Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Dewatered Perk topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Owner withdraws dewatered‑perk waiver request for 198 Kingman after board raises wetlands and alternative‑testing concerns

Lakeville Board of Health · December 18, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

ET Engineering asked the Lakeville Board of Health for a waiver to perform a dewatered 'perk' at 198 Kingman Street; after detailed questioning about cranberry bog conditions, setbacks and alternative conventional perk locations, the applicant withdrew the request without prejudice.

An applicant seeking a waiver to perform a dewatered perk test at 198 Kingman Street withdrew the request without prejudice after the Lakeville Board of Health expressed concerns about wetlands, setbacks and whether conventional perk holes or trenches had been exhausted.

Azwin Tuniro of ET Engineering described the proposed dewatering test and said the method would use gravity drainage (a moat) rather than leaving pumping equipment on site. Tuniro told the board the effort was intended to test soils for a single owner‑occupied dwelling and that no permanent pumping equipment would remain: “We’re not trying to recreate this massive subdivision,” he said.

Board members questioned whether the proposal amounted to new construction (which triggers stricter Title 5 requirements) because there is no existing dwelling at the site, and noted the town’s local regulation that restricts dewatered (deepwater) perks. Members urged the applicant to try other options — including digging an additional conventional perk hole or alternating trenches — and flagged the risk of setting a precedent that would enable septic systems on filled wetlands.

After discussion, the applicant asked to withdraw the waiver request without prejudice so the team could explore other perk locations and engineering options. The board voted to accept the withdrawal, allowing the applicant to return later if they pursue other test methods or demonstrate that conventional perk options are infeasible.

Next steps: the applicant may return with revised test results or a different site configuration after completing additional site work or surveys.