My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/8/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
1/8/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:07:21 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:07:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/08/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
3 <br /> t <br /> I+ <br /> I <br /> was why he did not include the alarm issue. Ultimately, that should b <br /> art of the DEP's own reasoning for revoking their permit, <br /> Mr. Ball asked if they were only looking for a fine for one violationo which <br /> would out the $76,200.00 to $38,000.00. <br /> Mr. Harrington asked Ms. Warden if that was correct. <br /> IVIS. Warden agreed that that was correct. <br /> Mr. Harrington added that,they did not have the jurisdiction to levy fines <br /> on a DEP permit, He wasn't 100% sure of that but that was how he <br /> understood it to be. It wasn't their permit, The board of health has the <br /> authority to oversee and certify the contracts. But, he did not believe that <br /> they could levy fines on a DEP permit. It was up to them to do the <br /> enforcement. That was why they requested the DEP to revoke their <br /> permit. Now, if the DEP did revoke their tight-tank permit. Dight now under <br /> new applications for industrial waste permitting. The DEP has backed out <br /> of the permitting process. The board of health would actually have <br /> jurisdiction under a new application. It would Put it back under a new <br /> jurisdiction. He believed that that should happen. The DEP was cut so far <br /> in their budget that they were backing out of a lot of their jurisdictions <br /> and responsibilities. Any new applications, which this would be if it were <br /> revoked. It would allow the hoard of health to set their own conditions. <br /> There was enough of a basis for the DEP to revoke their tight-tank permit. <br /> IVIS. Warden added that the only remaining violation is for $311,000.00. <br /> i <br /> IVI . Grady asked if they were not going to get fined for failure to correct <br /> the septic system and not having a ServSafe person present. She was <br /> very upset over the fact that they didn't follow ServSafe whatsoever. They <br /> had employees working around food and not being able to wash their <br /> hands. She would be embarrassed if she were ServSafe approved and <br /> allowed this to happen. <br /> Ir. Santos asked IVIS. Warden that the last few times that she went to the <br /> premises the bathrooms were in use. Back in August, however, they <br /> weren't because everything was plugged up. They put port-a-potties out <br /> there. <br /> Mr. Bricker stated that they put port-a-potties out there for one day. They <br /> also had sanitary wipes. <br /> Mr. Santos agreed with Ms. Grady. They would have to figure out how <br /> many days they were in violation for each issue. It happened on August <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.