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
Y F <br /> t <br /> i <br /> years and the problem had been there for twenty years and wasn't just the result of <br /> the new septic. That was his answer to the whole problem. The building-inspector <br /> found elevation changes that had caused significant amount of flooding on the <br /> adjacent property. The building inspector was sure that this wasn't done <br /> intentionally. The issue needed to be addressed. The building inspector wanted the <br /> homeowner to restore the berm in accordance with the plans on file in their office. <br /> The alternative was to submit the engineered as-built that showed the appropriate <br /> grades within fourteen days of receipt,of their letter to get this straightened out. <br /> Mr. Harrington added that he felt that the amount of fill that was put back there was <br /> necessary because of this one break out point. The fill was brought over to the side <br /> of the property clue to the movement of the leaching held.-They had an as-built that <br /> V <br /> that might show how far the leaching was moved over. It was something they <br /> needed to determine. They needed to know how much Bill there was and why it was _ <br /> brought so far over. The plan they had on file did not show any fill on that side of <br /> the property. It showed the berm, Bu t, there was no fill that was required on that <br /> side of the property. But, once the leaching was moved over to the middle of the <br /> property. They had to meet the 15' slope breakout. But, there were other portions of <br /> the code that needed to be addressed. <br /> Mr. Ball stated that the only reason that it was moved over was because of a shed. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that they would wait to see what the response was to the letter. <br /> Mr. Darrington stated Mr. Labute checked with hire back when it was going in. But, <br /> back thea he didn't realize what the repercussions would be. Mr. Labute did check <br /> with the engineer and at that point they did not have a problem with it. He didn't <br /> realize how far it was going to be moved over and that the fill was going to be <br /> brought that far to the property line. They could at least get the berm re-instated. H <br /> didn't think the berm was going to be the enol all to the problem. The amount of <br /> water from the other properties was still going to. occur and go out to the street. If the <br /> Street basins basins couldn't handle it. It would curl around and go right back onto,the <br /> abutter's property. Unfortunately this was a vicious cycle. These properties were in <br /> ffie flood plain. That was the bottom line. when a storm event carne it was going to <br /> be a'lot worse. He would submit the letters. <br /> C. Pharmaceutical Regulations <br /> Ms. Grady asked if there were any corn ments on the pharmaceutical regulations. Did <br /> i <br /> they want to say anything more about it? <br /> (Ms.Warden is speaking but I cannot hear her.) <br /> Mr. Santos stated that the had discussed this the,last meeting when IVIS. Grad <br /> y g y , <br /> wasn't present. They wanted to give Ms. Grady an opportunity to review the <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.