|
NEW BUSINESS: |
1. |
Sign Warrants. |
|
Warrants Signed. |
|
|
2. |
Approve minutes of September 7, 2004 and September 9th, 2004 |
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the minutes of September 7th, 2004, with corrections. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the minutes of September 9th, 2004, with corrections. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
3. |
Revocation of Refuse Haulers Permit: Cape Waste |
|
Mr. Harrington began by updating Mr. Ball as to this agenda topic. He had previously called Mr. Santos and Ms. Grady. After getting notification from Catherine Laurent at the DPW saying that the trash hauler was in arrears some $4,350.00. They also had knowledge that they were disposing of trash at other facilities besides Upper Cape Regional, which is in violation of our agreement. Mr. Santos and Ms. Grady agreed to revoke the permit. So they sent a letter revoking their permit and requesting that they come before the board on January 20th, 2005, in order to make a decision on their 2005 permit. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden wanted to clarify a few points. They were in violation of the refuse regulation. She wanted to clarify that for the minutes. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball felt that that was the acceptable way to handle things. Were they going to have a check available? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington responded that as of 15th, they would have the money. He wanted them to make a motion for the record of the revocation of the permit and that they would like to see them on the 20th. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to revoke their 2004 permit to haul trash as well as requiring their attendance at the board meeting on January 20th, 2005; at 7:30 PM. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion was approved. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden added that this company had the town trash contract. The problem is that they had revoked their permit. |
|
|
|
(A conversation ensues regarding whether or not Mr. Ball has a conflict regarding this agenda item. It was determined that Mr. Bal did not have a conflict.) |
|
|
4. |
Review & Approve 2005 Fee Schedule |
|
Ms. Warden had a recommendation for the board members’ consideration. She wondered if they were interested in creating a new permit for failing to submit the fees timely for the end or the year renewal permit. Any applications that came in subsequent to December 31st would be subject to a fine of double the fees. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady didn’t have a problem with this request if everybody was notified of the change in the schedule by mail. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it would go right on their fee schedule. They would put it on next renewal letter. He wanted to add that in Ms. Warden’s review of the policies she noted that the board of health had previously charged a fee for the wastewater treatment plant review. The board had the ability to charge a proponent a review fee. So should the board of health determine that plant was going to go in a sensitive area and they wanted them to pay for a consultant on the board’s behalf to review it on the board’s behalf. It had been a policy before. But, they would like to re-active it and have approved for the fee scheduled. They did have one before them
now. The only thing it was going to affect now because the review had been done. But, it would affect their actual permit fee. The permit fee would go from $100.00 to $144.00. He felt that it was worthy enough to have it added to the current fee schedule. Before it was a policy and he didn’t think that as a policy it was enforceable. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to accept the fee schedule for the calendar year 2005 with the approved additions and changes. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Clover Paving – 759 Falmouth Road, Commercial Permit |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he didn’t think anyone was going to be here. This was the one that he had called her on. They had been through both of the review boards namely site planning review. He gave the proponent and the engineer a copy of 56 Nicoletta’s way, which was a similar contractors bay type commercial property. So, they know what their comments were going to be regarding the commercial properties. They reviewed the plan. He had one other comment on the plan. He wanted H20 risers and cast iron frames to grade. That was his only change on the plan. Again that could be set as a condition of approval. The other standard items for the commercial property were
that they could not do repairs as a business to be performed on site. There could be no bulk hazardous materials. They had limits that they had set for commercial properties. They has to be a contract provided to the BOH to maintain the catch basins. All and any change in tenancy had to be approved by the board prior to occupancy. Again, they were doing that for all commercial properties. Those were the items that he had found in review of this plan. The flows were at 564 GPD. There were at 429 for their daily flow. But, there capacity was 564. The property was two acres so that by Title V they get 880 GPD. To stay below the denitrification system regulation they kept it below 600 GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the request for the commercial permit with the following conditions. They could not do any repairs as a business. They could be no bulk hazardous materials. All and any changes in tenancy had to be approved by the board prior to occupancy. There had to be a contract provided to the BOH to maintain the catch basins. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Jim Curtis – Septic Inspection Variance |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that this was a variance for the septic inspection regulation. He tended to agree with what he was saying. They do get more attention than standard residential units. At one point Mr. Curtis told Ms. Warden that they could probably do more buildings per year. Again, over a ten-year period he thought this was worth approving as far as doing it over a ten-year period with one or two buildings per year. They still had to be inspected. They were going to be inspected. The condominiums were given exemptions throughout Title V. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the variance to the septic regulation as submitted by the letterhead dated December 10th, 2004, for Pheasant Run Condominiums. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Cape & Islands Engineering – Casper Circle Subdivision |
|
Mr. Harrington felt that they could get it out of the way even though no one was present from Cape & Islands Engineering. It was not in Zone II. The review fee was paid. The drainage basins needed to have sub-surface disposal. They needed to get a maintenance plan. Those were his comments. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve with the health agents conditions, the drainage basins needed to have sub-surface disposal and a maintenance plan. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Edward Richardi – Giovanni’s |
|
Mr. Ball asked if there was any other public comment before they closed it to a board member discussion. |
|
|
|
State Representative Matthew Patrick was present in support of Mr. Richardi who was a great businessman who had done a lot of good things in town. He had kept his business going for a while now in Mashpee. He was trying to expand. If this permit was cut down to ten tables or whatever it is. The business would not be worth keeping. His concern was that he represented a lot of people here in town. They might think that everybody had solid jobs and that there were plenty of them to go around. Or that it was an easy time finding new jobs. But, that was simply not the case and there are a lot of people who struggle. By Mr. Richardi’s estimate he would have twenty-five full
time employees there with forty in the summer. He thought that as an area he could not afford to lose these jobs. People struggle. He saw that all the time. They didn’t always get to know who was struggling. But, when you were in his position you find out. There were a lot of people who were struggling. It was imperative that you keep this business going. He just wanted to commend him on running a good business and looking forward to extending it. He thanked the board. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if there was anyone else. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar stated that Mr. Richardi may be a good businessman and all but it had nothing to do with the capacity of the septic system. They had a septic system that had x amount of flow and Mr. Richardi wanted to put this much flow into the system. It just didn’t work. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton stated that he just wanted to make one comment. He didn’t want to repeat what was said before. Mr. Richardi didn’t want to start a flow that had been any different than it had been since 1997. He just wanted to maintain the existing flow. |
|
|
|
Mr. McGrath wanted to say one thing. That according to the DEP it didn’t matter. There was a violation of Title V and as far as the DEP was concerned it could not be fixed. They could not increase the flow or they would be forced to go into a groundwater discharge permit. They were in a terrible box. The permit that was issued said that there was going to be some physical work that was supposed to be done. It was never done. You can’t do the work now. So what happens is that the septic system only had the capacity of the original design, which was other than the service the system of restaurants seats. The septic tanks were never sufficient in size. |
|
|
|
Mr. Patrick Brady he just wanted to put it on the record. He wasn’t sure if he should put it on right now or at the next appointment for Deer Crossing. But, he would like to submit to the board just again to put it on the regard the complete set of condominium documents, which govern the condominium units. Also it tells who was responsible for septic systems because in the last meeting it seemed to be some confusion of what the owners of the septic system of the common areas. He would like to present the complete set of the condominium documents to the board. Also two copies of the CMR specifically 310.CMR1530.1 which specified condominium units. That the association had
the responsibility for the septic system. The 310CMR1520.3, which specified the gallons per each type of establishment. She wasn’t so sure that those had been entered into the board. But, the board should have those just so it was on the record. But, it was clear that this was a condominium. He believed that there was confusion in some of the things that were said were in error of ownership and responsibility. There was a question as to who has standing in order to request an increase where it was a tenant and not a unit owner. Secondly, who had standing to request an increase and it be allowed when they don’t have any control over that system? He was just trying to pose those questions to the board. He was not trying to go over anything that was said last time. He thanked the board. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton stated that the issue was addressed initially because he thought the board initially went to Mr. Richardi directly as Carbo’s and requested that he comply with the denitrification requirement. The board determined way back then that he was a condominium. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to close the agenda item to any further public comment. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball began by stating that he had been a board member for almost thirteen years. He had been through this. He remembered most of it but not all of it. But, if they were to accept this application at this time at the 2004 flows. It would be irresponsible on their part because it would put it over the 10,000 GPD flow. How he felt about this application. He would like to continue it and re-submit it. Re-adjust it to get it under the 10,000 GPD. He motioned to continue this application. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked him if he wanted to continue it until the next meeting. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball felt that they should wait around until the next appointment to see what happened there. Or they could continue it until the next meeting. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady felt that one of the main things that was going on right now was that they only had permit requests for Giovanni’s, Carbo’s and Mashpee Bagel. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball interrupted Ms. Grady and stated that he wanted to address that at the next appointment. Mr. Ball made a motion to continue this agenda item until the next meeting when the next agenda item should be resolved. The applicant might want to re-submit his application for the number of seats. Ms. Grady seconded his motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Charles Hajjar – Deer Crossing Commercial Condominiums |
|
Ms. Grady asked Mr. Hajjar if there was something he would like to add. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar asked Mr. Brady if he wanted to add something to the conversation. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brady wanted to make it perfectly clear that it wasn’t Mr. Hajjar that was applying. It was the Deer Crossing Condominium Commercial Association. He was a board member of that. It was a commercial condominium. It was the board and association of the condominium owners who actually control the common area who does the planning for the board. It was not Mr. Hajjar personally. It was important to clarify that. He felt that it was important because being a condominium he was a condominium unit owner. However, it should be clear that who the property party is back by statue. They have the actual control of the common area and anything that happened in the common area was
the responsibility of the association. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if that was of the Deer Crossing Commercial Condominiums. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brady stated that that was correct. He said that because it was brought up in the last meeting that Mr. Hajjar bought certain units. But, he didn’t by the whole condominium. He didn’t buy the common area. He bought units within the condominium whether it is one unit of what the percentage was. He wanted to clarify that for the board and for their position. Their position was that they were ready will and able to put in a system as they have said before. However, what they needed was a hearing by the town to the capacities considered by the engineers. Then they were ready to go. He assumed that the hearing was on their permit to install the system. At this point
here they would request that it be approved by the board so that they could go ahead and comply because they were ready willing and able to comply with the installation of a Title V system with a denitrification system. They were ready to do that. Nothing had changed in the condominium of its structure that would change any of those rules. They would surely comply. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar stated that at the end of the last meeting it was said that when he purchased those units that he was well aware of the sins and the problems of the past. He had no idea. He wanted that to go on the record. He knew that they had to put a denitrification system in. They engaged the engineers to do that right away. They submitted plans to the state. Then the state said, “Wait a minute some illegal flows were approved.” That was why they were there tonight. They had no way of knowing. He didn’t know that before they bought the condominium units. They didn’t know until the state blew the whistle. They were the ones that alerted them to the
problem. They did not go into something and then make up the excuses. The way he saw it they were in a box. The town required them to put in a denitrification system, which they were willing to do. But, yet, on the other hand the town had down some things that have caused an increase in flows that did not allow them to put a denitrification system in. They had them in a box. He did not control anything here. They controlled how many seats were approved. They would also decide whether or not this thing gets done by how many seats they were going to allow at this particular restaurant. They were in a box stuck between the ordinance to put in the denitrification and the fact that things happened in the past. That was just were they were today. They were sort of powerless but willing to do what they said they were going to do by putting it in. So if they approved the proper amount of seats. They were ready to go forward. The plans were done and the state already told them that they had
the green light. They were waiting for their John Hancock to allow them to continue. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brady continued by stating that he had a point of clarification. The board had all of the plans that they considered to be complete to everyone’s satisfaction. Was he complete in saying that? He just wanted to make sure that there were no deficiencies. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the technical review was completed as far as the plans. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar stated that every year the restaurants made the applications. So every year they had a chance to right this thing that had gone wrong. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked Mr. Ball if he had any comment or need for discussion. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton wanted to add one other comment. He wanted to make clear that he had submitted a report a long time ago back last summer that the Merrill Associates had completed that was provided to Mr. Hajjar. When he purchased the majority of units except one in the condominium complex, which gave him over 90% control. It was true that he was acting individually but he controlled the association. He was the controlling interest on the board of managers. The majority owner controlled the actions that were taken by the association. Back last summer they submitted a report from Merrill Associates that was provided to Mr. Hajjar. That report provided identified the issue of 10,000
gallons. That report said that there was probably over 10,000 gallons in flows. In fact, even the first submission by Mr. Hajjar indicated that the flows were a little over 10,000 gallons. So this problem that the different septic systems were going to be counted as one for the total flows. This information was available before he purchased the condominium compounds. Whether or not there was further research that would have identified additional problems he didn’t know. But, that was part of due diligence. He wanted to make that clear. The second thing was that these businesses had been operating for a number of years. The predecessor to Mr. Hajjar, Dave Charbonneau, owned all of the units except for one in Deer Crossing. He was the one who developed Carbo’s Grille & Bar. He was the one who applied to the town for permission. He wore several hats. He was the developer of Carbo’s and the board of managers of the association. So the association backed that
effort that time to allow that expansion. So it was not as if these owners had anything to do with the expansion. Mr. Richardi came in and purchased this property in 2001 after the 72 seats had been approved and everything had been okayed. He had done his due diligence to check the number of seats and that was the appropriate number. The same thing with the planet restaurant. The Planet Restaurant had seats back since 1997. They had the same number of seats. There had been nothing done by Mr. Hajjar or Mr. Richardi to change it. If they had any questions he would be happy to address them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brady wanted to rebut Mr. Dalton’s statements. When Mr. Richardi bought all of the stock in Giovanni’s restaurant he was well aware that they were clearly over the 10,000-gallon limit. He was well aware that Giovanni’s had been notified by the landlord to comply with the condominium documents and to reduce the amount of seating so that they were no longer in violation of the Title V standards. So Mr. Richardi bought the restaurant and the stock well aware of the number of seats that were allowed by statute and by law the maximum allowed in there. In fact, in the same due diligence Mr. Richardi bought as a unit owner. If there was a Title V problem as there
was at that time, obviously, there was too much flow. He had the same responsibility to due diligence. He should have been aware. He was not. The same standard as Mr. Hajjar was. They were over the Title V limits. There was an approval of too many seats for the capacity that system. The same standards had to be held for both of them. In fact, with the Giovanni’s purchase nothing could be clearer that there was a demand to reduce the seating. The demand came from the owner of the unit to his tenant. The documents that he provided to the board were very clear that no one could overburden any of the systems in the condominium. When it came to due diligence he felt that they needed to hold everyone to the same standards. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar added that one factor that Attorney Dalton didn’t want them to hear was that under the condominium statue there was five buildings and five systems. Each system was 10,000. But, the increase in flow was what violated the 10,000 gallons per system. They should be able to go up to 50,000 gallons. So, knowing before that they purchased the unit that there was over 10, 000 gallons because they could go up to 50,000. |
|
|
|
Mr. McGrath stated that he was professional engineer. He had been doing innovative wastewater for a long time. They actually operated the first residential Ruck system from 1986 to 1990. He received the first approval for an innovative system in Massachusetts. He had done this and a lot of it. This was the first time he had ever seen the DEP pay such close attention to the history of a facility. What the department’s stance was that yes the legislature created a protection that the condominiums were not aggregated. The way that the statute read was that each system was considered a different facility. What Mr. Hajjar said was basically true. What the department searched
for and found was that there was permitted by the predecessor of this board was an increase in flow after the effective date of Title V. It was the second increase in flow after the effective date of the condominium. Those were not authorized by Title V. So the department’s stance was that they now lost the ability or the protection for the condominium and where now aggregating the flow. They went through the numbers. A groundwater discharge permit was extraordinarily expensive not only to construct but the operation cost was $1,000,000.00. He could not afford to build out a groundwater discharge permit. The cost to his tenants would be extraordinary if they went for a groundwater discharge permit. So yes when they first came here they thought they had the protection of the condominium law. But, the DEP ruled that they did not. That was the box that they were in. The box that they were in was the predecessor to this board decided that since there was a valve that connected
the reserve area to the primary could be removed and effectively get double the flow. The DEP said that it was not the board’s right to authorize that activity. The septic tanks were too small and there was no reserve areas. So, the box was that there were two systems. The DEP said that there was no statute of limitations it was just wrong. So they have tried to fix it as best they could. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington wanted to clarify one thing. He had spoken to Steve Corr about that comment somebody had made at the last meeting. He thought Mr. Hajjar had made it at the last meeting. It was that each property could be treated as one individual facility and have 10,000 GPD themselves. That was true in the condominium statutes up to the 10,000 GPD because it was still considered one ownership under the condominium association. So it was considered one owner so that it did have to be aggregated once they reached that 10,000 GPD threshold. Their situation did not change. It was just that those properties could be treated individually but it would be up to that 10,000 GPD limit.
He investigated the same thing to see if the properties themselves could have more than 10,000. They could not because the ownership is the definition for the facility. It was still under a single ownership. It was still the 10,000 GPD threshold that the proponent would have to meet. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton had three people that wanted to respond a little to what was said. He wanted to address the issue of due diligence regarding Mr. Richardi. There were two key factors when he decided to purchase the stock in Planet Restaurant. The first was that they had decided last June that they were not going to cut seats in the restaurants. The second was an option to purchase Michelle’s Kitchen at the time. The option to purchase would have eliminated 65 seats, which would have brought the total seats of the facility down below the 10,000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady recommended that they make a motion to close the meeting to public comment at this time. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to close the meeting to public comment. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball continued by stated that Mr. McGrath was here tonight to discuss the septic system plans. The plan was here and was it under 10,000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. McGrath confirmed that the plans were present and under 10,000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked if they had a denitrification system. |
|
|
|
Mr. McGrath stated that they included a denitrification system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that this was 2005 and they already had an application in for 2005. At this time they were legal applications. They had reviewed the plans. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that there was a little discrepancy on the seats. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball interrupted Ms. Grady and stated that he didn’t want to get into that right now. At this time he made a motion to approve the plans for 10,000 GPD for the complete facility not individually. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden interjected that this was pending the DEP concurrence. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington confirmed that that was correct as far as the issuance of the installation permit. It had to have the DEP concurrence. |
|
(The tape stops at this time. The new tape begins with Mr. Ball again discussing the individual applications for the tenants of Deer Crossing.) |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball states that would have to review each applications that are from tenants that were present from 1995 ongoing. When the applicant came in they would have to prove to the board when, where and how they go to the current seating number. In other words why and how did they get to 77 and 88? Whatever…The people could continue to operate until it was resolved. Anything else? |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they needed to keep in mind that they would not approve over 10,000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball re-iterated that they would not approve over 10,000 GPD. Now that they had everything here. Prior to that they probably unknowingly and the applicant unknowingly got them over the 10,000 GPD. They would never do that anyways. This happened after 1995. They had no clue. That was why they were in this spot now. They had the opportunity to fix it. They had the opportunity to all get together to fix it themselves to get it to the 10,000 GPD. They wanted the denitrification systems in the ground. Their most important project here was to protect the public and the environment and the streams. It had been over two years. It was said and done. When they could start operations,
as soon as they could. He would like to see it next week. They would like to see a backhoe down there digging. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar stated that they were very pleased and were looking forward to putting it in. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello introduced himself to the people at the hearing as town counsel. He clarified that what they were doing there was approving the system that had been submitted. It did meet all of the technical requirements. They would take into account the approved proposed system when considering the pending applications properly submitted by the restaurants. As of today when the deadline for filing the applications that was closed there were three applications pending from three establishments from three establishments within the condominium. They would consider those three applications. He did not believe that the board was in the position at this point in time to determine a
set number of seats. They had to look at the totality of the circumstances, as they exist right now. They were looking ahead to 2005. Legally they had to consider the circumstances, as they exist now. As they exist now as it appeared to him based on his discussions and his review of the files earlier tonight that they may have a substantially different seating capacity situation this year than they did in the prior years due to the fact that some restaurant establishments within the condominium who had filed for permits previously had not done so and perhaps do not intend to do so in 2005. They would look at the situation as it existed and make a determination accordingly. Anything else? |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton asked who had not applied for permits for this year. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady responded that there were Carbo’s, Giovanni’s and Mashpee Bagel. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball noted that Subway and Michelle’s had not been received. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brady asked if they were waiting for them all to come in. Was that correct? |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that that was correct. But, the systems had been approved. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that that could make a substantial difference. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball suggested to Mr. Hajjar that he might be able to apply to the DEP for credit with the denitrification systems. They had done it in the past on residential properties. That would be something he could consider later. It was not tax credit. |
|
|
|
The owner of Michelle’s asked the board had received their application. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron responded that they had not received their application. She added that she had called her home number and spoke with her son to leave a message. She had been making the calls for about ten yearly applications. She did not have it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball suggested that she had time to re-submit it. He asked if she submitted a check with it. |
|
|
|
The owner stated that she had attached a check with the application. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked if she had received the returned check. |
|
|
|
The owner stated that she had not received the cashed check. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton asked if he could ask one more question. Basically what the board was saying was if there was going to be any reduction in flows it would be applied to the restaurants. It would not be applied to any of the retail space or the other office space in the condominium complex. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they were going to look at the whole. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton added that nobody came in for permits except the restaurants. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that nobody else came in for permits. |
|
|
|
Mr. Richardi stated that they had a whole bunch of places over there. Why should it just apply to them? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they would evaluate the entire property as part of the applications. They were not going to say that it was going to be just the restaurants. They would have to evaluate the entire property. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brady stated that the board had received all the various businesses there the style of businesses that were being bought in retail. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hajjar stated that the increases in flow had come from the restaurants and not from the other retail and office, which were minimal compared to the restaurants. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that to stop that right now. They will consider the grandfathering of the restaurants from 1995 and down. That was the best they could do. |
|
|
|
(An ongoing discussion ensued among the board members and town counsel regarding the opportunities that existed within Deer Crossing that would help out the goal of keeping the GPD below 10,000.) |
|
|
4. |
Review of 2005 Massage Permit Request: Nancy Palmer (Arlene Myers) |
|
Ms. Warden began by stating that again this applicant only had a reflexology certificate. She had no background in massage. The board’s regulations require the 500 hours of training. Ms. Palmer was requesting a variance. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked where she was she going to work. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that the board did not acknowledge reflexology as a separate modality. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked Ms. Warden if that was the case why were they considering this application. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington interjected that it still required them to touch the body. Therefore, it met the board’s definition for massage. They may call it reflexology. But, it still involved touching and creating invigoration of the body, which met their definition of massage. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady re-iterated that nowhere on the permit did it mention massage. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington read the permit that stated “Application for license to practice reflexology.” |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that it was not a massage license. It was a reflexology under the definition. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that they were acknowledging reflexology but treating it as a massage license. It was in the family of massage. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked how they could deny her practicing reflexology. |
|
Ms. Warden re-iterated that their requirements require her to have 500 hours of training. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that if that were the case it should be the same application. It should not say reflexology. When the applicant went to apply she should have been told that the board treated it as massage. That it had to meet the same requirements. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that she was told that and that was why it was on the agenda. He didn’t realize that the application said reflexology. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that this application pre-existed her. What happened, two years ago, the woman who worked over at Cape Drive, who gave her all of the grief this year for not being in a licensed facility? Called her up and hollered at her because she sent her a massage therapist license. She crossed it out and put reflexology. So the next year she found and sent the reflexology permit. She sent it out to her. It was reiki. It says the same thing. It didn’t say massage on it. It was pre-existing to establish a separate modality. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington said that he now understood what happened. He recommended that they request that she re-submit the application with a massage permit. But, still they needed to make a determination whether they were going to grant her a massage permit. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden suggested a massage therapist test. They had a massage therapist test where if the applicant could not meet their qualifications then they would have to take the test. If she did not have the necessary hours then she would have to take the test. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if the board had any of this in the actual massage regulation. She wanted to know if reflexology was determined to be… |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden interrupted Ms. Grady and stated “No.” Mr. Ball should remember that at the time the first reflexologist came in there were three men on the board who kind of just stood around and went “We have no idea what you are talking about.” She insisted that there was no touching involved and this and that. She remembered that Mr. Doherty at the telling her that they were not going to differentiate between reiki because a reiki woman had come in too. Reflexology and massage was all going to be under one license – massage. They would acknowledge them as a reflexologist but they would be issued a massage license. They would have to meet all of the
qualifications of the massage license. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that they only had one reflexologist. Now they had one reiki who was the woman they licensed who worked at the oncology place. Now there was this woman. They were three out of the twenty something odd people that didn’t fit the group. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady felt that they need to have it written somewhere how they determined this process of application. They just couldn’t say that and then deny her an application. That was fine if they wanted to give her a test. But, they needed to have it in writing that if they were unable to satisfy the requirement then this was the alternative. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden agreed with Ms. Grady. The reflexologist by definition was so vague and she couldn’t find much of anything because it was so tied in with massage. She was completely loss as to where to turn. She even called the state board of cosmetology or massage years ago to try to differentiate. She respected what they were doing and let me research this further. But, she couldn’t get anywhere because they weren’t acknowledging it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it still involved touching the body. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady felt that they had to tight up their regulation before they approved the regulation. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington recommended that they create an application for massage with extra check off boxes that noted that they also considered reiki and reflexology to be massage. Please check off one of them if applicable. It still met their requirement and their definition of massage. Also, in their regulation it said that there was a “Restriction on form of massage and back. A license may be limited in the form of massage at the discretion of the board of health.” That may say that if somebody wanted to come in and wanted to do voodoo and get a license for it. They would have the right to restrict it. They had the right to restrict the form of massage. He totally agreed
with the Ms. Grady’s feeling that it included the word massage. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked him what they were going to issue for a license. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington responded that it was going to be a massage license. Furthermore, the part of the regulation that required them to take a test had been eliminated from regulation. It was two regulations ago. |
|
|
|
Dr. Lewis Mantel offered a suggestion. He felt that the idea to have the boxes with the application was a start. Have these folks who wanted to practice needed to define what their practice was going to be. If that was acceptable to the board such as the practice of reflexology, which was described as included in the application. Let them describe what they did. If the board approved their definition it would become the subset of their actual application. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady felt that that was an appropriate recommendation. She asked if they could continue this agenda item, change the look of the application, place it under the massage application include the other modalities and have the applicant describe what the practice entails. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington suggested that they also include the ability to work under someone else until they get the amount of applicable hours, such as an internship. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to continue this request for approval of application until the revisions are made and the application was re-submitted. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
6. |
Request for 2005 Permit Fee Exemption: Friends of Mashpee Soup Kitchen |
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to exempt the Friend of Mashpee Soup Kitchen from the annual food establishment fee. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
7. |
Request for 2005 Permit Fee Exemption: Mashpee Good Neighbor Fund |
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to exempt the Friend of Mashpee Good Neighbor Fund from the annual food establishment fee. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
OLD BUSINESS |
A. |
Tobacco Compliance Checks and Enforcement |
|
Ms. Warden stated that Ms. Grady had asked her to look this up at the last meeting. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they sent the letters out. The compliance check determined that one facility had sold to two minors. It was The Barn. Along with the other two facilities that had been displaying tobacco products on their counters. Those letters went out. In doing those letters they determined that the board’s regulations did not match the state’s regulation regarding the penalties within each of the respective regulations. Their local board of health regulation has penalties for two different types of violations. One for an individual and one for a proprietor of an establishment. The individual penalty for violating their smoking regulation was $50.00 per
offense. If a proprietor allowed someone to smoke or sells to a minor or didn’t have posting within the property they got a warning and then a $200.00, $300.00 and a $500.00 per successive violations. The board’s regulation does include retail sales to minors. If somebody violated it. It would only be $50.00 for the first offense. But, the state regulation says that it was that $100.00, $200.00 and $300.00. There was no warning. So right now… |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked if the board’s wasn’t $500.00 for the third offense. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that the state’s was $300.00 for the third offense. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they could go higher but not lower. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden understood what Ms. Grady was saying. But, she was just doing a comparison. So the board has the warning, but they have the $100.00. The board has a $500.00, but they have the $300.00. |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they were not consistent. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they had to go to the $100.00. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they couldn’t be less stringent than the state, which is what they did. The letter that they sent included the fine although the board had voted for the warning. They realized that they couldn’t abide by what the board had voted on because it was less stringent than the state code. So they sent out the notice according to the state code. He wanted to notify them of the change that was made. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked that the changes be made be to the regulation before the next meeting. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to continue this agenda item until the next meeting. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
DISCUSSION: |
A. |
F.Y.I. – Final Flu Clinic |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that on January 11th, 2005, from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM at Christ the King Parish. They had 500 doses in the fridge and 700 from Falmouth. So much for a flu shortage and the media was still telling people there was a flu vaccine shortage. The state had lowered the age to 50 and above. If they had a child at home that was less than 23 months of age could get it. They opened it up to other towns, too. |
|
|
B. |
F.Y. 2006 Budget |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they went to the finance committee meeting with Mr. Santos. It went as expected. Ms. Mason stated that they would see how the rest of the numbers shake out regarding the additional person. It did require a vote at town meeting. They would have to put something in the town meeting article. Otherwise, without the position they could level fund. That was only because of the landfill. They made $20,000.00 plus in revenues. The septic inspections alone were $10,675.00 for 427 property transfers were submitted at $25.00 per report. They were sick of level funding. |
|
|
C. |
October/November Landfill Groundwater Testing Results |
|
Ms. Grady stated that her only question regarded the well being locked and unable to be sampled. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that they needed to look into that. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington thought that that had been taken care of. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that they had contacted a well driller. She thought it had been taken care of. She would check into it, again. |
|
The board members agreed to meet on January 20th, 2005. They agreed to meet at 6:30 PM for an executive session. |
|
|
|
Being no further business, Mr. Ball made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 PM. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
Respectfully submitted by, |
|
|
|
|
|
Charlotte A. Garron, Administrative Secretary |
