This video documents a Nantucket Board of Health meeting where officials address environmental health concerns including PFAS contamination in private wells, Lyme disease surveillance data, and regulatory amendments for septic systems in wellhead protection districts. The board demonstrates how local health authorities balance environmental protection with community needs through public hearings, variance requests, and collaborative decision-making with other town departments. Key topics include the tension between environmental regulations and affordable housing requirements, the importance of transparent public communication, and the process of implementing environmental monitoring programs to protect drinking water resources.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Nantucket Board of Health - May 21, 2026Added:
All right, >> good to go.
>> All right.
Uh this is the board of health on antucket meeting uh of May 21st, 2026.
Um as usual, the meeting is being recorded um both visually and by audio.
Um, we have one member of the board, I believe, uh, Carrie.
>> Yep.
>> Hannah, who is online. Is that right, Carrie? You here?
>> I am remote.
>> Okay. So, that means we have a full board. And I would like to welcome Sydney to my left, Matt Fee, who is our new member uh, representing the select board. Matt, >> I'm replacing Tom. We are very very happy to have you.
>> Here you are. Uh okay.
Let's start by seeing if there is any public comment uh from the public either in person or um remotely uh about issues or items that are not on the agenda.
>> Oh that are not on the agenda.
>> Do you want to make a general >> Oh yeah. You can hold hold that to me.
Yeah.
>> What the It's the a school school statement regarding the the three testing agreement. So we can do it at >> Yes. Okay. We'll do that at the time of that agenda item. Great.
>> Hi.
>> Hi.
>> Hi, Madame Chair. Um I'm here Oh, my name is Kim Lip and sorry I'm here to voice concerns about the public trust in the board of health.
Um, at town meeting, the vice chair of the board of health stated publicly, "The one at Noadier has never once been cleaned. I have the records showing that it has never been cleaned." Um, and that was her referencing the Nobody turf. She also stated that at the 2019 GMAX testing showed the field was dangerous.
The very next day, town of Nantucket issued a public clarification directly contradicting those statements. The town confirmed that the Nobodyier turf has in fact been professionally maintained under contract for the past 3 years, including regular cleaning, grooming, decompactation, disinfection, repairs, and safety testing. What makes this even more concerning is that on November 30th, 2025, the vice chair herself submitted a public records request seeking documentation related to hardness testing and cleaning and maintenance of the Noadier artificial turf. On December 16th, 2025, the town provided responsive records, including a summary report, and the request was closed with no follow-up.
The reason I bring this up is simple.
If a public official had already received records showing that the nobody or turf field had been cleaned, maintained, and tested, then why would that same official stand up at town meeting and tell voters the opposite?
That is not a small mistake. That is exactly why trust has been broken.
Residents deserve facts, data, and honest discussion. This is all many of us have been asking for over the past eight months, not fear-based misinformation.
Many residents have lost confidence that everything being presented to this community by the board of health is objective or being done solely for the good of the community. The conduct and messaging displayed at town meeting raised serious concerns for many people watching. I'll end with this. The Capiso Stadium project has already gone through years of engineering review, environmental analysis, and testing by toxicologists, scientists, and engineers. It received a yes vote from four out of five school committee members, past town meeting by a twothirds vote, and was approved by nearly 60% of voters townwide. The community has spoken clearly in support of this project and I have the um reports that show that the field has been cleaned and maintained. Would you like to see them?
>> I can take them.
Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment in the audience? Is there anybody online? Sean, that has their hand up.
>> No, not not seeing any.
>> Quick question on these are comments for things not on the agenda.
>> Correct. That's correct.
>> And the agenda item on the turf is solely about the pre-esting agreement.
Great. Okay.
All right.
Item number three on our agenda is approval of minutes. We have a lot of minutes because I think we had not some of them needed to be adjusted or something like that. So, uh what comments if any questions anything does anyone have here?
Harry, you you often have something on this.
>> No, the minutes I'm good. They I know we had questions in the past, but I think those have been clean up. My hope is they've been cleaned up.
>> Jim, >> and I'm I'm going to recuse. I wasn't here, but I did read them and they are complete. I was I was impressed.
>> Okay. All right. Can I have a motion to uh approve these minutes? Should we do them one >> one at a time?
>> Do we have to take them one at a time?
>> I think you can do them in one room. One fell sweep. You should probably you should probably just list the minutes that you are approved. the dates of the minutes.
>> Then it would be for the 19th of um >> February, >> February, the 2nd of March, the 16th of March, the 19th of March, the 7th of April, and the 16th of April in 2026.
>> Okay.
>> You still moving make the motion, >> Jim? I made both.
>> Second.
>> All in favor? We have to go by name because Carrie's on Jim.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Mary >> recuse.
>> And you're recusing. Carrie.
>> Yes. I >> and says I. Okay, that's it. That's passed.
Number four, the director's report.
>> Uh hello. I am um going to be doing the director's report uh for Rocky here. Um we have a couple of uh items on the update. Um I'm going to talk about very briefly a recent well last year there was a blood drive for a long lime study that was conducted by Tus University.
Some of the preliminary results are um emerging on that. Um I'll give a kind of quick summary of those and then um mention that we are going to be doing additional blood uh blood testing and there'll be additional opportunities to participate in this long lime study this coming fall. But essentially the um TUS study was a um blood drive of sorts that took blood from a variety of island residents who had reported uh lime in the past. It tested for antibodies. It found approximately 17% of the around 100 participants had positive antibbody results. Um which means that they had had lime at some point in their life.
This is interesting because it contrasts with the self-report from the people who participated in the study. 32% of which uh self-reported they had had limes in their uh lime in their past. Um that gap between the 17 confirmed positive and the 32 self-reported can be a combination of factors including waning antibodies over time as well as a variety of tickborn illnesses that present similar to limes but aren't actually limes and wouldn't activate lime antibodies. Um a similar study done in the 90s showed a 10% rate. Um but it's a little too early to say that there's a 7% increase in limes disease on individuals on Nantucket because the sample size was smaller in the more recent one. So the uh statistically it's roughly the same as the 10%. Hopefully um in the fall we're looking for around October to do a variety of these um sampling dates um to get a larger number of people. The idea is to test people multiple years in a row. see what the decay rate of the antibodies is and then try to determine if there's any patterns in tickborne illnesses as well as a general prevalence rate for the island.
Um, as always, uh, ticks are a constant concern on Nantucket. It's one of the larger public health issues on the island is tickborne illnesses. Um, check yourself if you go out, use peromethine or debased um, uh, sprays or treated clothing. Uh, and you know, just be careful. Um, there are a variety of novel and um, more difficult, more easier to miss ticks on the island, including the Lone Star and the Asian Longhorn tick. So, just uh, check yourself if you're out. Um, we're also following along with um, national studies and observation of the hunter virus cases. Um as of uh 5:15 the um national national association of um health officers uh reported that there are 11 cases of haunt virus um the Andes variant which is humanto human transmissible but there's no confirmed Andes in the US among citizens and there's no confirmed um transmission between human beings uh anywhere that we're aware of. Uh finally there was a vibrio webinar today. Um or actually not finally but there was a vibrio webinar today. Vibrio is a uh bacterial uh pathogen that is in uh shellfish and seafood. Every year in the summertime we get a few vibrio cases. So uh we had a webinar today that the health inspectors attended that followed the um inspectional process the back tracing for disease investigation and then did some best practices in handling and monitoring. And then finally um the town of Nantucket and the Nucket Board of Health is a member of the Inter Island Public Health Excellency Grant Organization. It's essentially a collaborative health uh collaborative that um shares knowledge and expertise between the two islands and all the different municipalities of Martha's Vineyard. Um they are doing alpha gal syndrome webinars. Um that is a disease that is delivered by the lonear tick. Um that is very prevalent on Martha's Vineyard. uh the regional epidemiologist and the Martha's Vineyard public health biologist are doing um webinars which we're going to try and get links out to to discuss uh AlphaGal and then they do open office hours uh that you can join remotely um that'll allow you to ask questions directly to the epidemiologist about AlphaGal and about the related issues in tick prevention and control.
I believe that is the end of my director's report.
>> Madam Chair, >> Jericho.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Hey, Madam Chair. Carrie.
>> Harry does.
>> Carrie does.
>> Yeah. Uh, Jericho, do you have any uh information about the um behavioral mental health uh survey update?
>> The needs assessment survey?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. The human services comprehensive needs assessment survey actually closed its survey component. We got about six oh we actually got just shy of 700 no I'm sorry 600 total results um which is about twice what we were looking for for statistical re relevance um they're doing data analysis now and that will be shared out initially through the uh council of human services and the contract review committee where it's going to be used to prioritize human services grants for the coming year before we then take the completed report to present it to the select board.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> No problem.
I I get my hats mixed up sometimes.
>> Anything else?
>> Okay. Thank you, Jericho. There's a lot to think about.
>> Keeps me busy.
>> Yeah.
Um All right. Andrew, are you here somewhere?
>> Yes. Hi, everyone. I'm online.
Um, so I've got our um, monthly PAS update. Um, John, if you want to share my slides, that would be great, but it's a relatively quick update. So, um, I'll I'll keep talking while you're while you're pulling them up. So, >> I just got to do share screen. That's >> Y it >> Yeah, that looks good. So, good evening everyone. I'm Andrew Shapiro, the environmental contamination administrator for the town and um I'm reporting on 21 new data points um all in private wells for um PAS sampling.
So, last month I reported on two detects above the state standard of 20 parts per trillion on Arkansas A and my A. Um I've included them in this report for completeness sake. there is a long lead time in terms of getting a data point and it actually making its way into this um this um presentation just because we have to get the packet in before um before um the meeting. Um I'm also reporting on six detections below the state standard but nevertheless detects of PAS. You know, when we talk about PAS with our residents, um we usually discuss it in terms of human health risk rather than compliance. Uh 20 parts per trillion is the state drinking water standard. Um it is the reportable concentration under the Massachusetts contingency plan, but PAS can be a risk below that concentration as well. Um you know, perhaps most notably PFOA and PFOS have um drinking water goals of zero.
Um, and as per usual, we do get non detects for the PAS 6. So, I'm reporting on 13 non- detects for the PAS 6. So, that's 21 samples in all. We are seeing the number of tests um ordered through the health department ticking up probably as more people are on the island. So, I expect to have more data to update you all on next month. And my apologies, but I don't have a map to share this month. Um, I do plan on having a updated map at the next month's board of health meeting and that will certainly include these latest detections above the state standard as well as the other data points on our on our map.
And um, as always, I include our table, our summary table of data. Um, we have over 600 properties on the island sample for PAS. Well, almost 600 to date. Um, I can tell you that I do have some PAS sampling data in my inbox and so that number has likely exceeded 600 at this point. Um, since this is a relatively small update, no new information on the statistical distribution. So, um, I won't jump into the details, but you know, we do keep track of that. Um, it can it can be helpful to look at. So, that goes for the table and the histogram.
Last thing, um, on June 17th, we will have a guest speaker in, uh, the very room you're all sitting in. Um, as well as remote capabilities for Jim Starboard, who works at ARCAP, which is a nonprofit dedicated to water and wastewater management in rural communities. Um, part of his presentation will discuss PAS, but he'll also be covering broader well topics.
Um, that will be before the next board of health meeting. So, this will be my last update to the board of health on this um upcoming public information session. We did have a an announcement go out through our town's communication office as well. And that's all for me for for the evening. Thank you very much.
>> We have any questions?
>> Have just kind of a general one. When This is for you, Andrew. This is Matt.
when the state says it's non detect and sometimes the state says it's zero but then I read the details and it looks like there it looks like it's still above zero but it's under their amount.
Do they use that kind of interchangeably?
>> Yeah, thanks for the question. I think um kind of casually non-detect and zero could be interchanged, but um technically they're not the same. Um non-detect means that the instruments um the instrument did not identify PAS and the instrumentation that uh registered labs use is very sensitive. It can detect PAS down to very low levels but it doesn't guarantee that there is no PAS present. So non-detect is the best you can get but it does not um guarantee that there's zero PAS.
>> Just a followup. So if it's in a low if it's 20 parts it's if if it's low and in where the state is you know concerned about they won't call it non-detect they'll tell you what it is right that's correct so um in the range of two to 19 parts per trillion we have many detections of PAS the um reporting limits are typically two parts per trillion for each individual compound under the drinking water um test methods And so I'm looking at the data right now. Uh and um PAS are detected in about 38% of our um sampling data, but they're detected over the state standard in only 10%. So I guess doing the math, 28% of all samples fall in that detect range, but not above the state standard. Gota.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
Andrew, can I ask um every month you bring us these wonderful statistics and uh you tell us what's been found and all of that.
Could you in a lay person's way tell us what this means? I mean, is it is it good news? Is it sort of not neutral news or is it bad news? I I I have a little trouble um kind of interpreting everything.
>> Sure. Um so, you know, my my primary goal is to report on the new detections.
That is the most important for community awareness. Um, I can tell you that having reported the detections on um the new detections last month above the state standard, I've already had people call me to to ask about them and ask whether they should sample their well.
So, that's my main goal. Um, so, you know, reporting to the public on the individual um exceedences I find to be really helpful for raising awareness. um you know the detections below the state standard but detects nonetheless those are important too and they go onto our map again I have people who will look at the map and see it's a yellow dot um and ask you know is the yellow dot concerning and well it it can be concerning and so people you know that raises awareness as well then moving on to the to the um tables and the graphs those were you know most important for my initial assessment ment of the data. I do kind of breeze over them these days. Um especially as we incrementally get more data. There's not that much change in our in our table.
Having the number of um properties sampled I find to be helpful. Um the statistical distribution doesn't change that much to be honest. Um something I keep an eye on but um it's an inc it's an incremental change.
Madam Chair, Carrie Gary.
>> Yeah. Um, Andrew, you know, um, what we are seeing though, I think, is a greater distribution of where we're seeing PAS popping up on the island. Is that, you know, I think is that is that an accurate statement? because you know we've got the folding pond, we got madicquette, we've got you know it's it's not isolated at all from what you know map when you go looking at the last map.
>> Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean through um our well regulations and our communications we see more and more properties sampled and unfortunately we see more properties that have detects of PAS and you know as you test more um sometimes you got to detect in a surprising place um there haven't been anything new particularly new in a localized area recently but uh Mr. McKenna, you you mentioned Fulling Mill, you know, that was that was a um big reveal um back in the fall and D has been out onto the on site to be sampling there. Um so we we do detect it in additional locations and that really emphasizes the importance of testing. Um the state recommends that everyone get a PAS test whether you're near a source or whether you're not near a source. And you know we we find that there is good reason to be to be doing that sampling.
>> Thank you.
>> Can I ask um the two new detects that were above the 20 parts per trillion? So does that get sent to mass DP to like test the neighbors and I know everyone that has a well nearby needs to be notified. Does that were they were they like they weren't in the critical zone so they were under 90 I'm assuming. I I just didn't know if other detects had been nearby and this was mass D or was us.
>> Yeah, great great question. So anything over 20 gets reported to the state. It is technically the homeowner's responsibility to do that. I let them know that is their responsibility to do that. I also typically report it to mass D myself just because we do keep in touch every once in a while. Um Mass D's policy and this is their policy um is that they do on the ground investigations when they exceed the 90 parts per trillion imminent hazard threshold. Over 20 is certainly concerning. Um, it doesn't always get mass D out to the island. Um, I wish it did, but um, that's that's the the facts of the matter.
One other question, Andrew, I think Carrie sort of alluded to this. Is there con is there concern? Are you concerned?
Should we be concerned that it seems to be popping up in more different areas or is that just that we're testing more different areas?
So I I think the question is is it a new issue or is it an underlying issue that was newly discovered?
>> You know, it's hard to say. Um I don't think we'll have a definitive answer. I do get many properties that do repeat sampling and I I don't include those in our summary statistics because it's often redundant. So I suspect as we get more people on the island this summer and we have more people testing, we're going to have more people doing a repeat test. And so you know if we have someone who jumps a category, that is concerning. Um, and that that suggests that there is a new um not necessarily a new release, but a new condition underground. Um, it could be something that has migrated. Um, and so that's something I'm going to be keeping an eye on this summer.
>> So, that's something you're going to be watching.
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> Okay.
>> Anybody else?
>> I have a hand up. U me.
Okay. Me. Me.
Hi, thanks. I just wanted to jump in and thank Andrew for his great reporting and I think, you know, I am I am an impacted party. I live on Tom's Way. There's a lot of data about Tom's Way. Um I've been to the board of health starting in December of 2023 asking you for your help um when we discovered some of the highest levels of PIFA contamination in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at that time. Um, and you know, there is no law that requires the state to notify neighbors. There's no law for the town to notify neighbors. And in our situation, it was in a a pocket and there are other hot spots around Nucket.
So, your question of should this be a concern, I definitely think it is a concern. And Tom's Way is literally 400 ft from three of the town's municipal wells. So, I think this is great that it's being tracked and I think the more information we have is really helpful in decision-making for Wanom water when they have to decide where to bring town water to protect residents of Nantucket.
And I also think it brings to light, you know, we need to really be paying attention of what we're putting on the ground, what kind of materials we're using when we're building our homes, trash, all of those things. So, I just wanted to chime in and share that as an impacted party and when you are impacted with the numbers that we had, you're required the state requires that your well be tested three times. So, that's what Andrew is saying. There's repeated testing. Often times, it's a requirement.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else? John, do you think >> No, that's >> Oh, okay.
>> That's it.
>> Andrew, thank you very much. I think everything you've talked about and all the questions that have been asked kind of bring to light and prove how important it is for us to be hearing this um on a monthly basis. So this is this is great. Thank you.
Number six, 8 Creek Lane Septic loan request.
Uh, this property is in the Manakut Harbor watershed.
Yep. So, this is still a loan request.
There was a failed Title 5 inspection back in January of January 6, 2025, and they're of course required to upgrade to an IIA, and they're requesting the loan. And we based on all the information we'd have would recommend approving the loan uh in line with the board's um policy for um granting half the requested loan as this is uh not the primary residence.
>> Okay.
Anything we need to know out of the ordinary?
>> No.
>> No. That's it's pretty status quo application.
>> I'll move approval.
>> Second.
>> Okay. All in favor? Jim >> I.
>> Mary >> I >> I >> Matt. Carrie >> I.
>> And says yes. Okay.
That phone is approved.
Number seven, this is the continuation of the public hearing.
Um, and number seven, uh, concerns the Helmet Pond watershed regulation amendment.
Uh, because it is a public hearing. Uh, are there any comments? Are there any comments from the public? Before we go on and consider how to address this, >> I have Mag Grulley online.
>> Yes, Magg.
>> Hi. I'm sorry I can't be there in person tonight. Um, but I have come to the meetings since um I want to say since January talking about these um new Title 5 changes, which I'm in favor of.
However, I am very concerned that there is a special variance in both the hummock pond and the tier 2, excuse me, the tier 2 wellhead areas for affordable housing. I think the variance across all the wellhead protected area should be the same. I have asked this question at the public hearings and I've been told that maybe you'll go back and change it for Madakquette in the harbor wellshed area and I just think it's not. you are steering certain kinds of housing into two certain types of wellhead areas and I think it should the same variant should be across all the wellheads >> Madam Chair Carrie >> Carrie >> yeah um you can hear me correctly correct can you hear me well >> I can hear you online Carrie >> okay I just want to make sure Um, you know, yes, Megan had brought this up before and you know, yes, I would agree that the rules should be the same across all four. Uh, what we started this process was to even out Hanukk Pond and Wellhead with Nantucket Harbor and Madakquette. Um as we went through this process we uh you know the issue of affordable housing came up also in the issue of the um ADUs the uh the uh other dwelling units. So, we've worked those into this regulation. And yes, we would like to be able to go back and um do the same for uh Madakut and uh the harbor shed harbor water um after this the after these have been dealt with. So, it's not that it's for sure, but not at this point. We wanted to get we wanted to stabilize these two regulations and that'll give us the opportunity at that point then to go back re-examine language across the other two and uh unify the language across all four.
>> Thanks Carrie.
>> Are there any other comments from the public?
>> My reading of it says you may issue a variance. It doesn't say you shall issue a variance. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And so that's so through the entire so it's up to the board of health to determine whether the variant it's if it's affordable housing and it's a really bad situation, you don't have to approve it. Correct.
>> Yeah. There's no uh requirement.
Essentially what the uh the last phrase in the special variance section 288.7 uh we worked with the uh housing department. We had the meeting on March I think was 7th >> uh where we met with the um let me see planning board and let me see oh 316 we met planning board we on March 16th we met with the planning board affordable housing trust and us uh to address the express concerns and questions and as a result of that meeting we had follow-up meetings with the affordable housing folks to uh refine and develop wording that would um indicate that we are you know the board of health will uh absolutely consider affordable housing you know requests but you know that the that we are not the affordable housing agency that's uh up to affordable housing office to determine if if it qualifies for that. Um throughout the process we did get the town council had reviewed from uh the development of the regulation from I guess starting in January we were submitting and getting tweaks on wording and what's before you today is has been approved has been reviewed and approved by town council.
So, um that has been done. The uh the accessory dwelling units that came up as a result of a citizen question after one of our meetings and then also listening at the annual town meeting and you know follow-up select board meetings that that has been um you know a big issue on island and we are aware that the several town departments are working on uh establishing how the how the island you know town will deal with this. So all we want you we wanted to indicate that a we are aware of that situation and that the mass DP has a guidance document about ADUs and septic systems. Uh and that's part that reference is made in each of these regulations also. Um and then when in talking with the housing department, one of the thing we talked about was, you know, if these are adopted that we would like to work with housing and any of the other boards to develop a guidance document that will include information about tax credits because there's more than what we have on island, but tax credits, loan programs, and even some key points about the process to kind of try to address some of the concerns people have expressed about just a very complicated process.
Um, and you know, and as was discussed at the 3:16 meeting, you know, we the board of health would definitely be supportive of develop if the town developed any kind of new financial assistance programs to assist homeowners. You know, much like was done with the Somerset sewer where the town said that they will work in net cost into the to the bond issue. So, you know, we definitely would support uh anything that will uh that would help homeowners uh with some of the extra costs and also to make sure homeowners are fully aware of any other type of tax credits or loan programs or grants that are available for septic systems uh and especially in rural areas of which we are considered to be rural. So, there are extra funds out there for there are extra programs for that.
That's my intro.
>> I have a hand up from Dylan from the housing office.
>> Yes, Dylan.
>> Go ahead.
>> Good evening, everybody. Um through you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say that I'm present at the meeting. I'm sorry I couldn't be with you um in person tonight and um that it's been a pleasure to work with Carrie on these regulations. and um to say I have one minor suggestion and I know that I've been a little bit of the bottleneck here with the craziness with town meeting and everything. I think if we could insert the word um attainable housing because affordable and attainable are different bylaws in our zoning code, but they're within the span of um what the affordable housing trust serves um in terms of income restrictions. That would be my one suggestion at the moment. Um, obviously Karen and I can continue that conversation offline, but um, I just really wanted to acknowledge I'm here if there's any questions for the affordable housing folks.
>> Douglas Carrie, do you have any, you know, do you have in front of you the wording because you meet the qualifying criteria for affordable or year- round housing? Would you take out affordable and say attainable or would it be affordable? I mean, what would be the suggestion for that?
uh through you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Carrie. I would say um I'm looking at it um the qualifying criteria for affordable, comma, attainable, comma, or year-round housing.
>> Okay. So, comma, uh and then that word um Okay. No, thank you.
>> No. Um I have Meg's uh Roy's hand up.
>> Me.
>> Hi. Thank you. I just wanted to circle back and you know if if as Mr. McKenna mentioned that um you know you are going to go back to these other wellhead areas to have the same a consistent variance for all the wellhead areas. What would the timeline for that look like? And then the other question I had was I know Mr. Dixon was very involved with working on this variant for attainable housing.
Um, and he does work in that area. I don't know if he still does, but that was never really disclosed and someone brought that to my attention. So, I just wanted to ask the board, was that influential in your decision-making and including the special variance? And then lastly, not one individual in the tier 2 or the Hamik Pond Wellhead area has come forward saying this is going to be a hardship with having the regular variance that was originally proposed and so I just want to bring that to your attention as well and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
>> Okay. I mean I can Yeah, Madam Chair Carrie.
>> Yes. Yeah, I can speak that. Yeah, Tom was involved in early discussions, but the development of the regulations that are before you and and the in the last batch and the and the U ones we went through uh were pretty much developed uh from the meeting on the 16th and then working with affordable housing and myself uh Tom saw what was presented at the meetings, you know, what was presented at the board of health meetings. Um so that that's that was his involvement that he uh is concerned about affordable housing. Yes. I mean, Tom has always been an advocate for that and I just think that he has his uh you know, he has a filter that that looks looks at every issue to see if it's going to have a negative impact on affordable housing.
>> Thanks, Gary.
>> So, and Madam Chair, I'll just say that town council's also um online too if anyone has any questions for town council. Well, uh, Madam Chair Carrie again, sorry, I'm would, and this is a question really for town council. If would would we be able to add the word attainable now and then, >> yeah, >> possibly go ahead and make a motion to adopt >> uh through you, Madam Chair. Alex Weiss from KP Law. Um uh to your question, Carrie, yes, I think you could um you could accept uh an a minor amendment to the um proposed regulations to incorporate that language.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh public comment from anyone.
>> Hi, excuse me. Hi, Willa Arsenal speaking on behalf of the Nantucket Land and Water Council. Um, we appreciate the work that's been done on this and certainly we recognize the importance of attainable and affordable housing to be considered through these variances.
We've always been in support of this um in this kind of language particularly in the the wellhead protection zone um and have a I think a couple concerns about it being applied broadly to nitrogen sensitive areas like the Humm Pond wershed harbor maticquette um just given the sensitivity of those areas to the nutrients that this is sort of specifically getting at um and you know I recognize that this language as um Mr. Fe said the word may is in there that the board may grant these variances. Um and I think we just would hope that the board uses its discretion to consider those nutrient inputs specifically in those sensitive areas as these um are applied if if this is to be the wording that is applied. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Well, >> uh I have Dylan as his hand up again.
>> Yes, Dylan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Dylan Mitch and Peltown's deputy housing director. Um I just want to say through you to Willa and to the board that um you know, as you know, we worked with the land and water council and and our recommendations for this and we understand their concerns for the Homic Pond wershed and agree our concern um is more about the wellhead protection district. So we I just wanted to voice my support for what Willa just said.
Yeah.
>> Thanks.
Are there any other comments?
>> Not seeing Madam >> Chair Carrie.
Carrie McKenna.
>> If are there any other comments? I don't want to I want to say something after all the comments have been taken.
>> I don't see or hear any.
>> Okay. Um >> I'll make I'll make Sorry, it's Matt Car. One sec. I'll make one other comment. One of the when we discussed this at the select board, it was a while ago, but one of the discussion points was a year round system is it will operate more efficiently and properly than some that these other systems that are, you know, have to be ramped up every year. And so, you know, so there may be a balance here. If you've got a couple cottages and you've got a couple things that actually are serviced and and are taken care of and don't have to ramp up, it takes, correct me if I'm wrong, you know, four weeks, six weeks when from when you start using this system at the beginning of the season for the system to start to actually work properly and and and then so there's a lag sort of in these areas when these systems get started, they're not working and then they get going and then they're working and then people leave again. And so in some ways I think this will this could not be as bad as we might think.
We would hope and we will be uh checking it. I hope.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, there no more public comments. I think we could make a motion to um close the public hearing and move on to addressing the regulation.
Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
>> Motion to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
>> All in favor? Jim.
>> I.
>> Mary.
>> I.
>> Carrie.
>> I.
>> And yes. and uh Matt >> Hi.
>> Okay.
Now that means that we are looking at um knowing that um there has been legal review of this um proposed regulation amendment to the HCON watershed district.
Um, I think we're at a point where we can take a vote.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, >> Madam Chair, >> Carrie.
>> Carrie.
>> Yeah, you know, if we, you know, I I agree just like we we would make a motion to adopt with the amendment that the phrase affordable, attainable. Um, >> right. I was about to say that.
>> Yeah. Just get that that that that phrase in there >> using that u slightly changed language of affordable comma attainable >> attainable obtainable and or year round.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Do I have a motion?
>> Sorry, Madam Chair. I was just going to say, yeah, as long as that language is clear and uh town council feels that's uh >> that's good, then then uh uh >> through you, Madam Chair, I I I am comfortable with that language.
Okay.
Uh do I have a motion to uh adopt this new amendment to the regulation uh using the three words sustain I mean affordable obtainable or yearround motion to accept uh the uh Hik Pond water regulations with the amendment the explained amendment Second.
All in favor?
>> No.
>> Mary.
>> Yes.
>> Matt.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Chairman says yes. That passes 4 to one.
Uh number eight uh number eight is um not too different but it is a different district so we will discuss it or we will bring it up as a separate thing.
>> Yes, >> it is the um wellhead protection district regulation amendment.
Uh there's a public hearing open on that still. So does anyone from the public wish to speak to um the wellhead district?
>> Carrie, would you like to say anything about this?
>> Yeah. Yeah. If there's no comments, again, the the lead in is pretty much identical to uh what I said about HUMK in that um you know, there had been discussions going up to the meeting on 316 with the planning board and affordable housing trust is where we were able to kind of crystallize uh concerns and then follow-up meetings were held. When I met with Dylan, it was with about both both regulations were discussed at all meetings. So we, you know, we didn't lump them together, but talked about HUMK and then talked about Wellhead. Um, again, similar to HUMK, it went through multiple town council reviews with the, uh, regulation before you, uh, is the one that has has been reviewed by town council. Um, we would, I would suspect if we go forward with the motion, we will also add the word attainable to, uh, the regulation. So, it's similar to the hummock. um you know ADAU statement is in there. Um and again that you know we are more than willing to work with the other housing and any other boards to help u homeowners by developing a guidance document that will identify uh financial assistance and any other maybe some process uh your application process type information to kind of make it a little easier. Um and you know we would you know we do have the betterment loan program. There are some tax credits out there for rural districts etc etc. Um but we would be so very supportive to work with the town to maybe look at um for homeowners that may not qualify for those programs to have some other program in place that could uh possibly assist homeowners uh that have uh you know for the cost of the the the differential cost between a regular system versus an IIA system. Uh but essentially what you have before you is u the regulation is identical uh to uh the homic palm one that we just talked about.
>> I have me as her hand up.
>> Yes. Hi.
>> Hi. I live in the tier 2 wellhead area and basically what I said for hummock pond I would say again for the wellhead area is that I don't think there should be special variances for two wellhead areas and then when I hear nanton water council saying how sensitive Madak and harbor you know wershed areas are so is hummic pond and so is the tier 2 wellhead and they they're all sensitive and I do you have to trust that the board of health is going to make the right calls when they decide to grant variances. Um, you know, it's just it's really frustrating. We we have a lot of pressure and there's not one individual homeowner that's come forward on either to any of the hearings on either of these two proposed um changes to the septic system regulations. Um, just the affordable housing group and I did go to that meeting. They did not allow the public to participate. I did want to bring up some questions about it, but we were not allowed to be to have our voices heard. So, I just, you know, keeping that in mind with the variances, I really do hope you go back and have the same variance across the board for all the areas. I think that attainable and affordable housing should be allowed in all areas of the island and have the same benefits to these variances across all areas of the island.
Thanks, Mag. It sounds like that's going to be looked at.
>> Is there anyone else that would like to say anything about this?
Uh, >> I would like to ask one question.
>> Yes, sir.
>> What is an undue hardship?
Okay. You're trying to protect something and then you turn around and anyone that's g you around that has you know says I need it's a hardship I need what do you what do you end up protecting if you if you're going to make special variances for people to build on the stuff what are you protecting you're not protecting what you want what you started out to protect everybody's going to have a special variance >> car you want to speak to was very specific to a certain >> Yeah. Well, you know, again, you know, the history of part of this comes from, you know, the um we received many variances for very large houses and I know that on the board we all had expressed ongoing frustration and in talking with the you know, so in working with the affordable housing folks, housing office and the criteria they would use which would be probably think smaller smaller um smaller uh units and essentially these aren't party houses.
These are this is these are these are houses for families to live year round.
And the other thing is that we just because someone has a request for a variance does not mean they're getting it. And I think the board has shown an increasing uh dil you know due diligence and really looking at and questioning uh variances. So a homeowner may request a variance uh doesn't mean they're going to get it. You know, it has to really show that it is going to um you know, meet this the very a special interest in terms of uh why that um you know essentially they got to present a good case as to why they should have a variance uh from you to be able to to use the bedroom credit uh or whatever other reason. So you know the thing is even if we didn't put the special wording in reality is to a certain extent anyone can apply for a variance at any time. Uh but applying for an a variance doesn't mean you're going to get it. So I think part of it is that you know if we are committed to working to uh keep the water qu you our single source aquifer best we can that's going to be the pretty much the guiding um principle of looking at any variance.
Um so you know I think I think you know and based upon the feedback from across you know besides the other boards and our own internal discussions of the board and kind of listening to you know um others outside of those things that to acknowledge that affordable you know for the board of health to acknowledge the importance of affordable housing on the island because it's one of the number one issues the select board also has um is I think an important um expression in terms of really working together with other parts of the town to try to make affordable housing uh happen in an incre in an increasingly difficult environment to make that happen.
>> Thanks Carrie. I actually also think that in a funny way this tightens up what we were faced with before Jim uh when everybody and anybody was asking for variance this uh puts it within a very special category and as Matt and a bunch of other people have said to us we it's not it's not a proformal thing.
It's not you're not necessarily going to get it. They have to have a a really good case.
>> Well, I just asked one question. What is an undue hardship?
>> If someone comes to you and they want a permit, what is an undue hardship?
>> Uh, Madam Chair, can we ask that to town council?
>> Yeah, let's ask.
>> Yeah, through through you, Madam Chair.
Um, so substantial hardship is a legal term of art. Um but just to kind of give you general sense of what it means. So uh it would mean a demonstrated significant and unique deprivation um that would prevent strict compliance with the regulation.
Um to claim a substantial hardship, the applicant would need to prove that enforcing the requirements of regulation would be manifestally unjust when looking at all relevant facts and circumstances specific to that particular property. Um you could look at unique conditions on the property. Um a self-created hardship does not constitute uh a substantial hardship.
Um, and if if a applying the regulation would deprive the owner of any reasonable use of the property, um, then that that could qualify as a substantial hardship.
>> Madam Chair Carrie, >> yes.
>> And you know, D, if you're still there, you can listen and see if I get this right. Um our intention also was you know not to get in the business of defining what affordable housing is but that applications with for that kind of variance would have to come with either the support or blessing of the affordable house you the housing off department to to ensure that the conditions for affordable housing were met and then you know the variance would explain any undue hardships if there was anything above and beyond that. So, it's not really something that the board of health would has to start getting into is what's attainable, what's affordable.
That's what that's what the partnership with the housing department in that particular phrase refers to is to help us, you know, and help us and homeowners be able to determine appropriate applications and appropriate requests for variances.
I think it might be helpful to uh if this were to pass uh to have it the legal definitions of uh undue hardship spelled out so that at such time as we were requested to look at a variance we would know what they are.
U Madam Chair Dylan has his hand up here.
>> Yes.
Go ahead, Dylan.
>> Thank you. Um through you, Madam Chair.
Yes, Dylan. Sorry, Dylan Metropones, deputy housing director. Um through you, Madam Chair, I want to say that yes, that was part of the conversations that um Carrie and I had. And um the definitions of affordable and attainable housing and year-round housing are, you know, in the town's zoning bylaw. So, affordable housing is generally accepted as 80% area median income and below. Um, attainable housing is uh up to 200 now up to 250% with the acceptance of the seasonal communities designation and year round is understood as you know primary um residents occupied 10 months in one day out of the year by the by the resident. Um I I if it's okay I have a question for town council through you madam chair.
>> Yes, of course.
does and and just also to provide a little more context, I think that a lot of the conversation at board of health and that Carrie and I had is about not necessarily about increasing development, although you know for places where we affordable housing development is possible, that's a plus.
It's more about protecting the yearround and affordable homeowners from this increase in cost. So just to some of the previous comments have been made about building this is really more about the people who are already there and who you know if their system fails or if they do if they are undertaking construction or the transfer of the property are then faced with a very very significant bill up to 200,000 plus annual maintenance.
Um but through you madam chair to town council I'm just curious if would you know sort of that context of somebody coming to the board and saying um if I'm faced with these costs then I will have to sell my home and move does that meet the standard of substantial burden?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you very much.
Again, it it would still be a discretionary call for the board, but um but it would be in my opinion, it would be reasonable for the board to view that as a substantial hardship.
>> And Madam Chair, if I might um just add one more thing.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, part part of this and part of I think the way Carrie and town council worked on this is so great. um is that you know understanding that sometimes the environment and housing while they often go hand inand they can um conflict and so understanding that this is the board of health's responsibility um to determine whether there's an appropriate case that warrants a waiver or not which I know is I'm just sort of repeating what other folks have said but I just wanted to emphasize that thank you >> thank Willa, >> hi Willa Arsenal for the Nantuck Atlanta Water Council. Again, um I don't want to beat a dead horse, which is a a terrible saying as I say it out loud. Um uh and again, we're in support of this language in particular for the Whalehead Protection District. Um, and but if the conversation is truly uh veering towards applying this to other protection zones like Madak and Nantucket Harbor, um I I think that the discretionary power could almost be like rolled back in that case if that makes sense for for the board. I see that this board and and there's certainly a pattern of the board continuing to um consider things like affordability and environmental concerns, but we don't know what future boards might do um and what that might look like. Um, and so I have concerns about um lessening the impact that the current regulations for the um other protection zones that are not being discussed tonight um could have. Um, I'm sorry I'm a little bit rambling here, but I I just I I I would really again just emphasize the sensitivity of those areas in particular for nitrogen and the way Title 5 is working, if I'm understanding correctly, is to continue to protect those areas in particular. And so I just don't know if this language is quite as applicable for those zones as well. Um but again in this particular topic where we are on the agenda we are supportive of this language for the wellhead protection district. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I think that we are only at in front of us right now is the wellhead protection district. We will at some later date perhaps address those other but I think for now we should be just focused on what's right here in front of us. Um and that is the wellhead. So I don't know are there any other comments?
Do you see anybody? John, >> no one online.
>> All right.
So I think if that is the case, we can close the public hearing um uh pertaining to chapter 382 Wellhead Protection District Regulation Amendment.
Do I have a motion to that to do that?
>> Motion to close the public hearing for the wellhead district.
>> Second.
All in favor?
Jim.
>> What is the motion to >> We're closing the public hearing for this.
>> I agree.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Matt Carrie.
>> Yes.
>> And says yes. We're closed the public hearing for the wellheaded uh protection district and I think I'd like to go ahead and um take a vote to um approve this amendment. Uh again using that language uh inserting the word obtainable after affordable.
Um madam chair I think maybe if you just want to be clear about it that it's section 382 uh 7 special variance is where that language would be inserted into. Just so it's clear for the record that >> that's right. I I didn't say it for that. I said it for closing the public hearing, but we're talking about chapter 382, the wellhead protection district regulation amendment.
>> Section seven.
>> Section seven.
>> Okay.
>> Um that's where the that's where this extra word will be inserted is really what we're saying. Yes.
>> Correct.
>> Y >> Okay. Um, is there a motion to approve this regulation?
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor? Jim?
>> No.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Carrie?
>> Yes.
>> And says yes. Uh, that's approved.
Okay.
Number nine.
Um 49 PPUS Road.
Appeal of an order to connect to the town sewer.
It's been continued since October of 2025 to allow the property owner to investigate cost to connect to the town sewer and to look into alternate options to pay for it.
Um, Madam Chair, I have Arthur Reid has his hand up.
Hello, Arthur.
Can you hear me, Madam Chair?
>> Yeah, I can hear you, I think.
>> Okay, good. Thank you. Um, attorney Arthur Reid speaking. I have u just been engaged this week by the property owner Inz Hutton who is present in the audience. I'm off island at the moment. Uh, and I would respectfully like to request a continuence on this until the July meeting to give me an opportunity to investigate the situation fully and and present um materials to support the request uh that the U uh variance be granted and that the u uh property owner uh be given a a stay for the remainder of her uh ownership of the property. And so long as the existing uh system is functioning hydraulically. Um Miss Hutton uh uh has owned the property since 1977.
Uh she's now over 80. Uh she uh is living on a fixed income.
Uh at one time there had been a commercial kitchen uh in connection with the property that's no longer in use.
Will will not henceforth be used. uh and uh it simply serves her her own u residence and uh and uh and cottage. Uh the uh property uh as you may have seen is deep uh it runs uh almost 400 ft deep from Pulpus Road on the south side of the road farther away from the harbor.
uh and uh the uh expense that we know we will incur on this is is great uh based upon the estimate that you obtained from uh an excavating contractor.
Uh and it also contains in that estimate a lot of unknown quantities uh that would add to the cost uh and that probably would not be able to be definitively established uh prior to the commencement of the work that would be needed in order to do this. There's no question that in the long run this property should be connected to the um uh town sewer and pulpus road as is as is uh a normal requirement. Uh but we are going to request that the that further relief be granted to her so long as she continues to own and occupy the property. Uh with that said, uh and obviously we can answer any other questions that you may have to the best of our ability, but I would like a period until the July meeting. I'll actually be unavailable at the time of the June meeting, which is why I'm suggesting the uh uh the u July 16 meeting uh that we would uh uh make our presentation and appreciate your consideration of that. Thank you.
>> Well, thank you, Arthur. Um we've been talking about this for a long time. We have given continuence after continuence after continuence.
Um, and I'd like to request that. Um, would you like to speak?
>> No, I'm just you.
>> I would like I was going to say I'd like to uh request that John Heden give some history and review of the situation at this property. And then the board will go over some of the um considerations that we have looked at some of the alternate ideas that have been presented and and all of that before we uh make any decisions I would think.
>> Sure. I'll try and do my best to summarize a bit here and some points that I brought up at last month's meeting.
As um you're aware, uh town sewer was run down Pulpus Road. It was part of the Shimo needs um project uh which the town had voted on to to sewer that part of the island to help protect Nantucket Harbor uh Nantucket Harbor. And uh chapter 332 article 2 uh board of health regulation requires uh the connection to town sewer within certain time frames uh once uh the physical infrastructure is available to connect for uh properties located in nitrogen sensitive areas or environmentally sensitive areas. that time frame is uh within 6 months of notice um from what would be the sewer department. Uh but in no case more than one year from said notice.
Uh my understanding is that the the sewer department mailed out letters in 2019 to all the property owners as well as in 2021 to notify them that the sewer was available.
Uh and then a few years ago um there was a proposal to uh uh get the commercial kitchen uh going again. Uh previously had been permitted uh as a commercial kitchen uh one of the buildings on the property.
And I was reviewing that food application and noticed that it said uh septic system on it, private uh sewer.
and I realized that town sewer is available. So that was a trigger to say wait you have to connect to town sewer now uh since it's available. That's what uh regulation is chapter 332 article 2.
So that's how our office became aware of that um that the the property was wasn't in compliance with that regulation and that's that's kind of the background of the the property at this time but I can try and answer any other questions.
Well, then I believe in 2023 there was a request for that may have been about the time that you're talking about there was a request for a uh a variance or a continuation to uh can you speak to that John for a minute?
>> Yeah, that's correct. So, at the time when I was reviewing the food application, um the property owner came in for a request of variance um not to connect to town sewer at that time, which is in 2023.
And at that time, the board allowed a 2-year variance to connect to town sewer. Um so, a variance was granted back in 2023 for two years to uh to connect to town sewer. John, excuse me.
I don't believe I requested a variance.
>> Uh, we have it on the records. I have I had minutes of it.
>> I just I primarily just come into uh we were discussing just opening my kitchen and it was a question of whether or not uh whether or not the sewer was going whether my septic for the commercial kitchen was uh okay. And Stephen Bisco came out and pumped it and said it was fine. Um and um I gathered in the letter that you sent me, you had stated that you'd grant me a variance then. I didn't purposely ask you for a variance previously.
>> Well, back in 2023. I have the minutes here from 2023 which was for a variance.
>> But I didn't sub I didn't submit any uh monies to you or check for $50 or I didn't sign anything. need to fill out any paperwork.
>> Uh, I'd have to go back and look in the file uh for that, but I it wouldn't have gone to a meeting without filling out that paperwork.
>> I understand that, but I didn't fill out any paperwork with you or in the officer or I didn't give you any money. I didn't give you a check for 50. Isn't that Isn't that required?
>> Yes. Uh, the variance back then the the fee was $20. Um, and that would have been >> you any monies?
>> Hello, my name's Chris Coffin. I explicitly asked you John about that and you said it was not required. I stood in front of you and had a a signed signed request for a variance and said I have a check for $50 and said this is not required.
So this is currently right now is an appeal of an order which our office sent out um back in September of 2025. If you'd like to apply for a variance, you can right now is what's in front of the board is the appeal of this order.
>> Well, what I'd like I'd like to apply for variance, of course, and that's something that um Arthur Re was uh would help with. Um and so that's why he's primarily asking for uh continues until July. That way it gives us time to uh submit uh u all the paperwork and everything and whatever we need to for variance.
>> Okay. Well, the board will is going to make a decision on the appeal uh which was filed here. Um, and I would guess if the board's going to deny or uh uphold the appeal, um, and the order to correct, I'm not sure that a variance would be granted in the future.
Well, uh, as is stated in the letters, my letters to you is that I cannot afford to put this in and, um, I I personally given you letters from my bank and there's I'm going to have to end up selling my house if necessary if this if otherwise I'm going to have we're going to have to go to court. I don't know what what else to tell you all.
>> Okay. So, my answer to that comment is that's a that's for the board to determine since you appealed the order which our office sent us. That's that's this is why I want to apply for variance first before uh you know >> I don't know what else >> is the sole occupant of that house.
>> I don't believe that's and I noticed the board last extended the distance between a well and the septic system to 150 ft and it wisdom it has determined the addition of 50 ft was a wise move. So if 150 ft is good for septic well separation, what about 10,000 ft to the harbor? Are you telling us that this actually is polluting harbor? I read that 165 page book that talks about the flow and the harbor protection there. It absolutely states the main part is flow because upper harbor and pulpit harbor is not getting washed out. just sorry just if you can maybe talk into the microphone it might >> well >> oh in terms of volume >> what we like what I'd like to do is apply for variance and see whether or not it's possible for for uh Arthur Reed and myself nutrition to come before the board in July and uh have all the paperwork in order because I believe it's what two weeks um and since Arthur can't be here in June um I think it's two weeks that the application has to apply for for for variance.
>> So my advi I would advise you can certainly apply for a variance if you would like to.
>> Yes, it would.
>> Currently there is another matter which is the appeal of the order which the health department office sent to you and the board the board is going to make a determination to either uh take that appeal back or to move forward with that order that our office sent and require the connection.
>> Okay. I I'm confused because since all right since we've been here since my son and I got here in September and then October and then January um how I don't understand why the appeal hasn't been brought something hasn't we've been uh why it hasn't been discussed uh previously I mean I've there I've stated my reasons why I can't put in why I can't uh apply why I can't do the the uh apply to the law for the sewer. Um, so we're sort of at a stalemate here. I I'm I'm thinking >> uh if I may, Madam Chair, >> I don't know what to do with that.
>> Arthur reads on online.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Basically, uh, with that being the pose of it at the present time, and again, I just came into the situation, I would request once again that this hearing on the appeal, uh, which is the way that you're treating it, and I gather that is in fact what's before you, uh, be continued and, uh, stayed until the, um, July meeting at which time we will present it. And also I would expect that between now and then we would submit a further application for a variance so that the whole matter could be heard in an orderly fashion and uh determined uh at that time.
That would be our request. Thank you >> Madam Chair. Carrie >> Carrie can go first then I'll go.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I I guess, you know, I know Jim had expressed that he would uh be willing to work with the homeowner at the last meeting. And I was just wondering if if there was any um thing that we should be continuing or any information that would help one way or the other.
>> You you were gonna >> gave her one month and let >> I went out and spent a half a day there.
>> Talk your mind. I spent a half a day out with these people trying to come to some kind of an agreement or try to find a way to do what they need to do. The system they have is obviously not what it's supposed to be because they want you want them to touch the sewer, but the system they have is perfect. Everything works. It's okay. Their land is lower than the street. They're over 700 ft back and you have what you have and and everything that they have works perfect.
And if it's just a case of going to tying it to the sewer, I I would guess it would cost more than half a million dollars to run that sewer line from their house over 700 ft to the street.
But you have what you have. I mean, it's just I don't know what you're going to do.
there's I I try to work something out and I spend a half a day and we we we looked at every avenue that we could think of and it's they just they have what they have and then and it works but obviously the town wants them to tie to the sewer and if that's what has to happen someone has to come up with a whole lot of money >> and I have a yeah I I'm going to ask Arthur I you were. So what I heard Arthur is there is currently a commercial kitchen, but you you are uh representing that there would not be a commercial kitchen any longer that this would be a one person or a two cottage property uh for the near future. Is that >> that? Yes. Uh that's right, Matt. The um um uh Miss Hutton has not operated the commercial kitchen for several years. uh and um she's not going to in the future.
The present time she lives in the house and there's a small um unheated cottage where uh her family members stay during the summer, but that would be the entire use of the property solely as residential use.
>> And I know that this group, I know you have worked on this, I've read some of the minutes, you've worked on this a long time. I think a couple more months in light of uh what you're saying about how far it is, etc., and and what they've represented. I I think a a stay of this would be okay. Uh I also think that there's could be some terms and conditions put on that so that the pressure from that system isn't a commercial kitchen and a and a bunch of other things. It's a couple houses. And and I think that might be something that the board would be able to uh see the way to to giving a variance for with the understanding if and when it is sold or moved along it would be uh brought up and taken care of. You know something like that would that work?
>> Well, I think we have a couple of facts in front of us here. One is from the minutes of 2023 motion to approve the variance for two years as long as the septic system passes inspection and will have two years May 21st 2025 to tie tie into town soup. So that was they there was in 2023 that decision was made in that they had until 20 uh May 2025.
In the winter this board asked uh the homeowner we have an estimate from Tuscana for $125,000.
This board asked uh the homeowner to obtain three other estimates. I have no record that that was done. Uh we also asked the homeowner to look into h uh whether it would be possible to rent one of her out buildings to produce some income to pay for the cost of um connecting to the sewer. So there have been a lot of exceptions and a lot of thinking done how to possibly accommodate uh difficulties having to do with this.
And I I feel like um I don't know if the rest of the board agrees with me, but we've been continuing and continuing and continuing uh and um I feel that the agenda item that is uh on the on the the item on the agenda is appeal of an order to connect.
Uh so we're not really talking about a variance or anything like that. We're talking about this particular thing. Um and um Madam Chairman, we uh in trying to get three other uh estimates from people uh is almost literally impossible to do. Nobody would would even think about uh unless I was going to uh go through with this. And there's too many variables about what is going on the driveway which they would not want to be responsible for. Uh uh there's uh I uh between the electricity and the Comcast and everything else that also uh supplies my neighbors.
>> In addition, we submitted a piece of paper from Blackwell Associates saying a plan would cost $10,000.
Nobody. Tossana, if you look at Tuscana's proposal, it's missing half. It recognizes that. It also says homeowner must be liable.
Uh first, they won't even give an estimate till that $10,000, which is going to cost $10,000. Engineers plan in front of them and they go from there.
>> Christina Jeremy told me, she said, "There's no way that I can possibly give you I'll give you a rough estimate." And that's what the estimate that I got from her from uh from when you required it.
She said for us to even think about uh the doing this on a full scale, she said u this is be way beyond what our estimate is.
>> I've been a contractor for 50 years.
Nobody wants to just sit down and spend two or three days working up a proposal just because the board wants three. I believe it says only one is required.
You're not required to take the cheapest one.
Is that correct, John?
>> That's for the loan program. I believe the board had requested the three loans as I recall. And if I can just please clarify for the record as chief environmental health officer with the health department for the town in Nucket. I'm an agent for the board of health and these are their regulations which I enforce. I do not make those decisions for regulations. I do not vote on these regulations.
>> Thank you. Excuse me. The estimate they got from was $185,000.
>> I've got it right here in front of me.
>> How much?
>> 125.
>> 125.
>> Yes, sir. Okay. Would you like?
>> And that was only for for their part of the thing. That was only that was nothing to do with the rest of the stuff that they had to do. That was just what what that contractor what his part was.
So it it was basically nothing.
The thing is if whatever if if it comes down to have to tie into the sewer, this whole thing is going to be nothing but money. Where's the money coming from?
And I'll bet you it's going to be a half a million dollars to run that that line to the to the street.
I guess I have a a question. It seems like it seems that you have that they and the board have struggled with it because of the cost. It feels like the board has been aware of the cost and the impact and you've both have been it seems like you've struggled with trying to find a way forward is Yeah. So, so I'm not saying I think it's I think that you've done that my guess is you've done that in good faith and my guess is they've done it in good faith and and my hope would be that you know with Arthur involved maybe there's a way forward.
That's why that's why I made the suggestion I did is you know and I think if I heard John correctly if you you know if you make a decision today it might make it hard to to undo it two months from now you know if you uphold it and is is that did I hear you correctly that if they make you sort of it's being presented now as you know sort of two choices either you you know uphold it or not but is there and I'm hearing there's sort of I'm saying you could stay it and there's a third path where you go down the middle a little longer so you don't take the yes or the no and give it two more months because I do and I don't and I know that you've been at it a long time and probably don't want to hear that but I I think that this this seems to me it would be a credible case for hardship half a million dollars on a fixed income you know it's it's almost the definition if it's going to cost a half a million do it no offense but you know but but on you know on you know sort of.
>> But you've got to be aware that two months, nothing's going to change.
>> Nothing's going to change in two months.
Nothing's going to change in two years until someone makes the decision that that's the only thing you have. That's the only way out.
>> Right.
John, could you read if you have it anywhere near you uh the regulation that requires connecting um to the sewer >> um do you have that somewhere handy? Let's see if I can >> I I mean I do. I have it here.
>> I think you did it earlier.
>> It's chapter 332, article 2, connections to new and existing publicly owned sanitary sewers. Um it it oh >> 3:321 >> what you showed me that time was so clear so clear >> uh that um but um the reason that I think I smiled at you Matt is that this it's always next month it next month and that's it next month and that's it. Um at so at at what point is it really it?
>> I don't understand your hurry, Madam Chairman.
>> I I >> Well, since 2019 um but um I think is there some way that we could come up with something that says yes, we will give uh Arthur Reed asked for till July, >> right?
Um, is there some way that we could then not have it be two months and two months and two months and two months after that? Um, I don't Can we write some sort of a uh >> a motion that would say that >> we did last month?
>> That's what I thought.
>> Um, >> Tom Dixon wrote it.
>> Yeah, Tom.
>> Madam Chair, you're dealing with an impossible. There's no way to handle this. There's no way to go through with it. What are the penalties? just we there's no way to handle this.
>> I can't afford this. I mean, I'm going to have to sell my house.
>> Are you going to force a year round off the island to sell our house?
>> Where am I going to move to?
>> And that's not polluting the harbor in any shape, form, or fashion. I still want it answered, as I asked you numerous times previously.
The well is okay. You increase it to 50 feet to make it even more safe.
What is 10,000 ft to the harbor? Can you prove that that that that se this septic system in 47 Pulpus Road on the other side of Sloac Storm is doing any damage?
Can you prove that?
>> When the when the districts were drawn, I am sure it was not drawn capriciously.
I am sure it was done based on >> uh movement of water and things like that. I this is not my area of expertise.
>> Have you read Have you read the Have you read that? Have you read the 165 page?
>> It has nothing to do the flow that they talk about.
>> The purpose of this is not to determine whether or not DP's evaluation of the watershed was correct. The purpose of this is to determine whether or not the order to connect should be appealed or continued and then if a variance needs to be issued from there. there's not really a great case to relitigate the determination of the watershed areas in this context. Um, so I I don't know that that's necessarily the best use of everyone's time.
>> Okay. Well, then all I know is that Arthur said that by July for once we'll have paperwork, whatever is necessary so we can seriously discuss this in all from A to Z.
about why why this is not why this not feasible for me to do.
>> Can I make a comment through you?
>> Of course.
>> Um so I I have struggled with this um since it has been on our agenda. Um, I I am concerned with the fact that all of the neighbors when this was first brought did have to all of them had it had to hook up >> at expense and all of them got together.
I mean, I just worry about what precedent this sets just because it does say no variance shall be granted and that all of the neighbors and and I'm not I feel I feel for you. I'm not saying I'm one way or the other. I just >> struggle with situation.
>> Huh?
>> The neighbors don't have the same situation I do.
>> I I am just saying that I struggle with the fact that all everybody else in the whole area that had to hook up I think hooked up. So I just struggle with that because it it doesn't seem fair.
>> It says unless provides unjust damage to property or owner owner. This is unjust damage to the owners. There's no way to handle this. This is a 700T problem. The other people ran to Kelly Road. It was much shorter. You're making a mockery of the entire concept of a variance.
Um I would like to uh get this settled and I think um Mr. FE's idea of uh giving it until uh continuation until as Arthur Reed is asking uh until July uh with the understanding that it will not the can will not be kicked down the road uh >> over and over and over Carrie has his hand up.
>> Yes, sir. Yes, Carrie.
>> Yes. Uh, you know, I I agree with Matt and you, you know, I know we've been kicking it down the road and, you know, I have several issues I would like, you know, with Arthur on board. Um, you know, the issue of the commercial kitchen, you know, if it's a functioning commercial kitchen and and is legal, can it be rented out if they and and one of the correspondences several months ago, I thought that said that the commercial kitchen was going to be turned into an apartment. So, you know, I want I would like to have that issue sorted out. Is is it a functioning commercial kitchen?
that could be rented, which could produce income. If if it is going to be turned into an apartment, that could produce income. So, I'd like to kind of get some of the edges sorted out. And, you know, we have a range of 125,000 to half a million. That's that's a pretty big range to work in. Um, if there is something that can be done to at least get a more accurate number, um, you know, we throw out the the 125, we say that's not all the work. a half a million. Is that a real number? Is that just, you know, pie in the sky? I mean, so you were being asked to decide about putting a variance on some place where it says variances can't be granted. And I still think there's information that should be presented that could at least help the argument. And you know, I know that Arthur is, you know, this this is the kind of stuff that, you know, he could help um help us with a, you know, a cleaner kind of addressing these questions and uh we addressed his July meeting and you know I we will have to act and you know I think you know as Tom said last month when he said he says you know he he was up for a continuence but you know it's we we have a very you know there is a regulation that says no variances are granted. So we have to come up with something. We need to have real solid information in order to proceed. Period. If we're going to say deny it, we need to have a good good grounding. And if we're going to allow some uh it to continue the way it is, we need to be on good ground. And right now, I don't feel we're on good ground.
>> I have a question. Uh, how soon would Arthur have to have the material to the I would I would want the material to this you to staff in time uh for it to be reviewed by town council on our end.
So if the if the goal is to make a decision in July, then I would make sure the material from Arthur was in with plenty of time for the town to do any work it has to be done has to be done.
So if your goal is to move this along, make sure you have time to >> Yes. to to look at everything and and and and craft, you know, and and and have any have any concerns addressed, you know, and and I look at it slightly differently from a uh you know, oh gez, let's get them the commercial kitchen running again and let's get a long term let's get short-term rentals in. I look at it differently. Let's keep it as minimal impact as possible if there's going to be and let's Arthur let Arthur put something in that says this will be uh fixed in the future when this happens you know put some other some of the restrictions so that you know that what's happening now which is a few people into a small septic a small septic is what is happening not an increase of use that's you know putting more pressure so I you know I think that there may be something that he'll he can come back with or we'll craft that would make every make the board, you know, make the board happy that it's going to be less impact on the harbor and that in the future if it sells or if it's being developed or there's any changes, then they will comply because they're putting more value in and they have to. And so that would be sort of the hope that that would hope something like that was crafted. Sir, >> if I may, obtaining the information that uh you're all asking for right now is exactly the reason why I need the period of time in order to pull it together.
And I agree, you certainly should have the opportunity to review all those materials um well in advance of the uh of the July meeting that we would propose to present it at. Uh, I would say you should have it at least at least 2 to 3 weeks ahead.
>> That would be good. That would be good.
And I I think you've heard uh some of the things that we're asking to understand and to hear about that we have asked over and over uh which is an accurate estimate um more than one estimate uh the possibility of income from the out buildings and all of that kind of thing. I think uh as well as some sort of alternate plan. So, um, if you can work on that, Arthur, I think we maybe could make a motion to continue it until July.
>> You are aware it's going to require $10,000 to get a plan for anybody to bid on.
I would let I would say let's let Arthur come back to us because I I am I I have uh moved buildings and been building employee housing and everything is a multiple of 5,000. So he's correct. You build dig a hole, it's five grand or it's 10 or it's 15. So I I think that you you know I think let Arthur come back with you know what he's gonna come back with. I would suggest.
>> Thank you, Matt.
Okay, I think we're going to need a motion to >> I'll make I'll make a motion to uh hold this until July >> to and to uh with the understanding that Arthur uh will work on the details and get them to this board three weeks at least. Is three weeks enough, John?
>> Yeah, that's plenty of time. three weeks before so the town council and the staff can look at it and you know put a recommendation to the board to this board of you know what will work and why or what why it won't so that you can make a final or we can make a final decision.
>> I'll second that.
>> Right. All in favor >> you made the motion second.
>> I seconded it.
>> Okay.
fever.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> And yes, >> that's what we're going to do. We are going to have Arthur Reed enter the enter the scene. And uh >> Arthur has his hand up. Is that uh >> Oh, >> no. That's that's that's residual. I can lower it.
>> Okay.
>> And thank you very much.
>> I I was going to hope I was hoping you weren't saying no.
>> Yeah.
Definitely not.
>> We just put a lot of work on your plate.
>> I I I understand.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> All right.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh number 10.
Going to read what it says. Uh the agenda item because I want to make sure that the agenda item is the agenda item.
Update on pre-esting agreement for Vita Kabiso Stadium renovation project.
No votes scheduled.
So, we're going to hear uh last month, as everyone probably knows, the board moved to agree to have a sort of a a working group uh consisting of the health department, uh school system, and land and water council to work together uh to make uh some testing uh recommendations.
And I think that Jericho has a a little bit of a presentation to tell us what's what's what.
>> I'd say presentation is probably a little too strong a word. Um I'll give an update on progress made on an agreement between the town and the health department regarding the specifics of the testing regime that will be applied to any materials before they are delivered to Nantucket. Um the current agreement uh or provisional agreement on the pre-esting is largely completed. There is one particular item that has to deal with a relatively naughty bit of analytic chemistry regarding the testing of an adhesive and the particular method of that test. That is the only significant delta we have between the Land and Water Council's recommendations on pre-esting and um the uh the the school's willingness to test.
Um this includes specifically the materials and the number of said materials to be tested, the standards to be used, um and the nature of the tests, the sticking point on the adhesive is specific and relates to the way that an adhesive has to be tested differently than other materials do. Um I think that one um needs to go back to the school in order to be um looked at. Uh the school understandably uh asked for a delay in continuing discussion until after the ballot. Um and I believe Dr. Howlet is currently I think she's chaperoning a school trip at this point. Um Oh, excellent. Yeah. Um I'll I'll run through the updates and then then we'll do the the uh two sides and then we'll do public comment briefly. Um so that is largely it. Um I expect that we will be able to resolve the adhesive testing thing um shortly. Uh and then we will be able to bring the first part back for approval for a memorandum of understanding between the school um and the uh health department and then we can move on to the track information and the any ongoing monitoring that may take place.
It's basically the update.
>> Okay, great. It sounds like you're very close to >> the pre-esting. I would say we are. Yes.
Um, if anyone has any specifics, um, I I'd rather not discuss the nature of it because it hasn't been shown like the specifics of it. It hasn't been shown and agreed upon yet, but it is largely the same as the proposed testing uh, and standards that were done in the I believe it's the February meeting. And the uncontroversial part of the agreement is is in accordance with Land and Water Council's uh requests on pre-esting.
>> Okay.
Did you guys I think there were some people who wanted to >> Sure. I think we can go school and land and water council. Um if you guys want to rock paper scissors for it.
>> All right. I don't know that this is necessary because Jericho just covered it all, but I am here. Um I'm Melissa Dev. I'm the assistant superintendent of academic operations and I'm here for Dr. Howlet. She is off island on a field trip. Um I would like to say good afternoon and Dr. Howlet would like to clarify one point raised in recent correspondence sent to chair Smith by Willa Arsenalt of the Land and Water Council on May 15th regarding the Veto Capiso Stadium project in the ongoing conversations between the Nantucket public schools and the Nan Nantucket Land and Water Council. Nucket public schools has not declined requests to continue discussions regarding the project. Prior to the annual town election, I communicated with both Emily Molden and the land Nantucket Landing Water Council and Jericho Mey of the Nantucket Department of Health that we were respectfully requesting a temporary pause in discussions until after the election process concluded. This request was made to ensure the project first received the necessary approval from the community before additional conversations continued. The pause was never intended to signal a refusal to engage. In fact, our team remains committed to continuing collaborative discussions. At this time, no bids have been published and project designs are being finalized. So, there remains adequate time before any construction activities begin. We are simply requesting that future conversations resume once the full project project team is available, which will anticipate will be after June 1st. and we remain committed to maintaining open communication and working collaboratively as the project move more moves forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you for clarifying.
>> Hi Willa Arsenal for the Land and Water Council. Um to begin first uh through the board, thank you very much for those clarifications. Um the statement in my comment letter was not to accuse the school of any sort of um refusal to meet but certainly just to update the board of where we stood at this point which is to say that we haven't been able to meet with the school um throughout the last month. Um, and so at this point, I just would sort of I'll real quickly um sorry, sum up what was in the letter that I submitted earlier uh this this week or or at the end of last week. Um, so thank you for the board of health to continue to engage seriously with this issue and uh for the parties working collaborative collaboratively uh towards a testing and monitoring framework for this project. Um, as we've said throughout this project, the Land and Water Council's involvement has been grounded in our mission to protect Nantucket's land and water resources.
Um, this project is proposed directly within the zone 2 wellhead protection district over our soul source aquifer.
And the track and field systems are specifically designed to infiltrate storm water into the groundwater system.
At this stage, our requests have been narrowed to what we think are three very reasonable and attainable standards. Um, we've submitted this these requests in in more detail with the comment letter.
Um but to summarize first what we're asking for is a comprehensive testing of the turf system itself including the turf fibers the backing uh infills shock pads adhesives and associated materials.
We continue to believe that method 1633 SPLP and a TP assay represent valuable tools for evaluating detectable POS but leechable compounds and precursors that may transform over time. Um second we are requesting the same testing protocol be applied to the synthetic track materials. There's less publicly available data on track systems, but many of the characteristics are similar, including long-term outdoor durability uh and weather resistance to those uh POS containing materials. And so we find it uh important to test those. Um and third, if this project is to proceed, we continue to believe that baseline and uh and ongoing groundwater monitoring is appropriate and necessary. The purpose though of this monitoring is not to attribute contamination to a single source. We're not trying to point fingers. Um, but we're trying to establish a baseline condition to identify changes over time and to support long-term uh informed decision-making. I do want to reiterate though that these requests are not intended to eliminate all uncertainty or to guarantee zero risk. Um, they are intended to reduce uncertainty as much as possible using the available science we have and to ensure that decisions are being made with complete information or the most complete information possible really. Um ultimately we do believe that these are modest and achievable standards given the sensitivity of the pro project location and the importance of project uh protecting Nantucket's drinking water resources and we're really looking forward to continuing to work with the school um and we appreciate the collaboration that has taken place thus far. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Are there comments? Yeah.
>> Good evening. My name is Brent Tardamela, a 20-year resident and parent, and I've been following this closely, as you know. My question here tonight is more about process. Uh, the town of Nucket has an established relationship with Weston and Samson, a nationally recognized interdisciplinary engineering environmental firm. They're currently conducting many projects on island, the sewer district master plan for the town, including the exploratory design work for the Somerset Needs area, as well as the information for the parks and wreck master plan and the um phase of Tom Never's uh environmental cleanup.
So, these involve tens of millions of dollars of public infrastructure and environmental responsibilities. And in every one of those cases, the town has trusted Weston and Samson's independent analysis.
Weston and Samson has reviewed the Capiso stadium renovation plan. They've evaluated the proposed testing protocols and supported the approach being taken.
So the question tonight is why is Weston and Samson good for millions of dollars of town projects, but all of a sudden they're conveniently disregarded when it comes to the athletic complex? What's changed? What standard is being applied here in this conversation that is not being applied everywhere else? Weston and Samson works on behalf of the town.
What makes it harder to understand is what appears to be filling that gap. The Nantucket Land and Water Council is an advocacy organization. They do important work, but they are not a certified regulatory body. They hold no official position within the town of Nantucket's governmental framework and they are not independent. They have a stated position on the project and they have been working against it. They are a biased organization from that perspective. I'm not questioning their right to advocate, of course, but I am questioning why an advocacy organization with a predetermined position is being elevated in this conversation over a firm that this town pays, trusts, and relies upon for its most consequential environmental and infrastructure decisions. It seems like there's some it's just not clear, right? I I'll just say it's it seems like it's a little more maybe backdoor stuff uh from a board that's fighting hard to regain integrity and trust within our community. The same community that supports the athletics complex. And let's not forget TRC companies, a global company based in Connecticut that has spent half a century focused on evidencebased strategy strategies. just just that they will be vetting our pre-installation testing which has already been described as aggressive and conservative.
The team has also been working with and qualified by the town of Nantucket on other island projects. So this is two incredibly knowledgeable firms that have already been aligned with and supported by and qualified by the town of Nantucket without being dragged through the muddy unsafe fields. This community has voted twice in support of the project. The voters have spoken. The school committee has done its due diligence. Weston and Samson and TRC have done the work. We are simply asking this board to apply the same standards of rigor to the project that it applies to every other project the town undertakes. Nothing more, nothing less.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Uh, Madame Chair, members of the board, Kate Garrett, it's important in this conversation remains grounded in evidence, balance, and consistency. This project has already undergone an extraordinary level of scrutiny. Independent engineers, environmental consultants, toxicologists, and the school committee have all evaluated it. It passed by twothirds at annual town meeting and by almost 60% at Tuesday's election.
Democracy has spoken twice. Once again, it will go through pre-installation testing with protocols vetted by Elizabeth Denley. She is vice president, PAS initiative leader and chemistry director at TRC companies. TRC is a leading global consulting engineering and construction management firm that provides environmentally focused solutions.
Miss Denley has delivered hundreds of presentations to regulators and industry experts and has also served as chair of a municipal board of water commissioners. She has herself described the proposed testing protocol as aggressive and conservative. It is also worth noting that the town has relied upon and entrusted TRC for various other projects on Nantucket.
I would like to raise an issue of consistency. When a public school athletic project receives an intense intensity of scrutiny that other synthetic surf surface installations within the same wellhead pro protection zone do not. It does create the appearance of a fundamentally different standard and I do think that warrants an honest and transparent conversation.
Recent discussions have expanded beyond the turf field to include scrutiny of the proposed track surface and associated materials.
Yet playgrounds and recreational services across Nantucket, also within the wellhead protection zone containing synthetic materials, coatings, adhesives, binders, and engineered components, have not been subjected subjected to the same level of review.
Similar products at other facilities within the same wellhead protection zone are moving forward without comparable scrutiny.
The grass fields at Novadier and Delta fields also within a wellhead protection zone require massive amounts of fertilizer annually. If we are truly concerned about what enters our groundwater, the conversation cannot begin and end with just this project.
The same standard should apply across all comparable projects within the recharge zone. Most importantly, let us please distinguish between the presence of detectable compounds and actual demonstrated exposure risk. That distinction is at the heart of responsible public health decision-making and this community deserves nothing nothing less. Thank you.
>> You see anyone online, John?
>> No, no one online.
>> No.
>> Thank you, Jericho. I think Uh, does the board have any comments that they would like to make?
>> I just appreciate that the school is um willing to go be at the table with this with the Land and Water Council and the Health Department and I appreciate all of the meaningful discussion you guys are having and um that you're really looking into this and taking this seriously because I I think it's an important topic. Um, so I appreciate all of you being able to collaborate and come to the table and sounds like coming to the table next week. So, thank you.
>> Yeah, I would say the same thing. The the idea of people of of of these groups working together is a very heartening and uh good thing to see. The purpose of the board of health is and has always been to be careful about the health and safety of all citizens of the island and um working with other groups and coming up with a a good sit solution is is important. Harry, you have anything?
No, I mean I agree with the cooperation and you know my hope is that you I guess yes we learn about these materials but you know it will put us in a better position to question other materials potentially because the we only have a single source aquifer and somewhere we have to always be mindful of that and that's what all the regulations you know we're the board of public health and we don't want to get into building and stuff but we do need to look at health and you know you know, keep the health of the aquifer is a really primary thing. So, um I'm not against I don't I don't see the extra questioning being negative. I see it being positive because there are questions out there and working with the existing contractors as well as the on island organizations and the town. Um we'll be in a better place uh not just for this project but potentially future projects because we need to we got to we have to understand we have to understand the impact of what we don't know right now.
And there's a lot of stuff we did that that shows potential harm. And we need to be working with all the agencies, local, state, federal, whatever, to get us and hopefully other places in a better position to make decisions about um how we maintain the long-term health of the island. So, I'm supportive of collaboration.
I would just uh suggest and Jericho knows this because he's heard me say it before um that time is of the essence and I know that they're working uh as speedily as they can to get it all figured out.
>> That's the uh the the intent in ironing out the pre-esting first is just to be as as prompt on that as we can. Were you about to say something?
>> No, I was I was Well, I was going to say something. I don't need I don't really basically I'm just glad that you got that you are taking this uh route and that you're working together. I think that makes a lot of sense. And we talk about, you know, sort of trust. There's trust from different sides. And I think if the land and water council signs off on it and the school signs off on it, then I think both sides are covered. and you'll bring this community together.
And I think that should be the goal. It should be the goal with the, you know, with the school project and it should be the goal with the community. And I think, you know, I didn't know that you had done, you know, until I'd read the packet. I didn't know you'd put this together. I've been paying attention, but I missed that. I missed that memo.
And and I think you've made, you know, you you made a good choice. So, thank you.
>> Well, where's something else?
>> Just in the interest of absolute clarity. Um, so in the next month before the next meeting, it and it maybe this is through you to the school. It sounds like the school is willing to meet to continue to discuss what was in our comment letter. Um, and I don't know if if there's anything and again I'm just trying to be as expedient as possible knowing that the timeline. If there's any comments about what was in the comment letter that you had any concerns about tonight to comment on. Oh, okay.
Great. Thank you very much for the the clarification. Appreciate it. And thank you.
>> And then I will as soon as we lock a time down, I'll be sh I'll share the the draft provisional. Um it's basically a rearrangement of the first two meeting like the the output of the first meeting and then the comment letter you guys had then put into a new document. We'll share that around. We should have the working version of the provisional pre-esting as soon as we get a chance to meet with the school and then we'll iron out whatever differences we made.
>> Okay. Thank you all very much.
Okay. Whoa. We're on 11. Introduction of short-term rental correction letter to be used when STR owners are non-compliant with registration requirements.
>> Okay.
Um, good evening, Madam Chair. I'm gonna take the lead on this one. Um, so hi again, Andrew Shapiro, environmental contamination administrator, and I'm here tonight to present a template notice of violation and order to correct related to our short-term rental bylaws and regulations. So, just a little bit of background on this one. Um, short-term rentals, STRs, I'm sure we all know that abbreviation, um, are required to be registered before they operate. and all advertisements need to include the registration number.
So essentially an STR that is not registered cannot advertise.
So our short-term rental community liaison reviews advertisements, looks for listings that are not registered. We have a lot of STRs that are registered, just over 1,600 last I checked. Uh but we still do find some unregistered STRs out there. And when that happens, we reach out and in most cases, the rental is promptly registered.
Um, this letter that is in the packet is for STR operators who have already received an initial letter or email. So, this letter is for operators that we have still not heard back from.
So, what's included in this order? in this letter. Um the operator receiving this letter will be required to reach out to our health department and they will have the option to register their rental or to remove the advertisement if they don't plan on renting their dwelling as an STR.
And if we hear back within 14 days, the operator will avoid potential enforcement actions andor penalties.
Otherwise, we may pursue further enforcement actions. So the letter that you have before you in your packet was drafted by the health department and town council has provided edits and that version that has been reviewed by town council um is what appears in your packet. This is a template so obviously we would fill in the relevant placeholders such as the address, the URL, um the name of the operator, etc. Um, but tonight what we are seeking is a motion from the board to essentially approve this template for use if the board so wishes. Um, that's all I've got for now and of course happy to answer any questions.
Anybody have any questions on this letter? I think it's pretty clear.
Um, >> are we looking for approval of the letter? Is that >> So, I'll move I'll move All right. I'll move approval. I think it's really well done.
I'll move approval.
>> Second.
>> All right. All in favor?
>> I >> I uh Gary >> I Okay.
>> Yep. I >> Good.
That's uh unanimously approved.
Anybody who doesn't register gets this letter. That's the first step.
>> Okay. So, >> motion to adjurnn.
>> Second.
>> All in faith.
>> Yeah. I >> wonder.
>> Yeah. You got it.
>> That's it. for that.
>> Thank you.
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
