My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/23/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
1/23/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:03:49 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 1:50:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/23/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
i <br /> Mr. Grotzke then started that obviously if the owner's have paid two million <br /> dollars for this lot. They were not expecting to re-build within this small <br /> footprint. <br /> Mr, Harrington added that the 1992 Iden was a leaching field, The <br /> leaching pit would be deeper to ground water, <br /> Mr. Santos re-iterated that there should have been a timeline for the hook- <br /> up to the sewer. <br /> IIIb, Grotzke that is was certainly something for the owners to pursue. <br /> Mr. Santos asked Mr, Grotzke if he had said that he was going to put a <br /> denitrification system with a UV treatment. <br /> Mr. Grotzke responded that they were not proposing it on this system but <br /> on the other one, <br /> Mr. Harrington suggested to the board members that they could make a <br /> condition if they wanted to because Mr. Grotzke was requesting a <br /> variance. The first order of maximum feasible compliance was to erne <br /> into full compliance. <br /> IIIb. Ball commented to Mr. Santos that if he wanted to add the <br /> denitrification system and the UV treatment that it was up to him to do <br /> so. <br /> Mr, Grotzke stated that if they were to...maximum feasible compliance. <br /> They obviously drew this plan so that they could go back. They have an <br /> existing cottage with the maximum feasible compliance would be the <br /> proper route to go. The variance with a septic tank is a variance that <br /> disturbs the board is certainly something they could do to adjust that. As <br /> Mr. Santos just stated it didn't really make sense to have an expensive <br /> denitrification system. If there was any j ustificat lo n technically for doing <br /> it. He was sure the owners wouldn't hesitate to do that. He couldn't <br /> recommend that it was a sensible thing here because of the absence of <br /> Impact. <br /> Mr, Harrington added that it was more the absence of adhering to...of <br /> others. He felt that there was impact because there is shell fishing that <br /> goes on there, The UV treatment is a disinfectant. It takes out the <br /> majority of the pathogens. As far as Mr, Grotzke saying that there is no <br /> impact he did not agree. There is shell fishing that goes on there. They <br /> were on the dune. They don't get much closer to the water, one other <br /> recommendation he had on this matter was to hold off on this request <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.