My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/9/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
9/9/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:02:27 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:39:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/09/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
been moved because there was a new shed in place there in one corner of the <br /> property that wasn't going allow the work to be done. The leaching was moved t <br /> stay away from the shed. Therefore, the fill had to be brought out for the slope <br /> breakout requirement. He didn't know if the berm had ever been created. He did not <br /> know. Also, compounding the problem is the catch basins in the street are just not <br /> working. Three out of the four are always fall. They had found groundwater that was <br /> considerably lover than where the water in the catch basins was located. Something <br /> else that Mr. Sanicki told him was that the owner of the abutting property who made <br /> the original complaint had met with him on the property and was looking to upgrade <br /> there septic also. He would expect that their property would be brought up to the <br /> sane grade at or near this property. Essentially what they were going to do was t <br /> push all of the rainwater back into the street. Then something would have to be done <br /> at that point. They had pretty much done what the board had asked. They would <br /> have to address it when they carne back through for the approval of the septic <br /> design. But, also they could deal with the association. If the properties continue to be <br /> flooded from failed drainage in the street. They could obviously step in as a"public <br /> nuisance"because if the septic systems were being affected and the cellars were <br /> being flooded. Then they could consider that a nuisance and address with the <br /> association. <br /> Mr. Ball asked Mr. Harrington if one of their conditions that the berm would be <br /> installed on that property. Didn't they condition that? <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that the berm was shown on the plan. Absolutely. <br /> FIs. Grady asked if that had been carried through. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that he didn't know if it was or not. It was not there now. He <br /> did not know who originally constructed it. There was never any grass planted. S <br /> he thought there had been some erosion over this past time. But, the bean was <br /> something that was shown on the plan. <br /> Mr. Ball stated that he would like to suggest that they found out if the berm was <br /> there or not. If it was not there. They could go back to the homeowner and have <br /> there install it. That was a condition of the original approval. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that Ms. Warden prepared a letter requiring that. But,be <br /> thought that... <br /> Mr. Santos stated that he remembered their c.ornplaint to be that they vent up one <br /> foot or more at the next property that was putting more grater into their yard. <br /> Ms. Warden stated that the building inspector was supposed sed t have gone out thea. <br /> He found the same problem and had sighted the owner's of 40 Uncle Henry's and <br /> cited them requiring that they cone before the building department. The owner had <br /> called. He had just received the notice. He had owned the home for over twenty- <br /> 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.