Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Falmouth board continues contentious variance request for 227 Edgewater Drive West after neighbors raise environmental concerns
Summary
Neighbors and board members disagreed about setback variances, tank placement and whether the applicant should be required to install an IA system; after extended debate the board voted to continue the application to allow further review and possible redesign.
The Falmouth Board of Health voted to continue consideration of a local upgrade and multiple setback variances for 227 Edgewater Drive West after a sustained, sometimes heated discussion about coastal‑bank encroachment and whether the project should be conditioned on installing an advanced nitrogen‑reducing system.
Engineer Chuck Rowland described the project as a raise‑and‑rebuild that keeps the existing five‑bedroom count while replacing a cesspool with a new Title 5 system and proposed tank and pump locations closer to the coastal bank than local setbacks typically allow. Multiple waivers were requested for setbacks to the property line, foundation and coastal bank.
Neighbors, including Joe Bornstein, raised concerns that tanks and pumps could be placed farther from the coastal bank by staying within the original house footprint. Bornstein also questioned the completeness of plan materials, pointing to tax records and permit history.
Several board members argued the application warranted an IA (innovative/advanced) system to achieve an equal degree of environmental protection if variances are granted. One motion to deny the project unless a banner IA system was incorporated went without a second; another motion to continue the hearing to give the applicant and engineers more time to explore alternatives was seconded and approved. The continuation was scheduled for the board’s next meeting on June 22.
Owner Amanda Hunt told the board she and her engineers had considered IA systems but believed the project met current local requirements and that the proposed design reserved area for a future 2,000‑gallon tank if needed. Hunt said cost and footprint constraints influenced the decision to propose the standard Title 5 design at this stage.
The board left the record open for staff to review potential repositioning of tanks and alternate SAS designs and asked the applicant to provide existing and proposed floor plans and any additional documentation requested by staff.
