Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Board of Health meeting for April 23rd, 2025. In attendance this evening are myself, Matt Wson, Kevin Davis, Dan Kaine, and our health agent, Jim McGreffy. We have a quorum, so we will start our meeting. However, the first item on the agenda is a public hearing 7 p.m. for 255 Great Road. I do not see anybody in attendance to represent that. Therefore, we will wait a few minutes and see if somebody joins us. Mr. Chair, do you want to administratively take a look at meeting minutes? That's legal. We have media minutes from March 26th, 2025. Uh, all three of us were present for the meeting. Uh, if you had a chance to review them. Oh, yeah. I see not. Any changes or would you like to make a motion? I'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes as presented. I'll second

motion and a second. Roll call vote. Sorry. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kaine. Dan Kane votes yes. Mason votes yes. The minutes for March 26, 2025 are approved as written. Uh next, uh let's go ahead and open up the board member updates if anybody has something. Kevin. Uh I have nothing. Not helping Kevin. Sorry. I can think longer. Um, I I had a couple questions for Francis, unfortunately. Do we know if he's just delayed or if we were going to Is he not available this evening? I I do not have any word from him. As far as I know, he's supposed to be here. All right. He sent an email just a couple hours ago about a investigation he was doing, but I don't know if that has kept him or or what's going on. Um, I asked the chair, I'm not sure if uh if you had any information, do we have any updates on the air quality monitoring stations that we were having through the I have I have looked at the map online to see the data. Okay. Um, is it there? So, it's up. They're running. It is there. There's a website where you can look at the sensors. Yep. Okay, great. Uh, from what I recall correctly, it was um, you know, it was it was good. The numbers were good. So, wherever we put them, they ended up having reasonably good readings for a good piece of time. So, it's a bit of a confusing scale. You have to kind of look into it. I had to kind of look it up somewhere cuz, you know, it gives you like, oh, your your

score is a 12 and you're like, oh, is that a good thing or a bad thing? It's like, oh, well, 0 to 50 is actually the lowest category, so that's a satisfactory category. So, the numbers appeared to be uh quite low based upon what I was looking at. And this was a PM2.5 sensors. Uh, yes, you can look. It's actually uh map.purpair.com. And you can zoom in on our tuna and see the sensors. Um, and it I I mean it looks like the sensors are still there. So, I'm not sure. I assume they haven't been asked for back, but they're all still available in firing data off. But, uh, we have somebody in the audience. Are you here for our 7 o'clock public hearing on 25 Great Road? If so, please raise your hand and we can get you into the panel. Megan, do you know if if Carlos Ferrer was intending to join the meeting? That's who wrote up the paperwork for this public hearing. Yeah, I got an email from him this morning. Um, and I gave him all the information with the Zoom link and everything. Um, so he and let's someone else was tagged on it. It was Sandor at andconstruction.com. So I'm not exactly sure who that

is, but as far as I know, they would have supposed to be here. Yeah. Hi. Hello. Yes. Who is this? We can hear you. Um this is Mahesh. Um I was uh hoping u an engineer from our who is an engineer who we are working with will probably attend the call. So I got the information from him. So I'm just joining and listening and for regarding a permission uh permits for uh temple construction that is going on right now that at 255 Great Road. Yes. 255 Great Road. Yeah. Okay. Uh we My name is Mahes. The engineer has not joined the call so we've been waiting. Okay. Um let me let me Let me check on that. Sorry for about that. Sorry. Thank you. Uh, in the interest of time, Francis, do you have any updates for us that are 3 minutes or shorter? Um you might have not seen it yet, but we did get a food born illness complaint um recently regarding Taka. Um it was investigated. It's inconclusive. There was no point sources

that would indicate that there was food born illness. Um it was it was from a dinner on Friday the 18th and we just got it today. So that kind of is a little too much of a time delay to be able to pin something down as well because between the quantity of meat served over the weekend and different staffing on the weekend, it changes the equation a little bit. But yeah, and I assume that means they or you haven't heard of any other reports since Friday. Uh we have not. Um, by now we most likely if there was lab confirmed we would have received it in Maven. Uh, we received signage today for the yellow tulip project. um which uh in the fall we joined with Emerson Hospital to engage in the yellow tulip project which is mental health awareness and promoting um against stigma. Um so we planted 100 tulips in front of the library. Um and I'm pretty proud of myself. Uh 79 80ish did grow. So nicely done. Um, so we got signs today and we'll do a kind of public education campaign, throw a press release and try to put some stuff out on social media as well. And the rabbits didn't take after the tulips and eat them. I thought it was going to be worse, but that's awesome. Yeah, they love those animals. Yeah, they do. They leave the daffodils alone, though. Hence the reason why we plant daffodils around all the

tools. While we're waiting for the engineer, which we have now come to time on, uh, Mr. Chair, may I offer a couple of comments about the print about the what? The print that he submitted. Oh. Um, unless you're just going to end up repeating yourself, I guess you can go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to get it on the record that using the colors red and green, which I'm guessing that's what the color changes are because I have a real challenge seeing red and green, and right now I can barely see anything if there are any changes on that paper. So, if there are changes, the next time an engineer submits something, could I please suggest that they use a different color, unless that's the industry standard? Now, I'm I I went and looked and I didn't see an industry standard on print suggesting red and green. Yeah. Um as the primary colors for suggesting certain changes done to a diagram. So, I don't care. use purple, use, you know, something, but I can't see a lot of the changes that are on that page right now. Got it. There is uh there is very little red and green actually. Uh there's only one pertinent red thing in the upper right drawing, which is some measurements which are almost impossible to see no matter what color they are. Uh and then the green is a prominent because it shows clearly some new it does show the new sewer pipe and tanks. So um heard that's all that I would like to say. Yeah, Megan, if you could kind of take mental note of that since you see this stuff before we ever do as well to if you remember to spot something like that

and let the engineer know that something better than that would be helpful. Got it. I mean, it's pale. I usually like it when they're at least like a big bold thick line, but in this case, it's kind of kind of pale and green. And if I'm seeing the green, it almost again the line thickness is really difficult and it's also like almost fluorescent in color I think maybe. And so that's really challenging to see on a white background for somebody who has this issue. And Megan, you weren't here the last time I brought it up. I brought it up when we were reviewing the big um office park over on Taylor Street. I they submitted something one time with a faint red and faint green and I was like I can't see. So Mahesh has joined back and he might want to speak. Oh go ahead Mahesh. Um I just um reached out to the engineer. He's having some technical issues. He's just restarting his computer. He will be joining momentarily. Sorry for the delay. Okay. Thank you. We'll come back to that. Um, tell you what, uh, I'm going to swap it around because it won't take long. Uh, we'll do the 710 ID decision support tool since that's under my control. Here's our current update. Uh, CO 19 just a new variant that's predominant. It's hard to keep track. every month we get a new variant that's popped up and becomes the majority and pretty much every time the messages the vaccinations still cover it. Uh highly infectious, not too serious of illness for most people, but always the same concerns when it gets into those populations that might be more troubled by the illness. Uh our

weekly case counts were down to zero for a little end of March and start of April and pop back up to two cases. Um, vaccination rate as previously mentioned stuck at 31%. Probably not going to change much between now and next season. Um, arbo virus, uh, the mosquitoes are out. I've seen them. So, it's going to come onto the radar. Testing for that begins in June, so we won't have anything report until then. But, um, take care. Now's the a good time to make sure you don't have standing water laying around so that those mosquito eggs can be laid and hatched and thus cause you problems for the the rest of the season. So look around your property, try to make sure you don't have breeding ground desirabs for the mosquitoes. Um influenza looks like we're kind of wrapping up that season again at the the report from Massachusetts is low as of uh last week and our vaccination rate again probably peaked at 51%. Doubt that's going to change and then similarly RSV has now dropped to below 2% for uh positive testing of that. So, we uh likely made it through respiratory illness season and now we have a brief window before we kind of start monitoring our herbal viruses more seriously. Any questions? Great. The only other mention that we've been highlighting is excuse me our H5 bird flu. Um not much of an update. There have been 70 human cases in the country. Uh the closest to us is a uh poultry case in Ohio and um cattle case in Michigan. So it's still kind of not in our area, but the same warnings. Just kind of keep going around. Monitor any pets that you have for sudden illness. And if you are out in the nature areas and see dead birds, you can report those just so that they can be monitored.

We now have a couple people in the audience. If we could get those added. There we go. Carlos Ferrer, please state your name for the record. Yes, my name is Carlos FJA uh from MP Design Consultants. I'm sorry that I was late. Uh I just got home and somebody was waiting for me and I got distracted. All right. So, for the record, we will jump back to our 7 o'clock public hearing for 255 Great Road and take us away if you can. You should be able to share your screen and show us plans as you talk. I just promoted him, so it might just take a moment. Thank you. Hi. Uh, so guy, can you guys see my screen? Yes. Just go ahead and zoom it in for the parts you were talking about so we can see more clearly. Um, and then before you caught on, um, we were discussing the fact that not everybody can see red and green as clearly. So please if you could try to like point out specifically what you want us to see not just depending on the color. Right. So what happened is that um uh uh they transforming this into some sort of a a church and they have like lots of like uh places where they need like a grease trap. Uh so the grease trap would start over at the kitchen. So they have like a kitchen in here and this had to like go like through the entire building and we had uh you know set like specific elevations so we could be outside of the building u at a proper elevation in here. I guess there was some obstructions and different problems that they had inside of the building that by

the time this pipe got out uh it was like 10 in too low uh of the building. So what we proposing in here for this project it was to um add like a grease uh a grease trap with a with a pump tank in here. So it will be like a tank like similar to this. So this will be like a grease trap and then we will have like this compartment for the pump and then from here it will go to an additional uh grease trap and then it will go gravity into the septic tank. So like so we will we will raise with this tank in here we will raise 10 in to this tank and then from here it will go gravity into the existing uh system uh that they had. So um so this is what we asking to add like this additional tank and pump it uh to the grease tab. Uh the other thing that the owner mentioned to us is that uh I guess in in about like eight months they're going to have like a sewer into the street and eventually all this uh is going to be connected into the sewer line. Okay. Um before we go to questions, Jim and Francis, can you give us your evaluation please? I can start Francis if you like. Okay. So the building used to be I think the old DCU credit union building. Um and they are converting it to a church. So they added a kitchen in the facility and title 5 require requires not an outside grease trap. So the plumbing code requires grease traps inside the building. Title five requires

uh a grease trap outside the building uh in connection with the septic system. So when they were proposing to do the kitchen, I worked with the general contractor to make sure that we got an elevation of the pipe coming out of the building that would um allow that tank to then go gravity into the existing system. And again, as the engineer mentioned, something happened that elevation didn't work out. So now they have to essentially pump the grease trap waste to another grease trap essentially and then let it flow into the system. There's a section of title 5 that talks about pumping ahead of a septic tank. And generally speaking, title 5 doesn't want you to pump ahead of a septic tank as a septic tank should be a relatively quiet place. Uh water should flow in really shouldn't stir up the tank because you don't really want to stir the st solids up that you've got to settle down. So the it pro it provides parameters by which a board can allow pumps before the tag. So the most re the most typical type we see is an ejector pump in a basement and generally speaking um if they're less than 25% of the flow that's an acceptable uh design for that system. So again most of what we see are less than 25% of flow in a residential situation. It talks about in all other cases other than residential that um pumping ahead of the tank is prohibited unless approved by the board of health. So that's why we're here with the question. Uh is this is kind of an in all the years I've worked uh for the health department, I've never had one of these come up. Um I think the proposed design um as he has it. You know, essentially the key difference in a grease trap versus a septic tank is the way the T's are set up in the tank. So Carlos, I don't know if you could slide the screen over a bit just so they can see your detail. Again, if you look at the tank, the inlet T comes in and it goes down

halfway to the tank. And the outlet T, you can see before the pump chamber section is just a foot off the bottom of the tank. Again, what they're trying to do is make sure you get clarified water before it goes out into the grease trap. So, he's essentially done this twice. Once before he pumps it and then lets the water settle and then it's set up as a grease trap again and flow into the the gravity of the tank. So again, it's unfortunate that we had to get to this point to have to have two tanks, but I think it'll I think it'll provide uh the grease trap protection to the system that it's needed. It's just kind of a different way of doing it. Right. Thank you for that. Um Francis, did you have any other details to add? I do not. and I will open it up to the board for questions. Kevin, so where is the septic tank on this design or is it not and it's going out to the street sewage? The septic tank uh I mean if you look at it, this is like the vicinity of the project in here on the back. So we are connecting from our tank is going to go into the line and then this is the septic tank and uh I think like uh this system it's also pumped right I mean this is like I don't know the details of like the existing system but this is like the the the tank in here. So that little that little section of the plan is a com is a piece of the existing asboat plan for the septic system the way it's currently installed. And so I believe it has two tanks in series that then go to a pump chamber that pump to those two leech fields that you can see.

So we going to we our connection is going to make it into the pipe that leaves the building. My other question is um for the sewer regulations and we're not the body that handles the sewer regulations or anything like that. Um, but I'm asking Jim if he might know or Francis if he might know. Um, grease traps that are there. Are they going to disconnect at the second or the on this print it looks like the second tank there? The the after the pump tank. Is that where they're going to separate it and then send it out to the street or is this on the back side and they're going to have to figure out some weird way around the front of the facility? I believe the plumbing does come out in the back of the building. And so each each sewer department is a little different. Some require that you have a grease trap in place because the grease trap also protects the municipal sewer so you don't get big greasy clogs in the pipes. So, when they go to tie this in, I'm sure they'll that'll be a conversation that they'll have with the sewer department about um you'll probably, if I had to guess, maybe they put a manhole where that connection is coming up and then run a new line to the street. So, you'll get both the protection of the grease trap and the regular shore coming out so they can grab both of those connections in one. That's just my guess, though. And then it will pull like another one on the driveway here and then it will feed the street. That sounds about right. So at that point, I mean, because everything is in place, I mean, we could eliminate this tank and uh and then make things work

gravity if the if the sewer on the street is deep enough, right? Is there has the pump tank and everything else already been installed? This is just paperwork catching up to us. Nothing is installed. This is we try to get approvals for it. The only thing that is in Okay. The is the pipe in here that is too low right now to make it work. Gravity. Got it. And so Jim, your your reference to this is that it needs board approval because there's a pump before the pump. It's like two pumps before the pump. There's a pump before the septic tank. So um these two tanks that are being added will then tie into the line that goes to the existing septic tank. Okay? So it's pumping ahead of the septic tank. So what we try to do in here to like you know with reference to like what Jyn mentioned is that instead of like you know eliminating this tank like let's say we didn't install this tank in here we'll be pumping to the septic tank. Well what I did in here I added an additional tank to stabilize that. So when it goes to the septic tank it goes gravity and not pumped. So, it's not as much force going into the tank. Therefore, what Jim was saying, it doesn't stir the tank up and it tries to keep the solids where the solids are supposed to be. Got it. I'm sorry. It it Yep. It took me half a second to do that. Um, also with the concern that if in 8 months we're hooking this property up to sewage and things like that, is there anything is there anything that we might recommend that they do to make the transition easier to the sewage when they go along so it reduces the cost for this

facility or is there or is that a future cost that they have to deal? I I think you know that I the connection will probably be determined how they're going to make that connection by the sewer department. One additional thing that they'll need to do is the septic tank and the pump chambers that's there, they'll need to decommission those as part of the connection to sewer. Um but I I whether the sewer department likes this design the way it is and feels it's getting better protection for the grease and the in the street line and just hasn't put a manhole and wrap it around. I I think that'll be a sewer commission question. Okay, I'm done. Dan, questions. Um, yeah, let me start with a clarifying question. In the letter you submitted April 17, 2025, you stated the installed pipe was approximately 10 in higher than the approved design, but you said here it was 10 in lower. So, we'll start with was it is it is the pipe coming out of the building 10 inches too high or 10 inches too low? Too low. Too low. Okay. So, yeah, your letter on the 17th has has the opposite. So, that's what I was trying to understand of Yep. Obviously, too high is easier to fix than too low. Yep. Um, so yeah, attention to detail is always important. Uh, second question obviously is it sounds like this pipe coming out is new construction. I I always feel bad for folks have to come back before us to fix things that didn't go right. Um I was just curious about the oversight for this installation. Can you talk a little bit more of how this ended up being almost a foot out of place? It's a I mean they had to like all the pipes and lines that you that you see on the on green in here. I mean I don't know if it's like very clear. It was all like he had to be trenched with uh you

know saw cut and trench on an existing building. Uh and then we found like uh other obstructions that were not in you know like different footings and things that happened inside of the building that made it like you know the you know the the final uh layout. And I guess I mean I can even say like maybe the contractor you know didn't pay attention on the elevations very carefully and then all this uh now it's concreted. Uh so that will be like very you have to break everything else to try to adjust those grades again. Okay. And then as as you can see, I mean, we also have I mean, as Jim pointed up, I mean, you know, like we we could only go by, you know, like all the existing grease traps inside. It's just because we have the septic system and we have to have like also grease trap on the outside of the building. But I mean, I I wanted to point it out that, you know, like this is like a sink has like a proper, you know, under the plumbing code. This is a grease trap. And I guess like there's some uh some other devices in here that generate grease. This is an additional grease trap. This is another grease trap in here. And then there's another grease trap. So there's like four other grease traps inside of the building. uh then they're going to have to be maintained and and and uh so I mean I I I mean I think like there was a failure on the contractor in here to keep the elevation but what we proposing definitely protects uh you know the overall performance of the system. Um, do you have a maintenance contract in place for both interior and exterior grease traps?

Uh, I have to we we can add this to it, but uh I mean usually a grease trap has to be like inspected and and pumped like on a regular basis, you know, like probably every every month. I mean, I don't know like you know like the amount of like grease that they were generating to this how much is the use of this. This is very unusual because it's a church. Uh on a restaurant is probably like every month, but this I I I would say that they're going to start with like a probably every month uh to pump this. And uh if there's not enough uh grease on it, probably extend it to 3 months or so. You know, for for for instance in gym um for exterior grease traps, do we have a expectation that they have a service contract in place to to maintain the grease traps, protect the system, and then eventually from the sewer commission to make protect the sewer system? Yep. I guess I we've never required a specific contract. They do need to maintain them. All right. I think I'm good. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Dan. Um, a few more questions, of course. Um, I'm assuming the added volume that's anticipated coming out of the system is not going to negatively impact the overall septic design that is pre-existing. We did go through that with them to make sure that what they're proposing works with the septic system capacity. Okay. Um and then I think you answered it, but basically all of the green lines that you're showing here are actually already in place buried in concrete except for what's outside in these new grease tanks. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Uh and I I was just curious, I saw them coming to all these bathrooms. Is that just they just thought just any old bathroom or any old sink room off of off of you like that lower sink room the upper sink room

there is that just anticipation that they could have grease production so they required that to be put in it it's a it's a funny setup like this thing I mean I think like they have like particular idols and then for every idol they cook for the for the for the for the individual idol so like at every at every stage of like this, they're going to generate some sort of a grease because it's involved. So, you have more adjacent sinks to that because you still do have some production going on in that area. Great. Yes. Um, and then my last question was kind of about this future look of of the sewer system. Um, you kind of made the comment if the sewer line is deep enough then X will happen or Y will happen. Um, I'm hoping that we would know how deep the sewer line is supposed to be on that street already. Correct. Um, I can investigate that. I don't I didn't had access. I mean, it was that informed to me that there was a sewer being placed on the street. I think it's already there. Yeah, I could be wrong, but that part of the street's already been torn up and worked on. So, I think that line is actually in place already. Um, so I I think my hesitation is just looking to the future. This is obviously a complex project already and I look at it and go, "Boy, wouldn't it be nice if that had all gone out the front of the building at the, you know, for the future consideration, but now you've got all that plumbing in." But I would still say um would there be a less than one-year option where you I don't know what Jim would say, you know, where you actually go out the front of the building and put it into a tank that does not connect to the septic system that you that's a closed system that you then have to pump everything out of just to make it easier to connect to the future sewer. I don't know. I don't know. So you could say no, that's not possible. Um, or at the very least

go figure out if the sewer line is deep enough and figure out if there's an adjustment you'd want to make. Even if it's something simple like can you wrap around the the you know the southern part of the building on this drawing as opposed to as you described going around the top and would you want to reorient those tanks at all to facilitate that future connection. I just wouldn't want eight months from now to look at and be like, "Oh, we now have to put in a third thing or we missed it by three inches or something like that." I can I can contact DPW and get copies of those plans and and and find out what would be like the future uh layout of like the sewer line. The reason and uh Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yeah, go ahead. The reason why I asked my question about that was to actually try to protect the the temple from having to incur like you said additional costs. Um if they had if they can verify the engineering of the current system that they're you know changes that they're putting in place now will seamlessly intersect with the changes that they need to make in the future. So they're futurep proofing their design choices versus having to pay two, three, six times for something that the town is going to actually mandate them to do. So yeah, exactly. I just now now's the time before we dig another hole and, you know, pour concrete over it. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh yeah, I I think I don't have any concerns about this specific thing. It sounds like a good good idea. This two-tank thing makes sense to me. Uh I would just say it would behoove you to go ahead and ask those questions and see if there's any changes you could do now instead of later. what I what I would just ask in in terms of like uh you know if we can approve the idea conceptually and I'm going to check like these elevations and I will be in touch with Jim so we can you know like Jim I need to like change elevations in here because of like the future connection for the sewer but at

least the concept idea is approved you know correct I'm with you I have no further questions I'll make a motion that we approve the plan as presented. [Music] And I make a friendly amendment that uh the engineer also um investigates the um possible future sewer link to make sure that the client is protected from possible future investments. in, you know, a simple elevation change. Dan, you okay with that amendment? Uh, I'm not sure that's something we want to order, but we could certainly make it as a suggestion. Fair suggestion. suggest that the engineer investigate with the town sewage department to help limit the future impact on the plant. Looking at the sewage elevations and outflow from the secondary chamber. So moved. Second. That is your adopted. Uh, your amended motion is set now. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Uh, roll call

vote. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kaine. Dan Kane votes yes. Matt Wson votes yes. Thank you for your good work on this project and good luck. Thank you. Good night. [Music] Thank you, Dan. All right, that brings us to our other 710 item discussion on basement and additions. So, in your packet is uh an slightly updated local rig document that we've seen previously. Um, and we just wanted to further this conversation to try to get this nailed down. Um, Kevin, I know you had some thoughts on this, but I'm not sure if you're able to put those into a document to share. Um, then we are still kind of at this at this spot here. So, what what do we want to do? We got to get this We got to get this nailed down and wrapped up so we can get it done and move on to our next important things like well well regulations. You're on mute, Kevin. It's item D that I have a real problem with. Burke page. Look, last item D. Yeah. Okay. That's the one that I had the real I have a real problem with that. That's just just because somebody's house has a door

versus a um a bulkhead which still has a door. um or saying that that's you know a difference and it'll you'll be adding a bedroom versus something else. That's just not okay in my opinion. Francis, does accessible exterior egress include a bulkhead? It's egress. You can get out. It is. Yep. Okay. Uh my my problem with D would actually be more about is included in the modification because I think if it's pre-existing that's whether it's a new door or an old door I wouldn't want to consider it differently but I know Kevin Davis has not been in favor at this point before. Um, are we good up until point D? Yeah, I'm good with it. Okay. I know we talked about the ceiling height last time, the 73 versus the seven. Yeah. So, I did not see anywhere in the in the CMR that had a a ceiling height specific. I maybe I missed it, but I just didn't see it. Am I wrong? And if I'm wrong, that's I'm cool with that. And I can be wrong. I have no problem with that. But I didn't see anything in the CMR that says 73. Jim thinks you're wrong. Well, I'm just checking because I don't want to be wrong. I think it's in the definition of a bedroom. I just want to pull that up. Um, yeah. So, in the definition of a bedroom, that section A kind of reads like the section right out of the bedroom definition for new construction,

a ceiling height no less than 7 foot three. And for existing houses, no less than 7 feet 0. So, that's taken directly out of title five. that uh a one two three four five. Okay, I'm wrong. I'm good with that. No, I'm I'm totally fine with that. Oh, no, no, it's I like I say, it's it's the section of the code and I think it probably mirrors the building code at some level as well. So, so curious question. So, and and sorry, we you should be on the second page of this uh handout is a kind of cleaned up version with a little different language. Um, so make sure you're looking at that one where it says a room counts and definitions, then the one is intended below it. Um, and I think the I think the only catch for the ceiling height thing is is do we it's all pre-existing. So, even if a it was a bedroom back then, but it wouldn't be considered with current rules, as in it's a 7 foot1, and now they want to do some modification to their house, and they want to come back and say, "Well, it's no longer a bedroom because it doesn't meet the 73 of new." Would we let that or would we say, "No, too bad. Yours was built when 7 was the requirement. Therefore, you know what I mean? Do we run into somebody who says, "I want to no longer define that as a bedroom because it actually doesn't meet today's rags." Would we be okay with that? We sold them to it because it was old and older structures have all different heights in the basement. So, and occasionally we see that as a mechanism for not having it considered a bedroom. it doesn't have the right floor ceiling height. And there's a remedy for that as well. I mean, you could take a I mean,

the housing code, so that's again another sanitary code that the board's responsible for, would allow you because you've done this once before on a cottage up by the lake to vary the housing cords a co Yeah. housing code ceiling height. Um, so again, whether you would consider use that, let somebody use that as an excuse not to have a bedroom if you thought it was really going to be used as a bedroom, you know, there's the mechanism for them to apply for a variance for that. So again, um, most most people aren't trying to wiggle around it that much so to get into that kind of nuance, but okay. Um, so that definition is, as I said, it does come out of the room bedroom definition for CMR. So, we've got that and then it comes to structures with the nine rooms or more, which is where we do the typical divide by two count. And so in the code it's it's actually um it talk I mean again if you're trying to line it up with title five it would be in dwellings that have eight or more rooms or more than eight rooms. Let me just make sure I get that right too. So eight rooms is where it makes the distinction in title five. Yeah. Um so I don't know I don't know if that was done intentionally or Yeah. Do we have an off by one room? Is it supposed to be structures with eight rooms or more? And the first one is for less than eight. If you were if you're going to try to line it up with title five um let's see unheated stories where the total number of rooms exceeds eight. So it in title five it's exceeds eight. So I think the difference between the line number one and um two one was to try to capture those dwellings you have particularly around the lake that have

less than eight rooms. Yeah. Cuz right now Title 5 doesn't really speak to it. And so you've seen a lot of new construction and and two-bedroom houses and then people So I guess the only suggestion I would make is if you're trying to keep it lined with title five is for number two change that to say total room counts um exceeding eight you know exceeding eight rooms. Yes. Yeah. That that would be the only suggestion that makes sense. Just change the language. It doesn't change the definition but change the language to more parallel title. Okay. I agree. Um, so as you point out, the the sticky thing that got us into talking about these two sections was the smaller property that was on a, you know, three threebedroom or two-bedroom system that just doesn't have a lot of rooms in the place. So, I want us to look at this analytically and say, is this going to to truly help us? Because reading 0.1 8.1 it says for existing structures in which total room count is 8 or less a bedroom shall be X rooms meeting this definition will be count as bedrooms unless they are clearly and consistently used as non-bedroom spaces. That one's a little I'm not super wild about it because it says consistently used and clearly and we always say well it's not about how you're using it. It's how it's kind of designed. But I I get what that's trying to do. But where this kind of leaves us is um are we still are we still counting those other rooms? Do we have to mention that somewhere or does it make sense? Maybe I'm missing it. So if somebody came in with the kind of typical rebuild, the two-bedroom rebuild, it usually has a living room, dining room, kitchen, and two bedrooms, right? And let's say that was all up on a first floor and they have a basement they want to finish. Yeah. Um if if I'm reading this right, if they

put a dining room in a kitchen down there, it wouldn't count. Is that what that's saying? that uh stuff that's in, you know, consistently used as a non-bedroom space or spaces because typically we see it as just a big open room or a media room or a gym or name your kind of room and family room. I guess it's just this these two sections are just I guess backing into the number of bedrooms differently because one's just counting rooms and dividing to get what this to get a kind of a phantom number as it were of this is how many bedrooms you this house would have whether we look at the definitions or not. We count the rooms, we divide by two, and bamo, you have to be within that on your subject system. For the smaller house, we are we're coming from a from the opposite direction to say we are we are counting exactly what rooms are defined as bedrooms unless some plan or design makes it clear to us that it's a non-bedroom space. um it has a stove uh you know it has a toilet then then we are still counting the rest of the rooms to get a total room count and so I think the curious thing for me is what happens when the room count switches from 8 to 9 as a part of a design they fall under the new definition now is that is that what we're going to say so if you had a three-bedroom house that had eight rooms in it because that's kind of the break point in the code. Yep. And somebody wanted to come in and add a ninth room. Right. At that point, um, with your current policy in place, it's one room more than would be allowed. A deed restriction would be allowed because it's one. It's one one. So, if they came in with two rooms, I'd send them to you to see you and talk to you

about a deed restriction, right? So, they would So, we're saying yes, they would then fall into the second definition at that point, right? because I'd have more than eight rooms, we'd add up all the rooms, divide by two, and round down. Yeah. So, I think that's my catch is it's the start of that 8.1 that says four existing structures in which that makes it sound to me like if my existing structure has eight, that is the definition the board will follow and now I will present a plan with 10 rooms. But according if I read that then I will be following 0.1 which is not what we would then do. So should this say actually because we're talking about the the changes that happen right? So do we need to say for existing structures or should it just say for structures in which because that way it should be able to apply to existing or planned. Correct. Does that make sense, Kevin? Dan, it makes sense. So you say four structures for for structures I wish consistency and Matt to your point that's kind of how we've done that with uh the new these new smaller houses that get built. We kind of use this definition backwards saying hey it was this house since you can't upgrade it to a fully compliant something else. It's only a two-bedroom, therefore five rooms are kind of what's allowed. Mhm. Well, there's not it's not codified. That's the only thing we Nobody's challenged us on it, but that's kind of if it makes sense going forward, it certainly makes sense going backwards. And my mind anyway, you're saying three

bedroom, five additional rooms, three five non-bedroom rooms is No. So, let's say you had a two-bedroom septic system. Yeah. Um and and that's what we see a lot of these tear downs or old twobs that the lots are so small that they can't get a a threebedroom or fourbedroom system on. So they're stuck with the the twobedroom with variances sometimes. Yeah. So in that case is that we've kind of told them that they're limited to the five rooms which includes two bedrooms. So then see but but if I but this definition would allow them a twobedroom system would allow them two bedrooms and six rooms because that would be eight or less total rooms and we would follow this definition of the bedroom. Is that what we want? I think what it's meant to say, at least when Lunberg applied it, was let's say you have that five five room two-bedroom house and you come in and want to add a room to the basement. The board's going to take a look at the card uh the assessor's card and say, look at you get five rooms. Now, if you add that room in the basement, we're considering that room another bedroom and and therefore it's now a threebedroom and and you can't do it or you need a deed restriction and it can't be a bedroom. I think that's how Lunberg applies it. Yeah. just to be able to have a way of dealing with the smaller houses. So there I think that's the switch because it's like it you're just trying to say any any room with but but a basement you could say there's no window. So I could put a big big thing in my basement and if there's no window or or for sure I assume that that means an egress window. Yeah. For that to be living space. Correct. Right. So if I just have a little you know ceiling slat window in my basement. Yeah, based on this, I could put multiple rooms in my basement, provided I keep my total count of rooms in the house at 8. Otherwise, the larger definition would apply and I would be in

trouble. So, that's what I'm saying is for the boards. Do we understand what this is really saying? And is it getting what we actually want? Because the way it's worded, you can have a two-bedroom house with six other rooms as long as none of those six other rooms meet this list of criteria for a bedroom. So, you'd have a kitchen, you could have a dining room. We don't count bathrooms anyways. You could have a living room, you could have rooms in the basement, and living room becomes a like that starts to get squishier, right? What if it's that upstairs room that they're going to call a media room or a family room that looks an awful lot like a bedroom to everybody else, but that's clearly and consistently used. That that I think that's the part that concerns me cuz somebody says, "Well, that's how I use it. I have my TV and a couch in there, but I could put that in a bedroom and and call it that." So, is this is this nailing it for us or do we need to kind of come back and figure out how to word it differently? So, so the other thing I have is if you take out if you just say four structures, then you're going to have to say uh you know for new construction a ceiling height of no less than 73. For existing construction, no ceiling height of less than seven unless it's an existing non-conforming ceiling height. You see what I'm getting at? Yes. And then I think the rest of it kind of flows. I still don't know if we've got captured your problem exactly that if like we'll use Bluebird as an example because there's a whole bunch of senior living houses that are over there that have like the everything on the main

floor and then there's a basement. Some of them got finished, I'm sure, and others didn't. But that's that's the kind of thing that I would look at and go, "Oh, well, you've got a two or a threebedroom. Here's the septic that you have." Okay, now you want to add rooms in your basement. Like, I only think there's like eight. I only think there's eight rooms that are there currently. Maybe seven. Do you know what I mean? And they're not large houses. So, that's that's where I'm leaning towards right at the moment. I don't know if we've captured that concern completely. And and maybe this is when we also want to have the discussion with more of our board president, but like like I hopefully verbalized, I'll say it again. I think this board has to decide, do we want a two-bedroom septic system to be able to have eight rooms in their building if only two of the rooms technically meet this criteria for a bedroom and the other six either don't meet the criteria or quote are clearly and consistently used as something else. I think that's a key question. If we're comfortable with it, then that's the language that's in there. If we're not, we need to change language. I'll let that hang. Sorry. Go ahead. That's okay.

So I mean I think either we can remove as we discussed existing structures um or simply add just a line at the end of the existing structures under eight or eight or under this if changes or additions result in a total room count of nine or greater then the nine or greater rules follow. So it's it it makes it clear going well I'm seven now I'm adding two I'm over but these it if your changes are going to bounce you from under for mate and under to nine and over then the nine and over rules apply I think that's pretty easy and and covers it without any questions and it's clear I I think as far as the bedroom rules I mean we are we can certainly be more restrictive but It's pretty consistent between both the building code and the public health code of that definition of a bedroom. And they're pretty consistent of what is a habitable room and what is a bedroom. Um that I think while we can be more restrictive, I think we'd have a uphill battle if someone wanted to challenge us. We'd have to have a really good rationale of why we are more restrictive on the definition of a bedroom. I think we can I don't we need to in regs, but that clear and consistent use piece. Matt, I liked your piece of it's got a toilet in it. It's got a stove in it. That yep, I can have a studio apartment with a stove and a toilet and a bed all in one big room, prison style. But, you know, those are the exceptions. That's pretty clear. It's if I've got an 80 square foot, if I got a 12 x 12 room with a closet and a window and heat and electricity, that's a bedroom. It'd be hard for someone to argue a clear and consistent alternative use when it's clearly meets every other definition.

I mean I think we we would be reasonable if we said while we understand as we usually do we understand this is not your intent to use this clearly meets every other definition and therefore from the big picture long-term we need to treat it that way. If it's a second kitchen then it's a second kitchen and then that's a different set of rules. But and I think I think it covers it. I think it's pretty clear. Again, I think just clarifying that existing versus new construction piece. I think we've got it. Pull the existing out. Put caveat. If you bump from 8 to 9, again, if I'm at seven rooms, I'm adding two, but I was seven. So, who do I rule? A simple caveat. If you're if you're actions result in bouncing, then you have to follow the the bigger base rules. I think that covers it. Okay. So yeah, let's knock out existing. Just say four structures. Have them both start with the same language. Four structures and then have a point below that frankly says in any sort of remodel or expansion, the room count of whatever the final thing is what applies. That kind of thing. All the rule for whatever is going to be, not just what you were. And I think that would answer any questions somebody would have. M I just asked a question. Um you we're deal going to you're going to start to see more ADUs coming along. Yep. And so you we've got one now that we're kind of going back and forth with the folks on and it's a fourbedroom septic system and there's eight rooms currently in the house and they want to add another probably five rooms with one more bedroom. So now the ADU guidance we have from DP for bedrooms would just have us

add the onebedroom to the existing. Um in this case here they can't do it cuz it's only four bedrooms, but they're telling us that they're going to remove one of the bedrooms, maybe make a master bedroom suite. That's neither here nor there, but it's going to end up having more rooms. Um and and if it's for an ADU that's by right, it may be considered. And again, I say may because it's all this is all new. It may be considered unreasonable not to allow the additional rooms that are needed. So, is the board going to consider deed restrictions regardless of how you change this or how I guess that's just something you want to think. We have to think about it tonight, but yeah. No, you brought that up at our last meeting. That's a good point. We need a number for sure. We need a number three here that says for an ADU up to X square footage whatever the state eventually decides upon. Y it will count as one bedroom towards the total system count no matter what. But will you grant a deed restriction then if let's say kind of back to the standard ADU we look at is probably got three rooms in it. A bedroom, a living room, and a kitchen if you will. Yep. Um, and then if you add it to like a fourbedroom house, now you're looking at 11 with eight rooms, you get 11 rooms, which puts you into a five bedroomedroom septic system, right? Which we would typically say no. Okay. And that's that's a good question, right? Yeah. So, I I you know, my memory would say that every plan I've ever seen whenever they're adding rooms, when we do our calculation, it's always other rooms that are being added, not bedrooms. And in this case, we're specifically blatantly saying we're adding a bedroom with features. And how are we going to then count that or how are we going to then apply our pre uh deed restriction rules? Um it's a great question, Joe. No, I just I you're going

to start seeing more of them and and again um how you want to handle them is going to be, you know, obviously the state when they came up with the ADU regulations were really trying to increase housing unit production. They want more housing units. Um and so they have sections in that regulation that talk about unreasonable regulations and prohibitive regulations. So clearly the regulation was designed to give people a message like don't do certain things because they'd be considered either prohibitive or unreasonable regulations. So the enforcement of title 5 is not considered an an unreasonable regulation. Um and and D gave us some guidance uh for how to apply Title 5 in those situations. So So what Oh, sorry Kevin. Go ahead. So would we be within our right to say if you're adding those things it increases the bedroom count by one and your tit and your septic system will absolutely have to handle that under title 5. That's right. So again in the one I'm talking about right now the bedroom the the septic systems designed for four. All of the the totality of the plans that they gave us would indicate that they're adding you know adding another bedroom to the four they already have. So I already told them you need a new system. But then they came back and said, "No, we're going to make one of the bedrooms in the existing house a master bedroom suite. Open it up, put a master ba bathroom in there." So it gets it back down to four, but I think the room count still would put you at 11. Is it We'll make it simpler. There's a h, you know, a house with eight rooms total. Four of which are bedrooms. If they asked us for an additional room, we would say you bet. We wouldn't even put a deed restriction on one more room. Right. Right. Right. We'll start Yeah. We'll start with we'll start with a nine bedroom house, four room bedrooms, and they want to add an ADU. We normally would do a deed restriction for adding that 10th room.

Right. Right. In this case, the 10th room is a blatant fifth bedroom, not a playroom in the basement. So, we as a board have to decide, are we going to continue our, oh, what's this about the count? and we're going to say fine, we'll put a D restriction or we're going to say no, you're over the title five bedroom count and your system is no longer compliant. And this is going to sound like we're gaming it, but typically when somebody comes in, let's say they had that fourbedroom, nine room house, they wanted to add the ADU with one bedroom on it. If the septic systems only designed for four, we would say no. Because on paper, you're showing me you got five bedrooms, you can't have it. But if they were to say, you know, those two small bedrooms at the end of the house, we're going to take the walls down, make one room. Now, we've got four bedrooms total. We still may have more rooms that kick us into the bedroom count. But, uh, we have the right number of bedrooms. The ADU regulations would say just add that one bedroom to the existing bedrooms in the house, and if the system's designed to handle it, you're okay. Okay. That ADU may come with three more rooms or two more rooms, which kind of deals with the room count. you are allowed to consider deed restrictions. That's why I just wanted to bring that up. Oh, you okay? So, even if they were within the limit, it wouldn't need a deed restriction for the ADU bedroom. We could still say you need a deed restriction because there are other rooms that you are adding, right? Got it. I'm sorry. I It's Yeah. And so, that's you just want to kind of keep that in mind how you want to handle that because often the ADU is going to have more than one room. it's going to have and and so as long as the bedroom count works uh and it's big and the septic system's big enough and it meets the other criteria in title five for the ADU, you're you still may have more rooms totally in the house which may require you to consider a deed restriction to make sure people realize it's really the x number of rooms it's designed for.

So, here's what I'd say. I can see the wheels turning. Well, yeah, it's almost well, yeah, look at section A now. And A is actually focusing on kind of mostly bedrooms. And I think we almost need to mention we need a section that's about bedrooms. How do we count bedrooms? And for the purposes of comparing it to your septic design, section A, bedrooms, and section B, rooms, just total rooms. It might be a short thing, but that's where we need to call out. Uh, so we need A1 is about bedrooms in small buildings. A2 is about bedrooms in larger buildings. A3 is about bedrooms in ADUs. How do you get a bedroom from an ADU? And then B, section B becomes just how do we do room counts, which is we count the rooms. And that's where we call out the uh which kind of is B1 is about basement finishing but uh B2 is that uh I thought there was somewhere in here you know where we say we don't count bathrooms for example I think I'm but section B becomes more clear about this is just this is how we count rooms in your in the main building rooms are counted X in ADUs if different rooms are counted Y or maybe we just count them the same Okay. But we're going to call it out separately so that for the purpose of deed restrictions, we have it in our paperwork as to say we're going to apply a deed restriction because your ADU while it only has one bedroom total, we are going to look at it as the total room count for the property and and so giving a a nod to the fact that the state wants you to kind of encourage the Yeah, we are going to let them go higher over the room limit, but we're going to have deed restriction based upon the bedroom is what's going to end up happening, right? So, it's not that we're going to Okay.

So, maybe instead uh what you do is have A1 which uh A1 which is your eight rooms or less, A2 which is your exceeding eight rooms and then an A3 which is for ADUs. We increase automatically. You add one bedroom to the total count of the house and the other rooms are added to the overall count as determined from A1 or A2. But that's where we where the state is going to say if I have a fourbedroom if I have a four-bedroom system and I have a three-bedroom house and I'm adding an ADU. Okay, so my bedroom count is at four. I can actually go over the total room count. They're trying to say let people go over the total room count based upon the divide by two definition. Right. Well, they're saying um that often will happen just because an ADU will have more rooms, right? But I think what they're saying is um you're just going to add the bedroom. So let's say it's a two-bedroom AD, you'd add the two bedrooms. So it's it's they're not always just considered one. But I think the the crux is if if in adding the ADU to the house, the room count exceeds the number of bedrooms allowed, but the actual number of bedrooms complies with the system, then a deed restriction probably would be the reasonable thing to do in an ADU given the state's emphasis on you um housing production. instead of a firm no your total room count definition you based on the room count you you're over we're gonna have to say no actually we're gonna fall back to just counting actual bedrooms like we do for small houses and you're good but we're going to give you a deed restriction anyways so it's key to make sure the system can handle the number of bedrooms and then the other consideration you need to make and and you know the code gives you the ability

to make it is is a deed restriction a reasonable thing in this situation yes so then we just worded that such for 3 which is for ADU add the um as identified in the plans that are you know add bedrooms as identified to the plans to to the total bedroom count of the house and allow the other rooms to be included in a deed restriction if they're over the total count allowed and then you don't have to worry about having all the separate other things you can leave you can leave be as it is, expansions and additions, and then you're all good. Yeah, I I would still like a section somewhere on just how do we count rooms because it's actually not really mentioned in here except for under A1. There's a comment on like kitchens aren't or bathrooms is a non-bedroom space, but we don't count bathrooms anyways, so that shouldn't be in the list. So maybe that paragraph maybe that paragraph that say rooms mean the definition will be counted as bedrooms unless they're clearly identified as non-bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms or living rooms. And you could and you could um move that above section, you know, just under have a paragraph under section A and say bathrooms are also not included in the overall room count. So, and this is one of the differences from the from the prior version of this rag is that when we talked about the 400 square ft in this version, that fell into the basement section only as opposed to just the house. Is that what we want or is the 400 ft applying to anywhere in the house? I think it's anywhere in the house. I think so,

too. So, let's have let's have header B be about just rooms where we can talk about what's counted and what's not counted and include that 400 ft definition there. Okay. And then section C can be about basement and we still have to review that. because based upon you know what reading it reading what you just said it no because uh item number two under two B uh B2 already says um a main floor you know blah blah blah any non-bedroom room excluding that is exceeds 400 ft in an area shall be counted as two rooms for the purpose of determining the room count. So it's already there. It's in two places. I would rather have it in one. So these rooms are and then and then frankly expansion additions can have something but that's where we have to decide which we didn't decide last time is does the main floor and a basement have different rules or not. Okay. And that's what I want us to think strongly about. Okay. For our next conversation on this, okay. Okay. I think we made good progress through the kind of the start and the construct of it. And that then leaves the last outlier which was the other issue that got us here. It was small systems and and basement. Um so think before our next meeting. Do the rule do we need to have a different subset of rules for a basement somehow?

And does that does it we want do we want to consider somewhere um the the room that can't possibly be a bedroom such as the house that we saw where they were putting the room behind the master bedroom where you couldn't have access to it really any other way or as Jim has pointed out previously rooms that can have easy exterior access added like rooms over a garage um those kinds of things. Do we want something called out in our rag that says we're going to handle it differently or we're not going to handle it differently? So that's that's what I want us to think about. We can go kind of vague and just say, "No, these are what rooms are." Or we can go down the road of trying to kind of uh wall off those those in-law apartments or exterior access apartments that could pop up and how do we want to hedge that off or do we just say no, we're going to trust people to do the right thing and we're only going to say it's a room and move on. So unless there are any other burning comments somebody wants to make, I'm going to move on from this discussion. It's shaky. Good answer. Can't find my agenda. Very good. Thank you. But good conversation. I solid progress. We're going to get through this one. I might not be the chair anymore when it happens, but we're we'll do it. Uh so, uh administrative matters. Uh we did our immediate minute approval. Are there any other administrative matters? Take that as a negatory correspondence. Any correspondence to share? Kevin, I did get a comment from uh a

person in town, a constituent about how the budget is presented in the warrant. Um, and the confusion came in where they have simplified the warrant from where we're breaking everything out in our budget internally and how we're, you know, keeping the e checkbook and all that kind of good stuff. Um, not saying that there's something that's wrong, but I think, uh, the fact that the select board has simplified the warrant going forward saying here's salary and here's everything else, it's confusing. um when they look at our e checkbook area that we have salary and then a whole bunch of line items that obviously add up to what's in the warrant, but it's just a little off. So, um I don't know how we want to address that if at all. Um but that was just some feedback that I got from a constituent. And you're saying when you say ours, you're saying like the health department section looks different than other departments. The health department Ellen the warrant has salary and then has everything else. And what I'm saying is that maybe what we do in our e checkbook is have it so that it's salary and then we have all of the line items, but then there's a summary of those that add up to the part in the warrant that matches the stuff. So, I'm just saying maybe adding a line of summary to get it so that we are open and showing all of the goodness of that, but then there's a way that we can summarize those things so it matches what's presented in the warrant. Does that make sense? Got it. I'm going to have you follow up with Francis on that. Totally. That definition that you're looking for, but I I Yeah, totally. I'll follow up with Francis. Um, but I just wanted to let everybody

know uh that I had gotten that piece of feedback and that I think a single line item added to our e checkbook without deleting the detail because I love the detail um might help us summarize things so that things match matchy. Got it. Thank you for that. You're welcome. Any other correspondents? Um, I don't know if I mentioned this the last meeting, but um, Ryan Ferrer has given his notice and he'll be leaving the town after town meeting. Bummer. Yep. Me carried us through a lot. All right. Uh, any other board member updates or anybody else want to provide an update? Dan, go ahead. Um, not an update necessarily, but actually a request for information. Um, I not sure how long it's been, but I haven't seen a health department kind of activity report in a bit. I'm not sure when our next one was due. Um, Francis, I'm not sure if you've got it or if you have a timeline of when the next one is ready to be shared. I'll make one for the next meeting. Okay. Do we have a I thought we had a regular schedule. It was going to be monthly or quarterly. I know I I was looking for monthly. I know, but I think we decided on quarterly, but I'm just not sure what. Do we have a schedule for when that'll happen? Just so that we know what to expect and we're all on the same page. Um, I don't recall, but we I can make one and we can just look at it the next meeting just to have something on books. Okay. No, that'd be great. Just we have a sense of Let's target it for quarterly

for now. I think it's it if we monthly is more work. I know you want to see it, Dan. Let's at least get quarterly and start getting it down. Um, April would be the start of the uh fourth quarter for us. So if we could get second and third quarter or whatever from the last one was, we now have three complete quarters of FY25 that we can um show and compare. That would be awesome. Okay, of course. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. If I can kind of tag on to that. Um, I know we're coming up to our our our change of command, our our handoff here at the end of our formal relationship with Noba. Um, I'm just kind of curious, how is that transition been going? How much uh of that point at this point we're down to weeks rather than months um has come in house? I personally I would admit I would expect to see almost all activity being inhouse at this point since we're hours away from from the changeover. Can you sh kind of share how what percentage is is inhouse versus still at Nohoba? Obviously Jim kind of presented for the grease trap discussion tonight. Um but I was curious like how many are of SE title fives and inspections and stuff have have we taken in house? Um, so right now Jim is still doing septic. As we get closer, it's more of a case by case depending on how complex the project would be. Um, I mean they still have to take in fees and applications. So part of it kind of still needs to stay in the show for the time being. Um, but me and Jim talk twice weekly about what's going on, what's coming in, what's going out. So we have a pretty good beat on how to handle anything that comes in. Uh, if I could follow up, France, have

you been doing the surveys and the the the plan reviews and site visits and all that with Jim as well, or has it just all still been on the show bar? Um, we do site visits, but Jim's doing plan reviews. Okay. how comfort that I'm going to throw it out there because obviously that kind of handoff piece of trying to somehow gain all of Jim's 30 plus years of knowledge in you know a year. Um how comfortable you feeling how much transfer information that when the when the flip switch flips to plans are on your desk rather than gyms and it's your show. How comfortable are you going to be managing that? And I know that's a hard question to ask and I apologize, but I'm just as we all know, we've gotten some push back from others. I just want to make sure that we are ready when this switch flips that we are able to provide the services we need to. Um I mean it's a tough question to answer cuz you know the process that we've been through so far and solutions have been brought up and shut down. So um it kind of is what it is at this point. It's going to be a lot, but um I'm just going to try to keep on top of it the best I can, and there's really nothing else I can do. Are you feeling comfortable with the not necessarily the workload, but the skills required to successfully manage our title 5 process? I can, but obviously it wouldn't be at the speed of someone um a professional like Jim here. Um, and I'm more worried about time as an issue rather than the scope of work. The scope of work can be done. It's just a question of how far behind will we fall

at some point and how are we going to address things quickly once we hit a certain point of behind. Um, and that's going to be a tough question to answer throughout the year. other opportunities in the time we have left to for you to work a little bit more closely with Jim and try to learn learn at his at his right hand as much as possible in the days left to gain as much insight from from the master before you're you're on your own. I'm I'm just trying to figure out ways of making sure that you can be functional, efficient, and accomplish the other things certainly that are that are on the plate and are there ways that we can help get you those skills, experiences, hints, and tips and tricks and all those things that you know, the things that Jim glances at that you have to think about. Are there ways that you can kind of gain some of those skills to help you be successful when it's when it's solo? Um, yeah, it's a good question. Um, probably end up chaining chaining uh Jim to a desk in the office so he can't leave. So, um, yeah, me and Jim can talk about it more. Um, I have a good handle on it, but it's hard to see nuances cuz it's happens as it comes up and every nuance is a little different. But um you know being beside Jim you learn a lot of the commonalities and you learn the lay of land in Littleton and where those commonalities are in different sites in town. Um so that's helpful but um yeah I I don't have a better answer for you on that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. [Music]

Uh, the only other thing I wanted to mention was um, I met with the town administration and a couple people from the select board. We were talking about our fee schedule. So, our fee schedule, as you might recall, was created many years ago. Um, kind of adopting some some background from Nishoba, some from Actton, some from Westford. We're kind of looking at a variety. Put that together. This board then approved it. Uh I believe that was before we actually hired a director um because we said we just wanted to have something in place to start from. So um we've basically never used the fee schedule because Noba is still doing the work or um it's very limited as to what we've actually been doing. So, we are now kind of looking back at the P schedule, reviewing it, and some line items have come up that we're saying, well, uh, do we do this? Are we going to do this? Is somebody else already doing this? Are the dollars in line? Kind of those kind of questions. So, I've asked Francis to kind of start a review of that fee schedule. So, we might have some changes come to this board, whether it be uh these, you know, these line items aren't pertinent and should be reviewed or they're duplicative or how are we going to handle this? So, just so this board's aware that we're going to start kind of over the next, I would say couple of months, two or three months, maybe be reviewing that fee schedule for accuracy and making some updates to it. So, um, uh, town council also chimed in and did some good looking as to some of the fees on there. We might not actually have regulations in place to permit us to charge those fees. Um, so again, we haven't charged any of those fees, so we haven't done anything wrong. Um, but there, for example, we have a trash hauler regulation that this board put together and did a great job, but we actually have a fee on the fee schedule for dumpsters specifically. And dumpsters were not included as a feed item in our regulation. They are regulated, but not with the fee. So things like that, we're just going to

come back to this board and say, okay, what do we want to do? Do we want to amend the regulation to add the fee? Do we want to dispose of the fee? uh and like those other questions or somebody else has already taken care of it within the town. So just so those boards aware that's going to be happening over the next several meetings any questions I can answer. Uh actually we uh when we get through the room count and things like that. Mhm. I wonder if town council would assist us in a review of our regulations for that so that we can make sure that she feels that or town council feels that they are appropriate and defensible because I I think it would be good that that that comment made me think of that. Yep. So that way um we don't run into that later. Yep, that makes sense. That's I I have low concern because it's so grounded in title five which backs a lot of it up, but yep, we can ask. May as well. I have nothing further. So, if that is all, I'll make a motion that we adjourn. I'll second. Motion and second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kane. Dan Kane votes yes. Way votes yes. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you.