HomeMy WebLinkAbout0891 MAIN STREET (OST.) - Health t 891 Main Street
A= 117 040
ti
{
w
�I
i
a e �
�OF INE 10��
r r
i MRNSTABU.
9�A MASS. ,�� Town of Barnstable
tE0 MA'S�
Department of Health,Safety, and Environmental Services
Public Health Division
P.O.Box 534,Hyannis MA 02601
Office: 508-862-4644 Thomas A.McKean,RS,CHO
FAX: 508-790-6304 Director of Public Health
TO: Robert Smith, Esquire
Town Attorney
FROM: Thomas A. McKean, RS, CH
Public Health Division
DATE: June 8, 2000
RE: 891 Main Street Osterville/Recent Letters from Attorney Richard P.
Crowley Attached
In regards to the attached letters from Attorney Richard Crowley received recently
requesting revocation of a certificate of compliance issued in 1998 after the failed septic
system was repaired at that time, what do you suggest that I do at this time?
The septic system was repaired because the existing system was failed. According to
Health Inspector Jerome Dunning, there was overflowing sewage on the ground. The
applicant, Walter Lewis obtained the permit in March of 1995, before the revised Title V
regulations became effective. The septic system progressively worsened during the
course of a few years until it finally overflowed onto the top of the ground. Then it was
finally repaired in 1998.
Revocation of a certificate of compliance issued more than two years ago, in regards to
the repair of a failed septic system, would not accomplish a benefit to environmental or `
public health at this time , in my opinion.
cc: Ralph Crossen
Richard P. Crowley, Counselor at Law, PC
901 Main Street, P.O. Box 901
Osterville, Massachusetts 02655-0901
Telephone: (508)428-4000
Facsimile: (508)428-1900
June 2, 2000
Mr. Thomas McKean
Director of Public Health
Town of Barnstable
Public Health Division
P.O. Box 534
Hyannis,Massachusetts 02601
Re: 891 Main Street Osterville Massachusetts
Dear Mr. McKean:
Thank you for your prompt response to my letter dated May 17,2000,in connection with the
above matter. In response to your remarks,please be advised as follows:
a) While the staff and you were allegedly aware of the mixed (grandfather
residential/commercial) use nature of the building located at 891 Main Street,
Osterville, such knowledge was not established on the Board records for the benefit
of the public. Further,your general knowledge of such mixed use should not be taken
as your acceptance of the misuse of the term"3BR dwelling"to define the property
use. The use of"3BR dwelling"was.incorrect and should not be used to establish on
the record alleged grandfather rights for three bedrooms, thus permitting a grant to
greater sewerage flow rights. It is submitted that the Applicant did not have
grandfather rights to a"3BR dwelling". The Applicant's application is misleading,
and the Applicant should have been required to establish such grandfather rights.
Personal knowledge of mixed use alone does not°establish legal rights to grandfather
rights.
b) Your,letter does not refer to my statement that a variance was required and ignored
by Mr. Lewis. A hearing on the variance would have required the Applicant to
evidence the"3BR dwelling"rights, and such required variance was not obtained in
order to avoid a hearing prior to the 1999 sale to the present owner,Osterville Realty
Trust, Anthony Elio, Trustee.
c) Your have rejected the request to revoke the Certificate of Compliance,not based on
the failure to secure variances, but on hearsay information (not of record) by the
Building Commissioner, whose credibility, in my opinion, is less than that of Titus
Oates,that the"number of apartments have since decreased since the time renovations
took place." _
Mr. Thomas McKean
June 2, 2000
Page 2
First,the number and extent of grandfather use of 891 Main Street is in dispute. The building
permit has been revoked by the Zoning Board, so that construction and occupancy is at the risk of
the owner,while the Land Court is deciding the question of the building permit. Thus,any reduction
in apartments or sewage flow is temporary and may increase or resume at the option of the owner.
The Certificate of Title V Compliance should be revoked and the Applicant required to
comply with the law and request a variance and prove any grandfather"3BR dwelling"use so that
the correct grandfather permissible sewerage flow can be established.
While I appreciate your suggestion to call Mr.Dunning,I prefer to keep all matters in writing
and on the public record.
Very truly yours,
Richard P. Crowley
RPC:cmf
cc w/copy of response: Osterville Village Association
John Noonan,Esq.
f
Town of Barnstable
0
Department of Health, Safety, and Environmental Services
MASS. ,0� Public Health Division
rF°"o�A P.O. Box 534, Hyannis MA 02601
Office: 508-862-4644 Thomas A McKean,RS,CHO
FAX: 508-790-6304 Director of Public Health
May 22, 2000
Richard P. Crowley
901 Main Street
P.O. Box 901
Osterville, MA 02655
Dear Attorney Crowley:
Thank you for your letter dated May 17, 2000.
The Health Division staff and I were aware of the mixed use nature of the building located at 891
Main Street, Osterville on March 7, 1995, when Mr. Walter Lewis submitted a disposal works
construction application to this office.
Mr. Lewis left the disposal works application form blank next to the words "Other-Type of
building."
Your request to revoke the certificate of compliance for the Title V septic system seems to be
extreme to me, based on the information I have. I was informed by the Building Commissioner
that the number of apartments have since decreased since the time that renovations took place.
Therefore, the sewage flow has decreased, not increased.
You may telephone Jerry Dunning at 862-4644, if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
�7ma/ cKean
Director of Public Health
crowleyr/wp/q
Richard P. Crowley, Counselor at Law, PC
901 Main Street, P.O. Box 901
Osterville, Massachusetts 02655-0901
Telephone: (508) 428-4000
Facsimile: (508) 428-1900
May 17, 2000
Mr. Thomas McKean
Director of Public Health
Town of Barnstable Health Division
367 Main Street'
Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601
Re: 891 Main Street,`4sterville,Massachusetts
Dear Mr. McKean:
This letter is to direct _your attention and to request prompt remedial action on an
environmental, safety, and public health issue related to the above property. Reference is made to
your memorandum dated March 24, 1999,on the above property(copy"A" enclosed). Also,your
attention is directed to your.memorandum to Mr. Ralph Crossen dated March 25, 1999 (copy`B"
enclosed).
I understand from your memorandums and the records that on March 29, 1998 (a Sunday,
and the last day of the 1995 permit) Mr.Walter Lewis,a licensed contractor,allegedly upgraded the
891 Main Street septic system to a Title V system. A sketch of the septic system and compliance
permit by Mr. Lewis(copy"C") is enclosed, together with a copy of the Application for Disposal
Works Construction Permit No. 95.814 and Certificate of Compliance (copy"D").
It is my understanding; supported by the records,that neither Mr.Lewis nor the then owner
of 891 Main Street,Mr.Walcott Ames,sought or obtained any variance for increased flow or for'the 4
provisions of 310 CMR 15.211 relating to"Minimum Setback Distances." For your information, I
enclosed a copy(copy"E") of a partial plot plan of 891 Main Street submitted by Osterville Realty
Trust, Anthony Elio, Trustee, successor owner of Mr. Ames, to the Building Department for a
building permit issued, and then revoked, and now in litigation in the Massachusetts Land Court.
I have marked on the plot plan the outline of the Title V septic system,based on the records,
as installed by Mr. Lewis, together with other information and, importantly, the approximate
distances, followed by the required minimum legal setback distances in brackets, as follows:
1) septic tank(SPT)to slab foundation of 891A 7 '/2 ft. [25 ft.]
2) beaching pit(LP)to cellar wall of 891 14 ft. [20 ft.]
Mr. Thomas McKean
May 17, 2000
Page 2
Clearly, the Certificate of Compliance issued by the Board of Health of the Town of
Barnstable was issued based on false and misleading information as to the installed Title V septic
system, and that a variance was required,but not obtained.
Further, it is submitted that the original application of Mr. Lewis dated March 7, 1995,
contained false and misleading information in that 891 Main Street is not a dwelling with three
bedrooms, but mixed commercial property. The report also omitted other essential information
(grandfathered mixed use with number of grandfathered use in dispute)and information that the 891
Main Street property is in a groundwater protection overlay district. In view of the above,it appears
that Mr. Lewis' license should be suspended or canceled.
Without waiving any other rights,and preserving the right to object further and to take any
legal action necessary on behalf of the adjacent property owner, Mary M. Crowley, and other
abutters, it is requested that the Certificate of Compliance for the Title V septic system be revoked
ab initio and other action taken to ensure compliance with the environmental and health laws and
regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Town of Barnstable, relative to 891
Main Street, Osterville,Massachusetts.
Also, it is suggested that monitoring wells be required on the 891 Main Street property to
monitor and control nitrogen levels. An inspection of the 891 Main Street property is recommended
for compliance.
Very truly yours,
Richard P. Crowley
RPC:cmf
Enclosed: A-copy of memo dated March 24/99
B -copy of letter to Mr. Crossen dated March 25/99
C - copy of sketch of septic system and compliance permit
D- copy of Application for Permit No. 95.814
E- copy of partial plot plan
cc w/encl.: Osterville Village Association
John Noonan,Esq.
Town of Barnstable
�pFTNE Tp�
Department of Health, Safety, and Environmental Services
BARNSTABLE, ; Public Health Division
MAS9 Q 639.
i39 m� 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 jo
TED MA'I a
Office: 508-862-4644 Thomas A.McKean,RS,CHO
FAX: 508-775-3344 Director of Public Health
May 21, 1999
TO: Alan Twarog
Associate Planner
FROM: Thomas A. McKean
Director of Public Health
RE: CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH DIVISION AUTHORITY/Unfinished Attic at 891
Main Street, Osterville
i am in receipt of a copy of the memo from you dated May 14, 1999 requesting
written clarification on the issue of whether or not the Health Division has a
problem with the third floor.
I wish to make it clear that the Health Division does not have the authority to
require a disposal works construction permit nor the authority to disapprove a
building permit application for an unfinished and unusable attic. The same
jurisdiction would apply to unfinished basements, unless such areas are
proposed to be used as office space, retail space, repair shop, or any other use
listed in 310 CMR 15.203 of the State Environmental Code, Title V (copy
attached).
The Health Division staff has concerns about spaces which are constructed at
considerable expense that are proposed to be uninhabitable at this time, but
often become habitable and usable space at some later date. However at this
time, our ordinances and regulations allow unfinished attics and unfinished
basements and such spaces are not subject to inspection by the Health Division
staff.
cc: R. Crossen
T. Geiler
R
LEGAL DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF BARNSTABLE
ROUTING SLIP
DATE: July 22, 1999
TO: TOWN CLERK
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TO: BUILDING COMMISSIONER
TO: �IEALTH DEPARTMENT
TO: ASSESSORS OFFICE
TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FROM: ROBERT D. SMITH. Town Attorney [ 1
RUTH J. WEIL, Asst. Town Attorney [ 1
RE: Two Actions-Subpcena Duces Tecum for Depositions--
Anthony Elio, as Trustee of Ostrvl. Vlg. Rlty Trust v. ZBA; and
Crowley (Land Ct. D<t. #257119); Clark(Land Ct. Dkt#257120)
Property at 891 Main Street, Osterville
OUR FILE REF. NO.: 99-0,I59&99-0160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHED YOU WILL FIND A DOCUMENT ENTITLED"SCHEDULE A". THIS WAS SERVED UPON OUR OFFICE
AS PART OF LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE THE BARNSTABLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. ALTHOUGH
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WAS PROPERLY SERVED, IN THE
INTEREST OF TRYING TO COME TO A REASONABLE COMPROMISE OF THESE MATTERS,WE REQUEST
THAT YOU REVIEW THE REQUEST AND INDICATE:
(1) How easily ascertainable discoverable are the documents requested; and,
(2) If the documents are not easily ascertainable discoverable, please
describe what your department will have to do to locate the documents.
If these documents are easy to locate, please segregate them for our office.
would appreciate your response to this at your earliest convenience, with thanks.
RJW:cg
Atchmt.
[99-0159&99-01601deptsall]
SCHEDULE A
1. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable Office
of the Town Clerk relating in any way to the rear building located at 891 Main Street,
Osterville, Massachusetts(the"Property").
2. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable
Planning Department relating in any way to the Property.
3. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable
Building Department relating in any way to the Property.
4. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable
Building Commissioner relating in any way to the Property.
5. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable Health
Department relating in any way to the Property.
6. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable
Assessors Office relating in any way to the Property.
7. The complete contents of any and all files maintained by the Town of Barnstable
Engineering Department relating in any way to the Property.
8. All correspondence,written transmittals, facsimilies, email or other written or recorded
communications sent or received by any one or more of the Town of Barnstable offices
and/or departments identified in items 1 through 7, above..
9. All documents, including,but not limited to, all correspondence, notes, memoranda,
written transmittals or other communications, relating in any way to the Town's approval
and/or rejection of the construction, repair, alteration and/or modification of the Property.
10. All documents,including notes,meeting minutes,memoranda and calendars that reflect
meetings, conferences and/or hearings conducted by any one or more of the Town of
Barnstable offices and/or departments identified in items 1 through 7, above,with respect
to the construction,repair, modification and/or alteration of the Property.
11. All documents that reflect,refer or relate to any and all surveys, inspections and/or site
plan reviews by or for any local,municipal, regional, state and/or federal governmental
agency, authority,board or organization relating in any way to the Property.
134747(1}EGOLDBER
58675.990459
r
Town of Barnstable
Department of Health, Safety, and Environmental Services
1ARNWABLE,
Public Health Division
A 0
�1 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601
Office: 508-862-4644 Thomas A.McKean,RS,CHO
FAX: 508-775-3344 Director of Public Health
May 19, 1999
TO: Alan Twarog
Associate Planner
FROM: Thomas A. McKeanI
Director of Public Health
RE: Unfinished Attic at 891 Main Street, Osterville
I am in receipt of a copy of the minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals dated
May 5, 1999 and a memo from Alan Twarog dated May 14, 1999 requesting
written clarification on the issue of whether or not the Health Division has a
problem with the third floor.
Mr. Crossen explained to me that the "attic" space is unheated, unfinished, not
insulated, and is without electricity with the exception of one pull-chain type light.
Please be advised that the Health Division does not include "unfinished attics" in
calculations involving nitrogen loading nor in calculations involving the sizing of
septic system components.
The construction of an attic which includes a dormer with windows does raise
some questions by myself and other Health Division staff. Please recall that the
Health Division did NOT approve a revised building permit application to
construct such a third floor or third level attic.
I suggest the applicant should be requested or required to submit a building
permit application to the Health Division Office prior to proceeding with the
project.
d Town of Barnstable
Planning Department Current planning Section
230 South Street,Hyannis,Massachusetts 02601
Phone(508)862-4683 Fax(508)790-6288
Memorandum
Date: May 14, 1999
5
To: Thomas McKean, Director of Health
From: Alan Twarog, Associate Planner
file m051499.doc
Subject: Zoning Board of Appeals Request for Information
As related to Appeal No: 1999-37- Crowley and Appeal No. 1999-38 - Eaton-Clark
891 Main Street, Osterville- Map 117,.Parcel 040
As you may be aware, an appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision to issue a building .
permit and a request for enforcement action on the above referenced property is now before the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
At the May 5, 1999 hearing of the ZBA, the Board questioned whether the third floor of the new
addition on this property was approved by the Health Division. Your memo of March 25, 1999,
states "the Health Division did not approve a third floor level when the building permit application
was submitted to this Office." At the May 5 hearing, the Building Commissioner reported to the
Board that you stated, at a staff meeting after the.memo was sent out, that you had no problem
with the property when it was explained that the use of the third floor would be an attic: The
Board would like written clarification on this issue. Has,the third floor been approved by the
Health Division?
This appeal has been continued to May 26, 1999. If you'could provide your response prior to that
meeting, it would be appreciated.
Should you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at extension
4683.
Attachments: ZBA Meeting Minutes for May 5, 1999 _
Copies: ZBA file
4 .
Z.B.A.Meeting-May 05,1999 2
OLD BUSINESS: -
Appeal Number 1999-37 Crowley and Appeal Number 1999-38 Eaton Clark
Board Members hearing these appeals were Ron Jansson,Gene Burman,Gail Nightingale,Thomas DeRiemer,and
Chairman Emmett Glynn. Attorney John A.Noonan represented Mary M.Crowley,who was present. Elizabeth Eaton
Clark represented herself. The owner of the property in issue,Anthony P.Elio,was present. These appeals were
continued from March 24, 1999 to allow Mr.Elio time to secure legal council. Attorney Jeffrey Allen is now
representing Mr.Elio. -
Attorney Allen addressed the Board. He stated that in his opinion,and based on the.law,there is no case before the
Zoning Board of Appeals tonight pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A,Section 15. He referred to the case of Vokes v. Lovell,
Inc. That case states that a Board of Appeal may only consider an appeal of a Building Commissioner based on his
written response to a request for an enforcement action. A citizen may appeal the Building Commissioner's written
decision within 30 days. Neighbors have complained many times however,there is nothing in writing and Attorney
Allen stated that since there has been no written response from the Building Commissioner,there should be no appeal
before the Board this evening. If the Building Commissioner never responses in writing to the citizen's complaints,
then their recourse is to go to Superior Court to seek a writ of mandamus to force the Building Commissioner to
perform his duty.
The Board asked Attorney Allen about the letter from the Building Commissioner dated January 19, 1999,that is in'
file,that makes reference to a grandfathered apartment use and a letter dated January 21, 1999 where there is a request
for zoning enforcement. Attorney Allen responded that those letters do not count. He is of the opinion that unless a
citizen requests in writing,the Building Commissioner to change his opinion and do something different,there is no
case. Mr.Allen stated this is demonstrated in MGL Chapter 40A,Sections 7, 8,and 15 and more specifically in the
Vokes v. Lovell,Inc. Appeal. He again stated that there must be a written complaint and a written response to that
complaint and until that happens-there is no standing.
Assistant Town Attorney Ruth Weil was asked her opinion as to whether or not the Zoning Board of Appeals could
hear these appeals. She said that based on the case of Hogan v. Hayes, the Board does have jurisdiction and they can
proceed.
Attorney Allen disagreed with Attorney Weil and wanted his objections on the record and he believes any decision that
is rendered by the Board is tainted. Mr.Allen wanted to clarify that Mr.Elio would only agree to a stop work order up
until this evening and not until the Board adjudicates this matter if it is not decided tonight. That is what Mr.Elio
thought he agreed to at the last hearing.
Attorney Allen stated there are three basic issues: (1)the prior use,(2)the height,and(3)the bulk. As to the prior use,
Mr.Allen submitted an affidavit from Walcott Ames,the prior owner. This affidavit shows the property had an
apartment use as early as 1962 and continued thereafter. The zoning regulations for residential apartments in this
business zoned area came into existence in.1965. This affidavit shows an apartment use from 1962 forward and in
Attorney Allen's opinion it is a pre-existing nonconforming use. (Walcott Ames was present.) He also had leases for
the apartment that date back to 1987. "
As to the issue of height,Attorney All stated that under the Zoning Ordinance there is only one definition for story
for both the residential and commercial zones,and the Board must use the same definition for both. There is an attic
above the second story in this building that is unheated and inhabitable and does not constitute a story. Since the
building is under 30 feet in height it complies with that portion of the Zoning Ordinance.
As to bulk regulations,there is a stairway on the side of the building and does not increase the footprint of the building.
In Attorney Allen's opinion,this should not be an issue and he questioned if it has been properly raised.
Building Commissioner Ralph Crossen reviewed these appeals. He explained that after the permit was issued,several
complaints were voiced to him. He sat down in his office with one of the appellants and he explained the appeal
procedures to her[Ms.Clark]. He helped her fill out the application and that is how this appeal came about. Mr.
Crossen personally notify Mr.Elio that the appeal had been taken and he was in frequent contact with Mr.Elio. Mr.
Elio has been kept aware of what was going on. Mr.Crossen does not feel this case was handled any differently than
any other appeal of his decision.
As to the drawings,the first set shows a building with an attic space under a gable structure,and sometime after the
fact,Mr.Elio was either given permission-or took it upon himself-to create a full dormer on the back side of the
2
Z.B.A.Meeting-May 05,1999 3
house. The Board asked the Building Commissioner to explain how the dormer came about. The Building
Commissioner explained that at a mid-point during framing,the contractor asked Mr.Crossen if he could add a dormer.
He told the contractor that if it were an unfinished dormer for storage,it would be allowed as long as it did not increase
the height and was used for storage only. Mr.Elio began to work before he submitted new plans. He was issued a stop
work order until new plans were submitted. After the modified plans were submitted,the project was allowed to
continue. The Building Commissioner got another call informing him that the dormer was not being done according to
the plans. He again viewed the site and found they were in violation. He ordered changes to be made to bring the
property back into compliance. Specifically,the deck on the third level was to be removed,he[Mr.Elio]was told to
close in several windows on the third level and take out the stairway to the third level and replace it with a drop-down
stairway. These things were all done.
There was question about a memo dated March 25, 1999,from Thomas McKean,Board of Health,in which he writes
"the Health Division did NOT approve a third floor level when the building permit application was submitted to this
Office." The Building Commissioner reported that there was a staff meeting after this memo was sent and Mr.McKean
told him he had no problem with the property when the Building Commissioner explained the use of the third floor
would be that of an attic. Mr.Crossen agreed the term"attic"is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance nor the Building
Code. The Building Commissioner based his decision(regarding the attic)on prior Zoning Board of Appeals Decisions
-not the Building Code.
In the file,is a letter from the Building Commissioner to Mr.Elio where the Building Commissioner writes,"After
reviewing all relevant documentation on your building at 891 Main Street,I have determined that you have a
grandfathered right to one apartment." The Board asked the Building Commissioner to elaborate as to what the
documentation was he reviewed. Mr.Crossen said he searched the old Assessor's Records,talked to neighbors and
people in Town Hall that are familiar with the property,and reviewed old records. Mr.Elio brought in leases from Mr.
Ames's records as proof. The Building Commissioner compared the names on the leases with the old records of the
Town and verified two people were listed as having lived there-during that time-at that address. The Building
Commissioner was not satisfied with the documentation for a second apartment and did not feel there were two
apartments-only one. Mr.Elio got information only back to the mid 1980s. The Board was concerned because they
felt that apartment use should be demonstrated back prior to that time because zoning came into place well before the
1980s. The Building Commissioner could not find any permits for either of the apartments. That could mean they
were either there for a long time or there without permits and he did not know which was correct. He heard that it was
both-but he could not confirm either.
Attorney Noonan addressed the Board. He stated it is a simple issue-was there a preexisting nonconfoming use and if
so-can they expand on that use. He referred to the 1971 building permit to construct a 25' x 25'. The current building
is 28' x 28'. He believes the Zoning Board of Appeals could make a finding that the building itself is illegal because it
was built beyond what was issued and therefore any use that was made of the building was illegal. The building was
built in 1963 and required a Special Permit-none is on file. Attorney Noonan stated that although there was a bedroom
in the building,that does not constitute a legal apartment. If there was plumbing-it was not put in under a permit. He
has search for Town records regarding the use on site and has found no conclusive records. Mr.Noonan reviewed the
letter in the file from Thomas McKean,Board of Health. Attorney Noonan reviewed the affidavit from Walcott Ames
and he believes there are inconsistencies in his affidavit. He reminded the Board that Title V approval is required
before a building permit can be issued. The issue of a septic approval should be a matter of concern for the Health
Division,the Building Division,and also the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Public Comments: John Buringham spoke. He told the Board he wrote a letter to the Building Commissioner and he
is concerned as to the legality of the building. He feels the builder should have been aware of the legality of the
building. Mr.Buringham thinks this proposal has devalued the surrounding residential property and if it is legal it
should be taken down. Next to speak was Jay Larmon for the Osterville Village Association.. They are extremely
disturbed by the development. They are concerned with the size of the structure,the height,the proposed use of the
second floor,the septic system,the lack of.parking,and the fact that there are four(4)new electric service meters for
two proposed uses. They would like to see the building removed entirely. He submitted a letter to the file. Elizabeth
Clark addressed the Board. She submitted photos showing the view from before and from now of the property in issue.
She also reported that between her shed and the subject property there is a pipe that has water running from the building
to her lot. She is very concerned about where this water is coming from and why it is draining onto her property. Ms.
Clark reported that many years back there was a family living in the building and then recently there was someone in
the apartment,but it did not have proper septic facilities and he left. The water appears to be a soapy grayish water and
3
Z.B.A.Meeting-May 05,1999 4
it is not rain water or run off. It was there as recently as the day before yesterday. She also reminded the Board that
there are two separate buildings on this site and only 5 or 6 spaces for the entire site-both buildings. She remembers
only one end of the cement building ever being rented as an apartment and it did not have facilities that would have
passed any kind of town inspection. She is concerned with the height. She has been told that this would devalue her
property. Lastly,she reported she has been here 60(+)years and she.feels strongly for the village and this type of
building does not belong in this village.
The Board asked Ms.Clark if she could give a date for the apartment use. She indicated she'could not give an exact
date but it was approximately in the mid 1960s. She can not testify if it ever had a kitchen. She said that this past year.
there was someone that briefly stayed there. Due to the location of her house,she is able to see if someone is living
there. She is sure that no one was living there from the time the family moved out(in the 1960s)until recently when
the single man occupied the building. There are many aspects of this project that are wrong and need to be corrected.
Ms.Clark stated that the claim that it has been continually used as a dwelling is incorrect.
Also speaking at during public comment was Albert Manning. He and his wife,Joan Peters,own the property and
business next door. He is very disturbed that there was never a Site Plan Review Meeting for this property. He is very
upset because there is drainage from the subject property onto his property. The site has 4,000 square feet of paved
area and 2,000 square feet of roof with no gutters and when it rains all the water goes directly onto his property. For
two years,his cesspool has overflowed because of their property. In January 1998,he called the Board of Health. In
April 1998,he went to the Building Commissioner,the Board of Health and the Engineering Department about the
drainage problem. He was told that nothing could be done unless there was a Site Plan Review. He reported that later
on the site there was an oil spill. Mr.Ames pumped from his under ground tank into a bucket. That bucket overflowed
and came onto his property. As a result,DEP came in and dug up his yard. It still remains in ruins from that episode.
On June 13, 1998 there was a major rain storm and about 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of water went into his yard from the
subject property and completely wiped out his back yard. There is a three foot hole in the cellar and his lower level is
flooded. Mr.Ames told Mr.Manning the new owner.(Mr.Elio)would take care of the flooding problem. Mr.
Manning hired Attorney Charles Sabatt who sent two letters to Mr.Elio about this problem and he has not heard back.
On February 2, 1999,Attorney Sabatt wrote a letter to the Building Commissioner pointing out all the problems from
this property and asked if there was going to be a Site Plan Review process. Mr.Manning submitted some photographs
to the file. He asked,"What triggers Site Plan Review?"
The Building Commissioner responded to the question about what triggers Site Plan Review. He said that the only
thing that triggers Site Plan Review is a development that increases the parking demand or a change of use. This
project did not trigger Site Plan Review in his opinion. He was aware of an oil spill on the site. He stated that the
parking demand is based on the Zoning Ordinance and this is in conformance.There is one business and one dwelling
unit. The business size is the same as was previously on site. The residential unit has expanded but the Zoning
Ordinance only requires 1.5 spaces per unit regardless of the size of the unit. Because this proposal did not increase the
parking demand,it did not trigger Site Plan Review and Mr.Crossen said he'can not demand Mr.Elio go to Site Plan
Review.
The Board asked the Building Commissioner if the apartment use that they are claiming is a pre-existing
nonconforming use is determined to not be a pre-existing nonconforming use,would that trigger Site Plan Review. Mr.
Crossen stated that if the apartment use were not a pre-existing nonconforming use,it would have triggered Site Plan
Review.
Ms.Clark again reminded the Board that on this site is an another building with an apartment and existing businesses.
Both buildings share the parking so both buildings must be included when you discuss parking requirements. There is
no more room for parking on this site.
No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this appeal. (Public Comment closed.)
In rebuttal,Attorney Allen addressed the Board. He again indicated that he does not feel the'applicants have standing
before the Board. The complainants,Ms.Clark and Ms.Crowley, did not act properly in taking out their appeal. The
general concerns from the public as stated tonight are not zoning related except for the issue of parking and height. Ms.
Crowley asked for the permit to be terminated until plans are submitted and this is not a zoning violation. As to
parking,if there was a pre-existing nonconforming use of the apartment,there is no need to increase the parking. If
there is not a pre-existing nonconforming use of the apartment,then there is a parking problem. Mr.Allen said that no
one has testified that there was not a pre-existing nonconforming use of an apartment. The abutters could not be
4
r
s
Z.B.A.Meeting-May 05,1999 5
exactly sure of time,dates,or people living in the building. Attorney Allen told the Board they do not have jurisdiction
over Title V. He stated the modification is unpopular with the neighbors-but it is legal. The Zoning Board of Appeals
must apply the law and vote even if it is not popular. The use.may not be popular but it is legal..The modification is
legal and he suggested the case is clear.
When asked,Attorney Allen indicated that 75%of the building is complete. All exterior work is complete and the
building only needs interior work. The building is"weather tight".
Attorney Allen said,as he understands it,that the first floor.is not the subject of any complaints. He wants Mr.Elio to
be able to use the first floor for the TV repair shop while he waits for the Board to decide. However,the Board told
him that the entire building had to be considered.
The Board asked Attorney Allen if Mr.Elio would consent to a request that no further work be done to the building
(either inside or outside)until the Board renders its decision. There are many issues that must be-reviewed and they can
not be bifurcated. The total"package"must be reviewed. The Board suggested this and asked if this was acceptable.
Attorney Allen responded that it would be unacceptable to them. They are willing to work with the Board but that
position would be untenable. He will go to Superior Court if necessary.
The Board told Attorney Allen that they would like to continue this hearing until May 26, 1999 and asked to what
degree that would impact his client. Attorney Allen indicated that he does not think it is reasonable for the Board to
continue this appeal again and stated that if he went to Superior Court,he would win. He said that he will advise his
client to go ahead and continue to work on the building-at his own peril-even if the Board tells him not to do so. His
position is that anytime there is an appeal of a building permit before the Zoning Board of Appeals,the builder can go
forward at this own peril and he will advise his client that he can work and if he goes forward he does so at his own
peril.
A motion was made to continue these appeals to May 26, 1999 at 7:00 PM. Mr.Elio was asked to refrain from
continuing to work on the building until a decision is rendered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Public Comment
portion of these hearings is closed.
Appeal Number 1999-37 Crowley is continued to May 26,1999 at 7:00 PM.
Appeal Number 1999-38 Eaton Clark is continued to May 26, 1999 at 7:00 PM.
5
t
McKean Thomas
From: McKean Thomas
To: Crossen Ralph
Cc: Lavoie Debbra
Subject: 891 Main Street Osterville
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 2:42PM
I'm writing to inform you that this 0.23 acre site which is located within a GP District is limited to 440 gallons per
acre per day in accordance with 310'CMR 15.214 of the State Environmental Code, Title V. This small site is
therefore limited to 110 gallons per day of wastewater discharge. The existing wastewater discharge flow already
exceeds that amount. Therefore, no additional wastewater discharge flow(e.g. no additional bedrooms, no
additional retail space, no additional office space, and no additional repair shop space)would be allowed at this
site beyond what was there before.
Also, I'm writing to inform you that the Health Division did NOT approve a third floor level when the building
permit application was submitted to this Office. Apparently,the building permit application was revised
sometime after the Health Division approved it. The applicant never returned to this Office for review of the
revised proposal involving the construction of a third floor nor any other revisions.
Page 1
McKean Thomas
From: McKean Thomas
To: Lavoie Debbra s
Subject: A=117-040/Status of Septic System and Oil Releases
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 5:11PM ases '+
OIL SPILL/SOIL CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY OVER-FILLING THE ABOVE GROUND OIL TAN
I telephoned Mark McKenzie, P.E., LSP, of East Cape Engineering this afternoon for further clarification i
regards to his letter addressed to the Barnstable Board of Health dated December 23, 1998. Accordin to
McKenzie,this letter refers to the same 30 gallon oil spill which originated at 891 Main Street Osterville o
January 21, 1998. He explained the above-ground9 Mr.
tank was accidentally over-filled,the oil spilled andtraveled over located
de toe of hee to the Property n
very P pnto line. When the
(885 and 891). The contamination was removed from both properties in strict accordance with the both
the Massachusetts Department of Evironmental Protection during April 1998. Properties
of
CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY LEAKING PIPING CONNECTED TO THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE
Mr. McKenzie explained to me that he discovered contaminated soil due to a past leak in the Pipingconnected
TANK
the 1,000 gallon underground storage tank located at 891 Main Street Osterville. Sometime Burin Aril 19
netted to
all of the oil was removed from that underground storage tank The tank was then thoroughly cleaned All 08,
e
contaminated soil located beneath the piping was removed. The confirmatory sampling and analyses indicated
that there was no contaminationbelow the tank itself. Then,the unde
torae tank was
slurry in accordance with MGL Chapter 148 Section 38A and 527 CMR9.00.d An aba donmentflle with cement
Issued by the C-O-MM Fire Department signed by U. Martin McNeely. Permit was
SEPTIC SYSTEM UPGRADE "
On March 29, 1998,the septic system at the above referenced property was replaced by Walter Lewis, a
licensed contractor. A Title V septic system was installed. Copies of the original disposal works construction
Permit, certificate of compliance, and as-built card records Were hand delivered to you today. The new septic
system consists of a 1500 gallon septic tank, distribution box, and a six feet by four feet(6'-X 4� leaching Pit with
4 feet of stone surrounding it. This septic system is capable of handling 538 gallons per day. Based upon the
Title V calculation table, it coi,ld handle,for example, a three bedroom apartment plus 2,773 square feet of offs
or retail space. office
r--
Health Complaints
05-Feb-99
Time: 1:50:00 PM Date: 2/5/99 Complaint Number: 1705
Referred To: GLEN HARRINGTON Taken By: GLEN HARRINGTON
Complaint Type: CHAPTER II HOUSING
Article X Detail: ILLEGAL OPERATIONS
Business Name: HOLLYHOCKS
Number: 891 Street: MAIN
Village: OSTERVILLE Assessors Map_Parcel:
Complainant's Name:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Complaint Description: STORE HAS NO HEAT SINCE JAN 4, 1999.
SEE BETTY THIS AFTERNOON AT SITE.
Actions Taken/Results:
Investigation Date: Investigation Time:
TOWN OF BARNSTABLE
BOARD OF HEALTH
ARTICLE II:MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HUMAN HABITATION
Date
Owner L'etp�ry+�tM iL i c7 — �,( -V��(e 0'110 fie ?- /`'Tenant /t1y 1.4oa S,
Address Address
Compliance Remarks or
Regulation# Yes No Recommendations
2. Kitchen Facilities
3. Bathroom Facilities
4. Water Supply
5. Hot Water Facilities
6. Heating Facilities `+ S -to Flo
K
fhc(CS (a,�1.4- ¢ a �/ � Z
7. Lighting and Electrical Facilities SC&,k G" J a4ie -e' t -(,e.
8. Ventilation
9. Installation and Maintenance of Facilities " f— 4��
10. . Curtailment of Service "` y f
11. Space and Use 4 - kx,7 40 Co-.,
Lx1oc, 0-- OS441
12. Exits
13. Installation and Maintenance of Structural
Elements
14. Insects and Rodents
15. Garbage and Rubbish Storage and Disposal
16. Sewage Disposal
17. Temporary Housing
PART II F-6�z-Ai C-1
C1 C'C 0-vt'-4-- ti y .-y4,-.
37. Placarding of Condemned Dwelling; CCc��, � / �v.� ha""P a"7
Removal of Occupants; Demolition OCe�
day e� ,�� ,•� a
Person(s) Interviewed Inspector
M
If Public Building such as Store or Hotel/Motel specify here
HOBBS&WARREN.INC.
,� " TOWN OF BARNSTABLE'
BOARD OF HEALTH
t
ARTICLE 11:MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HUMAN HABITATION
Date - S-
Owner (C�rwa4n EL 60 - 0.s4-t,,'/0 g Q;,,Tenant l�'� � 96e.S , Gca Ikvyj Apt
Address Q�n � �-� Address
Compliance. Remarks or .
Regulation# Yes No Recommendations
2. Kitchen Facilities
3. Bathroom Facilities
. I
4. Water Supply
5. Hot Water Facilities ,, s�
6. Heating Facilities c U S 4"
7. Lighting and Electrical Facilities
8. Ventilation �^"� 64-6-;�
9. Installation and Maintenance of Facilities
/cL lie lire J �'
'-is d- w►
10. Curtailment of Service ua8✓GiA� 0�t y t
Gw-F�
11. Space and Use 14 /01 k.,, 10 S A
L P-to w 0- - O.S114 r C : 1.vo r Gc i
12. Exits
v r vr, �4-
i 13. Installation and Maintenance of Structural
Elements
14. Insects and Rodents `
15. Garbage and Rubbish Storage and Disposal v`
16. Sewage Disposal
17. Temporary Housing ;� k
C zC
PART II -fi a ej rr+ 4
37. Plocarding of Condemned Dwelling; , Q CC -Ile- 44 /moo/ � A
Removal of Occupants; Demolition`
Orr��a+1�f 5��ecf' �y 4"
Person(s)Interviewed Inspector
If Public Building such as Store or Hotel/Motel specify here
HOBBS&WARREN,INC. /
t..
d SENDER:
■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. receive the
er t0 I also WISh C
a► ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following to (for an
■Prim reverse o
your name and address on the revef this form so that we can return this card to you. extra fee):
> ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not
permit. 1. ❑ Addressee's Address
w ■Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number.
t ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date 2 ❑ Restricted Delivery M
C delivered. «
C Consult postmaster for fee. a
v 3.Article Addressed to:
4a.Article Number
d
= °C
yp «
❑ Registered 10 Certified cc
7 „ [I Express Mail ❑ Insured
/;• .� �� /'�'�� um Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD
/ �. .
7.Dat f D Ive �ifrequested
Fo,
z
(/ �J
5.Received ey:,(Print Name) Ad ee s for
(Only
WY
fee is paid) w
g .Signa re:(Addressee or gent) H
X 1
a
P 811, Decem er 99 102595-97-8-0179 Domestic Return Receipt
Z 2113 498 895
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International M it See reverse
Sent to
Street umb r ,
Post ce, &ZIP C
Postage
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
rn Return Receipt Showing to
Whom&Date Delivered
a Return Receipt Showing to Wlwm,
Q Date,&Addressee's Address
O
TOTAL Postage&Fees $
Cq) Postmark or Date
on
a.
�VE Town of Barnstable
Department of Health, Safety, and Environmental Services
B" L&$
039. Public Health Division
�0
P.O. Box 534, Hyannis MA 02601
Office: 508-790-6265 Thomas A.McKean,RS,CHO
FAX: 508-790-6304 Director of Public Health
November 5, 1997
Walcott Ames,Trustee
891 Main Street
Osterville,MA 02655
NOTICE TO ABATE VIOLATIONS OF 310 CMR: 15.00 THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL CODE TITLE V: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF SANITARY SEWAGE, AND 105 CMR 410.00 STATE
SANITARY CODE II - MINIMUM STANDARDS OF FITNESS FOR HUMAN
HABITATION.
The property owned by you located at 891 Main Street, Osterville listed as Parcel 117 on
Assessor's Map 040 was inspected on October 14, 1997 by Jerry Dunning, Health Inspector for
the Town of Barnstable, because of a complaint. The following violation of 310 CMR 15.00,
the State Environmental Code, Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of
Sanitary Sewage and 105 CMR 410.00 State Sanitary Code II - Minimum Standards of
Fitness for Human Habitation was observed:
REGULATION 310 CMR 15.02 (207)AND 105 CMR 410.300:
Overflowing sewage onto the ground. This violation is a serious public health hazard.
1) You are directed to hire a licensed septage hauler to pump the overflowing cesspool within
twenty-four(24) hours of receipt of this letter.
2) You are also directed to keep the on-site sewage disposal system pumped as many times as
necessary to keep from overflowing onto the ground.
3) You are further directed to contact and hire a licensed Disposal Works Installer within seven
(7) days of receipt of this letter in order to repair this system or connect to town sewer.
You may request a hearing before the Board of Health if written petition requesting same is
received within seven (7)days after the date the order is served.
Non-compliance could result in a fine of up to $500.00. Each day's failure to comply with an
order shall constitute a separate violation.
PER ORDER OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH
Thomas A. McKean
Director of Public Health
YO
No.._9.5---1.y [""ZFER.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF HEALTH
TOWN OF BARNSTABLE
Appliratiou for Di-tipwi al Work.5 Towitratrtioat rantit
Application is hereby made for a Permit to Construct ( ) or Repair ( Lj"'an Individual Sewage Disposal
System at:f g,/
...... ----
Loc ion-Address I i I or Lot No.
Owncr Addrestj
Installer Address
Type of Building Size Lot............................Sq. feet
Dwelling—No. of Bedrooms-----------------------------------------_Expansion Attic ( )- Garbage Grinder ( )
aOther—Type of Building ............................ No. of persons---------------------------- Showers ( ) — Cafeteria ( )
04 Other fixtures _______________________________ __
W Design Flow--------------------------------------------gallons per person per day. Total daily flow---------------------------------------------gallons.
WSeptic Tank—Liquid capacity------------gallons Length________________ Width---------------- Diameter-.-...---------- Depth................
x Disposal Trench—No. .................... Width.................... Total Length-------------------- Total leaching area....................sq. ft.
Seepage Pit No..................... Diameter.................... Depth below inlet.................... Total leaching area..................sq. ft.
Z Other Distribution box ( ) Dosing tank ( )
Percolation Test Results Performed by-----------_------_-------- ........................................... Date........................................
aTest Pit No. I----------------minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit--_-__._.-___-______ Depth to ground water_-___.----._--_.__----..
Test Pit No. 2----------------minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit-------------------- Depth to ground water..........-_-__-----___-
p: ...._----•------------------------•-•--------------------------•------------------------------_.------------------------------------------......---- .-----
0 Description of Soil----------- ----------------•-------•-----------------...-•------•--------------._...------------------....--------...._.. .............................................
W
U .----------------•-----•-----•••---------------------------•---------•-••--------•------•------•-----------------------------•--•--------•---------------.•-------•-•-----...............................
W --•---•-------- ---------------------------------•----------.....-------•------------------...-----------•-------------------•----------------------•-------------...---------------•-----•---------•---
UNature of Repairs or Alterations—Answer when applicable.._...cif...c1fac.Q--------_l_.e.. '�.P__ ...................
Agreement: J
The undersigned agrees to install the aforedescribed Individual Sewage Disposal System in accordance with
the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Environmental Code—The undersigned further agrees not to place the
system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the board of health.
Signed ---------- l -.......... ...................... - `< <
Date
Application.Approved By . .. ............
Application Disapproved for the fol ing reasons: ................................ .............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------
Dace
Permit No. ----? .:-... � ..._.... ....... Issued ---------- ..-. .. .:.. '��— ..
Date
l , t
��yy 30.00
T No..__J... ... _ FEE..............................
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF HEALTH
TOWN OF BARNSTABLE ,
Appliratiun for Bi_npnual Works Tunutrnr#iun Vamit
Application is hereby made for a Permit to Construct ( ) or Repair ( l/)�'an Individual Sewage Disposal
System at:,,;yj
`..a. 4 d''�u. n �� ..•- ------------------------------------ .... -5 =.'-w........ ......---------------------•----------------_-----_---------
..... ....... .......... ....
Loc lion-:\ddress t__________________________'( or Lot No.
....... •.....-••••---•-...-----•---•................................
Owner Addres
Installer Address
Type of Building Size Lot............................Sq. feet
►, Dwelling—No. of Bedrooms------------------------------------------__Expansion Attic ( ) Garbage Grinder ( )
aOther—Type of Building ____________________________ No. of persons---------------------------- Showers ( ) — Cafeteria ( )
Q' Other fixtures ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- -------`..................................................
WDesign Flow...........:.. .......................gallons per person per day. Total daily flow..............................--___---___--gallons.
WSeptic Tank 'Liquid,capacity-__-_-.--___gallons Length---------------- Width---------------- Diameter---------------- Depth--_--______----.
x Disposal Trench—No..................... Width-------------------- Total Length.................... Total leaching area--------------------sq. ft.
Seepage Pit No._9.........---------- Diameter---_--------------- Depth below inlet.................... Total leaching area..................sq. ft.
z Other Distribution box ( ) Dosing tank ( ) l
Percolation Test Results Performed by------- ........__...................................................... Date........................................
Test Pit No. I----------------minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit.................... Depth to ground water.........................
Test Pit No. 2................minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit-------------------- Depth to ground water........................
pG ----------------------------•..........••.....................-••-•••-••------•--•-•-••-•-•---------.........................................................
0 Description of Soil............................................................................................................................. -----------------------......._.... .....
x
V
UW --- ............................................................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .-------......----------------------'-----••--
Nature of Repairs or Alterations-Answer when applicable.---t-- - ____f n,_J__P_.._..___l.__ 1'.!-P... ....................
----------••----------------•-.......---••••--------------•--------••--•-•---------•----•----•-•--•----•-----•••---------....................................-........................................
Agreement:
The undersigned agrees to install the aforedescribed Individual Sewage Disposal System in accordance with
the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Environmental Code—The undersigned further agrees not to place the
system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the board of health.
0,(_
Signed ----------1, _-�-----:, �����ca...._----_----------- -_ .......
Dne
Application.Approved By --------- ^ . .,_.�.- <.. ,._,_..'----- ... w
« �...
Application Disapproved for the following tea s: ...... ........ ............. . . . ............................ .........................-
.................................................._._._.-..---------------------------....---------- ---------------------_.--...._.-----------------`-------------------------.....-..- --------------------------------------
�,..-1 Dare
Permit No. ....../15t...' , ------.--_-------- Issued ------------------------:------,.ct.. ..-C�a,�----
Dae
C MINIM, I Gig:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF HEALTH
TOWN OF BARNSTABLE
(ger#ifirate of (�omyliance
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the Individual Sewage Disposal System constructed ( ) or Repaired (L�)
by -- ct..l. t e�%. L .-cam....5.._---------------_------------------------------------- ---------------- ---- ------------------------..-_.--------------------._.--------------
t„ ..-..S f_ .-- -C�S.f---
- j.../. .....-.. - -
at ..... � ��..)-.---- -- -......
has been installed in accordance with the provisions of TITLE�,of The State Environmental Code as described in
_? `' - ..�-� '� ...... dated ._---- --
it
x the application for Disposal Works Construction Perm No ✓--
THE ISSUANCE OF THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A GUARANTEE THAT THE
SYSTEM WILL FUNCTION SATISFACTORY.
/
DATE...------------------------------_...._---------.---.._ ------.---...-------..- Inspector -. v � -- ------ - ------_ ------------ ----
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF HEALTH
cf V TOWN OF BARNSTABLE FEE...gg 00-••
�Bi u �tllgorkg Tomitrur#iun VarAit
Permission is hereby granted....... a f-----• -P w----- --------
to Construct ( ) or Repair ( an Individual Sewage Disposal System
at No..... Street
R� �_y
as shown on the application for Disposal Works Construction Permit N _ t- Dated------�._ __..,..-.._..,._
-\\ ------------ -----------------------------------•----
� --
............................. ti
� Board of Health
�DATE------------------ -'_:0.....I..........................................
FORM 36508 HOBBS&WARREN.INC..PUBLISHERS
f
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 17 _PARCEL.ffyb
IQ:C A T I N AGE PERMIT NO.
sue""
A G E
0 �✓ 1I If
1`:N`STA LER'S MA E a ADDRESS
' �� - a
-sue �-
1.L D ,E, Rl o OwN ER
DATE PERMIT ISSUED �-
V.A.TE COMPLIANCE ISSUED
' - .« 0 - ..
f
gZUy/ ' MAf Copt �
t
Sty _ c�6 l ►/��^� S , 1
pdi+97615
I 1
140
AVhott
90.30
�
to
• 98 I c
I Sty , Aspr crl
Block Parkk g
Buldln9
'Ostw4le Rodlo
dt TW*Wsion' l
,•. ` o !
An Uques
i 4L .
1 - .
sed Serond Story, 7
Prop�ate APartment
ASSESSOR'S MAP N0. 11' PARCELe> zo
L Qq/ T I A G E PERMIT NO.
VILLAGE
INS�TAJ,� LER'S NA E ADDRESS —
e U I L D E R 0 OWNER
DATE PERMIT ISSUED
DATE COMPLIANCE ISSUED c �
T
a�
�1.
.r J