Town of Hingham
Board of Health Meeting
DECEMBER 18, 2008
A regularly posted meeting of the Hingham Board of Health (Board) was held on Thursday December 18, 2008, in the North Central Hearing Room, 210 Central St. Hingham, Massachusetts.
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Bickford at 6:09pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Bickford, Chairman
Kirk Shilts, D.C., Member
STAFF PRESENT:
Bruce Capman, RS, Executive Health Officer
Michael McDonald, Health Agent
AGENDA:
Mr. Capman reviewed the meeting’s draft agenda with the Board.
Thereafter, the agenda was accepted with additions.
DISCUSSION:
BROCKTON POWER
Mr. John Delano, Chairman of the Town of Halifax Board of Health, presented to the Board to discuss a proposed electric power plant that will be sited in Brockton.
The Board reviewed the following documents:
Letter from Mr. Delano dated 9-18-08
PowerPoint notes of a presentation dated 12-4-08
Salient issues included:
Hingham falls within a 20-mile downwind radius of the proposed power plant (Plant)
The 350 megawatt Plant will burn natural gas, with diesel as a back-up fuel
The cooling tower will employ a “wet mechanical draft” mechanism and use 1.9mg/d (million-gallons/day) of treated effluent from the Brockton sewage treatment plant. 1.6mg/d of this effluent will be converted to airborne water vapor.
There are about 210 power plants currently in Massachusetts.
The south coast town of Rochester hosts the S.E. MASS power plant that incinerates residential refuse, including much of Hingham’s residential trash. The effect of this plant on the health of surrounding inhabitants downwind is said to be unknown.
There is a regional task force comprised of the proximal towns to the proposed Plant that will be meeting with the state about the Plant. There is also a specific state agency that is currently reviewing the siting of this Plant.
Mr. Delano says that Hingham should be concerned with the size of the particulate that the Plant will expel into the air. EPA air quality standards classify particulates over 2.5 microns as a potential health problem.
Thereafter, the Board thanked Mr. Delano for his presentation, and asked to be kept informed by the task force on this matter.
SEPTIC SYSTEM VARIANCE REQUEST:
31 SHERWOOD ROAD
Applicant spokesperson: Terry & Brian McSweeney
The McSweeneys presented to the Board seeking variances to State Title-5 regarding a proposed sewage disposal system for a failed residential system.
The Board reviewed the following documents:
• Report from Mr. Capman with a corrected date of 10-6-08
• Draft minutes from the Board meeting of 11-20-08
The following issues were discussed:
• This matter was postponed from the 11-20-08 meeting
• Additional information about on-site tree, landscape and topographical concerns were provided
• The proposal appears to be at maximum feasible compliance
Thereafter, a MOTION was made by Dr. Shilts and Seconded by Mr. Bickford and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To grant four (4) DIVERGENCES to the State Title-5 regulations 310CMR 15.405(1)(b), 15.405(1)(a), 15.405(1)(b) & 15.405(1)(b), and require the eight (8) conditions outlined in Mr. Capman’s 10/6/08 letter.
SEPTIC SYSTEM VARIANCE REQUEST:
8-10 HIGH STREET
Applicant spokesperson: Terry & Brian McSweeney
The McSweeneys presented to the Board seeking variances to State Title-5 and Hingham Supplementary Regulations regarding a proposed sewage disposal system for a failed residential system.
The Board reviewed the following documents:
• Report from Mr. Capman dated 11-18-08
• Draft minutes from the Board meeting of 11-20-08
The following issues were discussed:
• This matter was postponed from the 11-20-08 meeting
• The revised plan includes additional details about the proposed inner retaining wall and the existing boundary stone wall
• The applicant will reportedly repair the stone wall in an aesthetic manner acceptable to the Board
• The proposal appears to be at maximum feasible compliance
Thereafter, a MOTION was made by Dr. Shilts and Seconded by Mr. Bickford and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To grant two (2) DIVERGENCES to the State Title-5 regulations 310CMR 15.405(1)(a) & 15.405(1)(b), and two (2) VARIENCES to the Hingham Supplemental Regulations Sections VI (9) & VI (12)(a), and require the nine (9) conditions outlined in Mr. Capman’s 11/18/08 letter, and require an additional tenth condition that the ‘south facing’ stone wall demarcated on the 11/7/08 submitted revised plan will be built to a design and appearance acceptable to the Board.
MINUTES:
The minutes from the November 20, 2008 meeting were reviewed.
Thereafter, a MOTION was made by Dr. Shilts and Seconded by Mr. Bickford and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To approve the minutes of November 20, 2008 as amended.
EXECUTIVE HEALTH OFFICER’S REPORT:
• 4 STEAMBOAT LANE:
Mr. Capman informed the Board that the submitted plan, including topographical representations, provided by the applicant during the Board’s 11/20/08 discussion on this matter was in error. The plan’s reference to the 11’ height (flood plain) was in reality only 7.1’ in height, an error of nearly 4 feet. The FEMA flood plain map dated 6/3/06 that is based on NGVD is the government standard.
Mr. Capman further stated that he has rescinded his waiver, earlier this month, of Hingham Supplemental Regulations Sections VI-9 and VI-12 requirements regarding a septic application for this property, due to this misrepresentation.
The Board also reviewed a report from Mr. McDonald dated 12/18/08 and a letter from Hingham Conservation Officer Cliff Prentiss dated 12/17/08 regarding this matter.
• 297 MAIN STREET:
Mr. Capman discussed with the Board a letter from Conservation Officer Prentiss dated 12/16/08 and accompanying 11/5/08 letter from the landowner Scott Reed.
The matter involves Mr. Reed’s proposal to donate approximately three (3) acres of land from his lot to the Town for conservation purposes. He would also wish to maintain the right to include this land’s square footage, (in regards to septic nitrogen load calculations), within a possible future septic permit application that may include a proposal for adding a couple bedrooms to his current three-bedroom house.
Thereafter, a MOTION was made by Dr. Shilts and Seconded by Mr. Bickford and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To grant Scott and Jennifer Reed of 297 Main Street a waiver from the Hingham Supplemental Regulations Section VI-8, by using land contiguous to their lot that they donated to the Town towards the 12,500 per bedroom calculation, relative to any future application as homeowners they may file before the Board of Health to expand the number of bedrooms of this residence to a maximum of five.
• Animal Permit Applications:
Mr. Capman discussed with the Board an animal permit application back-log, and an unwillingness of other potential applicants to come forward and submit an animal permit application because of tangential issues that the applicant may have with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Capman said that each instance involves an application where animals have historically, and still, reside at a particular location. In many instances it is unclear whether the animals pre-date conservation statutes and/or regulations, which the conservation officer is requiring the applicant to adhere.
The animal regulations Section 3-5 (C) says that an applicant “shall meet and receive conservation clearance from the Hingham Conservation Officer”. Similarly, Section 3-5 (B) says that an applicant “shall meet and receive zoning clearance from the Hingham Building Commissioner”. The stated purpose of the regulation is to promote the responsible care and welfare of animals, protection of the public health, and environmental protection.
The Board discussed the process of obtaining “clearance” within the animal permit process.
• Every applicant must meet with the conservation officer and zoning officer as required steps within the animal permitting process. Failure to due so would result in an incomplete application.
• Receiving a problematic assessment from either the conservation or zoning officer does not imply that an application automatically becomes unacceptable; their assessment is part of the important information to the application.
• The Board interprets the process of obtaining clearance as an opportunity for the conservation officer or zoning officer to weigh in on the animal permit application and potentially point out relevant issues that pertain to their respective regulatory jurisdictions and expertise.
• The Board discussed the common practice of granting a ‘conditional’ approval or ‘temporary’ permit status, and whether this could be an appropriate action while the Conservation Commission and/or Zoning Board determine the applicability of their regulatory requirements within the historical context.
Thereafter, a MOTION was made by Dr. Shilts and Seconded by Mr. Bickford and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To establish health department protocol, that an application to keep animals and fowl may be considered complete with the inclusion of an objection from either the Hingham Conservation Officer or Zoning Officer, and that the Board may consider such applications on a case-by-case basis for possible action.
CORRESPONDENCE:
TOWN of HINGHAM PLANNING BOARD
The Board received and reviewed a 12-1-08 correspondence from the Planning Board regarding proposed amendments to the Hingham Zoning by-law.
Dr. Shilts mentioned that proposed Article B talks about the residential-related use of a ‘detached’ and ‘attached’ garages and barns. He is unsure how this relates to inhabitable living spaces and possible additional bedrooms.
Thereafter, the Board asked Mr. Capman to obtain additional information on this matter.
SCHEDULING:
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 6pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
The December 18, 2008 meeting of the Hingham Board of Health adjourned at 8:46pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk Shilts, D.C.
Hingham Board of Health