Okay, welcome to the Dart Board of Health meeting. It is Monday, April 28th, 2025. It is 4:32 p.m. Meeting is called to order. Any person may make a video or audio recording of an open session of a
meeting or may transmit the meeting to any medium subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as the number, placement, and operation of equipment used so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting. Any person intending to make such a recording shall
notify the chair forth with web. All documents referenced or used during the meeting must be submitted in duplicate to the clerk of the board or board committee. All documents shall become part of the official record of the
meeting. And first item on the agenda is welcome to our new board of health member Emma. Is it? Yes. Okay. Welcome Emma. Thank you. Um do you you've met everybody? Um and maybe want to just
tell a little bit about yourself. Yeah. Um so I've lived in Gardener for about four years now. I worked at Haywood for a few years while I've been living here. Um but now I work for Mass General. I managed one of the community cancer centers there and made some good
connections in the community and just want to be more engaged in partner. So welcome. Thank you. Great. Just a little backstory on that. So the city council voted in December to expand to five members. So I'm expecting there'll be a
member at some point. In the meantime, I mean, I know we're usually we have a odd number so that there's not a, you know, problem with tie votes, but my understanding with um Robert's rules is that with four members voting, if
there's a tie, then it's basically not a vote. I mean, it just doesn't matter. It does, you know, it doesn't count. Um, so that's my understanding of it, but doesn't pass. It doesn't. Yeah, it just I don't know if it can be brought up
later or not that I haven't researched on, but I I know it doesn't happen. Okay, next meeting is review the minutes from February 24th and March 24th, 2025. The first one is the meetings from
February 24th, 2025. Was there a change to that? just like one change that we made or something. I actually I went back through and um went more word for word on it. Um you
were looking for the comment about where what direction the groundwater flows or was indicating that uh the surface waters were upgrading in from um the landfill. So I did it is in there
somewhere. I can see it actually they're much clearer in um so it was just kind of some it yeah revision of a little bit of the language yes I know we had gone over them before to make them more inclusive of what was actually said and
commented on I have a motion to accept them a motion to accept the meetings for February 24th report 2025 as I'll second. Any discussion or
questions? Okay. All in favor? I I So, do you want me to sign mine? Sure. Thank you. I know. I was just looking at that. We have to make room for a lot of notes already.
Yeah. Okay. Second um is the meetings for the board of health um for the meeting held on March 24th, 2025. And I can have a motion to accept them. I'll make a motion to accept.
Any questions, changes, comments? [Applause] I had something and I left it at my And I can't find what it was that I had put on there, but it couldn't have been anything too big. Yeah, I thought everything was pretty.
Yeah. Uh I think everything looks okay. Okay. All in favor? I minutes are accepted. Next item on the agenda is the well regulations review and discussion on the
ground board of health regulations for private wells. Thank you so much for um kind of integrating the new regulations with the old ones. It makes it a lot easier to follow. Um kind of just go through. That's what I was going to say.
You want to just go through them and that's probably the easiest way unless and then if you have specific um comments on them. Yeah. So I
um everything in red is from model regulations and then everything in black is stuff that was from the existing regulations. So the very first part just the authority is just a rewarding of
that phrase as far as excuse me one second. Does anyone need a coffee with them or I can I have coffee? I can do that. We are trying to cut down on our Yeah. printing costs.
Sorry. Um, so there's that first section. I just it's just a rewarding what we already had in there about the regulatory authority and which general laws grant grant for health the authority to do these
regulations. So that was just reporting of that. And then the next section is just uh we only had I think two definitions originally in the original rags which were well private well and semi-public
well for definition. So I just added everything else that was in the model regulations which includes um well or um there is no such thing as a semi public water supply. So that's
completely all the other definitions are really clear and helpful and explain them. And did you want to address this first little paragraph that uh
yeah um so in definitions that very first paragraph um kind of goes into words and phrases used in the masculine gender gender include the feminine and says you I believe it's
supposed to say neutral on there. So, um I don't really know if we need that phrase at all in the regulations or if you just wanted to fix the word neutral, but I was I would just say
to keep it in there since it was from the model just change that to neutral and then we'll just make sure that word is correct. Okay. Yeah, they they do do well with um given definitions for everything that's
mentioned. Any questions about definitions? terms that it doesn't exist. So since we took it out, you're either private or public water supply. We're down to well construction permit.
Yep. So next section we would just be kind of reabeling or renaming what our permit is called. Right now we just call it a well permit. So it would be a well construction permit. Um that first paragraph I
just added a bit of more language from our regulations as far as what kind of activities at the well we want to have a permit for. So any kind of deconditioning repair, anything like
that. Put that there. And then moving on to what it should include. Um, that basically just mirrors what we already had. So, I just kind of cut and paste
that. Same fees. Yep. Um, and then just for any other sources of potential pollution, I just wanted to be a little more specific. So, I checked in that section about what we would consider to
be possible other potential sources of pollution like landfills, automotive repair facilities, junkyards, storage tanks. Um, I just decided to keep that in there because they did not. It didn't
change anything with the feed schedule. section section three just changed a little bit of language just to reflect that and change it to a well construction permit and it's the well driller instead of well contractor and then that bit that's
struck at the end is just a repeat of what was already mentioned up here in low this all is just the numbering is the only thing that's from the model rags. So from our current the points
five, six, seven, eight just about if there's multiple wells or if we more information um we like to go out and see a stake when they are going to drill well like
to go out make sure we have are able to observe where they're that's exactly going to be before they do it. and um just that they need to apply to us at least three business days prior.
It on number eight it does say semip. That might be what we were looking earlier. Yeah. Strike semi. So straight out too, right? [Music] I should just say
private water supply. So that that actually is they do have a another definition in there. So there's some duplicate that I took out as well. Right. Um, this part
seven that I struck is just another duplicate statement. Um, stating that every if you're going to web drill, well, you have to be a certified registered Massachusetts well driller. And it's one year instead of two. So,
this is a Yeah. where I didn't know. Um, so our the model regulations say permit should expire one year with an issue. Um, the model rags call for two years. So that was a question I had for You mean our previous rigs for two years?
Uh, two years. The model rags call for one. Yes. Yeah. It seems like a year and then a six-month extension makes some sense in terms of giving them a full season, right? Yeah. Yeah. That does that sound right to you guys
or sounds do we have to vote on it? I mean I don't we're just going to vote on the whole regulations after it. So I think yeah I I think that that's reasonable. So I think today I was just going to go through the the lines and then next
meeting I'd present to you like a clean Okay. And then we can vote on it and then you can have the vote. Okay. on number 11. Should that language be changed to well construction permit also?
Yes, it should. Yeah, just so so we're talking about water supply certificate and then that's kind of the next step. Okay, that's the next step. And then the
well permanent the well we issue a permit to construct the well. Okay. So that's where it's taken out the private from everything. Okay. Once the well is constructed we'll issue the next thing which is the the certificate saying that
the water is drinkable for for consumption. That's the water supply certificate. Okay. That whole section is is pretty much all new. Actually, the entire section is new.
[Applause] So we used to have 400 ft. Um when it in section one under um six well location and use requirements in locating a well. The
applicant shall identify a plan which exist or are proposed within 200 ft. So not 400 ft of the site. Right. Right. which makes it better. I mean, well, it makes it I mean, if you if you if the
board wanted to look at further out, we could stick with the 400. Um, otherwise, the 200 is kind of based on what the setback requirements are in the next section. Oh, okay. So, it's just within 200. It's
not looking still with with the whole entire amount out. I guess I'd be looking for your opinion on that as far as this 200 f feet you think sufficient or we're cutting in half from where it was before.
I actually would lean towards keeping it at 400 ft just because it wouldn't hurt to know that information just in case there's a peculiar case where you're down gradient and there's some kind of way we can look at anything
you might think is a source of a contamination or anything like that. Do do you think that's unduly burdensome or is it like reasonable to ask? I think that it's pretty easy to come up with in the programs that are available. It's
pretty easy to look up in there. So, are we all in agreement on keeping the 400 ft? So the next bit is the actual setback distances. Um I don't think we had anything as far as a right of way. So
that that's a new setback distance. And then they added um the setback from a stable barnard or manure storage. um underground fuel storage or pesticide
tank. And then the next one is another one where we had a setback of 50 ft in the surface water, but the actual setback is 25 ft in the model rags. And with that being an actual setback
distance, it could be it could cause kind of a burden if if it is um something where they're trying to fit a well in a certain area and our setback distance is greater than what this the state has modeled. Yeah. So we also have
section three which says that the opinion of the board is that some adverse condition exists. We can expand that parameter too, right? So, correct. Yeah. So, it does make sense maybe to go with
what this what the state Yeah. recommends. Yeah. I guess I sort of I was looking at that section one and section three both use that uh language of when possible.
uh shel upgrading of all potential sources. Um and it just made me think, well, so does that mean basically if
there's for it to be downgradient, it has to be there's no other possible location for it or um um something along those lines. Yeah. So basically it's kind of a clause where
if we see anything else that might be an issue that's like a local thing we can tell them well has to be so far from that and they can always ask for a wait they they would have to come to the board
for something like that. Yeah, it was I mean that that room is already always there, but um yeah, I I think I'd rather keep our language in there. I guess I just special means with protection means like
it says in certain cases special means of protection provided like I think that would be like there's different kinds of well caps or well casings that might offer more protection. I think it's kind of goes to
that. So if it was a down gradient then something like that might help source better. Okay. So is is a well-being downgradient part of what would fall in that first line of section
three saying that if adverse conditions exist would that be considered an adverse condition or I guess I'm just trying to figure out like where you have two sections when possible does that mean that's a basis
for denial of the permit if that's a good question it's not it's not really clear it be something that you have to look at on like a case by case basis
and evaluate what what the potential contamination is and water movement and all that kind of stuff so I can look at clarifying that. Yeah. I mean, you always hate to have the ambiguity in the regulation and then if you deny
something that you don't think is safe and it doesn't really fall within I mean, I think it's kind of important the sort of interplay between sections one and three. I think you can
coordinate those two sections for um I don't know if you even wanted to say it that adverse condition is including but not limited to the well being non-graded or something where it can have the right to increase those distances. Um, okay. Yeah, that's good
way to put it. But, um, I I think when you use that when possible language, you have to make it clear that is it a basis of denial by the board. You know, something to that effect that makes sense.
And I know this says 250 ft from fuel storage or pesticide tank. So that kind of argues against you 200 ft over here to 400 ft and that that's more in sync with what section
said it says 200 and you go to the next part it says 250 but that came from model rights. So we could we could change this to 250 so that it matches that or just I think you keep it at 400.
I think we're okay. But I just think that's that's potential conflict. Yeah, that's true. So you're suggesting maybe then we might think about doing instead of within 400 ft the way we had it 250 ft to make it
match. Uh I think we're actually going to keep it at 400. I would keep it 400 in just pointing out that we want to have it at 200 and then have it say 250. So then maybe with that wording I've included but not limited
to so that you have room to look at it case by case if needed. [Applause] So the next next section section seven is about the just how much the well can
produce versus how much is required. So our well are regulations that are in place now just pretty much puts it at 5 gallons per minute and then it doesn't really go into what size the house is.
It's just that it needs to be a minimum of five. Uh whereas the model rights kind of put in something more specific where if it's a two-bedroom house, you need to make five gallons per minute. Three bedroomedroom house, seven gallons per minute, and four
eight. I didn't know if we wanted to I think that's clearer and more reasonable than just doing a blanket. I mean, you can have a house It's got 10 bedrooms, you know,
potentially. And if it passes with um five gallons per minute, it's okay. But it's not really going to be right. Right. Yeah. So then if somebody puts an addition on their house or something
like that, they're going to have to come back and get an updated certificate or like like you would with a septic system. Um that's another good question. I don't really know. I don't think there's a provision that says that or anything like title five.
I mean I to be honest I'm a little confused by this whole section on well I mean quantity but especially quality where um and I don't want to jump too far ahead but I think we're kind of in the
same area here. Um, like in subsection 8 of section 6, uh, section 7, I'm sorry. Um, that sounds to me like it's akin to a title five certificate where
you're saying that every time you sell a property, you're going to have to have this certificate basically in order to close or Is that is that a state requirement that's come down or is this going to be a local regulation requirement? Like is
this something that's being required by the state to your knowledge? It's this whole thing is is not required by the state and they're just it's a model that they give to every town to kind of base their own rags off of. I mean, I'm just
surprised to see that because I then basically, aren't you turning this well situation into something similar to have to getting having to get like a title five certificate when you sell your house if you you know, it just says though that the owner shall have the
test water tested for that property when selling. Does it say? Oh, okay. So you don't need to. So they just need to have it tested and then okay report the results to us and
then if we saw something in those results there could be something that would come from that. Yeah. I guess that's what the part I don't understand because it says the results would be submitted to the board of health prior to the transfer. So if
there's um I understand. Yeah. So I just think I feel like that would make it crazy difficult for I mean thinking like a lawyer real estate conveyancers that would have to know what the local regs are in every town
when they do you know in connection with real estate financing and everything. Um, you know, I mean, the Title Five stuff is all state. It's it's uniform throughout the Congo, but um, it's kind
of I think if you get a good home inspector, they're going to have this done, right? Well, that's always been something that was contractual between a buyer and seller. And normally, we would talk about like primary and secondary EPA requirements for drinking water,
that type of thing. And um you know it would kind of be left to the parties to say well is there some remediation required or whatever. But I'm I'm kind of just questioning whether does this mean remediation has to be done if it doesn't pass in order to sell
the property. It's kind of vague as far as that goes. Yeah. It doesn't really say. It just says it's got to be tested. And what like on section six, is that saying that you have to have the water tested for certain parameters once a
year? It is. I think there that's always been kind of a recommendation and that's might be state trying to make it go beyond that recommendation. And like they recommend everyone test their
wellwater once a year. I mean that's great and I I don't discourage that at all, but I mean are you telling me you'd have to require every resident in the city to test their water once a year at a minimum? There'd be no way we could really stay on top of that year. So
yeah. Does it say it's got to be submitted or just that it's a recommendation? Well, no. I mean, they'd be in violation of this regulation if they didn't test for certain parameters once a year, certain other parameters every 10 years.
You can definitely look at taking those sections out. Well, I mean, I maybe maybe you can kind of kick it around with a couple of the other boards that are using these and see what their thoughts are on it as well because I it it seems like we're doing something with
state guidance, but it's not mandated by the state. So, from here it says board of health recommends that owners test their wells at a minimum every two years, more frequent interval when water quality
problems are exist. So, so it's kind of contradictory. It's a little contradictory and it doesn't really say and it's not mandated. It's recommended. It is. Yeah. So, it seems like we might have come across this before having to be a recommendation
instead of a wire. Yeah. You know, I'd be curious to know what the intent was, you know, of that language because I I think it would be crazy for every town to have a different requirement in regards to like
transferring your property or or certainly it seems kind of burdensome for I mean, like I say, I encourage people to test their water certainly, but to require everybody to take their water to a lab, but whoever they think might be I didn't actually talk to D
about that and get their d the right take for that compared to some other towns. Sure. Yeah. I think it's probably just a language thing I would suspect, you know, but Okay. Well, even when it's saying that they it's requested or
required or whatever to be tested, it's not really saying what to do with it. Correct. It's not. Um, and I think that is because um they just if something does come up, they want that information to be
available. Like if someone buys a house starts happening, um, they would want to know that they at least supposed to be testing. 13 states that the board of health can take action by requiring the owner to
provide an alternative source. But in the context right of property transfer, I think that could also get really challenging. Yes. Especially if it's not really
saying I mean the test well it does say somewhere in before um about the testing doesn't it say it has to be to a mass um something about it being in a mass D lab
or a yeah for the water so they would know that they do have to get it tested and before we tell them the water's okay to use it has to be tested by a certified lab, right? But then subsequent testings, is it still because
how are they going to know that there's, you know, like in 13 as Emma said, I mean, how would they even know that there's an issue if they're not really saying they have to report it anywhere? Yeah.
But I I did read something. I know for the certificate it has to be through a a mass approved or D lab. I wonder if all of them need to be want to go through this section seven
the testing requirements and we can kind of revisit at the next meeting. All right. So is that and all these things that are being tested for is it clearer here as to what would be required for a pass or
what would fail the system as far as um I know it's it says that all these things would be tested for but I mean are we talking about uh EPA primary or secondary standards if any of them are in it seems it would it would um cuz I
like the secondary standards are more non health related break. Yeah. So, that kind of gets into like something like color, all that stuff. So, does I I didn't I didn't see it and
I may have missed it, but does it specifically outline what exceedence would result in a denial of the permit or I mean it says that it's required to test for all these things, but I don't know what the criteria are for I didn't
see anything there. The only thing was on the um radon and the um the the only limits that were listed was the gross alpha screen and radon test to be performed. I can look up and include it
in the next draft is the actual like quantitative this many parts per million is a yeah and I know those standards exist but I guess my question would be say it say it exceeds the recommended quantity of manganesees which is not
considered a primary EPA drinking water uh element. So would that fail the system or would there just be a recommendation that goes along with the permit? Like I I I don't see where the what are the objective criteria for
evaluating that? Is it is it up to the discretion of the board or That's a good question. Yeah, I don't remember seeing anything that specified that. The only thing is down in in five
um parameters on anything not listed. Um but again it's not being specific. It's very vague. Yeah, we have made recommendations before we see there's high iron. We recommend that you get
build a filtration system in addition to your water system. Um things like that. get the actual quantities for the primary stuffs more specific as far as the secondary.
Yeah. So, I mean, I guess I'm what I'm envisioning is are you going to tell them you have to install this reverse osmosis system in order for us to give issue you this certificate in which they couldn't like sell a house without or
something like that? You know, that's sort of the situation I'm envisioning arising by virtue of this. Is it, you know, I think somebody would want to know like what? Yeah. On mass.gov, it says there's no
state requirement to have the wellwater tested, although there may be from your mortgage lender or local board of health. The Mass Department of Environmental Protection recommends all homeowners with private wells do so and uses state certified laboratory. Then it goes down further to different
contaminants. But things like arsenic chloride, copper chloride, hardness, iron, lead, negative, pH, and sodium is monitored initially and then at minimum once every 10 years or as otherwise required by local health. And it has a separate thing for
caulifform bacteria initially and then at minimum once every year for bacteria and nitrates or as otherwise required by the local board of health. So we have a lot of leeway ourselves here and then it does the um the different contaminants
radon's PAS uh PFAS. So, I don't know if we want to follow those state guidelines or do we feel like our area is has an increased in these that we need to have more frequent testing based on our local occurrence of
any of those. It's just going to be hard for us to keep track of how often people are testing and when they need to be tested. So, I think that's why I would kind of stick with a recommendation on that. it
basically I don't know what section this is under eight or seven on the testing se um question six or or section six um is it under seven and it says the
owner it talks about it should be the minimum of once a year for the total caulifform bacteria nitrate nitrate pH conductivity sodium and iron All other required parameters are listed um under
section 83 should be tested at a minimum of every 10 years and then um the bed law with the rate on every 10 and then it's the board of health may require more it leaves room for the board of health to require more frequent testing
if um or additional parameters if there are quality problems noted. So kind of the same thing what they're saying. Yeah. It's kind of it's like there's no date. It's
just to do locally. But I mean the water supply certificate is kind of the new thing right for us. Um sort of. So I mean we have the well permit. We have the well permit and then I don't really know if we had like an actual process
for once we get the water results then we would approve the well permit instead of um having it as two separate things like you're allowing you to drill this well
now you send us the results now we're saying it's okay to use the water I think it was all kind of rolled into one and that the basis for giving the go-ahad on the well was primary EPA standards only.
Um like with our current Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. And now with the certificate with the protocols, it makes it mandatory that it has to be a certified well driller.
Uh which we didn't require. We did have that language in there. We didn't. So, I just it just kind of reinforced that a couple times. I have another question. And you mentioned putting in the the parameters
specific quantities for these. Do these parameters change frequently? Would it make more sense to just say whatever the current Yeah. D guidelines are and at our discretion forward. Yeah,
absolutely. To match whatever the current standards are. [Applause] So we're under well construction requirements or yeah we will rework section
eight section 9's um construction requirements. So, I think some of this was just uh taking out some duplicate language as far as um what codes they're supposed to follow
when they're drilling and applying the W. Oh, I'm um [Applause] Yeah, I was just going to say um under D that 13, does that mean something or
is it just a typo? That must be a typo. Yeah, see where it would have meaning, but I wasn't sure. Under uh two, does it make sense to refer to our plumbing
code specifically which just says local? Yeah, we can definitely specify code. It's a lot of stuff. It makes it clear looking at
this. Looks like the next pages are all about the construction as well. Um, one thing that noticed from our last from our from our eggs is that we're very clear that um, if there's a well
gets treated or something like that it not be pumped into a septic system that it be pumped to waste. Like if someone chlorinates the wells and then that into their septic tank. It's going to kill everything in our septic
tank, like all the bacteria. So, I did make sure that we kept that part in there. Yeah, that's good. I mean, I think, you know, the model language most of it makes a lot of sense and everything. I I I guess I'm
always concerned about the regulation being clear and what the uh what what's the enforcement going to be I guess you know cuz if you're I mean the guidance is very you
know encouraging the frequent testing and everything but if you fail to test and you technically you're in violation of the right is I mean it's just something that would be enforced if it becomes a problem, I guess. Or
uh I think that's kind of what they were going for is that if it becomes a problem, it could get looked into further rather than enforcing it situation. Um the decommissioning requirements are
abandoned wells. Do we do we ever get notified that there's a band? We have. Yeah. Yeah. And there's um in the database that should get recorded to the Database actually needs to get
recorded as well. So you just be kind of down on that. So the next portion on that is there anything that I'm relying on you too as far as that looks like it shouldn't be
um I didn't really see too much else outside of what we already kind of had as far as goes goes into what to do the enforcement Oh, [Applause]
seems pretty clear. We didn't have a lot there. So, I kind of just took out stuff that kind of matched what was already being said process to request a hearing. It does address variances too. Um because I was wondering about that last
meeting. What happens if people request a variance? So it pretty much outlines that whole process. That's pretty much the way it was with our way. So we didn't really have that clear. That's the next section that's kind of
struck out here is what we did have. So, we did have a little paragraph variances which was kind of similar. This just has more more language in it. [Applause] the separability.
Yeah, it's a standard legal. Okay. Section that's put in all contracts. Okay. Any other comments, questions? No, I I would just again stress that on that water quality section if you could
bounce that around about 6 8 and nine those subsections because I feel like that's creating some kind of a unique local requirement of property transfers and everything which people would have no way of knowing without examining all
the local ress before yeah I did more clear and then for other people. So yeah, we can do that. Okay, thank you. Um, next item on the
agenda is the health department updates. Stick to the staffing update first. I don't remember if I mentioned this. He started after the last board of health meeting, but we hired uh Eric Babin is a new hire for an inspector. He had worked for this department before in
2003, and we convinced him to come back. So, he's going to be primarily doing our right now, he's already kind of trained on housing, so he's going to be doing that. And then we'll start training again on foods, camps, title five, everything
else. So, we're excited to have him back. Um, so for the landfill projects, uh, officially put the erosion control project unfolds as we never really had
concrete funding for that. And I am focusing on the project to repair or replace the all of the Lee system pumps. um that project was we already had some money encumbered
for that and then I I talked to the mayor and the auditor and we do have enough that we could fully fund that project. So I am working with the purchasing department to get uh the bid process started as soon as possible for
that. Hopefully I'm going to even trying to get that done this week and posted this week. Um the ground monitor groundwater monitoring wells we have that on the schedule for those to be repaired on May
13th. So we will have the company soil X come out and make whatever repairs they need to make to so that we can start sampling those wells again. uh and CEC our consultant will also be there to
make sure that's all done according to requirements. So for food establishments um with the start of Eric Angela over there is now our primarily doing our food inspections. So, she's getting us
caught back up on those. Um, we did not have any food born illness complaints since the last meeting. I don't think we have any new establishments. Um, we are reviewing some plans from Walmart. They're going
to be doing quite a few renovations over there, some of which involve their food departments. So, we will be looking at that. Um but we don't have anything else super coming down the pipe. Yeah, Parker House of Pizza is doing an expansion
renovation of their kitchen. Oh yes. So it's a huge project on that. I saw something but I couldn't read it because I don't have access to it. I don't have the garden news but something about um home kitchens
or in there. She's been asking us a lot of questions about um they're called residential kitchens. So, anybody who wants to make um non-p perishable things like cookies, muffins, um they can get a
permit to make that in their home with some special requirements. So, she's just been asking us questions about that and then they can go and sell them at popups or something. Yes. So that's one important note is that it's for direct to consumer sales. So it's really not
for people who make the stuff in their home and then they go to a farmers market or festival and they set up a booth and they sell it directly to the consumer. So they can just call health and um talk to one of you about getting a permit. Yep. we will send them the
requirements and we'll guide them through the process. And then if that person wants to have anything resold, that is a different permit that goes through the state which is a wholesale. What do you mean resold? But so if they want to sell
like make a bunch of cookies, sell them to a store that then sells those again. Okay. That's considered wholesaling and it's not covered under the permit then. But if somebody has small kitchen. They make them. They go if they go to the
store and sell them. They can do that. Yeah. They set something up at a store like a popup. As long as they're doing the sales directly. Oh, the farmers market. That's how that would go. Good.
Um, sorry to mention Eric's doing our housing inspections. We've had a steady flow of complaints come in. Um, but it seems like we're now closing them more than they're opening. Um, and we've only
had one condemnation, which was the camper that's parked out on Pearl Street. Um I just did a confirmation to make sure that I wasn't being occupied.
And my last update is that um Mass DPH is in the process of working on some new what they call a solution. So, it's some new software for inspections and permitting that should be coming out in later on in this year that I hope will
help us out quite a bit with um uniformity across the state and just having some better functioning software. Is that different from the metrics or the We use um we use housing code pro and food
code pro right now and they're they're okay. Yeah. So these are all for like the inspections and stuff. Yes. Um then my last update was just that we we do have the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards um they call it a
certificate program. the conference. Um the next one is coming up on May 10th and that is open to board of health members and health department staff and they they go over things like um legal authority of boards of health hearings,
orders, uh public opening law, records requests, disruptions, um quite a few other things. So Emma actually just attended this weekend at Northampton. So it's really great.
I know. I'm going May 10th. Is any of that available like as a recording like that you could get online? Um I think they they do have a lot of stuff in their reference resource library on the the MH
website. They do have a lot on there. be nice to be able to sort of pick the sections and it's a general review of everything. Yes. Um they also should be sending the slides after you attend. They haven't received them yet. So if
you're not able to go, you can circulate those. Oh, that's great. And they were pretty detailed with what they discussed. Nice. And then it does follow too with the handbook, the legal handbook which we all have access to um
that we don't have to have a code for it, right? Um I believe I Yeah, you sent it to us so and we I can get into it easily enough. Um so you should Yeah, you just It was just sent to me actually, the most recent one. So that
is accessible. The only thing is they said it's very out ofd with a lot of things that have changed in the last couple years especially the cannabis etc. So, one cop I guess to one. Okay.
Uh just a couple of updates that we have the the Greater Gardener Health Fair was last week. It seemed like it was really well attended. We had a lot of vendors. Um the purple pause fundraiser
was scheduled for Saturday that has been rescheduled to next Saturday um due to rain. And that is um a fundraiser
for domestic violence and helping with animals if their families are displaced and stuff and raising funds for that. Um, and the health fair was nice. The board health had a nice table.
Angela was there and Eric was next door. And that is all I've got. Um, I don't think we have any updates. The Super Eight or is it the Super
Eight? That's Motel 6, I can't remember. The hotel, they were winding down operations. So, they're not closed completely. Yeah, I think officially they were looking at June. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I thought the early
the last date I had was email was it was going to be earlier. Um I think they were pushing for that. So haven't had any updates recently. I have an update on that. Um they had hoped to be closing that earlier than June 30th. However, there was a flooding incident at the
Westminster location. So, they moved some of the families into the Gardener location and they're trying to spin that down. Okay. But they did have a an increase in family staying there due to that issue in Westminster. The hotel is, you know, Okay. Yeah. Um I do have a
question. I'm not super up to date on what's happening with those. Is there plans for these places to go back to like normal commercial operation or full closure? I don't know like what's going to happen up to the ownership. I think
they definitely have the option to go back to regular operations. So there's it's not like they'll have to shut down after this, but it' be up to them. So and would that be like a reopening process in some capacity? Like would they have to go through the city for
permits because such different circumstances that they're operating under? Yeah. So they there is a hotel motel permit that we have for board of health. Um and they have not had that permit in the last two years because of the shelter. Um so we
would definitely want to get them regulated back into their permit. And also um while it's been open as a family shelter both uh all three fire building and health have done annual inspections there. So it's not that we haven't had a presence there. We just need to make
sure they get their permits in order. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Anything from the public? Two minutes. New comments. New comments. Any news on hiring an LSP
relative to the cost of an LSP or funding for an LSP? I recall that question was asked from one of the health members one or two meetings ago. At least an estimate. I don't think we've really moved any further with the LSP um just because we
we have our environmental monitoring company that has an LSP who is also overseeing this with us and um I don't think the situation warrants an LSP. The if you remember the um
presentation with CC they really wanted to get data from the next testing which is should be up. So, yes. So, the testing was done in April. I should have those results in the next two weeks. That was my second question. I was out
there when they were there. I know the tests were done. So, I was going to ask if they were they should be coming in. So, it'll be interesting to see what they come back as. So, we'll get those results at
the next meeting. Yes. Okay, let's set the meeting. Next, I think May 26 is the Is that Memorial Day weekend. So, we're looking at maybe the
19th. How's that look for everyone's calendar? Is that going to give us enough time to have those results back, do you think? I think so. I think he did give me an exact time frame. Yeah, it's only three
weeks. He said in the next week or so. What about you? 19th. Yes. So, you want to go with the 19th? Sure. Okay. Okay. Can we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to all in favor?