HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-3-28BOARD OF HEALTH
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
MINUTES ~-"
l
MARCH 28, 2001
SUPERIOR COURT ROOM `=~
^J
MEMBERS OF THE B.O.H. IN ATTENDANCE: Mr. Soverino, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Snell, Mrs
Bender, Mr. Santos =J
*J
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: APP. 7:30 P.M.
..
1. CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC: None noted
2. NEW BUSINESS
a. Approval of minutes from February 28, 2001. Minutes approved.
b. Variance Request -10 Holly St. Relief from Title V in order to use land
ownership to the center of the road for square footage in calculating
allowed septic flow.
HO Ray states that the applicants have demonstrated to Town Counsel legal
ownership to the center of the road.
Variance approved by B.O.H.
c. Temporary Housing Request, Department of Environmental Management. They
are sending two rangers to Nantucket this summer to work in the State Forest and
would like to house them in a Trailer at the State Forest. Water and Sewer to be
provided by Wannacoment Water Co. They have requested a waiver from the
Board of Health regulation that limits temporary housing to thirty days or less.
B.O.H. Approves.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Adoption of 1999 Federal Food Code 8< 105.CMR Minimum Sanitation Standards for
Food Establishments as Town of Nantucket Local Food Establishment Code.
HO Ray -The State of Massachusetts adopted the Federal Food Code on
November 1, 2000 as its new Food Service Establishment regulations. Mass. Dept.
of Public Health has also added on an addendum to the Federal Food Code which
is 105 CMR. These two documents in total comprise the State's New Food Service
Sanitation Code. I am asking the Board this evening to purge the old regulations
as no longer effective and accept the new regulations as a Local Code also that
allows us to issue fines to establishments that are not in compliance. We have the
Code in effect already, we are not doing anything other than allowing the Local
Board of Health and its agents to issue fines through the Non-criminal Disposition
Act in Mass. General Law. That is all that is being asked this evening.
Atty. Arthur Reade -There is a long history in Nantucket of people running Catering
Services from their homes. I represent Jeanette Topham who is concerned about
the implementation of these regulations. No one would argue that Food should be
prepared safely, but there are many people on-island who derive a substantial
0
portion of their livelihood from a home catering business. My understanding is that
there are provisions in this new code that would make it extremely restrictive to
operate this customary home occupation. This would be getting away from a small
cottage industry that serves a lot of Nantucket people as well as providing needed
income for year-round residents. The imposition of this Code will put a lot people
out of business that have been working hard for many years.
Atty. Wayne Holmes - (Representing Georgia Axt) Ms. Axt has been issued a food
license since 1981 and it has never been suspended or revoked. The Health tns-
pectordoes not need to adopt this code. This broad new code is related to street
vendors. Nantucket has no such problems. The only change the Board is being
asked to effect is to grant the local authority enormous enforcement powers. You
are being asked to approve a $400 per day fine, which is about 4000% above what-
everthe Federal and State statutes now require. The only reason I can see for the
B.O.H. to change this code is to grant enormous new enforcement powers. What
Boston perceives as a problem, is not a problem for Nantucket. There is nothing
to be gained by adopting this code other than an onerous enforcement provision.
Jeanette Topham - Details high cost of installing second catering kitchen. In
business for twenty four years, operating from my home, licensed and inspected
by the local health department. I carry liability insurance and workmen's comp.,
I passed a safe serve course this past October. I have researched the possibility
of building a separate kitchen to meet the State requirements. Building, plans,
plumbing and equipment, it is not feasible. The cost would put me out of business
Would like B.O.H. to consider not adopting the new law, or granting her a variance
for the next few years.
HO Ray -These regulations are already in place -they were adopted by the State
of Mass. of which we are part, on November 1, 2000. The owners of every Food
Service and Catering Establishment were notified a minimum of eleven months
prior that these regs. were coming. They were fully aware of it, and we have done
all we can to educate the restaurant community as to the changes in the regul-
ations. There are substantial changes -one is the ommittance of grandfathering
clauses. The State decided that all Food Service Establishments, be they Caterer's
take-out, or full service restaurants must comply with the current State Code,
which is this one here. The two caterers here do not meet the current code.
There are issues of three compartment sinks, floor and wall coverings, equipment
requirements that these establishments do not meet because they were grand-
fathered. A license may have originally been issued in 1981, but all licenses expire
on December 31~ of that year. Anew license must be issued each year and is
contingent upon passing the current code. If the establishment does not pass the
code because of changes, it is incumbent upon the owner to make the changes to
comply. With the exception of these two present, every food service establishment
on Nantucket this year is complying with the changes. Other options available in-
clude leasing space from a licensed Food Service Establishment, which a number
of local Caterer's do. This is licensable. At this point Massachusetts and the
Mass. Food Code has said no to the operation of a Catering Establishment from the
same kitchen the dwelling occupant uses. There must be a separate kitchen. Most
other Caterer's here have done so. All I'm asking this evening is the approval of
an already adopted State Code as a Local Code. This will allow us, as in the past,
to issue fines -certainly nowhere near the $400.00 per violation that has been
quoted. You will find on our inspection sheet that the maximum fine per violation
is $100.00. In the past five years that we have utilized the non-criminal disposition
~.:~
clause, we have perhaps issued a total of 7-8 violations that have been more than
$400, and they have been in kitchens that are a complete disaster. This has been
partly responsible for some of the cleanest kitchens in the State. I have found that
a fine of $100 for an infraction is enough to turn owners heads and they take care
of it.
Georgia Snell -Are you saying that those people that have license now and are
unable to comply with this code, will not receive a license in Decembe~t
HO Ray -That is correct. I cannot renew the license of these two Caterer's
because neither meets the Food Service Code adopted by the State of Mass.
The owners of all establishments were notified well in advance to either
modify their existing operations or pursue other options.
Mr. Soverino -The Board of Health routinely grants variances every time we meet.
Wants to consider feasiblity of granting variances for a time period, giving
owners more time to comply.
HO Ray -This would then have to be approved by the State Dept. of Public
Health in Boston. Many other establishments that have already complied with this
Code willingly would have been looking for variance requests if they knew it was
something they could pursue.
Mr. Soverino -This Board grants variances routinely, often at the Health Officer's
recommendation.
HO Ray - I would have to offer a negative recommendation to these requests.
Mr. Soverino -These are difficult times to hire a plumber or carpenter, etc.
Would you consider an extension of time to comply?
HO Ray - My primary concern has to be the Food Code and food safety. Offers
a negative recommendation.
Mr. Soverino - As a Board of Health, we have to be concerned with food safety.
these two establishments have impeccable records for long periods of time.
the quality of their products are not in question here, the issue of the changes is.
Mr. Desrocher - I have a big problem with adoption of this Federal Food Code.
These two families have done this for many years. 1 have never heard of any-
one.getting sick. I think this is a stupid code, I will not vote for adoption.
Ms. Snell -How many other people do you expect this will effect?
Mr. Ray - I can easily foresee dozens of requests for variances from specific
Sections. of this Code. We do not have a choice with these regulations -they are
in effect already. I will be hard pressed to enforce this Code without the fines in
place.
Mr. Soverino - I understand we must enforce the law. But I think we should grant
variance here for a reasonable amount of time to comply.
HO Ray - I understand that the Board has a right to grant variances - and I will
have the chance to recommend for or against. I am here just asking for the
adoption of the State Code, as in the past.
Mr. Desrocher - If someone asks for a variance and is approved, does it then go
to the State?
HO Ray - A copy would then go to the State Dept. of Public Health.
Ms. Snell - I feel very uncomfortable that by enforcing State Law we will hurting
any of our successful small businesses. However, I don't want to take away
power for enforcement for those that are in periodic violation. Would like to take
issue under advisement.
Mr. Bender - He is in the business, so he has to recuse himself from any voting.
These are two of the prime catering businesses on Nantucket and we should find
away to permit them to survive.
Mr. Soverino - I would think that if a variance had an agreed upon date in it, that the
State might also find it agreeable, as we are seeking compliance.
HO Ray -The variance schedule is certainly available to either of these establish-
ments. They should apply to the Health Department, seeking relief from the
pertinent sections of the Code. I will bring the recommendations to you and the
Board will make a decision. The issue that is relevant tonight is the adoption
of the Federal Food Code, this does not really affect the catering establishments
at all, the regulations that they are looking for variances from are already in place.
We are certainly not planning on fining them, as they are not in operation right
now.
Mr. Desrocher -Once we adopt this Code, we are locked in. I'm very uneasy and
I'll make a motion that we do not adopt this Code as a local code.
Motion is seconded by Mr. Santos.
Motion is failed for lack of majority (Desrocher, Santos -yes, Soverino 8~ Snell, no.
Ms. Snell -Makes motion to adopt Federal Food Code.
Motion is seconded by Mr. Santos to adopt effective immediately.
Mr. Desrocher - I agree with Attorneys Holmes and Reid. If this is already adopted
by the State, it is so. We do not need to further adopt it locally.
Ms. Snell - We have already been doing this for seven years, are you saying that
was wrong? Why should we not adopt?
Mr. Desrocher -Because it is State Law, why should we adopt State Law?
Ms. Snell -Because there are not penalties in the State Law -that is up to
each individual community.
Mr. Desrocher -There is not now, but there will be and there will be more
people on the State payroll to enforce them, that is how State Government works.
Atty. Holmes -Asks HO Ray - In the prior Code there were provisions for grand-
fathering, is there in this Code?
HO Ray -There is a provision for variances, there is none for grandfathering.
O
Mr. Soverino -Asks for action on motion to adopt New State Food Code.
Motion is approved, with Mr. Desrocher voting no. Mr. Bender abstaining.
Mr. Soverino -Chair would entertain a motion to grant cone-year variance
of these regulations as they apply to the two establishments here this
evening seeking a variance.
Motion is made by Ms. Snell and seconded by Mr. Santos.
Mr. Desrocher -Will vote for variance, but is not happy with one year. A variance
is usually granted, with no time limit on it. It is forever, as far as I'm concerned
unless there are great laws broken.
Second and motion are withdrawn. HO Ray asks for a one week delay so
that specific sections may be addresses in the Variance Request.
Motion is made and seconded to table action on these variances until
next Wednesday, April 4tn
C. Discussion of potential hearing for Local Body Art Regulations. (Tattoo and
Body Piercing).
HO Ray -Two or three months ago the Mass. Supreme Court struck down the
ruling prohibiting tattooing in the State of Mass. ft is now allowed in two forms -
without regulatory control (this includes body piercing) or, it can be regulated by
the individual community. 1 would ask that the Board adopt these regulations as
local regulations. This will allow us to inspect, license and control those
individuals involved in this practice. This will go a long way to protect individuals
who seek tattoos and body piercing. It assures sterile practices and licensing of an
individual with training. It insures a college level Course in anatomy for body
piercing. These regulations are put forward by the Mass. Health Officers Assoc.
and are model regulations being adopted by most Towns in the Commonwealth that
choose to regulate body art.
Mr. Desrocher moves to postpone any action until the April 4 meeting to allow
further review of the regulations by the Board of Health.
Motion is seconded and approved.
D. CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD OF HEALTH
HO Ray - It is not too early to think of Spring and Summer. Mosquito season is
approaching carrying an extra concern this year with some of the public health
issues in the news. If you have standing water on the property, pump it out.
Get rid of old tires, dump out barrels and change birdbath water every five days
or so. All this will help to eliminate breeding grounds for mosquitoes.
B.O.H. ADJOURNS AT APP. 8:40 P.M.