My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
12/4/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:17:35 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:03:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
of health's responsibility if the reports were coning here and nothing was <br /> being done with them. <br /> Ms. Warden suggested that Dr. Mantel put his concerns on a piece of <br /> paper so that they could put a regulation together. <br /> Dr. Mantel didn't feel that it was a matter of putting a regulation together, <br /> It was a matter of saying that maybe the board of health itself should <br /> request some clarification for it's citizens. The board was putting the onus <br /> on the citizens. He sat here a couple of years ago when the board decided <br /> that one of his neighbors needed an ultra violet light. He asked ghat was <br /> the scientific Iasis for it. He received no answer, Then he saw following <br /> that that there was no goal. Now there was a goal but no requirement. <br /> Where were they going to take the sample? If it didn't meet it what would <br /> they do There was nothing in the regulations about that, sane thing with <br /> the nitrogen. shy were they spending all this money to measure it when <br /> no one was looking at it <br /> Mr. Harrington added that Regulation 19 and 25 applied to properties in <br /> Zone II and sensitive areas. <br /> Dr. Mantel Mated that that was not them it was Popponesset. <br /> Ms. Warden re-iterated that that was why she was suggesting that they <br /> put a regulation together to address those issues. <br /> Mr. Harrington added that they would have some backing. They would <br /> have to have some legal standing to request. There would have to be <br /> some basis for the regulation too. The other half of the nitrogen sensitive <br /> areas is coastal embayments. They couldn't use that part of Title V <br /> because It says DEP designated sensitive areas or coastal embayments. <br /> There are none. That, he thought, was what the whole Massachusetts <br /> Estuaries Program was going to outline the nitrogen and nutrient loading <br /> that the embayments could handle stemming from the Title V. But, <br /> because they have not truly designated-any coastal embayments yet they <br /> couldn't enforce it,, He said that conservation was driving the i1A systems <br /> in his area because of the Wetlands Protection Act. It was ultimately <br /> coning right back to the BOH because of the originating septic issue. <br /> Ms. Gravy stated that this was not necessarily a bad thing. <br /> Dr. Mantel agreed with Ms. Grady, But, he felt that there should be a <br /> review process. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that Holly Dowden was doing the review for the <br /> county. At least they had a database set up. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.