Town of
Meeting of the
Water & Sewer Board
Members
present: Jonathan Sinaiko (Chair), Sacha Richter, Kathleen Meads,
Members
absent: None
Other attendees: Selectman
Call to
Order
Mr. Sinaiko called the meeting to order at
Flow Revisions
Mr. Faris presented the following flow
revisions.
|
Map & Parcel |
Address |
Orig Flow |
Rev Flow |
Net Chg |
Original Betterment |
Revised Total Betterment |
Net Betterment Increase (Decrease) |
Reason for Change |
|
|
|
220 |
330 |
110 |
$7,409.60 |
$11,114.40 |
$3,704.80 |
Revision in accordance with
determination by health Agent that property ahs 3 bedrooms. |
|
11-3-016-0-00H |
|
830 |
1063 |
233 |
$27,954.40 |
$35,801.84 |
$7,847.44 |
Revision to reflect temporary parking
of 233 gpd in addition to 707 gpd allowed on |
|
11-3-015-0-00F |
|
3600 |
1980 |
(1620) |
$121,248.00 |
$66,686.40 |
($54,561.60) |
Revision to reflect reduction of
seating from 180 to 99. |
|
11-3-015-0-00E |
|
200 |
300 |
100 |
$6,736.00 |
$10,104.00 |
$3,368.00 |
Revision to reflect 5 additional
seats. |
|
11-3-015-0-00A |
|
160 |
320 |
160 |
$5,388.80 |
$10,777.60 |
$5,388.80 |
Revision to reflect 8 additional fast
food seats. |
Mr. Faris pointed out that 291-293 Commercial is one of the properties
with so-called surplus gallons that are under a Town-Meeting imposed deadline
to either use the surplus sewer gallons or risk forfeiting them. The changes reflected above will result in
1,127 gallons being released to the surplus gallon pool for reallocation. Mr. Sinaiko moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dereck,
to revise the flow and betterment for these properties. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0.
Assessment
of Sewer Connection Surcharges
Mr. Faris presented the following red dot delay properties on which connection surcharges need to be assessed.
|
Property Address |
Surcharge Amount |
|
|
$42,988.00 |
|
|
$9,574.60 |
|
|
$21,494.00 |
Mr. Sinaiko moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dereck, to assess the connection surcharges. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0.
Appeal
of Sewer Betterment –
Ms. Evans presented the Board with a report
stating that the two systems serving this property are both old code and that,
owing to depth of groundwater, upgrading them to current regulations would
result in mounded systems. She
recommended that, in light of the foregoing issues, the property be required to
connect to the sewer. However, if the
property owners could submit a current inspection report showing that all
systems pass inspection, she would drop her objection to their opting out of
the sewer system. Mr. Faris advised the
Board that, on information and belief, the condominium association would be
holding a meeting within the next few days for the purpose of reviewing the
sewer connection issue. Therefore, Mr.
Sinaiko moved, seconded by Ms. Meads, to table the item until more information
is available. The motion carried by a
vote of 4-0. [Although Attorney Snow had
requested that the matter be placed on the agenda, he was not present when this
matter came up for discussion. Following
disposition of the other agenda items, Mr. Snow was advised of the Board’s
decision to table.]
Orders
of Taking
Mr. Faris presented eminent domain orders of
taking for 25 Snow’s Lane and 35 Court
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Meads,
seconded by Mr. Sinaiko, to approve the minutes, as printed, of the meeting of
Other Business – Clarification of
Sewer Regulations
Mr. Sinaiko asked that the Board obtain some clarification
of the March 1 amendment to the sewer regulation requiring so-called red
properties to connect to the sewer under certain circumstances. Owing to a misrepresentation of the subject
matter in the local press, several interested members of the public were
present seeking to provide public input.
Mr. Sinaiko stated at the outset that the Board’s rules and regulations
may only be amended in the context of a duly advertised public hearing and that,
because discussion of this subject matter had not been properly noticed, there
was no question of this being a “public hearing.”
While the regulations do not state that all
building permits shall require a red property to connect to the sewer, at issue
is what constitutes “reconstruction, extension or structural change or a structure
on the property” [Section 6.D.3(c)] Mr.
Sinaiko stated that the Board had never intended that “routine repair and
maintenance”—for example, replacement of windows—would trigger the requirement
to connect. Mr. Guertin explained that
he had discussed the matter with the building commissioner and the assistant
town manager in an effort to develop some guidelines that would eliminate subjectivity
in applying the regulation. He suggested
using a percentage, say, 1%-2% of assessed valuation, as determined by the
assessors, as the threshold for requiring a red property to connect. After some discussion, Mr. Sinaiko moved,
seconded by Mr. Van Dereck, to send a letter to the building commissioner, with
copy to town counsel, setting forth the Board’s interpretation that routine
maintenance and repair would be excluded from the requirement to connect in Section
6.D.3(c) of the Sewer Regulations. The
motion carried by a vote of 4-0.
The Board also asked staff to seek guidance
from town counsel regarding possible amendments related to issues concerning
compliance with Chapter 91 and the possibility of an appeal process to the
Water and Sewer Board in the event the building commissioner should disagree
with the Board’s interpretation of building permits for repair and
maintenance. Once the Board has reviewed
the proposed language, then it can decide whether to schedule a public hearing
for the purpose of amending the regulations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Sinaiko moved, seconded
by Ms. Meads, to adjourn the meeting.
The vote carried by a vote of 4-0, and the meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully
submitted,
__________________________