Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Compliance Title5 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews multiple Title 5 issues including under-patio tank and rebuild at 111 Main Street
Summary
Board members reviewed pending Title 5 reports: an inaccessible tank at 17 Forest Park that Kevin flagged, a prior Title 5 letter sent for 57 Lakeside, and a rebuilt house at 111 Main Street where questions arose about whether a Title 5 inspection or upgrade is required for on-site reconstruction.
The Lakeville Board of Health reviewed several pending Title 5 (on-site septic) issues at its Dec. 4 meeting, including a flagged inspection at 17 Forest Park, a previously addressed property at 57 Lakeside, and a burned house at 111 Main Street that is being rebuilt.
Board members said an inspector had passed a Title 5 inspection for a property in Forest Park but Kevin (the departed agent) flagged the report because outlet covers and tank access appeared to be buried under a patio or deck. Members discussed options such as installing risers or cutting an access panel in decks so covers are at grade. “That guy passed it. He shouldn't have it?” one member said, recounting Kevin’s concerns.
The board also noted Kevin had sent a letter regarding 57 Lakeside and that follow-up had not been completed. Members asked staff to check on the file and any outstanding correspondence.
The most detailed discussion concerned 111 Main Street, a house that burned down and is being rebuilt on its existing foundation. The board reviewed Title 5 guidance quoted by Kevin that an on-site reconstruction triggers the need for a Title 5 inspection if septic components will be reused. Members disagreed with the applicant’s interpretation that no upgrade was required because the rebuilding would not increase bed count. The board discussed advising the property owner to check insurance coverage that might pay for upgrades in the event reconstruction is required and noted that a failed Title 5 would normally allow two years for an upgrade. The board agreed to contact the owner to advise an inspection and requested staff to follow up and clarify whether the rebuild alters the building footprint or bedroom count.
No enforcement action to compel upgrades was taken at the meeting; board members said they could require an inspection when reconstruction is planned, but state Title 5 rules do not automatically require upgrades unless the Title 5 inspection fails or a change of use/size triggers an upgrade obligation.
Board members asked staff to follow up with the inspectors and owners, to confirm access to tank covers and to ensure reports are properly reviewed before permits are signed.
