My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/13/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
3/13/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:25:13 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 1:52:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/13/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
N <br /> 1 <br /> stipulation that they had two-years tie in to the sewerage treatment <br /> plant. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that there was no other timeline set. <br /> Mr. Ball asked if the health agents had found a confirmation of that <br /> stipulation in the previously approved addresses for this area. <br /> Mr. Farrington added that there was only one other system that had had <br /> a denitrification system on it. But, that was because it was truly <br /> designed for six-bedrooms, If reset the 600 gallons per day or over <br /> regulation and that was why if ended up with a FAST system, The other <br /> systems did not have the FAST or UV system. But, ultimately he felt that <br /> this was the hardest environmental situation because they were right at <br /> the end of the dune. This was pushing the envelope and if this weren't an <br /> existing system. He felt that they would have more of the book to throw <br /> at them. It was an existing and they would have to grant them something. <br /> The questions that he had right now were whether or not Mr, Grotzke had <br /> notified the abutters for being less than ten feet. <br /> Mr. Grotzke responded that they notified the abutter already from the <br /> previous request for variance approval. <br /> Mr. Harrington confirmed that this was the same address. <br /> Mr, Grotzke re-iterated that that was the same address. <br /> Mr. Santos asked if they had come to some conclusion regarding the soil <br /> stability. <br /> Mr. Harrington explained that the way that he was interpreting the soil <br /> stability regulation as no newly constructed septic system, That <br /> ultimately when sitting with Mr, Grotzke and Ms. Turano-Flores he could <br /> have stuck to his guns and said that there was a potential that the <br /> regulation was written for that meaning. But, it also could have been <br /> interpreted to mean "new construction", which this is not. It was an <br /> existing system, There would have been a heck of an argument either <br /> way. It would have held everybody up, going to court and all that stuff <br /> really wouldn't have Clone anybody any good. When ultimately in this case <br /> it would have been better to work cooperatively to work with all of the <br /> owners. It was the DEP who had the administrative consent order with <br /> New seabury. The town has very little pull with New Seabury other than <br /> building permits. That was something that needed to be discussed also. <br /> How could they use the ability to sign off on building permits to motivate <br /> New seabury to tie in the Bluff cottages? It is really was the DEP who <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.