My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/21/2002 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
2/21/2002 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:21:56 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 1:14:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/21/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
x � <br /> concurred with Mr. Harrington's opinion so that the BOH wasn't exacerbating a <br /> problem. IEP has now issued their letter confirming that his opinion was correct. <br /> 11r. Doherty continued that he was looking at the letter from the applicant and the <br /> deadline for the installation doesn't expire until December. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that Title V merely states that the applicant needs to make <br /> the request for an extension 30 days prior to the deadline. 'Title V doesn't give any <br /> other range. He had a feeling that the BOH is going to be inundated with these <br /> requests because there were 10 plus properties in the approved files alone. <br /> Mr. Doherty felt that the request was premature. But, he didn't see any harm in it. <br /> If the applicant came to the BOH in October or November the BOH would be <br /> inclined to grant it. If it gust allows them more time for better planning oftheir <br /> resources thea so be it. <br /> Mr. Harrington continued that a lot of those lots were retirement properties and it <br /> does affect their retirement planning. <br /> Mr. Santos asked if the BOIL had any plans as to what this lot is. <br /> Mr. Harrington replied that they do have a plan. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that he had attended the meetings and one of the concerns was <br /> the status ofactual Zone II for extensions. The consensus of the BOH at the time <br /> was to treat them-as a Zone 11 even if though it.wasn't Zone II, in effect. The lots <br /> were in sensitive areas. There was one in Frog Pond and a few other sensitive <br /> areas. Is this an area where we should have some concerns <br /> Mr. Doherty stated that there was a public well in the area. <br /> Mr. Harrington replied that he did not actually look at the plan to see why they <br /> were requesting to be grandfathered in the first place. However, it was given <br /> protection under the previous original request. <br /> Nis. warden stated that she would look the lot up to see if it was in Zone II. <br /> Mr. Ha n ington continued by stating that some of the lots were not in Zone II. The <br /> applicants wanted to use a leach pit and that caused there to come under the Title <br /> requirements. <br /> . warden then confirmed that the lot was in Zone IL <br /> Mr. Santos asked if there was plenty of square footage on the property. <br /> Ms. warden stated that there was twenty-one thousand square feet ofspace. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that it would actually be only a two-bedroom and it was <br /> grandfathered for three. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.