ approval and a deed restriction required.

Threebedroom, please.

Oh, three bedrooms. I already know what that's okay. 424 40 40 42 46 J Drive 8 bedrooms. Uh deed restriction required. 79 Summer Street.

Um a three bedroomedroom 217 Sodom Road. Um a one-bedroom um 19 Moka Drive. a three bedroomedroom with a deed restriction and Middlebrook Lane a four bedroomedroom.

Uh and I think that's it, right?

Yes.

Oh, yeah.

Um I'll second that motion to approve those um plans as listed. Um all in favor?

I I that's unanimous two to nothing with one absence.

Just one question. 73 Ridgeline Drive.

Did you mention the civ analysis?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Y good. Thank you.

Um we have two sets of minutes. We are going to have to pass over both of them because you were absent for one and I was absent for the other. So we don't have a quorum to um um approve those.

And I have some edits on one of the minutes anyway. So we'll um bring those back. Um under other business um our next regular meeting would be on Columbus Day um October 12th. Um, so I'm proposing that we just uh cancel that meeting um and have our next meeting on the 26th.

Um, if necessary, we could start that early or if some emergency comes up, we could also meet earlier. Um, any thoughts on that, Phil?

On the So, cancel the meeting on the 12th cuz that's a holiday. Oh, for the sake talking about October now.

October.

Yeah. 26. Yeah, that should be okay.

And and not rescheduling. Um.

Right.

Okay. So, I would take a motion to um cancel the October 12th, 2026 meeting.

So moved.

And second. All in favor? I I That's unanimous. Two to nothing with one absence.

Um the next one, scheduling the working meeting. Um I don't know um Donna's status. Um, but I was thinking maybe the week of the 19th. That's a few weeks out. And if she's able to, you know, we can do maybe something tentative and if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Yeah. Um, I think that um the beginning of the week of the 19th would be okay for me. I think later in the week I'm going to be out of town.

Okay.

um Monday the 20th work actually for you Phil would the Wednesday the 20th work or is that Tuesday is the I'm sorry the 21st um it might depend on I think that's the day that I was going to be going up to Maine I could you know I could check on that but I could do anytime on Monday after 10:00 or Tuesday afternoon.

How about you, Matt?

Um, the 19th.

No, I know that. Oh, [clears throat] let me just double check.

Um, this is We really need to get back on track with the cesspool closeout. Um, 19th. Yes. 20th. No.

Okay. So, the 19th. Does that work? That should be good for me.

So, um, how about we say 10 a.m.

Okay.

Um, and you know, I'll check with Donna, um, if she's able to participate. Um, and that would be cesspool, status of storm water, well read. I mean, I think we just have to triage and what's the most important and I think the cesspool is frankly pretty important. Um and um we can limp along with the um storm water. I'd rather not, but if we can't um button that up. Um and the same thing

with the wellre. We're just going to have to sit on that for now, but until we get some staffing support, it's really And we're doing it in 10.

That's my proposal. Could be later.

Yeah, it's fine.

Okay. So, um, I move that we schedule a working meeting for October 19th, 10:00 a.m., uh, tenatively contingent upon Donna's availability.

Yeah, that's fine. Second.

All in favor?

Okay. Board member updates.

A few minutes. Anything? Well, the only kind of real update as it actually relates to the working meeting is that I was away for a few days on the Cape and I went and spoke with um the uh a couple of folks at the Truro Board of Health because they have um kind of comprehensive regulations uh dealing both with um cesspools and inspections and they have you know declared all those cess poolools to be failed.

There's a bunch of other pieces of it.

Um, an administrative consent order and a bunch of what we might call administrative pieces that I I think are worthwhile talking about.

So, I'm going to circulate those and can bring them to the meeting.

Okay.

Um, yeah. So, that was my uh vacation work.

Okay.

Um I don't think I have anything in particular to um update um on um Oops.

Uh we have um do we have uh I think 127. I think we're close enough. Do you have a butter notification for your hearing?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. Um I think you know I didn't get the green card but I sent it on 16.

Yeah.

Um and and did they know that the meeting was at 1:00 or 1:30? The appointment is at 1:30. Were they 1:30?

Yeah. Were they No, I mean he did say 1:30.

Okay. I just want to make sure because we've had some confusion. So um okay then. Um, I will call the hearing for uh uh 9 Mount Pleasant Street owned by FR Bills. Um, uh, this is a two-bedroom repair proposed with the Presby system on a 9,000T lot with George Aub representing.

Good afternoon. For the record, my name is George Aub. I got some Great. Thank you.

Thanks.

from the good old days.

Okay. What we have here is a uh 9,000 square ft lot. Used to be a house on it that burned down many years ago. Few years ago.

Mhm. And uh it used to be a two-bedroom house with two uh seage pits like cess poolools and septic tank and there is a well on property. uh the the the lot has been perked recently and I'm proposing a uh two-bedroom design that I'm using uh alternative press advanced system that save 50% of the area of the leeching and uh unfortunately this is the only area on the lock where we could put the

septic system and I'm clearing uh most of the wells, three wells, two wells at least. And uh we are asking for variance from one well uh at 654 State Road. As you can see, [clears throat] the setbacks hasn't changed much. We gained half a foot and 1 foot. And we're asking for a variance from the subject well that is uh about 53 feet away from the septic system from the reaching field and we already did the

test water test. I'm sure you have them I believe.

Mhm.

Mhm.

And that's it. Hopefully we get your approval.

Okay. Um I have some concerns but uh Um, turn to Matt first.

Super small lot. The design is, you know, for a repair. If that's the way the board is going to treat this is is good for a repair. It's about the best they can do. Um, so I didn't see any problems with the design as submitted for a repair. Now, I know there might be some questions about should this be new construction or not.

Like I talked to George prior to him putting the plans and that's going to be up to the board. So, I'll turn it over to the board.

Okay. Um I'm going to defer to you on about this.

Um well, uh so a couple of things. one um this has been um I mean this I would consider new construction. This house is the lot has been vacant for 10 years. Um and the reason I'm I would go that way also is I'm concerned about the nitrate on the for the site well is at 5.7. So that's above the five threshold, you know, and it's it's

um it's a tiny lot. Um and so for all of those reasons, um I feel like DITE would be um um an improvement on the um for for water quality. Um and um I think that's something that we need to talk about. There are other issues, concerns on the well report, not related to to the septic necessarily, but hopefully the property owners are aware of that.

Um, and the other thing is um only one test bit was done. So, we need to get a we need to get um we would need to approve a request for um a reduction in the minimum number of test pits.

Right.

You only did one test pit. Uh they did I wasn't somebody else did it.

Yeah, they did one. So they did. So what you'll have at some point whatever you'll have to add on to a revised plan um requesting that that local upgrade approval to only do one bit one hole.

Another hole.

No, we only did one hole instead of the two.

Okay. So cuz there was just no room to do a second hole.

We just requested them on a plan on another plan.

Yeah. Yeah, you'll just have to write that under the L section. Yeah. Okay.

Um but first we have to talk about the concerns in terms of um um dite as a component. Um and I I'll ask Phil what you think because obviously we have are the um are the wells um can you tell whether or not the wells are upgraded or downgradient from the uh from the SAS?

They are almost at the same level over there.

Okay.

And uh this well hasn't been used in many years.

They try to treat it now and try to use it.

Yeah. Well, I noticed the chloride was high. So, I was wondering if they'd um chlorinated [snorts] the well [clears throat] um on the test.

It the limit is 250 and the chloride results was 300. So, I'm guessing that maybe they shocked the well or did something to um so that would that would be a concern. Um um but you know, if the water keeps running and the results are improved, then you know, they it's the homeowners can make a decision about drinking the well water. It's also high in iron and manganese.

So, um they may want to consider um treatment of the well.

Um um but but because the um site well is only 53 ft away and it's already high in nitrates, I would like to see dite personally.

So what's I mean what is if I understand the history that the the nitrates are not coming from the site they're coming from offsite right because there's nobody been living there for 10 years.

Yeah, probably. Yes.

I mean, which is so but the next the a butter well is only at is 78 ft away, you know, right? And it's only at 2.9. So, um it's I don't know. I I I guess what I'm saying is I don't know what the it might not help.

I I don't know. Um it's kind of it I don't know. It's kind of unique in in a certain way. I mean, on the one hand, you could say that it if that you're not starting with um kind of a pristine well as far as nitrate are going to go.

And if it's close to the So, you're going to be adding nitrates to the groundwater there. from the from the site well to the existing nitrate condition um from whatever source it is I guess which I mean normally I guess I would [snorts] say you're kind of over that I mean five is the bottom of the threshold so I'm not that motivated by having hit it being, you know, 5.7 in

terms of it's the low end of it. I tend to think that, at least my reflection is that we're more at the seven and above, but now I'm thinking, okay, well, you're only going to be 3 ft from the uh you know, from the minimum from the minimum setback and um likely to increase assuming what you were saying, which is that they're that the well is not really upgradient of the SAS that some are

some additional nitrates going to be added to that. So I guess um uh I don't under so why how do you see it as new con if the house burned down and then someone is replacing it?

How does that fit in with the new def the construct the definition of new construction? Because I always thought about it as if the house burns down, setting aside the time frame, but if the house burns down and someone comes in and rebuilds that that's not considered new construction.

I think it's because it's been vacant for 10 years. I mean, the sort of the um Yeah. But Yeah. Yeah. But at least in terms of the title how thought about the title five definition if a if an existing house is destroyed and then someone rebuilds the house I don't think the passage of time is something that is included in the site definition. Do you have an opinion about that? I I guess my opinion

is the way that it reads. I guess you could interpret it the way that you are, but because the house and I guess in my opinion, the house broke down 10 years ago. It sat vacant. It's not the same people rebuilding it. It's different.

They sold it to house flippers. They're rebuilding it. I get it if it was the same family coming in and rebuilding it, but now we've got a different scenario.

So, I don't know. I'm kind of on either side of the lines.

I Yeah. Yeah.

But I I I just I I'm reluctant to add that um you know to add the the the presumption because it you know so what if it was two years and we would say oh no 10 years we'd be out trying to pick a timeline you I for two years so that you know okay well it's only two years it's not new but 10 years it's new but there's no um

we have no reference point to do that and I you know I so I'm reluctant to to say it's new con to to consider it um new construction to that extent so that's what I can Um yeah, of course.

Yeah. Yeah. Gi given the size of the slot, I cannot consider the brand new to be honest because brand new I mean we need two two sets of septics uh of perks, two observation and uh the lot has to be much bigger than that. I I it's kind of might meet the requirement of an existing house that burned down and we try to improve it now and replace the septic system and uh try to use the

same well because it's too too small lot to consider brand new. I mean, what do you Well, that sort of feeds into the argument of you've got a load that is way higher than than um you know, it's double the load is double more than double what the rate, you know, normal 10,000 square ft per bedroom, right? Um so you have less than that for for two bedrooms. um you

have so it it's a very you're right it's a tiny lot and you have limited flexibility um but I'm concerned that the concentration therefore the load is even you know more of a burden um and u I mean I just reread the definition yes I guess I would have to agree from a the way the definition is written I can't call it new construction but I remain concerned concerned about the um the

um this you know lot has hasn't been contributing to the overall load of the neighborhood of the watershed but it will now um because it's being rebuilt.

Um and you know it's in a if it was new construction it wouldn't be allowed to be built here right because it's too small a lot for that. Um, so I I I don't know. I'm just concerned. I can't I We'll have to prove it as a repair, but I'm not happy, I guess, is what I would say.

So um you know so one thing to think about although I don't know if it's if it's um you know practicable would be um and I'm thinking of this from a cost pers from a kind of cost perspective is whether or not you could build a standard system and then require ire 3 years of well testing and then actually see whether or not um the um addition of you know new flow on the

property would raise the level you know of nitrogen in a way that you would then um and I'm I'm speaking of this from an engineering but kind of also a cost point of view that you could um add a nitrogen, you know, reduct reduction um technology to the site. Is that even so? Well, we require the three years of well testing anyways.

Yeah.

So, that's already required because they're less than 100 ft. So, both 654 State Road and 7 Mount Pleasant will have three years of well testing, right? And I you they'll be monitored when they start doing the testing and if if they don't get better than 5.7 then we can always bring it back to the board.

Okay.

Um All right. I will live with that.

Okay.

All right.

So um I don't have a I don't have a date for the plan, but I'll take a shot at this cuz um let me just Or do you want do you want to make the motion or do you want me to?

Can I say something? Okay, you may.

I heard recently they changed the number from 9 to 7 just for your information.

The number of the house.

Oh, okay.

Just keep that for So, it's now 7 Mount Pleasant.

Mhm.

Okay. Sorry.

Let me just look at the plan. Is um That's dated August 14th. Well, we're going to have a revised plan because we have to get the addition of the single per hole, right?

Okay.

You're just going to add that onto the plan that you're requesting an LUA for the single hole instead of the two.

Add a big hand or I don't I don't care as long as it's on the plans.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Well, then we'll use that date of August 14th. Um Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so um so I'll move to approve um the uh conditional plan for FR builders at 7 Mount Pleasant Street, a two-bedroom repair um on a plan to be updated uh uh subject to um the following conditions. Uh two-bedroom deed restriction.

Uh I assume is has it gone through has it got a concom check off?

Okay. Concom. So it's not necessary. a local um upgrade approval for the well setback with from the site well of 53 feet and for the well at 654 State Road at 7 uh 78.5 ft. Um and a um a limit to only um one per test for the site uh rather than two um uh uh 3 years of well testing.

And the condition that um should the uh uh nitrogen testing during that 3-year period indicate um an increase in the um nitrogen concentration at the will. that um the board reserves the right to um request a review of the of the of the plan to consider um the addition of a nitrogen reduction technology and a hold harmless agreement.

Very good. Can can you maybe just be specific on an increase in a nitrogen level to above 5.7?

Above 5.7 if that's fine. Sure. Above 5.7.

Okay.

Um I will second that motion. Any questions or comments?

No.

No sir.

Okay. Um motion made and seconded to approve the project at 7 Mount Pleasant Street with those conditions. Um uh this is the repair. All in favor?

I I That's um two to nothing with one absence.

So, thank you.

Thank you.

And then you can uh follow up with Matt about the um revising the plan.

You can, but um we wait till the minute meeting is done and then I'll meet upstairs.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Um okay, I think that's the last of our business.

Um unless we have anything unanticipated.

Um I did we pass we voted did we vote to pass over the meeting minutes or we or I just Yes. You mentioned that when it was Yeah. Yes, we did.

Okay. I think that's everything. Um okay. Um I would accept a motion to adjurnn at 148.

So moved.

Seconded. All in favor? I I that's uh two to nothing with one absence. Thank you very much everyone.

Thank you.