HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 May June BOH minutes BOARD OF HEALTH
MINUTES
May 25, 2000
Mr. Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gayton Osgood, Chairman, Francis P. MacMillan, M.D., Member, John Rizza, D.M.D.,
Member, Sandra Starr, Health Director, Susan Ford, Health Inspector, Debra Rillahan,
Public Health Nurse
TOBACCO HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
Diane Pickles from Healthy Communities appeared before the Board and spoke about the
regulations that will go into effect for the schools. Ms. Pickles will appear before the
Board for the June meeting for a hearing.
475 GREAT POND ROAD
Mr. Nassar, the property owner, stated he believed he could not tie-in to the sewer. Mr.
Bill Hmurciak, Director of DPW, stated Mr. Nassar could tie-in to the sewer. The Board
of Health requested Mr. Nassar to describe the sewer tie-in details of 475 Great Pond
Road as he knows them, he stated that Buddy Cyr told him that he could have a gravity
sewer. Mr. Hmurciak replied that there were no engineering plans at that time. The
engineering of this sewer shows that this hook-up could not have been put in as Mr.
Nassar says that Buddy Cyr told him many years ago, so he received "bad advice". Mr.
Hmurciak stated that Mr. Nassar could go around the house or build a pump station.
Although it appears this is the owner's issue Dr. MacMillan still would like to see if DPW
could help. Mr. Hmurciak would speak to Buddy Watson who was Mr. Nassar's
contractor and Mr. Hmurciak would try to have an answer by July 1, 2000 regarding the
tie-in.
665 OSGOOD STREET
Mr. Doug Howe, the homeowner, stated that he believes it would be a huge project to tie-
in to the sewer. He would like to wait for a bit to tie-in. The Board offered to give him
twelve months to tie-in.
Page Two
Minutes of May 25, 2000
345 STEVENS STREET
Mr. Steven Breen the homeowner claimed hardship due to illness and would like an
extension for one year regarding the tie-in to sewer. The Board gave Mr. Breen a one-
year extension.
65 WATER STREET
Mr. Harold McPhee appeared before the Board regarding the order letter that was sent to
him. He claimed the order letter was not in the proper name. The property is in a trust
not his name. He also claimed that he is doing work on the apartment. Mr. McPhee
would like another order letter in the correct name. Ms. Ford stated that Mr. McPhee
could have just called the office rather than request a hearing. She also asked that Mr.
McPhee call for an inspection as soon as the work is complete.
419 ANDOVER STREET
Furniture Barn, Burger King, Walls n' All appeared before the Board to state their side of
the complaint. The complaint is that garbage is being left all over the area and the
complainant is a neighbor, who is very upset with the way the area looks. The companies
would like guardrails put in because cars drive in between Burger King and Furniture Barn
and people throw the garbage everywhere. The Board would like the Police Chief notified
and see what can be done regarding the guardrails. The Board would like something done
by one month. The Board took no additional action on the complaint. If the area is kept
clean then they won't require an enclosure as the complainant requested.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by Dr. MacMillan, seconded by Gayton Osgood a motion was made to
accept April 27, 2000 minutes.
225 BRIDLE PATH
The sellers of this property would like a variance not to do a Title V inspection. The
buyer and seller will sign a waiver that the buyer will agree to tie-in to the sewer within six
months of the sewer being put in. The buyer, seller and the Board signed the waiver.
Page Three
Minutes of May 25, 2000
On a motion by Dr. MacMillan, seconded by Dr. Rizza the Board granted the seller
a variance not to do a Title V, and agreed to give the buyer six months after the
sewer comes in to tie-in.
SEWER TIE-IN DEED RESTRICTIONS
Three letters of request for a waiver to the tie-in regulations have been received from
elderly residents. Presently, we have no standard protocol for this issue. All agree that
the elderly with special circumstances should be given time. The Board felt that the idea
of requiring a deed restriction mandating sewer tie-in at the time of transfer is a good one.
A deed restriction form was presented to the Board for review. Ms. Starr stated she
would like to see a Title V inspection done before any waiver is granted.
On a motion by Dr. Rizza, seconded by Dr. MacMillan,the Board voted to have
Town Council look at the sewer tie-in deed restriction form.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion by Dr. Rizza, seconded by Dr. MacMillan, the Board voted to adjourn
at 8:20.
ohn S. Rizza, MD, Clerk
BOARD OF HEALTH
MINUTES
June 19, 2000
Mr. Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gayton Osgood, Chairman, Francis P. MacMillan, M.D., Member, John Rizza, D.M.D.,
Member, Susan Ford, Health Inspector, Debra Rillahan, Public Health Nurse
GLSD
Gayton Osgood stated that this is not a public hearing, and the Board will not be taking
public testimony.
Dr. Rizza - Thank you all for coming. I appreciate all the involvement from the citizens.
Before the Board gets down into tonight's business I just have a concern 1 need to bring
up that I found some personal problem with. I would like to ask if in the crowd tonight
there is a representative from the Lawrence Eagle Tribune covering this story(No answer)
Dr. Rizza, I guess not. My points are essentially against the article or the editorial in
yesterday's paper. I have no problem with the paper having their view regarding the
fertilizer plant, but in the second, to last paragraph it states and I quote "The Board of
Health held a private meeting with the GLSD and New England Fertilizer,the day before
the public hearing of the project. The purpose, the Board said, was to iron out restrictions
of the plant if a permit were granted, etc. etc.". As far as I am concerned that public
meeting was held on April 18th, Tuesday evening. That would make it the day before
Monday, Patriots Day. Now, you are looking right now at the Board of Health; myself,
Dr. MacMillan and Mr. Osgood. We are the Board of Health. On Monday, the 17th I was
watching the Boston Marathon in Boston. I have people who can vouch for my presence
at that outing. I was not at any GLSD meeting, plant or what have you. I remember
going on a tour of that plant many years ago but that is the only time I have been on the
property of that facility. Dr. MacMillan was not present at the 18th meeting because he
was out of the country prior to the 18th and prior to the 17th. Now I believe that leaves
you Mr. Osgood, and Mr. Osgood, quite frankly, is not the Board of Health. As much as
I like Gayton as a friend and as much as I like Gayton as a colleague on this Board,
Gayton Osgood by himself is an agent for the Board of Health, not the Board of Health,
nor is an attorney that may have accompanied him to take any pertinent notes. So I take
some major offense with the Sunday Eagle Tribune, dated June 18, 2000 and I had hoped
that the reporter from that wonderful paper would be here tonight to take some of this
Page Two
Minutes of June 19, 2000
back to their editor, but I will be in touch with their editor tomorrow to discuss this point
with him directly. I just wanted to make this as a public notice to all of you tonight and I
will make this as a public notice to the Eagle Tribune as of tomorrow morning.
Resident — Dr. Rizza, I apologize, but I believe they were discussing the meeting we had
at the North Andover Middle School on May 8th, and if I remember correctly all three of
you were there, even though Dr. MacMillan kept on leaving the room.
Dr. Rizza — It says here, "The Board of Health held a private meeting with GLSD and
.New England Fertilizer the day before a public hearing on the project." The day before,
and that is the first meeting they were referring to and that was April 18th. It was not
referring to the Middle School meeting; it is referring to the meeting we had in this same
room on Tuesday, April 18`", so I just wanted to make that perfectly clear that what
constitutes a Board of Health meeting are two members if the third member cannot make
it. One individual with either of the staff people that you see here or Sandy Starr does not
constitute the North Andover Board of Health. I want to make sure the Tribune realizes
that and makes some sort of a retraction and or correction, so I wanted to bring this up. I
thank you for your time.
Dr MacMillan — First of all, my name is Dr. Francis P. MacMillan and I was not at any
meeting on May 8th. June 8th we had a meeting at the Middle School and I happened to be
on call that night and that is why I was called in and out of the meeting, but I think I got
the gist of the meeting. But I do want to say that I read all the missives, letters and e-
mails that were sent concerning this plant and some of them were down right rude and
offensive. One letter in particular said, "Mr. Gayton Osgood what are you getting out of
this deal", which is really impugning his integrity. I just want to mention, I know Gayton
would not say anything about this but this man has more integrity than half the Town of
North Andover and he clearly has worked very hard. He is certainly not getting any deal
from anybody nor are any of us. The only deal we are getting is a lot of aggravation
trying to adjudicate this problem within the Town. We are trying to do the best for the
Town. So I do take offense at some of the letters that were sent to us; they were rude and
absolutely inappropriate but I think we should now go on to fluther business.
Gayton Osgood — I was the one who was at the GLSD meeting and I went to represent
the Town of North Andover as I have at many other meetings and believe me there was
nothing sinister; there were no back room deals. This happens all the time and I am not
ashamed of it and I kind of feel bad that somebody would try to read something into it but
that goes with the territory. So let's move on.
Page Three
Minutes of June 19, 2000
The first vote we are going to take tonight is a vote to approve or disapprove that part of
the project which is called the Contract One facility. This is the digesters, bio-filters, and
the various improvements to the GLSD facility exclusive of the fertilizer process. Do I
have a motion?
Dr. MacMillan — would like to discuss it. This is the phase where we would use the
digester. There are no emissions, there is only something to remove odors, solidify the
sludge.
Resident—Excuse me, I would like to say something.
Gayton Osgood—This is not a public hearing. Excuse me, this is not a public hearing.
Resident—I am not going to be long.
Gayton Osgood—If I let you speak I have to let everybody else speak. At the end when
we are all through you can say what you have to say. You had plenty of time to talk
before. We had our public hearings and I don't mean to be rude, but we have had public
hearings and this is not a public hearing. Sit down sir, we are going to have our meeting.
You can say something at the end. We are having our meeting. We are having our
discussion, wait until we are finished.
Dr. MacMillan — I just think we should have some explanation to the public as to what
Contract One entails. I think everyone should know what Contract One is before we take
a vote.
Gayton Osgood—Do you want to explain that?
Dr. MacMillan — I know what it is part of My understanding is that Contract One
includes the formation or building of a digester that will help remove the excess water and
solidify the mass that is now coming out of the aerators. It will improve the noxious odors
that are now being emitted from the plant. It does not cause emissions; it doesn't need a
stack; there are no emissions from this area. This is Contract One. It is not pelletizing
anything, and this is not creating any emissions and so forth. This is a simple digester to
improve the noxious odors. That is my understanding.
Dr. Rizza— It's also my further understanding that the digesters or the thickeners, which
are now open to the air, will be covered. So that in and by itself from my perspective will
be an improvement to the existing facility. That's about all I can add to this.
Page Four
Minutes of June 19, 2000
i
Gayton Osgood—Would you like to make a motion to approve that?
On a motion by Dr. Rizza the Board voted unanimously to approve Contract One at
the GLSD facility with any conditions that are added to this decision on Contract
One to be included by June 30,2000, Dr. MacMillan seconded the motion.
Gayton Osgood—Contract Two facility. This is the pelletization process. This is the part
that does have the emissions.
Dr. MacMillan — My name is Dr. Francis MacMillan. I have been a resident of North
Andover and a practicing gastroenterologist for the last 32 years. I have raised my
children in this community and I am quite concerned about the public health aspects of
North Andover. I do know something about sludge since I've been involved in the area,
the human area for the last 32 years. We at the Board of Health have been given the
extraordinary burden of making a decision on the public health aspects of siting a fertilizer
plant at GLSD. The easiest decision is to just say no, but that offers no solution to our
man-made problems. There are many pluses and minuses involved in this decision and this
is my thinking only. On the plus side, I feel that the noxious odors that we have
experienced over the last five years, especially in the area of Sutton Street, are just
intolerable and that some sort of mitigation might be happening by some improvements at
that plant. So I think that is a plus. The traffic and spillage problems and noise from
traffic should also be made better. The ordinance to restrict input to the GLSD to five
communities is a very big plus. On the minus side, and here is where I have major issues,
the question of air pollution is of concern. We are told it will not be a significant problem,
but only time and testing, not computer models, will address this issue. The 100-foot
stack is a major concern to me. I feel it probably should be a lot higher and the FAA say's
its okay at 100 feet, but I don't think we will do enough to disperse any feedback from the
digesters, etc. I don't think that is sufficiently safe for this community. It should be
bigger stacks and higher stacks, and I am very much against this stack issue right away.
The disposal of the final product to golf courses, town commons, football fields, etc. is of
concern but not anything we can judge in this Board of Health. We have to be concerned
about the manufacture of the pellets, the toxicity that we are going to expose the people of
North Andover to. We can't be concerned about the final product. I am not thinking as a
nimby person, but we have not been charged with the safety of this product. A lot of
scientists disagree that it is safe and I think the jury is really still out on that. I do feel that
we have to address the proposed solution to our man-made products. We cannot put our
heads in the sand or sludge, heaven for bid, and hope that this all goes away. It is a major
issue that we have to address. The risk of doing nothing leaves us with continuous odor,
potential spills and potential loss of any landfill. As you know they are not making
landfills anymore, so we have to address this problem at some time. To do nothing is an
unacceptable solution. The risk of approving this plant leaves too many question marks.
Page Five
Minutes of June 19, 2000
It does offer us however, some pathway for control. Dr. Rizza, Debbie Rillahan and
myself toured the fertilizer plant in Quincy and found no significant odors oil the outside
of the plant. We toured the inside and there were the smells of an industrial plant. The
only place that was really noxious was the assembly line belt bringing the stuff in off the
ships that were in the harbor. That was very noxious but there were no odors on the
outside. We did not have to get our clothes cleaned after we went through the plant. But
my personal decision is that of a compromise and I will tell you my vote in about 5
seconds or so when we finish.
Dr. Rizza — This is the first, by the way, that I've heard of either of these gentlemen's
remarks on this situation because we are developing our ideas independently and are
bringing it to fruition this evening in front of you. The way I put my ideas together on this
was I had to look historically on how we dealt with the TBI site, which is in the same area.
When we dealt with the Wheelabrator facility and when we were dealing with TBI one of
the questions which came to my mind was, what are we adding to our environment here?
The additions that we were adding to our environment were very much to an idea that I
really didn't like at all. I didn't like the fact that there was something that was new, that
we were introducing trash to the area; we were introducing smells; we were introducing
an awful lot. Subsequently I voted it down and the Board went that way. In the
Wheelabrator facility I had to look at what the existing Wheelabrator facility was putting
out and knowing that the retrofit for that facility was going to improve it. Hence the
noxious issues and potential cancerous issues were going to be removed or at least
diminished. I voted for that because what we were about to get was better than what we
had. The concern I have here is two-fold with the proposed pelletilization. The first
concern is that we are going to be adding something to our environment. Based on my
thinking in the previous two situations, it may give you an indication as to how I'm going
to feel about this. The other thing too is that Tech Environmental did find a problem with
stack heights here that were a major issue with me. I happen to be a private pilot and I
use Lawrence Airport an awful lot. The stack height of 150 feet or even 100 feet is going
to pose a problem to even the aircraft that I am flying, never mind someone else's plane.
So I give a vote on this issue and my vote is going to be based on two things, what we are
putting out into our environment and basing it on historical decisions that our Board has
made. My thought process in that respect and also the safety issue of the fact that planes
do come in and out of Lawrence Airport and the stacks are a major problem to any pilot
no matter how you look at it. I will leave it to Mr. Osgood to make any further
comments.
Gayton Osgood — I am going to vote to oppose the facility based on three things. I'm
concerned about the stack height. I think we are too close to residential areas to not have
optimum stack height. I'm concerned that this is a new technology, not a whole lot of
track record out there. There is the Quincy facility and that's about it. All the work that
Page Six
Minutes of June 19, 2000
Tech Environmental did, and they really did a good job is based on modeling. We are
really not going to know what the real emissions from this facility are until it is built and
tested, and at that point it's a little late. My other concern is, and this is a more general
one that we are really in an area that cannot tolerate a whole lot more air pollution. There
is just too much. I would like to just sort of end by saying I don't think that the
pelletization process that New England Fertilizer is proposing is a bad process. I think it
has a lot of merit. I think there are some issues with it, primarily the issue of the heavy
metals that come in the waste stream. The only way to deal with that is to get them out of
the waste stream. I think it is a good process, but this is just not the place for it. That is
really all I have to say. I would like to take a motion.
Dr. Rizza— On April 18, 2000 my idea initially was that it was a decent process. It was
something that definitely you could possibly work with here. My idea back then is what I
am actually coming toward. Even though it is an area that needs some more study, that
possibly could work, I still have the idea that our Merrimack Valley area is very, very
congested with this kind of industry, that is possibly doing some very difficult things to
our air when you start to look at the cumulative effect of our region. My idea, and I
mentioned it to the public that night, was to say possibly build this elsewhere.
On a motion by Dr. MacMillan, seconded by Dr. Rizza the Board voted to deny
Contract Two.
Gayton Osgood — There is one more little piece of information to include in the record
here. I would like to have a motion that in the event a court over turns our ruling that we
will instruct our Attorney to draw up a set of conditions which the Town will impose upon
the facility should it be built.
On a motion by Dr. Rizza, seconded by Dr. MacMillan the Board voted that in the
event a court over turns the Board's ruling that the Board of Health's special
Attorney will be instructed to draw up a set of conditions which the Town will
impose upon the facility should it be built.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion by Dr. MacMillan, seconded by Dr. Rizza, the Board voted to adjourn
at 7:30.
John S. Rizza, DMD, Clerk
BOARD OF HEALTH
MINUTES
June 29, 2000
Mr. Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gayton Osgood, Chairman, Francis P. MacMillan, M.D., Member, John Rizza, D.M.D.,
Member, Sandra Starr, Health Director, Susan Ford, Health Inspector, Debra Rillahan,
Public Health Nurse
179 MAIN STREET
Jay Willis, the owner of 179 Main Street, stated the tenant's sons Walter &Robert Parker
went to Mr. Willis' office to complain about their parent's apartment. The Parker's came
to the Health Department and filed a complaint. Ms. Ford inspected the apartment and did
find violations. A Housing Order Letter was issued. Mr. Willis asked to appear before
the Board. Mr. Willis stated that most of those items have been completed, the one item
that remains is the linoleum in the bathroom. There are four holes that are worn down
from the linoleum to the wood and Mr. Willis believes it was caused by some sort of
abuse. He stated he does have a workman to fix the floor but it may take another couple
of weeks. He sent the Parker's a letter letting them know that he didn't consider that
damage to be reasonable wear and tear and would hold the tenants responsible for the
cost. Ms. Ford asked Mr. Willis what he was requesting from the Board. Mr. Willis was
not sure what the items were he was being charged with. Mr. Osgood stated when
someone comes to the Health Department and files a complaint the Department has to
follow up on it. The apartment has to meet certain requirements and the Department gives
the landlord X number of days to bring the apartment into code. When Ms. Ford goes in
and identifies items that are not in compliance with the code those items have to be fixed,
the Board does not try to determine who caused the problem. Mr. Willis believed he had
a right to appeal Ms. Ford's determination and believes Ms. Ford is incorrect in the
assessment of his property. Mr. Willis asked the Board if the landlord believes the tenant
is responsible for damage to the premises and is in violation of the code is it the tenants
responsibility or the landlord? Mr. Willis was informed that ultimately the responsibility is
the landlord's. Ms. Ford asked Mr. Willis if he brought proof of the floor being fixed two
years ago as she had requested. He stated that he had not brought any evidence. The
tenant's recollection is that she requested it but it was never done. Mr. Willis claimed that
it is a brand new floor and he could get proof of that if the Board wants. Ms. Ford stated
Mrs. Parker said she has had a rug over the holes in the floor for years and years. Mr.
Robert Parker and Mr. Walter Parker, sons of the tenant, confirmed the inspector's
findings. A discussion ensued between Mr. Willis, the Parker's, and the Board.
Page Two
Minutes of June 29, 2000
On a motion by Dr. Rizza, seconded by Dr. MacMillan, the Board voted for the
work to be completed by July 12,2000.
35 BRIDLE PATH
The owner is requesting a Title V waiver not to tie-in to sewer. The owner brought the
original waiver for the Board to sign. There is a maximum of six months before the new
owners need to tie into sewer. Mr. Osgood signed the waiver.
817 SALEM STREET
The owners received a letter from the Board asking the owners to tie-in to sewer. The
owners stated that was the first time they received any information for tying in, they were
not sure if they did have access to tie-in. The owners called DPW two years before and
were told they were not on the list. The owners believe others on their street did not
receive letters and did not tie-in. Mr. Osgood requested the staff to check with DPW and
see if the owners are on the list and have sewer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by Dr. Rizza, seconded by Dr. MacMillan, the Board voted to accept
the minutes of May 25,2000.
111 BROOKVIEW DRIVE
Ms. Starr received an application for an irrigation well. Ms. Starr denied the application
because that was an area the Town felt there was a problem with and wanted everyone on
Town water and didn't want anymore wells out there even for irrigation purposes. Mr.
Osgood asked why the owners wanted the well. The owners stated they wanted the well
primarily for irrigation purposes for watering their lawn and believe there may be a water
shortage. The Board agreed to allow the permit to be granted as long as the owner meets
drinking water standards and the new well is not tied into the house.
Page Three
Minutes of June 29, 2000
GLENWOOD STREET
The neighbors of Glenwood Street came before the Board to complain about the stray cats
a neighbor feeds. The cats are leaving feces, urine, etc. all over the neighbor's yards
where small children play. Ms. Ford stated that Sue Northam the Animal Officer told the
neighbors that if they wanted to put a trap down they were allowed to. One owner stated
her.husband did trap eight cats.
On a motion by Dr. MacMillan, seconded by Dr. Rizza, the Board voted to have the
cats trapped and the woman feeding the cats be talked to and told not to feed the
cats or there would be legal action to prevent a potential health hazard.
59 ROCKY BROOK ROAD
Ms. Starr spoke of the Town's regulation and Title V. The owners want to finish their
basement, and would like a permit to do so. Ms. Starr stated when you have new
construction or increase living space the owners must meet the current Title V. When Ms.
Starr calculated the size of leaching area, the system can only handle 390 gallons a day for
a three-bedroom house. For five bedrooms or 10 rooms, the owners would need a
minimum of 550 gallon capacity. Ms. Starr suggested a deed restriction that when the
owners sell they would upgrade the septic system. The owners wanted to know if the
deed restriction could be carried over to the next owners. Ms. Starr stated money could
be put in escrow and the agreement is binding if an attorney draws it up to state that.
BRIAN MICHELL—GLSD REPRESENTATIVE
Introduced himself as the new GLSD representative. Mr. Osgood stated he spoke to Rick
Hogan of GLSD and Mr. Hogan stated they were going to challenge the Town in court.
The Board signed the Final Memo of Understanding.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion by Dr. Rizza, seconded by Dr. MacMillan, the Board voted to adjourn
at 9:00.
John S. Rizza, DMD, Clerk