Laserfiche WebLink
MR. BAUMGAERTEL: I agree, it is our job to make ensure thatthe sanitary code is enforced. That <br /> is at the purpose of the Board of Health and the hearing is, <br /> MR. HARRINGTON: You can either pay it or appeal it and have the board decide. <br /> MR. BAUMG ART EL: I think that is the appropriate course of action at this point. It's up tothe <br /> board to decide whether or not the fines that have been assessed are appropriate given the <br /> situation. But, we have a sanitary code that we enforce based on regulations that we have. I <br /> don't see any course of action that needs to be deviated from. <br /> MR. HARRIN GTE N: There was a section 750 violation too which is a condemnable offense. <br /> That's why the fines were issued the way they were. <br /> ATT: Questioned how much water was seen. <br /> MR. HARRINGTON: There was probably maybe 30-40 square feet on the floor. It was an active <br /> drip. It was a big puddle on a painted floor. it was a very nice basement, cleaned and organized. <br /> At that point that was all that was there. It was Y2 inch deep. <br /> MR. BAUMGAERTEL: Depth and size are not relevant. We can't have waste backing up into a <br /> home. That's what the state's sanitary code says. That's what our responsibility and role is. I <br /> don't think there anything further to deliberate. <br /> S. PATEL: I have one question. When did the tenant put up the sign? <br /> ATT: It has always been there. She always has the sign. The last one said, please stay away, we <br /> sleep during the day; we have 2 elderly service animals. <br /> MS. Patel: I was just trying to find the time line. The sign, when it was put up vs. when he got <br /> the order letter makes a big difference. Before when we deliberated this situation, we did take <br /> into consideration his physical condition. That being said, we are still looking at him as an <br /> individual entity to deal with this issue, hence the fines. <br /> There being no further comments or discussion Ms. Patel motioned to issue fines of$23,800 <br /> based upon the failure to comply with the Board of Health order of June 29, 2021 for 58 <br /> Buccaneer Way. The fines shall be paid within 10 days of receipt of the board's decision. <br /> Failure to pay the fines shall subject the owner to additional fines and/or court action. Ernest <br /> Virgilio seconded. of Call Vote: Ernest Virgilio (yes), Kripani Patel (yes) Brian Baumgaertel <br /> (yes). VOTE: Unanimous (3-0) <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> 1. Review of Tobacco Sales Violation—135 Main Street <br /> At the last meeting, the board rescinded the prohibition of blunt wraps in the Tobacco <br /> Sales Regulation. Therefore, the board should consider rescinding the violation that <br /> stands against OMAR, Inc. as the violation was solely based upon the sale of a product <br /> considered a blunt wrap. Mr. Harrington's comments included reasons forte decision <br /> like the regulation is causing more confusion and time for the Board of Health staff than <br /> it is worth. In this case specifically, Bob Collett misidentified the product on his <br /> inspection for Mr. Harrington commented, In the whole scheme of things with <br /> marijuana being legalized, there will be rolling papers in many forms. I think the <br /> concentration should be keeping the tobacco products out of underage individuals <br /> hands and not punish the of age public for buying a tobacco rolling paper, <br />