My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/17/2005 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
02/17/2005 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:20:48 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:51:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/17/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. <br /> Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the following variances as requested by Cape <br /> Islands for 11 Sheffield field Place in their letter dated February 1", 2005. A fire-foot <br /> variance from the SAS to the property lire. A ' variance from house number <br /> nine's well t the reserve area. A 3' variance from house number Ws ell t the <br /> reserve area. These variances were approved with the following condition. A <br /> denitrification system would be required if the reserve was taut in the proposed <br /> location with the well still present and in use. Mr.'Santos seconded the motion. <br /> Motion passed. <br /> 6. 334 Main Street Village <br /> Matt Teague was present on behalf of McShane Construction for this project. <br /> (The tape ends and the discussion pits up as follows.) <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that the plans got seat up to the DEP for their review. As far <br /> as the provisional approval for using the Nitrex Filter and the Waterloo Biofilter <br /> along with pressure distribution to a couple massive size leaching pits. One thing the <br /> DEP made a comment on was that it was a shared system. So they had to go though <br /> and get all the paperwork for the shared system. Mr. Teague had done that. He had <br /> reviewed everything. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that this concerned the single-family homes versus the <br /> condominiums. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that if he remembered correctly it was a mix of condominiums and <br /> single-family homes. <br /> Mr. Teague stated that they had gone back and forth over the idea whether the DEP <br /> would be the enforceability of a homeowner's association in concert with a <br /> condominium complex and then couple it with the potential commercial aspects that <br /> they had out there. To err on the side of safety they had converted all of the <br /> ownership aspects of the project to condominiums. What he gave Mr. Harrington <br /> was a condominium set of documents that tallied about 32 units, potentially eight <br /> commercial grits, 16 attached condominiums and 8 individual homes. The <br /> individual homes would have limited use space. The homeowners n the individual <br /> lots would pay for their own maintenance of the lot, contribute a little hit towards the <br /> septic system and everything else was a traditional condominium arrangement. The <br /> reason they vent with that was because by statue they could impose a lien on any <br /> unpaid dues specifically because ofthe septic system. There were a couple of other <br /> aspects in the agreements that were key and they were looping for input ori. One was <br /> the means of financial security for the project. Obviously they hada budget that <br /> would extend beyond the life of the system. They figured a safe life span ofthe <br /> 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.