Loading...
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.