My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/22/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
7/22/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 2:32:06 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:31:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/22/2004
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
system with the addition of the UV and FAST. They felt that a bonafled <br /> • four-bedroom system would actually be capable of much less impact on <br /> the environment as it stands with the house as it stands with a three- <br /> bedroom system. <br /> Mr. Ball asked Mr. Harrington if the previous person before the board had <br /> a two-bedroom and he was going up to three? <br /> Mr. Harrington confirmed that that was correct. <br /> Mr. Ball asked why Mr. Grotzke request would make a difference. <br /> Mr. Harrington responded that it had Title V differences. It got treated <br /> differently because it was considered new construction versus maximum <br /> feasible compliance if it were an existing home. <br /> Mr. Ball stated that he had existing flow. <br /> Mr. Harrington agreed that he had existing flow on it. That was correct. <br /> But, because he was asking for an increase in flow from two to three it <br /> was considered new construction. It had to meet the stricter parts of the <br /> code. If he were just asking for two then they would have more leniency <br /> • as far as aligning the variances under maximum feasible compliance. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated that they were not seeking maximum feasible <br /> compliance. They were just looking for variances. When they talk of a <br /> trade off. It would mean they what they were offering into what they <br /> would be gaining would be fair. <br /> Mr. Ball asked if they had to clarify the bedrooms before they act on it. <br /> Mr. Harrington replied that that did not have to be done. Even with the <br /> request for the additional bedroom. They were not in the Zone II. They did <br /> not have to meet the nitrogen loading that way. They were going to leave <br /> that up to the Conservation. Conservation had already approved it. Then <br /> that would be fine. But, they could review it according to an increase in <br /> flow. It would still have to meet the stricter parts of the code. <br /> Mr. Ball understood that they were not in Zone II. They really couldn't <br /> require him to put in a denitrification system or a UV system. But... <br /> Mr. Harrington interrupted Mr. Ball and stated that they could require him <br /> to do that because of the setback to the wetlands. They were less than <br /> the 100' and the 751, which allows them to require those systems. But, as <br /> • far as the number of bedrooms, they could still certainly review it that <br /> 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.