My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/12/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
2/12/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:19:24 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:08:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/12/2004
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
t - <br /> w <br /> k y <br /> IVIS. Gromelski interjected that she had received all the correspondence <br /> and everything that had happened in writing between therm, she got the <br /> story from then. If they had to go into litigation over this and she didn't <br /> know if it was worth it. If that was the evidence that was here, she didn't <br /> see one word in here that said imminent health endangerment or <br /> emergency repairs. It stated that they were in violation of the board's <br /> orders, she had one inspection report and it said nothing about the septic <br /> tanks. <br /> IVIr. Harrington interjected that there was supposed a septic inspection <br /> report that was cone by A & B Canto. Did A & B Canto submit that to the <br /> board? <br /> Ms. Warden agreed that that was what was supposed to have been <br /> completed. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that that report showed that the system was failed. <br /> IVIS. Gromelski agreed that there was a report and that it had failed. she <br /> then goes back to Title V and interprets that when it fails they have two <br /> years to repair the system unless they received an order to do it in a <br /> shorter period of time. <br /> Mr, Harrington interrupted her and stated that that applies only to the <br /> transfer of property. <br /> IVIS. Gromelski interrupted Mr. Harrington and told him that he was wrong,. <br /> It did not say that in the regulation, she then reads the regulation "it was <br /> a deadline for a completion of an upgrade...any upgrade of a systrn.91 <br /> QUIT. Harrington referred her to-section,301. <br /> Ms. Gromelski agreed with Mr, Darrington and then said that section 303 <br /> was the section that applied. <br /> Mr. Harrington re-iterated that she was applying the transfer regulation <br /> section 303 to this situation, which was incorrect. <br /> Ms, Grornelski stated that that was the only regulation that applied <br /> because it was the "deadline for completion of upgrade" was a <br /> completely separate section because it was 305. She quotes "if a system <br /> is failing to protect public health and safety with environment set forth in <br /> i <br /> 153031 or 3041 thea the operator shall repair the system within two- <br /> years of the discovery." <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.