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
3 <br /> regulation specifically because of her background in medicine and a full board to <br /> make a final review and approval. <br /> Ms. Grady stated that they did not have it noted how often they should inspect the <br /> dates. were they leaving it up to the pharmacist's discretion? She suggested that <br /> they keep a chart of the review of the dates. They had a temperature log to keep <br /> posted close to the refrigerator and checked daily. <br /> Ms. warden suggested that they review the dates on a weekly basis. <br /> Ms. Grady didn't believe it needed to be done any more than a weekly basis. She <br /> added that on the bottom paragraph second page should read"'Pharmacies". <br /> Ms. warden was going to add "weekly"to the regulation and remove the words <br /> "periodically inspect" from number two. <br /> Mr. Santos re-iterated that they remove number four. He congratulated Ms. warden <br /> on a job well done. <br /> D. Title V Variance Request—Michael Grotzke, Phoenix Gr. —86 Sum mersea Road <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated that that the last time they met there was an issue of a coastal <br /> bank. The Conservation Commission was continuing to review this and he.believed <br /> that they would be meeting in three weeks. There had been at the previous meeting <br /> an issue not of where the resource areas where and the agent had felt comfortable <br /> and indicated such that the delineated coastal bank and wetlands were correct. They <br /> were coming before this board to request a variance for a single bedroom residence <br /> on this lot with the septic system located as shown. It was designed as a minimum <br /> three-bedroom residence as required by Title V. He wanted to mention again that the <br /> intent of that was also to obtain additional land in this Zone H to do aggregation for <br /> two or as many bedrooms as would fit in this residence. But, they had not found any <br /> property as of yet. The system will have denitrification and[V as proposed. The <br /> field location was difficult. They have located it above and to the left of the coastal <br /> bank. The coastal lark was synonymous not as an eroding slope as per the board's <br /> definition, but with the 100-year flood plain. Because the slope was less than one <br /> and one quarter, but greater than one and ten, which was under the flood regulation <br /> defines therm as the coastal bank being where the 10 0-year flood plain i . That is for <br /> the most part how the coastal bank is defined. There is one place where the slope is <br /> steeper than 104' to the right of where the septic system is located. They felt that this <br /> was the only alternative for putting a system on this lot that completely conforms to <br /> the intent to provide setage for this lot and protect the pudic as well as the <br /> environment. The setbacks to the wetlands are 8 ' at the closest point with the <br /> denitrification and the LTA system. They felt that that would be appropriate. <br /> Mr. Ball asked the health agent to correct him if he was wrong. But, weren't they <br /> holding this up to have communication back from Bob Sherman. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.