Friday, January 8, 2010
Board of Health shorts, December 15
• 511 Brook Street. The builder on this project, Scott Henderson, appeared before the Board of Health (BOH) on December 15 to request a waiver of the construction deadline to finish a landscaping project and septic barrier installation. The work was to both regrade the existing lay of the property surrounding the house and to install a break-out barrier for the septic system so that previous issues with landscaping and septic run-off would be fixed. The board approved a waiver until January 15, provided the leach field is properly staked off during work and no construction vehicles are allowed on it.
• 491 Maple Street. Both the owner of the property, William Hamilton, and his builder appeared to request a waiver of the minimum distance a leach field may be from a wetland in order to complete a septic system repair. They had appeared at the previous meeting to request the boards’ advice on the matter. Due to work done on the house by the previous owner, it was unclear whether it was classified as a three- or four-bedroom home. If classified as a three-bedroom residence, the work being done would fully qualify as a septic repair and the only issue would be the wetland distance waiver. However, if it is a four-bedroom house, the work would be classified as new construction and more review would be required. The Carlisle Building Inspector went to the property prior to this meeting and ruled officially that the house was a three-bedroom.
As the owner and builder brought all written justifications for the waiver as required by the board, proof that this would be an overall environmentally friendly upgrade to the septic system, and the board found that no other location on the property was more suitable for a leach field, the board granted the requested waiver of 24 feet.
• Benfield Farms. The planned construction at Benfield Farms of an affordable senior housing complex was again discussed by the board, as the BOH has been asked to advise the Planning Board peer reviewer of any issues with the site they feel might arise. The board did not see any major problems with it at this meeting, but planned to keep an eye on the project’s progress, particularly any waivers it might need granted by the board at a future date. ∆
© 2010 The