Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the town of Littleton Board of Health meeting for May 28th, 2025. In attendance from the board tonight are Kevin Davis, Dan Kaine, and myself, Matt Wson, as well as our health director, Francis Dagel, and our health agent from Nishoba, Jim Graphy. The first agenda item we have is our 7 o'clock vote on reorganization of the board. We have a quorum, but only three of our five members in attendance this evening. How does the board feel about this agenda item right now, or should we try to wait to see if somebody else joins? I have no notification that anybody was going to be absent tonight. Um, Gino did not pick up his packet, so I'm not sure if he's going to come. Thank you, Kevin. I say we wait to see who else is going to be showing and work through it that way. Very well. Uh, we have four minutes then. Let's just kind of push that off for a bit for our next right now. Kevin, good. Good evening. Um, we were just saying we wanted to figure out the reorganization of the board, but wanted to make sure we had more people present. Um, it looks like you're now joined us, but that Gino might not be joining us because he did not get his paperwork. So, um, uh, we can still hold off and see if he joins in a little bit. I think that would make sense. There's no reason to rush it. So, how about for the next four minutes, do we have any member updates or Francis, do you want to give us any updates right now? Um, sure. Um, so for the public health nurse, we have extended an offer. Um, and I believe it has been accepted, so it'll be ready to go on nursing on July 1st. Terrific. Um, we also were part of the interview panel for the new assistant conservation agent for the town. Um, and we extended

an offer today for that as well. So, that'll be starting in the next couple weeks. Well, public health nurse, you've been considerably more successful than this board was without you. That's for sure. So, thank you very much for figuring out a solution and getting us all the way to uh knock on wood, hopefully a higher all in not that long of time, frankly, for uh such a such a feat. Yeah, I think it's going to be great. Um she'll be at the next meeting in July. Terrific. Any other updates? Um, the fee schedule is still with legal counsel. Um, they did come back today with some additional questions. I already answered them, so I'm hoping it will be wrapped up by the end of the week so I can send it out. Awesome. Uh, and as a part of that, I know that they' done some write up in terms of like kind of the the key line items and what the concern was. And so similarly, if you just want to kind of help us focus and just key line items and what the change or whatever it is, what action you're recommending um so we can review it uh faster. Yeah. So it'll be a comparison between um what was previously approved and what's being proposed, items that might be cut, and we'll be also putting the show on there as well to see a comparison for that. Just get a general idea of how the fees will change July 1st. Okay. Okay. Um I our next meeting is going to be June 11th. So do you want it on the agenda for that or do you still want to wait for give legal some more time to get back to you? Um I'm hoping these were the last round of questions. They weren't as specific. They were kind of more broad. So I think they're finishing up. So I hope to have it by the end of the week if not early

next week. So definitely put it on the agenda for the 11th. Okay. How about um just cuz I know it's length and I think it would behoove to have a little review time in advance. How about if you don't have it by the 4th, we just bump it to the next meeting. Sure. Okay. So that this because that way you could get it out to this board at least a week before we're going to meet if if you could so that we can have time to glance at it, review it, see if we have any offline questions before we dive in. I just I don't want to bring it up at this meeting and end up spending an hour and a half discussing minutia. Um if we can clear anything up in advance. Makes sense. Thank you all. Want a question? Yep. Um did um did after their comments I remember when we were in the meeting several of their comments were around the that some of the uh they didn't believe some of the fees were backed by either uh something we had in the books in town or something at the state level so it was defensible. Did we give them uh sites for each of the different fees and so that way they could see where they were coming from? We did for the fees that we can charge for. Some of them had to be removed. Okay. Was it a large percentage of those or was it just a small number? Um the food fees are cut down a lot and the um this the treatment plants are cut down. Um and hazardous waste is cut down as well. Okay. Thank you. And at our meeting, I think we can discuss is if we feel like something uh with Francis's recommendation does warrant some sort of coverage and fee

that we need to then create a regulation for that that'll be a next step. All right, we'll pause on the rest of that discussion. We will go to our 705 uh public hearing on two Elmwood Road. We have somebody in the audience representing that project. Yes, I am. All right. Me get you added to our group. All right, Dan, if you could introduce yourself and then uh you should be able to share your screen to show us your project. Sure. Uh my name is Dan Wolf. I'm with David Ross Associates and I'm representing the owners of Two Elmwood Road tonight. Uh Daniel and Rachel Dwarte. Um, they live at uh two Elmwood Road in a existing four-bedroom house and they've got a a very old uh I believe it's a cess poolool in their backyard and it's time to get that upgraded to something more um more advanced than a cesspool. So, uh good timing. What we had done is we've gone out there and done soil testing. Results were were very good with the perk rate. groundwater was um not as deep as we had hoped and uh the reason for that is we were hoping to make the system uh gravityfed so we wouldn't have to have a pump system. Um we did design a conventional leech bed and uh we were not able to make it a pump system. So what we did is went back

with a plumber figured out how high we could raise the plumbing and it still wasn't enough to avoid a pump. So the suggestion was made that uh we use a presby system and as I'm sure the board is aware with the presby the D approval allows us to reduce the groundwater offset by as much as 2 ft. So that's what we've done. It allowed us to get the system in the ground. Um there are there is still an adjustment that needs to be made to the plumbing in the house, but with that adjustment, we can now feed the system uh by gravity. And the the real strong point about that is not only cost, which is a homeowner's big consideration, um but to eliminate uh the need for a mechanical type system uh that is subject to failure at any time. So, this would be a better all-around system um using the Presby with a twoft groundwater offset. I'm sorry, a 3-foot groundwater offset. And um we've just come before your board to ask permission for that. I believe Jim has already reviewed the plan and doesn't have a problem with it, but I'll let him speak to that. Um Dan, are you able to share your plan on your screen so we can see it and you can you can walk us through a little bit and explain what it is? Sure. Um, are you able to Okay, let me find the share. There it is. All right, we can see it. Great. Excellent. But zoom in a little bit on the area you're describing. Thank you. All right. You able to see that? All right.

Trying to move the screen over. Okay. You're able to see that, correct? Yes. Okay. So, we've got a relatively small lot. So, we didn't have a lot of flexibility. Uh the lot is 36 acres, about a third of an acre. And uh as I mentioned the existing cess poolool is directly behind the house in the back here. We went just beyond that. Did a couple of test holes there which as I mentioned uh had good results. And this is the layout of the presby system that goes in there. And we've got a gravity feed from from the house through the septic tank and into the presby system. So it's it's very straightforward. This house, by the way, um is on town water, which is in the front yard here, coming from the street. So, has that prompted any questions on your part? Uh potentially. We'll go ahead and go to Francis and Jim for their kind of evaluation and comments. Jim So, um I have reviewed I did the soil testing or witnessed the soil testing out there. Again, it's a cess poolool and you know based on the depth that we were told of the cesspool likely sitting in the groundwater. Um so that's going to be removed there is it's on top water. So, you know, putting the Presby system in, which provides a little bit of treatment according to Presby, uh, and getting the, uh, the the system above the groundwater from a public health standpoint is going to make a, you know, big difference on that site. Um, avoiding a mechanical component like putting a pump in there, uh, again provides a little less of a headache for homeowners down the line. So, I think overall from the public health

standpoint, uh, it's a much better situation. Very good. Thank you. Questions from the board. Kevin Davis. Couple things. Um, are there any variances that you're asking for? No, there are not. No variances. How, um, how many feet from the lot lines is the presby? Um, it's about 15 feet there to the closest lot line. Okay. And we're just leaving the cesspool in place and just letting um nature do its course or are we pumping that out or? No, it it is detailed on the plan that the sept cesspool will be pumped out and then that cavity will be filled with clean gravel fill. Okay. I didn't see that note. I'm sorry. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Dan Kane questions. Um, other than the change of the offset from the groundwater, doesn't look like there's any grading changes to the property line or anything. Right. That's correct. Okay. Nope. I don't have any questions. Thank you, sir. And Kevin Ber, I can't see it on the plan. I'm just curious what the high groundwater was called at and and what the perk rate was. Yeah, the uh we had two test holes out back there and um we estimated it at 7 feet. Good. What was the perk? The perk was 2 minutes per inch. So really nice sand material. So very they made you they made you go to three feet and you could have done two but yes with with two

minute per inch soil we need a five foot offset and the presby approval allows us to reduce that by 2 feet resulting in a 3ft total groundwater offset. Yeah great thanks for the information. All right. Thank you, Kevin. And um I was just going to say that there no wetlands nearby here, right? No, not at all. Okay, that's what I thought. I have no other questions. We'll entertain a motion from the board. Uh, Mr. Chair. Yes, Kevin. Would you like to check for a butters? I don't know if that's Oh, apologies. Do we have any abutters in the audience or any members of the public that would like to make a comment or question? There are no other attendees. Mr. Chair, go ahead. I'd like to make a motion I'd like to make a motion to approve the plan as presented. A second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kaine. Dan Kane votes yes. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. And Matt Wson votes yes. Uh, your plan is approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Have a good night. You too. This takes us to our 7:15 p.m. public hearing on the basement and additions regulation.

Francis, can you get us started where we're at? Um, sure. So based on the last meeting, it was recommended um that this could be brought to a public hearing stage at this point. So we are in the draft here. Um anything in red is either things that were still outstanding um that we're looking for more present board members to comment on or they might be new items added. You're on mute. M. Um, I guess we could go right to um the question of egress. There seems to be a divide on the board. Matt, you're on mute. Can you display it? Can you share it for us so we can see? Sure. Thank you.

Yeah. So, the first red is a little lower down there in the four dwelling section right there. So, that's existing with ceiling heights. I think this is just Yeah. valuable detail. I we kind of had a lot of discussion about well how do how do these 7 foot and 7 foot 3 in rules apply and building code etc. So I think that's a reasonable kind of little call out to say based upon the existing um they can still be counted. So that's our that's our out if we find some plan that falls in this gap of it's pre-existing so it didn't use the count or it does count now etc. Does that make sense? So I I think we should just leave this detail kind of in there like that. Does that make does that work? Okay, I see nodding heads. So keep going now. And just to notice our scrolling. So after tonight, this will be sent to um zoning and planning board and conservation for review and then we'll get their comments back as well. Awesome. Um I should have made it in red but the accessory dwelling units is also new um in terms of the definition is from the um affordable housing act for the ad use and also incorporates 1,200 ft² instead of the 900 ft² because um Littleton is has provision for 1,200 ft instead. Um did you sorry going back to points one and two it's all about the structures. Was there the discussion at the last meeting, apologic

system size as the starting point for the definition? I believe so. Okay. Very very well. We can keep going. Okay. Um any questions on the uh number three since it's fairly new the definition or questions on the the flow of 110? No, but I appreciate you putting that in there. Is a design flow of 110 gallons per day per bedroom shall be used to determine a subject. Oh, for Okay, never mind. Says for ADUs. All good. Never mind. Is that is that the same number as calculated for any bedroom in the house? It is. Okay. But we're calling that out specifically instead of just saying that it counts as a bedroom or it could have more than one and it's going to count that way. Um I think it's just to make it clear that that's what it is counted for cuz people are going to think that ADUs are separate than anything else. But in terms of bedrooms, it still has the same flow. So okay, so it says and it says per bedroom. So, if somebody manages to make an ADU with two bedrooms, then it'll count as two bedrooms, correct? With 110 gallons of flow per day each. Each uh Mr. Chair. Yeah. I just think that 110 gallons is important because

typically, you know, ADU might be used uh for uh an older relative or senior and those flows are half that. I believe there Jim, correct me if I'm wrong. Uh are they 55 or if if you're designing a unit for they call it housing for the elderly. It's 150 gallons up to two bedrooms. It's a weird kind of number right there. So somebody could try to say it's it should be only 75 for my onebedroom ADU. Okay, good. Thank you for that note, Kevin. That's an important call out then. basement. So, the big question last time is does a walk-in should that be considered? Kevin, go ahead. I I do think a walk out uh should trigger board of health review uh in the instance that it may want to be looked at from the perspective of an ADU and follow those rules and regulations and perhaps be on the list of um dwellings that the town checks on. I think it's on a three-year three-year bait every three years uh to make sure that the it's being used appropriately. However, I don't I don't believe um it should automatically trigger a bedroom determination and and um ADU should be self-contained, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't look at this as a an an in-law suite or an apartment. Um, but the ADU rules as it were wouldn't apply, I don't believe. Is that is that correct?

I don't know why they would unless it was triggered somehow and and applied for directly in that way. I I'm not I'm unsure. Okay. Um, and in this list, it's the it's the kind of two or more feature and it's vague language because all it says is shell trigger review. Um, and I'm not sure if we want to keep it that vague. Uh, it doesn't give us a whole lot of concrete ground to stand on. So then it just becomes whatever the board does as precedent um over over multiple reviews. Uh, this just came about because it's the when you start to have more and more features as it were that make it look like you have an in-law suite or an apartment. Um, should that come before this board for more thorough review? There's been a lot of feeling about the egress portion of it and so uh I know Kevin Davis has spoken against that and if he wants to provide some additional detail he can or if Kevin Baker were you just saying you don't feel that the egress should be on there as well. I I don't think it should be 100% determination factor in whether it's counted as an additional bedroom. Uh, but I should think I do think that if there is an exterior access, it should be looked at from an ADU perspective. So, I'm in agreement with the first uh red bullet point in number two, but not in number three. Ah, okay. Kevin Davis, he had your hand up. Uh I uh will pile on to uh Kevin Baker and that I have no problem with triggering a review with Walk Out, but absolutely disagree with u the exterior egress in number three. Also,

um I have a problem actually with all of number three. Um but can you pause on that for a second then? Okay. Is there any other problem with two point 2? Dan, you haven't said anything. Do you have a problem with the red line on point two? Um, all it does is prompt a a little bit closer review from us. It's not a mandate that we take some action. I I think that's fine with number two. Very well, Francis. Number two is set. Now, moving to number three, bedroom determination basement. So numbers one and two are just talking about spaces and hitting a square footage mark right of 400 and then saying well and then if you have some other features going on then the board's going to review it. Now point number three is talking about bedroom determination. So if a basement modification includes these items then the basement configuration shall be presumed to include additional bedroom. Kevin Baker you started say what you want to say about this part then. Uh I don't believe uh an accessible exterior egress should be the determinant of whether finishing space in the ba basement is adding a bedroom. Okay. Kevin Davis, you also wanted to say something. Hitting the mute button would be helpful. Um so I actually think um definitely the exterior egress should not be there. I'm trying to recall the conversation around why we would um say that if we have two or more and a bathroom then the basement configuration shall be presumed to include an additional bedroom. What was what was the conversation around that? I don't remember that part. I'm interpreting this as kind of a follow on from number two, which is the

shell trigger review to basically make it more clear that if you have these kinds of features and you've divided up your basement and you have an exterior door and you have a bathroom and you have some rooms, uh, then you're automatically going to be counting something as a bedroom. I I'm not sure. I don't think the language was specifically called out to say we must have this. I I but that's how I'm interpreting it to be there. Francis can add some more detail, I think. But um so I'm not sure if it if we need to say something or if this is trying to guide the board in how to deal with the trigger from number two. Um but it becomes the when do you when do you no longer look at a basement as a basement and start applying main floor rules to it. That's that's how I read this. And if that's the case, then do we want something that's more concrete that tells us when to do that or do we leave it as the prior, which is shall trigger? And the concern there is that it's not concrete and then it's whatever cases come before the board just creates the precedence. Um, Baker, you had your hand up. did I I feel like each scenario uh that comes before the board is so uh unique and you know they might have extra flow they might not have a dining room you know they might not have um I just think it's to to put out a blanket statement uh stating that division into two or more closed spaces and a bathroom is uh is very uh black and white And if it's something we're going to use as almost a regulatory tool, uh we we might just want to uh consider all the different uh unique properties that that come before us before we uh handcuff ourselves uh into into having to do something. That's

fair. Um, if I may, I would throw out that maybe the thing to do would be to say instead of calling out something that's concrete in number three, perhaps just a footnote to number two along the lines of um, spaces that could be considered apartments, in-law suites, or the like may have, you know, main floor bedroom count rules applied to them or something like that. Um, I'm I'm a little worried about just leaving it just at number two and ending and saying nothing else just because what is that review? We have no guidance in writing then of what that review should be and what it should say. So would that would that be fair to to to kind of instead of talking around it call out specifically that if it if it looks like you're creating a space that could be a separate living space then the board is going to evaluate it as living space not as your basement exercise room anymore. Davis. If you change the word shall to may. In that third sentence, it says bedroom determination in basements. If a basement modification includes strike the first bullet, a division of two or more closed spaces, a bathroom, then the basement configuration may be presumed to include an additional bedroom. That leaves us the wiggle room to look at it and say, "Oh, no. They're saying it's an office. They're saying it's this by saying it's a shall that is a it it must be whereas if you say it may then you can take the uh approach as guidance not as a requirement then then let's keep the then then the basement confiration may be presumed but but seriously change the language above it which is basically a cut and paste of the prior bullet list

and just go based upon the prior bullet list that says If you have these things, it's going to trigger review. And by the way, part of that is the basement configur may be presumed to include. Does that make sense? As long as the word shall in my mind goes to a may, then you're not then you're not saying you you are increasing a bedroom right away. It's up to the board to do that review and to have those features looked at. That's what I that's the way I read it. And you could actually get rid of the three thing. You know, basically you could say following review the outcome of the review will be, you know, may then the basement configuration may uh in, you know, be presumed to include an additional bedroom. You can just add a sent a sentence at the end of that number two that I mean that's the way I'm leaning. Um and and I I think I was I think it would be a good idea to like I said use the word apartment, in-law space, etc. just so that people read those words and understand that that's kind of what we're talking about when we're that's why we have this criteria list here. That's really why it exists because we don't want you creating a potentially separate meeting living space um that's going to potentially cause problems with some future owner. Does I Does that I guess in my mind as long as it's we're not mandating it, making it a requirement with shall and going with may I'm okay with that. That's all I'm saying. I'm just saying as a call out to why are we triggering a review? I feel like it's unfair to just leave a document, a regulatory document that says shall trigger a review. what what is the homeowner supposed to do with that information? But how will they have any idea? And so I'm just trying to say, let's clarify why we're asking for the review. And it's basically because we

don't want to let the, you know, another living space get created. FYI, it may have to include an additional bedroom if you go down this road. I agree. I don't need shell there. I'm just trying to get that detail. I'm trying to get between the two of just saying trigger and saying shell. Can we say trigger because and thus it may clear clear when then when then when you have the following then the basement can trigger it may be presumed to include an additional but right I have no problem I have no problem with that but shall absolutely not fair enough. Uh Kevin wants to say something. Do we know when an ADU gets triggered? I thought an ADU has to be can it be physically incorporated? Tim says yes. Yes. And so I think it gets triggered when somebody says I want to put a an additional living unit in the house and I you know I have this right under the ADU regulation. So I think that's where that gets triggered. There's a additional kitchens don't necessarily uh trigger additional living like a living units. There's some rule that was settled Ernie Bach had a house down the Cape and had a kitchen in the basement for it. And I guess it all you building inspectors will tell you about that one. So the kitchen in and of itself wouldn't make it a separate unit. Okay. Is it fair to just list that again in in a potential if you're trying to create an in-laws suite or an ADU or or an apartment then again that's what's that's what the trigger is about and so you'll have to have review. It's not saying you can't do it. And it's not I I wouldn't see it as like

a a loophole to to break the rules because if you're doing an ADU, you still have you're still going to have to count the bedroom. And so your system still has to be the right size. I I that's almost a more formal way of doing it that I wish people would do if they wanted to create something like that. Just admit that it's an ADU and we can deal with it. If you try to just show us a drawing that that has a bed in a room called the office, then that's a different situation. Dan Kaine input. Um, I'm okay with May. I hate regs that are May's because it's then why do we have it? It's a regulation says May doesn't really tell you anything. It's just it's a guidance more than a rag. So, I'm a little bit concerned with May, but I I can live with that. Um, I know we've gone back and forth with the accessible exterior egress piece. I mean, any basement living space has to by fire code have egress. So, you know, are we count I just I want to make sure that our definitions are accurate. are is that accessible exterior egress a fire code compliant escape window which would be considered an exterior egress or are we really thinking of walk out whatever walk out means is that a bulkhead is that stairs and a traditional doorway with like canopy thing is it you know a ground level walk out I just want to make sure that our definitions are accurate otherwise every finished basement That's the fire code or building code is also going to trigger this. Um, so in that case, I'm I agree with the the shell is strong. I I'm with you. We've gone back and forth with this. I like uh Matt, your concept of calling it out. Why did we try to make this definition? Why don't we just call it what it is? We're trying

to identify, are you turning a basement into a studio apartment? That may be fine, but just say I'm turning it into a studio apartment or something that could be a studio apartment and then let's work on it rather than as we've seen before. It's no no it's a it's a family room with a bed in it like no then that's an apartment. So I I kind of like including that spaces that you know could would appear could appear something ADU you know studio apartment in-law suite opair suite whatever I I'm with you just saying this is or or similar so that we don't go it's none of those things. It's this other thing that nobody thought to put in our list of of potentials. I I think that probably calls out and just makes it clear what the intent is. Um so we're all playing from the same same playbook here. So yeah, no, I I think adding that in I'm just not positive where and just want to double check the definition of that accessible exterior egress so that we're we're consistent. So we're not calling every fire escape window an egress. What what are we calling it out? We're looking for walkouts or whatever. Yeah, thank good good point Dan. Thank you. Um, the benefit, remember, is that this doesn't trigger a review unless you get two or more of the features. Um, I don't so I don't think the board will be inundated with these. Um, and so I think it I'm a little okay with it being a little little soft or maybe maybe a little too strict for a trigger until the board kind of gets a feel for it. Just change the regulations someday down the road. You say like, you know what, this is where it should really be landing. This is what we feel better about. um that it does say it does include the windows meeting building code egress requirements which gets to the point of basically if you have a walkout basement with full-size windows on them. It's starting to look more like a living space than a basement. And in my opinion, that's where that's where I would want to be doing that review. Um

not the little tiny 1T, you know, window at the ceiling from your subterranean basement. Um and similarly I I I know it'll be hard to figure out well what's what is accessible exterior eress does that mean not stairs um what's is that one what what one stair does that fall out of the rule so I would similarly just want to keep it I think a little more open to say yes if you have usable exterior egress then the board should should glance at it doesn't mean we have to look at it and be like oh boy you have a bulkhead so you're creating a a suite downstairs. Um, but again, it goes back to giving people and our health director just some direction so that they know what are we looking at, what are we looking for. So, if we don't have further comments, we'll say two is good all the way through the bottom of it. Um, maybe add accessible up to the exterior egress part. It says code compliant, whichever whichever term we want to use there. strike most of three and list out kind of what are the examples of the spaces that may be presumed to include additional bedrooms. You can put bedroom and then the s and parentals. All right, got it. Awesome. Moving on. Uh, and last 10 seconds for anybody to debate the 400 square foot that we landed on. Great. 10 seconds. No debate. Move on.

And this is this is all just new pasted in language. Yep. This is right from D's guidance. Okay. Uh in your review, anything that this board should focus on or particularly discuss Jim, have you seen any push back on any items for the um guidelines. So, this is essentially the guidance that D gave boards um to address these ADUs and and it's as much a regulatory document as it is a policy document. um the notion of the onebedroom that kind kind of calling that out in an ADU. What they don't want is they don't want you to say, "Hey, this ADU has three rooms in it. You're adding it to a seven room house. All of a sudden, now it has 10 rooms. It should have a five bedroomedroom house." They want you to add the one bedroom from this unit to that bedroom count of the unit. So, um again, I haven't seen a lot of push back. Um and and all of the language really it kind of breaks down between whether you have a conforming system or a non-conforming system and whether you're adding flow or not adding flow. So there's not really a lot of contention there. Those are pretty objective standards. Thanks Jim. Now I see it it talks about for if there's new construction that it meets uh the standards for the number of bedrooms like an F but for an exist does

that same language is that talks about the the number of bedrooms in the ADU so let's see for system so if it's non-conforming in your adding flow you'd have to upgrade the system. Yeah, I guess I guess that first bullet point says for ex if uh well no because it says F is about if an ADU is proposed to start to its own septic system, right? So then you look then you look at the site. So now this ADU is on the site. So D looks at everything that's happening on the site. So, let's say there was three bedrooms and you're putting a separate one-bedroom on there and the threebedroom already had a non-conforming system because you're adding a bedroom to the site. D makes you upgrade everything to full compliance. Aha. Okay. So, and perhaps it's a scroll up. Basically, I just want to see that the same language where it says the system meets whatever standards for the number of bedrooms in the ADU because that's the key thing. Can you point out right for that? Right. They're an A. Right. An increase in the number of bedrooms on the facility, then it's going to count as the number of bedrooms, right? Yes. Okay. That's if you have the right number of bedrooms and the system's okay and you had a two compartment tank, you might be fine. If you didn't have the two compartment tank, but the leech field was fine, you may just need the two compartment. If the system wasn't big enough, then you're increasing the system to meet full compliance. Wow. Did they give you a hotline to call when one of these comes up that you can ask this decision tree you were going through? Uh more importantly, they want all the calls to go to one number because they have a small group of people at D who are going to answer these. They've explained to us this is this is going to be a living document. So again the the two the two most

important distinctions are uh conforming non-conforming systems and increase in flow and not increase in flow. That that's really the kind of decision points. Got it. Got it. Uh Kevin Davis, did you put your hand up? If so, go ahead. I did. And um we might think to if it makes it more clear. I'm not saying to do it, but if it makes it more clear, bold the words in the clause that you're trying to test for for each one of the lines. So that way your your eye will be drawn to what it means for each one of those lines. Not saying we need to, but if it makes it more clear for somebody, so that way they can say, "Oh, this is the line that I'm looking for. Oh, this is the line I'm looking for." It's just something to think about. It is verbose. So Kevin Davis, I believe, volunteered to make the flowchart to help you go down this decision process. I do it for work. I could do it for here. Hence my comment saying if you bold those items it makes it easy. Okay, go ahead and start scrolling Francis and we'll see if anybody raises their hand. Okay. Okay, let's get to section six then.

Go ahead, Kevin. What would be an example of documentation of an existing septic systems compliance with Title 5? Title 5 inspection. So, an existing home that was constructed in 2002 that has not would it have had a Title 5 inspection to get its occupancy permit? Yes. So, if a system got installed, it would have a certificate of compliance and and I'm I'm hedging that if it was a new house at the time, that certificate of compliance would have been required for the occupancy permit. If we if we replace the system, let's say it was an existing house and you put a new system in 2002, you would have a certificate of compliance. Okay? Same document. Um, and I'm more worried about a new house construction, you know, how did you get the occupancy permit? Do we know, was there a title five that was done on it as part of the occupancy? I just don't remember. As an example, my house I'm like, uh, I don't recall. Are you finishing your basement? No, no, no. I'm just I I'm just doing what if scenarios in my brain going, okay, if we do this, does this, does this, does this, does this. You know, I'm just going through the list of whatifs. And I'm like, okay, so if we had new home construction, is that part of the of is that part of the paperwork that must be ready for an occupancy permit. You just said yes, it is. So, I'm like, cool, done. Um, I I think the only thing I might add is on the first bullet point, um, just make sure that people understand the floor plan's for the whole building, not just the floor we're talking about

doing something to. Um, so I don't know if it's existing or proposed floor plans. I don't know. Add some words in there to make sure people understand it's the whole house. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then my only other one was on the third bullet point is we we constantly say it's not about what you're telling us you're using it for. It's about what some future homeowner might look at it as. So, what do people think? I would almost say don't call that out as a bullet point. People are welcome to tell us their story, but if somebody promises to me that that's being used as a yoga room, even though it has a closet and a nice window, that it will never be a bedroom, that's not supposed to matter to me. Fair enough. Anybody else thoughts either way? Davis. Um, maybe if you want to put a label, label each proposed room. That's in the first That's in the first bullet. Uh-uh. Oh, room's clearly labeled. Never mind. I withdraw. And that's why I think I think I think that should be we just leave it as labeled. You you people can still do it, right? People can still put some words on there, but leave it as labeled just so we do know where the dining room is because there's no picture of a table and chairs, you know? All right. So, we'll strike both three gun. Was that Yeah, that I think that's fair. I think

we're done. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I'll get this out tomorrow to planning, conservation, and zoning, and um, I'll get comments back to the board as they're ready. Awesome. Um, thanks everyone. I I know this is taking a long time. Um, I think it'll be really helpful to us in the future and future board members. Um, Kevin Davis. Yes. Uh, thank you so much. I do appreciate all the work that went into this. Um, also, are we going to send this off to legal to let them do the review? Uh yes and the AG's office. Nice. Uh so other boards feedback we interpret that feedback we think we finalize it then legal. Yes. All right. That takes us back to uh let's go with our vote for reorganization of the board. It has been a year and welcome back Kevin Davis to the board and myself. I'm also back and so it's time to shake up the leadership structure. If anybody wants to make any speeches, now is uh your time. Dan K. I would like to make a motion nominating Kevin Davis for chair of the board of health. I'll second that motion. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kaine. Dan Kane votes yes. And Matt Wson votes yes. Congratulations. The new chair of the board of health is Kevin

Davis. Round of applause. Vice Chair and Secretary are other two seats of power. Uh I'd like to make a motion to nominate Dr. uh to be the vice chair of the board of health. I'll second that. No, we have a motion in a second. If I briefly do you accept the nomination? Are you sure? I'm only saying this because I was just chair and Kevin Davis was just vice chair and I don't want other people on the board to miss out an opportunity to further involve themselves in leadership positions. But if neither Mr. Kane or Mr. Baker want to do that then I will be happy to take a vote on the motion. Consider uh you know a great compliment. I think you've been you guys have been doing a great job and I think there's something to be said for consistency and you know Dan and I are here to help with whatever whatever needs to be done. So uh always yes I feel the board is very very supportive of each other. So uh we do a motion and a second. So roll call vote. Kevin Baker Kevin Baker votes yes. Kevin Davis Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kane Dan Kane votes yes. And Matt Wson will vote yes. I will take vice chair. I nominate I would like to make a motion.

I would like to nominate uh Dan Kaine as the secretary for the board of health. Second that motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kane. Dan Kane votes yes. Mason votes yes. Dan Kane is thus the secretary of the board of health. Kevin Davis gets Kevin Baker gets all action items. Therefore, yes, I'm good at that. And as with most meetings, Mr. Falone isn't here, so therefore he's not here to go to be not it. So he gets everything else. That's right. We should create a new position. We should have five positions. We have five people. We should have something, right? Uh I'm equipment manager from this point forward. Uh okay. Uh Mr. Chair, would you like me to wrap up tonight's agenda or do you want to take over the meeting? You can continue, sir. You're doing such a phenomenal job. Very well. Thank you very much. This brings us to our administrative matters. First on the list is our signature approval for payroll and accounts payable. So, this is a yearly thing. Um, typically whoever the department head would they'd have to vote and we would sign that type of paperwork. Um, they sent it over to us and they followed up with the recommendation that it might be better to do it over multiple years instead of just keep doing it each year. Um, so it's up to the board whatever they want to do. I like our way. You never know when you have new people. However, that what's new this time is that we have a director because historically we've just uh I

think typically voted to allow the chair to sign anything. So, is that still the way to go or do we empower the director to do it? [Music] Um, so I've already been doing it uh because we voted on it last year. Oh, did we? Okay. So, is that is that okay with the board? I see nodding heads. Dan Dan's okay with it. Okay, it's okay with me then. So, yes, Dan. Sorry, just a quick question. The letter from Michelle Reynolds, it's to cemetery conservation, library planning, parks and wreck, cable advisory, and school committee. It actually isn't to the health department or the board of health. I'm assuming they would also want us to make this determination and continue it, but it actually isn't addressed to us. So, I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something or she just didn't leave us off the list. No, this is fine. Um, yeah, I think that was a typo, but me and Megan figured it's just better just to bring it up anyway. So, okay. Nope. Just want to double check. So, vote on this. Let's have a motion that we will follow that process in a second, please. I make a motion to adopt the signatory and payroll requests for the director of health. Second motion. Second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kane. Dan Kane votes yes. And Mason votes yes. Please let us know if you need anything any further steps on that. I know it says don't submit this till July 1st. So

the start of the new year, but if you need anything, let us know. Okay. Uh might need the chair to sign it, but it might be electronic. It should be fine. You can you can contact Kevin Davis for that. Next, administrative matters are uh meeting minute approvals. First, we have minutes from the April 23rd, 2025 meeting. Um Kevin Baker was not present, but I was and Kevin Davis and Dan Kane were. So we can vote on them if they have been reviewed. I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes for April 23, 2025 as presented. I second that. Motion a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Dane. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis, yes. Dan Kaine, Dan Kane votes yes. And Matt Wson votes yes. Minutes for April 23rd, 2025 are approved. Next, we have the minutes for May 14th, 2025. I was not present, but Kevin Davis and Kevin Baker and Dan Kane were. So, these also can be voted on if they have been reviewed. Question. Yes. Is that link a click? Is that link a clickable link uh from the April one? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. No, nothing further. It's all good. So May 14th

I'm good. Make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of May 14th, 2025 as presented. I'll second. Motion in a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Baker votes yes. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kaine. Dan Kane votes yes. And Matt Wson abstains. The meeting minutes for May 14, 2025 are approved. Uh before we get to correspondence, I do have an update on our decision uh infectious disease decision support tool. So I will present that now. So the CO 19 update is uh not very exciting. Same um variant that we saw last time. The LP81 is the most common about half the cases. Um wastewater numbers are down both below 200 for the first time in a long long time. Uh and our weekly case counts as you can see on the chart on the right have been very very low. Um so that kind of paints a positive picture for CO 19. Um I guess time will tell is if it starts to kind of really follow an influenza kind of pattern where there's a bigger spike in the fall and winter. it's highly likely or if it just parallels kind of when people get back together at school and such like that. So we will keep monitoring it of course but those are the numbers. Um I have popped open the arbirus section because although testing technically begins in June and it is only May. Um the state has started um showing the risk map. So for triple E we are currently at low risk which is technically not the lowest level risk that they show on their chart but it is um what this area generally starts at at the beginning of the season and

similarly for Westnau virus low risk currently. Um influenza was low is still low so I will kind of officially close that section for the end of the season. And similarly RSV um which was quite low last time we reviewed it similarly low. So, we are out of those two respiratory viral seasons and now it's time to just focus on our CO and our mosquitoes. Any other questions or topics to bring up? Go ahead, Francis. You first. I was just going to add on to um mosquitoes. So, today we sent out a news flash to the town about abandoned pools. um Central Mass Mosquito will treat them and it is a free service. So anybody who does have an abandoned fool or a neighbor who might have one, if they reach out, we can get them in contact and get a contractor out there to treat it. Have we also let the town know that Central Mass mosquito control is the people to come out and contact and let them know that they will come and treat your property for mosquitoes and all that kind of good stuff? Uh yes, we did send something out I think a month and a half ago um when they were starting operations and we'll just continue to communicate through the summer and we have our web page as well. Okay. Uh, so technical question. I I saw the email from the town email and then it links to a page, but I don't see it on the health department front page. I don't have it on there. We sent it out through the main stream so that everybody would get it. Okay. Um because then my other request is this isn't the first time and and it might be out of our control entirely, but the number of

times that I get a town email that actually includes a link to a PDF and the number of times we tell people not to click things in emails whenever possible is one of these like what whatever the information is in that PDF, why isn't it just a web page that we can be sending people to as opposed to creating another step? because I think it becomes a barrier especially if somebody's on their phone and now trying to open up a PDF on their phone which takes a couple more steps and like I said I know it's not in our control because I'm guessing that we didn't create the PDF we're just trying to connect people to it but if there's any sort of way to when it comes to our email from our town or our web page if we can have some summary information or links just to more web pages as opposed to documents I I just throw that out there. Um, I actually didn't look at it cuz I was on my phone. I was like, "Ah, another PDF. I just don't want to deal with it right now." Thanks. But which is why I went to then homepage because I said, "Oh, it should just be on the health department page." But I didn't see it there. So, so um I bring it to it. Yeah. Couple things. The state uh publishes all of their stuff uh either in HTML or PDF. Uh they don't send out any other document type or things like that. One of the reasons why they send it out in PDF also is for 508 compliance because that'll naturally take care of it. Um, and some of the new PDF readers also do translation. So, that's also a good thing. Whereas HTML, you have to have a 508 compliant section alternate text and it may or may not be in the appropriate language. I send the PDF as a link at the bottom. I don't care. But, but give information in the body. That's all that's all I'm getting at. Whenever somebody has to take extra steps, they're just less likely to actually get the material. Not disagreeing. Right. Like the number of times the town sends information by email and there's more space spent on

logos and headers and footers than there is on content because it's a link that you got to go work for. So like I said, it might be totally out of our control, but I think we could do better. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just letting you know reasons behind it. regulations. Don't don't bother me. You haven't you can focus on those. Okay. Uh then I think that's it for uh the ID tool there. So that brings us to correspondence. What correspondence do we have to discuss? Damn. Uh I have an operational question. I was had someone reach out to me say regarding um the Masonic Lodge. They spent the last year redoing their kitchen. Um they had a small incident. It sounds like not a big deal. However, it prompted um a fire response who went whoa who wa whoa whoa whoa from the fire code side of things and a number of other folks got involved and they have redone their entire kitchen. Um, I believe they're done or they're close, but one of their officers reached out and had questions regarding the inspection process, the licensing process for their kitchen, as well as the training requirements for their staff. Most of the time that it is used for members of the organization, but they do do things like pancake breakfast and some of those kind of things for the public, which kind of changes the criteria, I believe, as soon as they open the doors to others. Um, so really they just had some questions around choke saver training, serve safe training, um, you know, inspectional licensing requirements, some of those kind of pieces. So I said I would reach out to um to Francis and Jim tonight when I have my meeting. uh if it's okay with you, I'll double check with the officer if it's okay for me to just give give you guys their their contact info and and you can kind of address because it's it is a little bit of I mean we

have other clubs in town and what we've got what Kella over in by by the lake and we've got um BFW I'm not sure if they have a real kitchen but we have other organizations like on a church but on a restaurant but have a kitchen that's sometimes used outside that weird in between zone. Um, so as long as it's okay with Francis and Jim, I will reach out and see if it's okay just to put them in touch with you directly to figure out what exactly is required for surf safe and choke saver and all that kind of good stuff. Um, signage and that stuff. Um, even as a club, this would need to be inspected and anyway, right? Yeah, we reached out to him a couple times about that. Um, so a contact would be great. Okay. Yep. I will double check with with the person who reached out as long as it's okay with them. I will connect you guys by email tomorrow offline. Perfect. Thank you for bringing that back. Go ahead. Keep going. Um sorry, this is just a minor one. Um for our agendas, is there a way that we can add um particularly for like the address ones a topic? So it's like tonight we had just two Elwood Road as a as a public hearing. Is it a housing issue? Is it a title five waiver? Is it can we just add a kind of a topic along with it? So it's not just an address that might be helpful both for us. We see the packet the community may not see a packet. So having just a sense of oh they're redoing the septic system or they're doing an addition or wait we've got a a significant housing issue just that that I'm not sure if we necessarily need to hit the the agenda supposed to provide at least an understanding a basic concept of what's being discussed. I'm not sure if an address quite reaches that threshold. It might. I'm just not sure. But fair enough. Yep. Good point. Any other correspondence?

And that just brings us to board member updates. Kevin Baker. I have no updates um right now. All right, Kevin Davis. No updates. Um, I actually went Oh, maybe this is an update. Sorry. Um, I actually went to the filtration or the sensors and I'm not seeing more sensors on around town or did I just not get to the right page? So, I can take that up offline with you, Francis, to see what's going on. Um, but yeah. Are you refer to our air quality sensors? Yeah, we did have some problems um in the beginning because they had to change out outlets. Um I'll have to check. I haven't looked lately, but yeah, we can connect tomorrow. All right, perfect. Thank you. That's it. Nothing else. Um yeah, I'm still seeing at least a few around town, but you can check. Uh Dan Kane, any other updates? Nope, nothing else. Thank you. Uh, any updates from Jim? I do not. Thank you. And any updates from Francis? No. And any update from Megan? And I don't have any updates either. What was that, Kevin? Any updates from Megan? Any updates from Megan? Nothing on my end. And we have no audience members to ask for input. So that uh wraps up our agenda for this evening. Where's Gino?

Go ahead, Dan. I'll make a motion that we adjourn. I will second that. Motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Baker. Kevin Baker votes yes. Kevin Davis. Kevin Davis votes yes. Dan Kane. Dan Kane votes yes. And Matt Wson votes yes. Thank you all for a good meeting. See you next time. Thank you. Good night everyone. Thank you.