Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Good evening, Town of Littleton, and welcome to this, the May 27, 2026 meeting of the Board of Health. In attendance are myself, Matt Wason, board members Dan Cain, Kevin Baker, and Libby Donegan, our new member, as well as our health director, Frances Daigle. I would just like to start by saying welcome and thank you for joining the board, Libby. Appreciate you being here. I hope you were able to connect with Kevin Davis at some point before today, so you get a little background. But we have a stacked agenda, so we will launch right into it. We're not totally ready to run this, so just give me a second to get everything lined up here.

Okay, our first is a 7 p.m. public hearing on 18 Long Lake.

If you are a part of that project, please raise your hand from the audience so you can join up.

Hello, everyone.

Hello. Go ahead and introduce yourself and let us know about what your request is.

Sure. My name is Dan Carr. I'm from Stamson Canary, and I am here on behalf of the property owner of 18 Long Lake Road. And I will share my screen and take you through the plan that we're doing here. Wait, can everyone see that?

Yes.

Great. So this is a repair septic system for a single-family home, three bedrooms. There's no changes proposed to the house itself. It's just replacing a failing septic system. The lot is quite tiny. It's only 7,500 square feet. There's the single-family dwelling in the front, or I should say the center of the lot, and then we're proposing the replacement septic system in the backyard. the water service from the street connects in over here. So there's really no other spot on this lot for the septic system.

Sorry, if I could just pause you for a second. Could you zoom in? Because we can see the whole plan, so we can't see the detail you're referring to. Beauty, thank you.

Sorry to interrupt. That's okay. So the septic system that we're proposing is a 1500 gallons septic tank dual compartment that drains by gravity from the house to a 1000 gallon pump chamber, which pumps the wastewater up to a three bedroom Presby leaching field. And the two requests waivers we need from the Board of Health. The first one is the reduction in the offset to the seasonal high groundwater table. This is an allowed, the reduction to the groundwater table is allowed per MassDEP. Because it's an alternative technology, the Presby system, MassDEP explicitly allows the two-foot reduction to the offset to groundwater. And the reason we're requesting that reduction is because of the other waiver we need, which is a local bylaw reduction. um from littleton's bylaw that says that you can't have fill for a septic system within 10 feet of a property line um so obviously they the two waivers kind of go hand in hand we're trying to reduce the grading by reducing the offset to groundwater so the system can sit lower in the in the ground and then um so there is a little bit of grading required um This is the 95 contour here, and the 96 kind of wraps around the whole system. But you can see the existing 96 is over here, and the existing 95 is over here. So it's not a huge change in grade. It's just that the lot is so small that the grading is within 10 feet of that lot. And I think that pretty much covers it. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

First, we'll go to Francis, if you could provide your expert review and recommendation.

So like Dan said, it's a very tiny lot. It's 0.17 acres. This is really the only place you could put the system. And by doing the two foot reduction, it does minimize the grading substantially as it is already. I don't think any necessary runoff components are needed like a swale. It's a pretty flat lot.

very well then questions from the board uh go with Dan Cain I don't think I actually don't have any questions for this one Kevin Baker how many bedrooms three bedrooms and Francis did uh did they confirm with the property card and everything

Francis, did you hear the question?

Sorry. I'm not 100% sure. I believe so. I can look right now.

And then, Daniel, how was the perk rate?

Perk rate was five minutes per inch, so pretty good.

No more questions.

Thanks. And Libby, you done again? Any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Very well. The only clarification I had, I think you were drawing those lines on there. So that 95 contour that's actually on, that's a part of fill right there? Effectively?

Exactly, yeah.

Okay. And that 10 feet is right to the edge of the system. That's that little 10 foot right below it.

Correct. So that's 10 feet to the system itself, but the grading for the system is within 10 feet.

Yeah. And is it also within 10 along the back of the system then?

Yep. Right here. That's about two feet off the property line there.

Okay. So were abutters all properly notified?

Yes.

Okay. Are there any audience members, including potential abutters, who would like to raise their hand and ask questions, make inquiries? I'll take that as a no. Go ahead, Gavin.

Make a motion. Go ahead. I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for the two-foot groundwater offset, as well as the reduction in the required footage, the fill from the property line.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker? Kevin Baker votes yes. Libby Donegan?

Yes.

Dan Cain?

Dan Cain votes yes.

And Matt Waston votes yes. Thank you, Daniel, for your presentation and good luck with your project.

Great. Thanks, everyone.

Next, we have our 7.05 public hearing on 19 Christina Street. If that is your project, please raise your hand. Kevin, could you turn your gain up a little bit, perhaps? Thank you.

Hey, long time no see. How's everybody doing? Good evening. Welcome, Libby. Welcome. Good luck with the Board of Health. Ted, you said here on behalf of the owner, uh, Ready to go or do you have to read an announcement?

No, no, fire away. Tell us about the project and go ahead and show us plans. All right.

So that last guy that was here, what he said. Small lot. The plan is labeled four-bedroom. We'll have to change that on the as-built. It is a three-bedroom design. The assessor has it on four bedrooms, but the permit on file has it as a three-bedroom, so we can only design for a three-bedroom as it's a repair. High groundwater, we didn't even get a PERC test because there was groundwater interference, so we ran a laboratory sample and had to use an application rate of, I think we used 0.15 on this.

No, 0.33.

So it's basically, it comes out to be a 30-minute, similar to a 30-minute perk rate. We're using a 1,500-gallon septic tank and a 1,000-gallon pump chamber, and we're doing a force main into the serial distribution of the Presby system. Again, as you know, that drops the ground water by two feet, the offset for ground water by two feet, and it also makes the system about 40% smaller. We do need an impervious barrier because we're above grade and we can't make the 15-foot breakout. So if you can see, the impervious barrier runs all around here. The variances that we are here for are... We have to... We're filling within 10 feet of the lot line. I don't know if it's a variance. I have to read the regulation again. I thought it was just you have to notify everybody and come in for a board health hearing. But regardless, we're here and everybody's been notified. In order to deal with the possible repercussions of the fill, we are putting a swale in. So the swale kind of even starts up here because this side is a little bit higher. So we've got water coming across here and then wrapping around the system and going into this area here where we're going to Accentuate a swale in this area. Just make sure that the water continues to flow in this area. We also have fill close to a lot line, about six feet from the lot line over here. The butter on this side, Rod Stewart, he asked for a plan. I sent it to him. I was out there last week, and I talked to him. I don't know if he's on here now, but he said he understands, and he's pretty much – I believe he told me he was okay with the plan. We're doing the best that we can. And he was in a similar situation. So he understands the area. In this situation over here, this abutter over here, I believe it was 17 Christina called me. So we talked about it because he has a system over here. And if I can try to change, I'm going to try to change drawings here because I did a sketch because he is concerned about his system is over here and there's a drainage swale that comes down in between here. So I went out there and I met him and I did some additional survey so that I could pick up this wall that's on his property here and the grading from his septic system because he wants to make sure the water still travels down this way. The issue that we found out there and it shows here while we're, you know, the bigger issue that's creating that is of a concern for the swale is that His fill for his system, his breakout fill, comes over the lot line. Here's the lot line between the properties. So this is 17. This is 19. This is his grading fill. So this 302 contour, this 301 contour creep in. And when I took my shots, this is where I found the fill from his septic system to end. The fill from our system is going to end here. This 301 contour that you see right here is going to come around, run in here. It'll connect with this existing contour, which then comes back this way off of his system too. So we will be able to maintain the slope. There's some plantings in there. We talked about, you know, we'll make sure the contractor stays away from there. He doesn't need to get there because we're not getting that close. But, you know, we're going to try and maintain that drainage swell. But just to be clear, we are not creating a problem with that drainage, with his drainage. His property, his fill comes over onto our land. So we're not making his property any better, any worse. But we are trying to address the issue or we do or we do feel I do feel the issue is going to be addressed. We also need to have board health approval because we had to use the alternative PERC testing. Like I said, the sample did go to a laboratory. It was collected from the PERC hole. So that requires board health approval.

That's it. Yeah. Okay. Francis.

Ted pretty much covered it very small lot. It's really the only place you can put the system on the lot. Shall groundwater and limited area make it really hard to construct something that can conform. So. It's really about it. We did talk to the assessors about the bedroom count issue, and that's being resolved, I think, on their end, so.

Okay. All right, board member questions. Dan Cain.

I'm just following up with Francis. It sounds like you got it. Did you do a walkthrough to confirm the room count, or? We did not do a walkthrough.

The assessor will follow up with a proper count.

Okay. If the assessor walks through and says, nope, it's four bedrooms. I'm just not sure where that leaves us. It doesn't matter, you have a permit. I'm just running it through, going, if the assessor says, yep, it's four bedrooms, and we approve a three, it's a repair, I understand, and you've got to repair it to the level it is. But are we just setting a, if the assessor's card says four and they decide it is four and we've said three okays to the three system, I'm just running it out for the group for discussion. Is this something that we need to be cognizant of? If we have not confirmed that it is in fact three and it's leaving it to the assessor's office to make a determination after the fact.

I can just go out and make a determination separately and then meet up with the assessor to confirm the count.

Fair point. So I think anything that we approve today should be contingent upon the house coming back as a two, three bedroom.

So what are we going to find out? You're saying what's contingent on it being a three bedroom?

As Francis just said, the assessor going out and evaluating that, which they've been asked to do, correct?

Ted, we'll talk about it after the meeting. So not much to it.

Okay. Okay. Questions, Kevin Baker?

Yeah, did you say that you couldn't do the PERC because of high water or was it boulders?

Groundwater interference, mainly. When we dug the PERC hole, the water was not running out and there was water, signs of water in the soil as we walked around. You can see the water was, the soil was saturated, not enough for it to come streaming out, but there was interference.

Oh yeah, I just said boulders in your letter, so I didn't know what it was. Francis, did you witness the tessals?

There were some rather large rocks, I guess you'd call them. Just want to make sure it's not ledge. I don't think it was ledge.

Thank you.

Is that it, Kevin? Quentin, Libby Donegan?

No, just because you mentioned that their area was already showing a lot of water. How is this system going to be impacted during periods of heavy rain?

Does it make a difference? So, yeah, so groundwater is, well, any properly functioning septic system is going to be able to handle a rainfall. Rain traditionally gets caught up in the first couple of inches in the low most, for most storms. Groundwater comes up from the bottom most of the time. So the rain will mostly be run off and absorbed in the loam.

Okay.

Thanks. Ted, just again, the impermeable barrier, you've got to run around three sides of the field. You said that was within 15 feet of something. I'm sorry, you went through it real quick. Can you just clarify that?

So The breakout elevation is the top of the septic system. I'm sorry. There's a breakout elevation on every type of system. This one from the presby is measured from the bottom of the system sand. So that's the breakout elevation. That elevation is supposed to be carried out 15 feet from the system and with fill. Okay. So if there's not room to get that fill in there, we put a barrier in and break that and bring it down to five feet.

Got it. Okay. So that's why you don't need it on that one side because you've got enough... land basically to make that more reasonable. So, okay. And then you're right into the patio up top. It looks like, right.

Okay.

All right. Those are the only questions I had. You said you notified the abutters. Any abutters or any other people in attendance who would like to ask a question? I will click over to that hand raised. Dave Estolfi.

Oh, yeah. I'm the abutter on the left-hand side of the drawing. It's actually 15, Christina. um yeah i i i believe that that ted understands what the the challenges are with the with the water runoff and maintaining that swale between the properties so as long as it's done according to the plan which i'm sure it will be um it should work i was i was concerned because if it doesn't i mean that wall that wall that he mentioned is at the bottom of my driveway so if the water backs up it goes into my basement that's all So I just want to make sure the water was going to continue to flow. And I think it will. I mean, it looks like a good plan. So I'm good.

Good. All right. Yes, I agree. It looks like the plan addresses the fact that we've got those elevations from both properties kind of conveniently making their own little valley between that will hopefully help all of that water drainage and avoid either property from getting water infiltration. Any other questions from the audience? Go ahead, Kevin.

So public record has it on as a four-bedroom. But Ted, you designed a three. Okay. So are you interested in doing a four? Can you fit it?

We can't do a four.

It was designed and permitted as a three originally. It just is different than the assessor's card at this point. Okay, sorry.

Thank you.

All right, I have no further questions. I have no other hands in the audience.

I'll make a motion that we grant the variance for fill within 10 feet of the property line, as well as local upgrade approval to allow sieve analysis in place of a PERC test.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Before I put that to a vote, would the perchance be willing to add a reduction in groundwater offset? Is that correct?

I don't know if it's a variance. It just says it needs to be. It just says, well, I guess it does require, it does say local upgrade approval. Yeah, it is a local upgrade approval to allow that. And while I have the floor, I'll just say for a second, just to address Kevin's question about rocks, about ledge and things. I look at the test holes. We got to 112 inches in one test hole and 184 in the other one. So we didn't we didn't cut a ledge. There may have been boulders that prevent us from going deeper with that's too big to big by hand.

I'd like to make an amendment to my motion.

Please go ahead.

Can we also add a reduction in groundwater offset from four feet to two feet, please?

I can second that.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker.

Kevin Baker votes yes.

Libby Donegan.

Yes.

Dan Cain.

Dan Cain votes yes.

And Matt Waston votes yes. All right. Thank you for your time. Francis, let's circle back this week, okay?

Thanks.

Bye. Okay. That brings us to our 7.10 p.m. public hearing on 504 Great Road. If that is your project, there we go.

Can everybody hear me now? Yes. This is Jack Maloney from Dillis and Roy. And I'm here on behalf of Chris Kaiser. And I am going to share my screen if that's possible. All right. Everybody see that? Yes. All right, so we're at I think it's 504 Great Road. This is to the right of the police station. Big open field is a common driveway that services four houses. This is the first one on the right hand side. This is a three bedroom house. It is assessed for a three bedroom house. It was originally designed back in the late 70s as a three-bedroom house, and we are replacing a failed septic system. We have a Presby system here in yellow. We have a new 1,500-gallon two-compartment tank, 1,000-gallon pump chamber that's going to be replacing the existing 1,000-gallon tank, and then some sort of a leach field out in this red-clouded area. This property is serviced by Town Water. You can see the water line coming in on this side of the house. We do have a 60-foot wide Littleton Municipal Light Easement in the back of the property that runs from the street all the way to the back section of this whole property. We did a couple of test holes. I do have the original test holes. I think his name was David Purley back in 76. It was all sand and gravel. And we are looking for a local upgrade approval for the reduction from the offset of groundwater from a five foot offset because this is two minute per inch sand and gravel to a three foot offset.

All right, Francis.

Same theme as the other ones, the easement. places a large burden on where the system can go. That's really about it.

All right, board member questions, Dan Cain.

No questions.

Gavin Baker. No questions. Libby Dunnock.

No questions.

And I guess I have no questions either. Anybody in the audience have any questions or comments?

We'll take that as a no.

You can entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we grant the reduction of groundwater offset from five feet to three feet using the Presby system.

I'll second that.

You have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. Libby Donegan.

Yes.

Dan Cain.

Dan Cain votes yes.

Matt Waston votes yes. All right. Thank you very much and have a great night. Thank you. You too. All right. This brings us to our 7.15 p.m. continued public hearing on Zero Elm Road. I believe we are continuing that, or we rescheduled that for a future meeting already. Is that correct, Francis?

That's correct, Tim.

Okay, so we are... Does the board need to have any discussion about that right now, or do you want to hold off on that?

Yeah, if we could hold off, that'd be great. The representative for Alamaro didn't want to have it talking about without him here.

Okay. Let's just make sure. I know there's a lot of stuff in the packet that I was reading, too, about that property. So if we need to have any sort of work done before the next time it comes up on the agenda, just let me know or let Kevin Davis know so that we can have a chat about it.

Yes. I'm going to talk to Kevin next week about it.

Perfect. That brings us to our 7.25 PM public hearing on tobacco regulation amendment. This also needs to change, correct? Because we are not going to have the public hearing on that. Do we have a discussion right now?

We can open it. It's just, we're going to extend the period for comment into the next meeting, basically.

Okay, before I keep going, actually, Dan Cain, should we vote to continue the prior one because it's on the agenda as a public hearing?

Can't hear.

For Elm Road, should we vote to continue? It's probably cleaner just to play it safe. I mean, I think it's probably cleaner just to continue it, make it a formal.

Very well, very well. So on going back to our Zero Elm Road public hearing, can we have a motion to continue? Thank you.

Second.

Thank you. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker.

Kevin Baker votes yes.

Libby Donegan.

Yes.

Dan Cain.

Dan Cain votes yes.

Matt Weisen votes yes. Terrific. That is formally continued. And so for our 725 on tobacco regulation amendment, That one similarly has not gone out to the tobacco sellers. Is that correct, Francis? So the Tobacco Care Alliance wanted to have time to do that before we then have our public hearing on it. But for that one, is there stuff that we should still discuss here in the paperwork? Do we have to make some decisions on it?

So we're lucky enough to have Joan from the Levinster Tobacco Alliance here with us.

Sound our way.

You should be able to see me. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Sorry I didn't notice you in the audience.

Oh, that's okay. I was very interested in the Title V and variances and procedures, so I'm learning a lot. I'm on the AFA Board of Health as well, and we do these variances from time to time, and it's always interesting to see how other people are handling them.

I hope we got a good grade.

Well, I don't know enough about it to grade anybody, so I'm always learning. On tobacco control, however, I'm very versed in tobacco control. So, yeah, it was unfortunate, a little miscommunication, and then I had to take an unexpected eight days off from work. So we typically... um as a courtesy we hand deliver the regulation with the hearing notice and before i went out that we hadn't had the hearing notice yet so the person i assigned it to there was miscommunication and it didn't get delivered um almost every retailer in littleton um has a store that they own somewhere else that this regulation applies to we're not expecting heavy traffic or you know, big opposition or any big issues. So I recommended to Francis that it gives us a chance to get it out. And what we would do is an open written comment period, and then they can submit their stuff in writing. And then you guys would answer things at the next meeting. See what, if anybody, any public or anybody had a comment, then it could be discussed. I just had, everybody should have gotten this packet. I don't know if you can see it. But there was a packet of the regulations and then there was a cover sheet that I sent forward back when this was on the agenda in February. And it tells you what you already have and what we would like you to ask. And that's what we're presenting to the public. So, you know, Frances and I talked, it made sense. Does the board have any questions or concerns about this draft and what we're intending to do?

I believe we've gone over it pretty thoroughly in one of our recent meetings. And I don't think we came out with any outstanding questions still. Do you remember, Frances? Yeah.

I put everything in here that you guys said yes to. But once you received the final version, I figured if, you know, we were already here for a couple of minutes, if anybody had any further point they wanted me to clarify. But otherwise, we'll just put it out for open written comment period. Yeah. It's not very often that we're having anybody even come to the hearings anymore. So I'm not expecting a lot. And we are in good communication with the Lilton retailers. So I'm not expecting any surprises.

Could you talk about the nicotine patches real quickly? I did get that email from him a little while ago today.

Okay, Peter. Peter sends that to every... It's Peter Brennan from the New England Convenience Store Association. I'm not sure of the exact acronym. We talked to him. I've talked to him for the last 10 years on a regular basis. Their organization... would like to see you not regulate nicotine pouches, but if you're going to, they would like you to allow up to nine milligrams, but that letter will be submitted to you as part of open written comment period for your full review. For us, for nicotine pouches, we're recommending no more than six milligrams. There's two options, and you guys, we recommended the lesser option of restricting it to six milligram, but allowing all your retailers to have it, the more strict option was you could require it to adult only, and that would be taking it away from other retailers. The difference between the six milligrams is... This product is like a product that's exploding on the market, and it's kind of big in Massachusetts because people are putting the pouches in to circumvent the smoke-free workplace law, and now schools are reporting not confiscating vape and cigarettes. They're starting to report that they're confiscating these nicotine pouches because they're undetectable and you're not spitting on them. The National Poison Control Line put out a report that... since these products are exploding on the market, that there's a 400% increase in nicotine poisoning calls. Many of those calls are related to around how these are packaged. So know a parent is using them they're left on the counter the child picks it up it looks like a mint container and they're mimicking their parents behavior it's not necessarily that they're being sold to children and children are doing this um but we have had the pouches sold this year we added um in our youth access inspections luckily knock on wood so far none in littleton But we, the youth have been easily able to purchase the Zin pouches. We've had multiple sales of Zin pouches to our youth ages 17 to 19. So it is a very product gaining popularity. The reason why we want to leave it at six milligrams is just looking at different reports. When you look at a cigarette, the opposition will say a cigarette has 10 to 12 milligrams of nicotine in it. This pouch only has nine or it only has six. But when you look at the science of how a cigarette is combusted, The actual user only gets out of that one cigarette about 1.2 to 1.4% of nicotine. Where this is a pouch in the mouth, this nicotine absorbs into the saliva and you're actually swallowing it because this is not a product that you spit. We don't have any studies at all yet on the impact of how that's going to be with the nicotine going through a digestive system opposed to a lung system. and we've seen them in our service area up to 18 milligrams but other colleagues have reported seeing them as high as 30 milligrams even at six milligrams there's no directions no instructions there's no comparison someone can take two or three you know six milligram ones and pop them in their mouth at the same time as well they can use them continuously um so we're there's just a lot of concerns about them so we'd rather be a little bit on the conservative side and from what we understand that six milligram is going, you're absorbing a majority of that six milligram where a cigarette in the combustion process, you're not absorbing 10 to 12 milligrams of the nicotine. So this is, you know, the main reason why let's, let's get ahead of it. This is a new product that's exploding. It's not like the cornerstone of the convenience stores completely rely on this for heavy income. And the nine milligram just got approved by the FDA. And again, It just hit the market in April. It got approved in December and it hit the market in April. So there's a lot of stores that don't even have it yet. So it's not like you're taking away a cornerstone product that people are making up, you know, paying a mortgage with that profit money.

Go ahead, Libby.

Do you happen to know if this is replacing traditional smoking for people and encouraging dual use?

Well, the FDA prevents anybody of making claims that it's a harm reduction product because to be a harm reduction product, you have to have the medical end of it like a nicotine gum and a nicotine patch. There's instruction, there's poison control. You have to tell them how much you use so there's a program for you to how to wean off of it. and whatnot. So there could be somebody who says, gee, I'm smoking, I'm using the nicotine instead of smoking. But, you know, we could liken that to, gee, methadone is a little bit better than heroin, but there's still neither one of them is good for you. There is no safe use of nicotine. So we have to be mindful of what the substance is, and it's highly addictive. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin, and that's well documented. So what we're finding in youth risk behavior surveys that are being done through the school and in working at health fairs and talking to people, we're finding that there's actually an increase in use because people are using these in the workplace, in schools, in restaurants where they can't to keep the nicotine, you know, edge that they need, and then they go home and use their vape, their cigar, their cigarette, or their other for choice. So it's kind of almost like there really isn't enough data to answer that question.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the board? No, Kevin, no from Dan. And this was definitely a limit, the six milligram limit. That is not language that we had in our regulation prior to our last version.

Is that right? These pouches were almost non-existent at that time. So this is like a whack-a-mole product. Like every time we get something under control, the industry comes up with another new product. So this product was not relevant in the stores at the time you updated your reg. It's a new policy. Majority of our... I have a good amount of communities in our 46-town alliance that have already passed it with six milligram. Groton and Townsend have limited it to adult-only establishments with a retiring cap. And there is no adult-only establishment. So essentially, they banned it inadvertently. But the majority of our towns have gone with a six milligram. And right now, I have 14 boards in the process of regulations with three just passed them last week reviewing the six milligrams. So you're not the island. You're not alone. You're in the middle of the pack in the process of everybody updating their regulations.

And do we by chance have any sort of consumption or sale data, whether it's town or statewide, about kind of these the various strengths and what's kind of running through shops.

Well, typically what we're seeing is right now the FDA has only approved two brands, Zinn and On Plus. So because the local permit requires you to be in compliance with state, federal, and local law in my 46 towns, we have made all the retailers remove any pouch that's not these two products. So that really has eliminated unauthorized products. So in my 46 towns, we're seeing We're not seeing an explosion of these products and those products are only approved on Zin is only approved for three and six and on plus is only approved for six and nine. We're not seeing the nine in most of the communities because so many communities have restricted it to six that. A retailer will tell us, I own stores in four different towns. If three have six and one doesn't, it's too hard for me to keep track of that. So we're kind of seeing some voluntarily self-elimination. But we're very heavy on if it's not FDA market authorization, you've got to get it go as a condition of your local permit. So we've been very fortunate in my area, but Other colleagues, like the Framingham Collaborative, the Boston, the Western Mass Collaborative, they're all making sure, one, it's got to be FDA approved, and they're all asking their boards to do the six milligram as well.

All right. Well, good information. So we'll see, I guess, what folks give us feedback on, and that's one of the outstanding choices we still have to make, correct?

Yeah, and that's all this draft is, is what we put in it, and there's no final decisions until you receive your input.

Yep. All right. Any other topics that we should review and discuss? Cool. All right. So give us a – oh, go ahead, Louie.

Do we have a ban on indoor consumption of e-cigarettes?

That's a state law. You can't use any electronic cigarette or any vaping device or electronic cigarette or combustible product. That's covered under the state law. So if somebody in the workplace, if the state gets an 800 call about a little workplace smoking, they refer it to me because you have a funded program and I have to inspect it. And then we issue the $100, $200, $300 smoke-free workplace law. And the law is set up the same. So we issue it under the law, but the money gets collected and goes into your general fund. We have not had, I think we've only had workplace questions, no state complaints. And then if somebody calls Francis locally and says, hey, somebody's smoking in the workplace, we do the full investigation and they would still get the smoke-free workplace law ticket. I think we've only given one warning in Littleton since the law passed. And we have not had to do any investigations on any Littleton businesses. But vaping can be very discreet. It doesn't mean it's not happening, but it is included in the law. And it's the same fine as if you were smoking a cigarette or a cigar.

Maybe as a part of this, Francis, once it's kind of finalized, part of the kind of public notice that new regulations are in place could have some reminders just to make sure everybody's aware of those restrictions. And so they don't have to put up with it if they're seeing it in their workplace, because that might be one of those that people don't necessarily know it's banned if they're not up to speed.

Yeah, we can come up with a community education flower you can put on your website as well.

Great.

If you do upgrade your reg and pass a reg, we will hand deliver it to each retailer, and they'll sign that they receive it, and then we go over it with them while we're there in the store, and then they can always contact us for questions before the effective date.

Terrific. Okay, so... Somebody, sorry, Joan or Francis. Francis, give us just the timeline of now what's going to happen. So next steps by date so we know what this board is going to do when.

So next steps, Joan is going to hand deliver the regulation amendments to all the retailers in town within the week, I think. Yep. And then we would give it the month for any comments to be provided. So that will be the 24th of June.

And then you would discuss any of those comments at your next meeting. And if you're satisfied, if you have additional questions, you could, you know, you don't have to vote on it. Um, but if you don't have any additional questions and you know, there's relatively nothing exciting going on, you can make a decision to vote that at the next meeting and pick an implementation date.

Um, but we don't have a totally finalized regulation yet, correct? Don't we have to finalize it as this board and then put it out to additional public hearing besides the retailers?

Well, the retailers, as an extra courtesy, we hand deliver it to them, but the hearing is posted for anybody in the community to make a comment on it. And it's posted wherever you guys post your public notices. And then anybody can get a copy of it by email or by request from the board. But I don't think anybody has required you publicly posted it, Francis, and nobody's requested a copy, correct?

I guess because we still have at least the pouches decision that is not finalized in the document. So I'm not sure if we need to actually have that final before we say, okay, this is the regulation we actually intend to put into place. So you should be giving us feedback or is it good enough to have that option in there right now?

Well, what you did is when we met previously, you said to put it in the draft. So this is the draft presented to the public. You're going to accept the public comment. And then this page is listed one through 17 and, So after you get your public comment and review it, I'll come to the next meeting. Does that public comment change anything in this draft? Number one, do you want to still continue with number one? Number two, do you want to? So you would go line by line and vote on the changes. And then so you would vote. On the changes, and then I would make those changes and provide you a copy to sign with an implementation date. Now, let's just, let's just say you, you hold the meeting in June and okay, we're going to pass it with as as written as drafted and written based on our concerns and public comment. Then I would. give you the final draft that's ready for signature. That would take out all the extra wording, all the explanation, all the color coding. It would be a finalized draft for you to sign. And normally what we would say is if you pass it in June, we would say, okay, an August 1st implementation date. And then anybody who has pouches, it gives them a chance to sell them down. if they have them over six milligrams and it gives them a chance to understand the changes. Your current reg has most of the, with the exception of the nicotine pouches and then a few other minor things, you guys have the most current regulation. You were pretty up to date with all the other things and retailers are in good compliance with everything else. So there's really nothing new for the retailers in this with the exception of the nicotine pouches. And if a retailer does have a public comment, I know retailers prefer that you at least allow the six, then put it to the adult only. So then it gives everybody a chance to have a little piece of that market. And then, you know, like no permit renewal if outstanding fines exist. That's a policy that that's new in the reg, but it's a policy that most boards have. You're just putting it in the reg. It's not new to a retailer to hear that.

All right, so then our plan is we'll be continuing this public hearing until our June 24th meeting.

Yep. Correct.

Very well.

Okay, thank you.

Any members of the public who want to chime in, ask questions? Take that as a no. There are no further questions from the board. We can vote to continue.

Great. I will see you on the 24th.

Motion to continue.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought you were looking for a motion, Matt. Sorry.

If there was a motion, I will second the motion to continue the hearing.

Kevin, did you make a motion?

I did. I thought you were looking for a motion to continue.

I was. We couldn't hear you very well. There is a motion to continue from Kevin and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker.

Kevin Baker votes yes.

Libby Donegan.

Yes.

Dan Cain.

Dan Cain votes yes.

And Matt Wason votes yes. More to come on the 24th. Next on our agenda, 7.30 p.m., discussion on Regulation 23. which sounds mysterious. Francis, talk to us.

I can let Kevin take the stage.

Kevin, talk to us.

Sure. We had a discussion a while ago about retaining walls in new construction, and it prompted me to look up what the regulations used to say. and what it reads now. And then a previous board had actually put together a proposed regulation should the board have the appetite to discuss and have a public hearing on re-implementing said local regulation. I think it's in the packet.

It is. Can somebody pull it up and show it?

Francis, do you have the ability to do that, or do you want me to try? Okay, I got it. Great.

Yeah.

So I can just talk through it. So yeah, Regulation 23... Libby, I'm not sure if you've seen all the lists of local regulations. New board members used to get this big binder full of the Title V and the different regulations that we are responsible for. And anyway, the local regulations are a part of that. And so... We have a Regulation 23 in 2007. As you can see, impervious barriers were limited here and retaining walls used for breakout and grading purposes around soil absorption systems for new construction were not permitted without a variance. So you can see that in What it says today, basically, subjections A and B were repealed in 2011 by a board. And, you know, when you take regulations out, you don't have to post it. You don't have to have a public hearing notice or anything like that. You can just do it. But when you put them back in, you have to notify people. So it's been proposed... I guess I've been on the board for almost nine, nine years. And so at some point, over the last nine years, there were discussions about this, and it just sort of came up again. So putting this in front of the board to see if they have an appetite to discuss this further and hold a public hearing about the potential to re fortify local regulations.

And just a detailed question, without looking at every single letter written on this screen, it's pretty much A and B were taken out and you A and B are going back in on this proposal? Or is there any other language change or something?

With some adjustments.

Okay.

It's not like they're being outlawed, it's just they need to be, there's a process to get a variance and get that approved. And it's only for new construction.

Yeah, so I think this is one of those that came up because we were talking about new construction projects and we have a memory and we're operating on a memory of the 2007 reg, not realizing that in 2011 it had been scaled back because that doesn't get the publicity that the additions get. Unfortunately. Unfortunately. So how does the board feel? Let's talk about this. Kevin's throwing this out here. I think, Kevin, you're saying if we have, you're in favor of trying to get this reg updated back to kind of this new version?

Yeah, with the board's opinion and after public hearing and discussion, I think there's room for something that can try and keep Littleton allow the town to continue to have the feel that so many people moved here for and that they love and enjoy and protects public health.

Well, I really appreciate you digging into this and finding the history. It helps a lot. And this doesn't look like a big one to tackle, unlike some of our rakes we're working on. So other conversation, thoughts, ideas from the board or Francis? Dan?

I think it's certainly worth a conversation. I think that's appropriate.

I'd say for new construction, if it requires intervention and it can't naturally take the system, that's worth considering.

Libby, have you developed an opinion in such a short period of time?

I'm in favor of regulation. So, yeah, I'm in favor of putting it back in.

Okay. All right. In that case, like I said, this doesn't feel like a very big one to tackle. So, Francis, can you get us started on the track to officially getting this reg proposed and out there?

I can make a pro and con list if that's helpful, too, just for debate.

Sure thing. And then we can discuss it in our next meeting and say, yes, we want to go ahead and move forward with this.

Can we look at peer communities as well, perhaps? Again, that retaining wall for new construction, just kind of see, again, that we'll use the line before, are we an island kind of creating this, or is it pretty common around our peer communities? I'll dig into it.

Perfect, thanks again for putting that together. Next agenda item is 735 is our discussion on board reorganization. This is usually the time of year that we have new members join the board and we do our reorganization. Historically, we tried to get the whole board here for that and I did not know Kevin Davis was not gonna be here, Mr. Chair. is not wanting to give up his chair, I guess. So is everybody okay if we just push that off to our next meeting on June 10th or does somebody know they're not gonna be here then by chance? Looks good right now? Okay. And let's get that back on our agenda for June 10th, please. Next is my own agenda item on the infectious disease decision support tool. So here's what we have. I wasn't even gonna mention COVID because it's so out of season, but I actually did wanna call attention to the wastewater numbers that they're getting are actually non-detectable in the Southern source and in the double digits in the Northern source. And it looks to me like those numbers haven't been that low for five years, I don't think. So we have astronomically low numbers of samples from the wastewater testing. I'm going to take that as like a really good sign that nothing's going on. And I'm also going to take it as a sign that maybe that will mean that when they do go up, if they do go up, that could be a more serious flag to monitor. So I'll keep checking it. We'll keep putting it in there. But right now, those are astronomically low levels. So we can feel good about that. Arbovirus updates, those start in June when they start doing testing of mosquito samples. So we don't have any update on that as of yet, but the mosquitoes are out there living the life. So protect yourself. Influenza has dropped to low. And so we'll probably stop that. Similarly, the RSV has dropped to very low levels. So we're kind of out of the respiratory illness season, we hope, and are just going to move forward on our arbovirus season soon. That's all I got. Any questions or comments?

I love seeing low numbers across the board. It's always pretty.

Yes. I agree. I'm leaving those red boxes for our vaccinations for last season, but that doesn't reset yet. Yeah. I think the only other thing to say is for the public that are watching our meeting, I don't think you have anything to worry about Hantavirus or Ebola virus in case you were worried, in case you hadn't heard that message repeatedly. That is not something that we need to be worried about in our country right now. So unless you're traveling to areas that are hotspots for that, and I think you'd be well aware of that and precautions you should be taking, you can put those on the back shelf, not things to worry about in our community today. Okay, that brings us to our 7.45 p.m. agenda item on administrative matters. We have several meeting minutes to approve, starting with April 22nd. This is gonna take me a second to find them in the packet.

Page 80.

Page 80. Okay, let's see here. One, two, three. We can vote on this one. Kevin and Dan, have you had time to review this one?

Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes as presented for April 22nd, 2026. Second. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. And Libby, you probably already know this, but you weren't there, so you can abstain from the vote. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker.

Kevin Baker votes yes.

Libby Donegan. We can't hear you.

Abstain.

There we go. Dan Cain.

Dan Cain votes yes.

And Matt Wiesen votes yes. The meeting minutes for April 22nd are approved. Next, we have the meetings for April 8th. We cannot vote on those. We do not have sufficient numbers. Next, we have meeting minutes for the March 2nd joint meeting. And we don't have enough people. We can't vote on that one. And last, we have March 25th, 2026. And we can't vote on that one because we don't have Kevin Davis. He's holding us up on the minutes here. All right. And that brings us to our last item, 7.50 p.m., our general correspondence and board member updates. Frances, would you like to go first?

Sure. So as you saw in a previous email, we no longer have an administrative assistant in the office. The job has been posted and is due to close in two days. So we'll see what it brings in. It's a little chaotic, but we're managing. We've been talking to Dana Farber for a while about having a mammography van come out to our site and offer free screenings. So they have set a date with us for July 22nd. We will be sending out some advertising materials probably in mid-June. And last, there was an item that we've been getting more and more emails about is pesticides, pesticide use in town. It's a growing topic among many residents who have inquired with the department. So I was thinking about talking to people who have inquired, putting together some information for the board to look at and have a broader discussion about pesticides used in town. I just wanted to get a temperature on the board for if that would be okay.

I would say, sure. Are they specifically talking about residential, town property, commercial distribution, or all of the things?

It's a mix. Definitely residential, which doesn't really fall fully within our purview. It's a lot of information, so I'd put together something comprehensive and give a long lead time to read about it ahead of time.

All right. Thank you. Anything else?

We're fully in septic season. It is busier already than last year.

All right, board members, anyone have something to throw out?

No, Kevin.

What month is it, Dan? There's something I'm sure you've got for us.

Of course there is. It's Mental Health Awareness Month. Thank you. Again, we have the 811 system, so certainly call for help. Reach out to friends, family, providers. 911 is always an option, but as a 911 provider, it is An emergency option, there are better options for non-emergency or non-acute situations than that, but obviously 911 is always an option if you need to get that far. Other things, it's National Water Safety Month, so enjoy the water, but make sure you use appropriate flotation devices for all of your passengers on any watercraft. Make sure people know where you're going, when you should be back, so they know when to start looking for you if you are a delayed return. The Department of Environmental Protection and Fishing Game and a lot of the water sports organizations have stickers you can put on your watercraft so that if something floats off of your dock and they find an empty canoe, they can track it back to who owns it and figure out did it just wander off in the wind or is someone missing from that canoe or kayak. um so please obviously do that and it is of course national bike and motorcycle safety month so all the gear all the time enjoy the great times out there streets are clear except watch for our friends who like to mow their lawns into the street grass works like ice cubes for motorcycles in the street so please be careful and again dress for the ride not for the dress for the slide not for the ride Long pants, boots, full gear, helmets, you know, all the things that make motorcycling uncool, but make the getting back up afterwards a lot easier. Was that enough, Matt, or do you want me to keep going?

Matt, thank you. That was very comprehensive. Okay. Were those all May?

That's all May. So, yeah, we're at the end of May, but yeah.

Well, yeah. Can we get a preview for June, or you're not ready for that?

I'm not ready for that yet. No, I don't want to tip my hand.

All right.

All right.

We can't cancel our early monthly meetings because then we don't have enough time to talk about what month it is. All right. Thank you, Dan. Libby, any updates or anything you want to throw out?

I guess maybe this could be related to managing mental health. There have been a number of break-ins in my neighborhood, and I learned recently that people that are... know they're leaving town can call the non-emergency police number to put themselves on a house check list so that it can be surveilled when they're out of town. So just if anybody's watching and interested and didn't hear about that from the police department yet, that's an option in town.

Good tip. Thank you. All right. I don't think I have any other updates. Anything from audience members? There are no more audience members. So that's all we got. Go ahead, Kevin.

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. I'll second that. Motion to adjourn.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. Libby Donegan.

Yes.

Dan Cain.

Dan Cain votes yes.

Matt Weisen votes yes. Thank you all for a good meeting tonight. Thanks for being here.

Thanks for your help, Amber.