My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/25/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
3/25/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:27:11 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:16:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/25/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
capacity, He found the DEP's stance to be very strange, to be blunt. The <br /> bottom line was saying, for instance, they volunteered to put in a pressure <br /> dose soil absorption systems to male up any difference and basically re- <br /> build the leaching. The DEP said no that they could not do that He was at <br /> loss to understand what the DEP's stance was. They have been at a <br /> threshold. Perhaps this would clarify. But, the DEP's stance was that they <br /> stood by whatever the original approved capacity allowed for. He was <br /> going to put this information in a letter and forward it to Boston to see if it <br /> made any difference. <br /> Mr. Hajjar asked Mr. McGrath what was said in the letter. Was it <br /> something he had already seen? <br /> Mr. McGrath replied that he had not seen it himself. He doubted that Mr. <br /> Hajjar had seen it. <br /> Mr. HajDar asked where the letter came from. <br /> Mr. McGrath re-iterated that the BOH just gave it to hire. <br /> Mr. Harrington re-iterated that if had some from the permitting file* <br /> (The conversation begins on the other side of the tape as follows.) Mr. <br /> McGrath states that it couldn't be done unless they went to a <br /> groundwater discharge permit, which was a year's worth of permitting <br /> and much more money. <br /> r <br /> Mr. Hajjar stated that it was his contention that Mr. Richard! did not do his <br /> due diligence when he bought that unit. He was still unsure how many <br /> seats were really approved. What was the boarding saying? <br /> Mr. Harrington replied that the latest approval from the hoard of health on <br /> May 10', 2001, stated 68 on the inside with 7 to be removed once the <br /> outside 24 seats could be placed for paper and plastic: use only. <br /> Mr. Harjjar re-iterated that it was 24 seats for paper and plastic: with <br /> removal sof the six on the inside. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that the 6 on the inside was for 35 GPD and offset <br /> by the 20 GPD of paper use for the 24 outside. <br /> i y <br /> Mr. HaJjar continued by stating that the seating in Carbols dramatically <br /> impacts what happens in than building. He believed that they had solved <br /> all of the problems in Building B and they were ready to move forward. <br /> But, the state was insisting that they solve the problem in Building <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.