Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/01/05 - Board of Health j. ! j 1 MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH JANUARY 5, 1995 J The Board of Health was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chairperson William O Hunter, with Board Members Cady and Faughender in attendance. ATTENDANCE: William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary L. Faughender, Board Member Mary Cady, Board Member Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Brad Banner, Health Services Director Steve Kutz, Director of Personal Health Pam Denton, Environmental Health Specialist Will Satak, Environmental Health Specialist Mark Thompkins, Water Quality Program Manager Nanci LaMusga, HIV/AIDS Educator Steve and Margaret Ferguson, Belfair Sean Hanlon, Journal APPOINTMENT OF 1995 BOH CHAIRPERSON Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that Board Member Faughender be appointed as the Chairperson of the Board.of Health for the 1995 year. Motion carried. Vote: H: yes, C: yes, F: abstain. MINUTES APPROVED Board Members Hunter/Faughender,moved/seconded that the minutes of the November 9th and December 1st, 1994 meetings be approved as circulated. Motion carried. Vote: H: yes, F: yes, C: abstain. Board Members Hunter/Faughender moved/seconded that the minutes of the November 23rd, 1994, meeting be approved as corrected. Motion carried. Vote: H: yes, F: yes, C: abstain. APPEAL HEARING - FERGUSON Chairperson Faughender explained the apj eal hearing process and swore in all who planned to testify during the hearing. Steve Ferguson, appellant, waived his right to testify first and deferred to the Health Department staff. Board Member Hunter noted he had some contact regarding this matter, but had deliberately not pursued additional information due to the appeal hearing having been scheduled. Pam Denton, Environmental Health Specialist, distributed plot plans and building permit documents for review, and began a chronological history of the Ferguson's permit process. She explained the Fergusons had applied for their building permit in December, 1993. Environmental Health sent the Fergusons a letter stating that because their proposal was for an expansion of greater than 200 feet, a primary and reserve area that met current code was required. In May, 1994, Mason County Water Quality surveyed the Ferguson's primary drainfield by performing MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 2 of 9 a dye test and found that the primary drainfield had failed. In October, 1994, Environmental Health received a repair permit from the Fergusons as well as a letter from Mr. Ferguson stating he had miscalculated the square footage when he submitted the building permit application. The proposal was not going to be an expansion greater than 200 feet, but rather an expansion up to 200 feet. On November 1, 1994, Environmental Health sent a letter to the Fergusons informing that because the site did not have a separate reserve area the building permit to expand by 200 feet would not be issued, noting that the separate reserve area was still required for an expansion up to 200 feet, and the site did not have this. The Fergusons were informed that they could, however, apply for a variance to the reserve area requirement, reduce the proposal to a non- expansion, and that the Department would like a notice placed on the property deed stating the property did not a designated separate reserve area. On the 3rd of November, staff received a copy of the letter Mr. Ferguson had sent to Board Member Hunter explaining their frustration throughout this permit process. On November 16th, Environmental Health received a variance request from the Fergusons appealing the non-expansion requirement. The Fergusons wanted to be able to expand up to 200 square feet with their proposed repair on-site septic system without a reserve area. On the 22nd of November, the variance was reviewed by staff and Brad Banner, the Director of Health Services. It was determined that allowing an expansion on a non-conforming repair would increase the nonconformity of the repair. If the applicants wanted to pursue the matter, they would need to appeal to the Health Officer or perhaps the Board of Health or on to the Washington State Board of Health. The variance could be approved, however, if the square footage was not increased, and the plan kept as an internal remodel. The variance was reviewed by the Health Officer on December 1st and the Health Officer agreed with the Department's decision. On November 28th, the Ferguson repair design was submitted and approved. The repair design meets Treatment Standard I, and follows state guidelines. The State Department of Health WAC 246.272 defines a marine expansion as an increase in sewage volume, an increase in sewage strength or any change which adversely impacts treatment or disposal in the existing reserve area. Therefore, Environmental Health was considering the Ferguson's proposal a marine expansion, and as such, the Department of Health would need to concur with the variance if the Board of Health grants the request. Expansion would increase the footprint of the house, therefore, encroaching on potential reserve area as well as increasing the nonconformity of the repair. When repairing a drainfield, installation of a system that meets code is required. If that was not possible, an applicant is required to come as close to code as possible. Ms. Denton explained the required setbacks between septic tanks and foundations was 5 feet and the required setback between septic tanks and property lines was also 5 feet. According to the scaled plot plan submitted to the Board, the septic tank was 1.5 feet from the property line and 11 feet from the existing foundation. If the �,t j expansion was allowed, and the septic tank remained in the proposed location, it would only be _ MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 3 of 9- 6 feet from the foundation to the tank and 1.5 feet from the tank to the property line. In other words, if the expansion was allowed, the nonconformity of the system would be increased. Ms. Denton noted the Board was being asked by the Fergusons to waive the Department's policy to allow an expansion without a reserve area. Board Member Hunter asked if the document prepared by Engineering Software Applications was the approved repair. Ms. Denton replied that it was. Board Member Cady asked if the expansion was just the deck. Ms. Denton replied that it was actually the living area. Board Member Cady asked if there was any problem with the deck and Ms. Denton replied no. Ms. Denton explained that it was the 4 x 38 strip bordering the carport slab which was the expansion in question. Board Member Cady wondered if any opinion had been received from Pat McCullough, P.E., of Engineering Software Applications. Ms. Denton replied that her office had not received any comments from Mr. McCullough regarding his design, to her knowledge. Board Member Cady asked what kind of system was being proposed. Ms. Denton explained that it consisted of a septic tank into a white water treatment device which treats the effluent down to Treatment Standard I, then into chlorination and into the drainfield. She noted the drainfield was being proposed between the house and the bulkhead. There have not been test holes performed in that area but it was generally known to be very clay-type soils. The designer has proposed to go into that area between the house and the bulkhead and excavate out the clay soil, haul in C-33 sand, and then put the drainfield in that area. It was going to be a pressurized drainfield and would utilize infiltrators, which was another step of advanced treatment. Brad Banner, Health Services Director, presented background information on the Environmental Health variance review policy. In 1991 and before, the policy in Mason County was simply to approve a building permit if no new bedrooms were being added. Many problems occurred because of this and a new policy was enacted to address those problems. The Declaration of Residential Use Form was initiated, declaring the number of bedrooms a septic system was based on. Differences between structural repairs and internal remodels were also acknowledged. In 1993, the Health Department, the public, and various advisory groups worked together on a new policy which was still being used. Basically, unlimited expansion in square footage was allowed for upland properties as long as impingement to the drainfield did not occur, and property on shorelines were allowed an expansion of 200 square feet. However, since the Fergusons do not have a reserve area, the Department did not feel they should be allowed to expand physically. Board Member Cady asked for shorelines staff comments. Mr. Banner replied that since the Fergusons were not expanding in the direction of the shorelines there were no shoreline code violations. Mr. Ferguson commented that he appreciated all the assistance they had received from the Health ��i Department. He noted the plot plan had been changed slightly, and the addition now was two MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 4 of 9 feet in the front of the house toward the canal and four feet in the back. The existing house had belonged to Mr. Ferguson's grandparents prior to his purchase approximately nine years ago, and had always been a full-time residence. The expansion was not impeding on any area that could be used for a reserve area. The expansion was toward an area that could not be used for a drainfield because it was already being used for the rest of the septic system. Board Member Cady asked if there was another area that could be used for a reserve. Mr. Ferguson replied that the rest of the property was a clay hillside toward the highway, and adding more water to that area would increase the chance of a slide. He noted a slide had occurred in the past which damaged the garage. Board Member Hunter asked the address of the residence. Mr. Ferguson replied E 80 Rose Point Lane. Chairperson Faughender asked if the Ferguson property went beyond the South Shore Road. Mr. Ferguson replied that it did not. Board Member Hunter asked the additional square footage being proposed. Mr. Ferguson responded that he believed it was 186 square feet,but he did not know the exact number. Chairperson Faughender asked if Mr. Ferguson had considered placing a note on the deed stating the system did not have a reserve area. Mr. Ferguson replied that would not have changed anything, it was freely admitted there was no reserve area. Mr. Banner informed the statement would have allowed internal remodeling, but not expansion. The Board questioned the area marked "proposed reserve area" on the site plan. Ms. Denton replied that this area was approximately three to five feet from the last lateral to the bulkhead. Board Member Cady asked if that amount was adequate for a reserve area. Mr. Ferguson replied that because of the soil type a larger drainfield area was required. Board Member Hunter asked what the addition would be used for. Mrs. Ferguson replied that the addition would be used as a kitchen because currently it was basically a hallway. Board Member Hunter asked if the addition was part of an overall remodel of the house, and if so, would it be done simultaneously. Mrs. Ferguson responded that they really wanted to knock everything down and start over. Dr. Trucksess wondered if the footprint could remain the same, having the kitchen cantilevered out. Board Member Hunter asked the current square footage of the house. Mr. Ferguson replied it was approximately 1,500 square feet. Chairperson Faughender asked Mr. Ferguson if their plan was to construct a new structure on the existing footprint except for the increase. Mr. Ferguson responded that yes, it would be a new structure. Board Member Hunter asked about the number of bedrooms planned. Mr. Ferguson replied there would be two bedrooms upstairs and an office downstairs. Chairperson Faughender asked what action Mr. Ferguson was asking of the Board of Health. Mr. Ferguson informed they were asking that the Board grant their permit to remodel. �% He stated they were not trying to make an unsafe situation and were not making a cabin into a MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 5 of 9 full-time residence. He stated he did not understand why the 200 foot expansion would be any more unsafe as it presently exists, noting it would increase their expenses to have the plans re- drawn. Board Member Cady questioned whether an existing carport slab was currently over the area where the septic was located. Mr. Ferguson stated that was correct, however, there was access to the septic. Mr. Ferguson further explained their proposal using the plot plan document. Ms. Denton summarized that although the Ferguson's proposal for expansion was minimal, it would increase the nonconformity of the drainfield. According to the plan she had reviewed, the carport was being removed. However, if the carport comes back into play, there would only be six feet between the foundation and the septic tank. If the Fergusons were allowed to drive over the septic tank the tank and treatment device could be compromised. If the expansion was not allowed, there would be eleven feet between the foundation and there would be more room for a car to pull in and it would be less likely for the system to be driven over. Board Member Cady asked if the septic tank failure was due to the system's age or.because it had been driven over. Ms. Denton replied that it was uncertain, but it was an old drainfield and there was possibly direct discharge into the canal. Chairperson Faughender asked if the new system would be a state-of-the-art system. Ms. Denton replied that it was, that the Department had no problem with the proposal, it does meet Treatment Standard I, and has a maintenance plan associated with it. Board Member Hunter asked if the same site could be re-used if a failure occurred in the future. Ms. Denton replied that it could be an option, however, it would be a complicated process due to saturation. Board Member Cady asked if the expansion would impact that option. Ms. Denton replied she did not believe it.would. Mrs. Ferguson commented she did not believe driving over the drainfield was a problem, that the failure had occurred because the drainfield was so old. Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Faughender noted that the Board's Findings, Conclusions and Order would be released in writing to the Fergusons in approximately 30 days. HEALTH OFFICER'S REPORT The Mason County EPI-News was reviewed by Dr. Trucksess. He noted state health officials were screening selected hospital and autopsy records from the past ten years for previously identified cases of Hanta Virus related deaths in Washington State. A 35 year old Lewis County man died this past July due to the virus which is primarily carried by deer mice which are found in almost all western states, including Washington. Dr. Trucksess reported on the Salmonella investigation being conducted due to an outbreak associated with Schawns ice cream. The most likely cause of the contamination was tanker trucks not being sanitized between loads of raw unpasteurized eggs and ice cream mix. Out of 35 confirmed cases of Salmonella, one was a Mason County resident. Dr. Trucksess informed the E Coli outbreak caused by contaminated salami had stirred a nation- wide investigation resulting from the withdrawal of 10,000 pounds of salami. He noted the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 6 of 9 Salmonella and E Coli outbreaks were reminders of the need for a strong public health infrastructure for surveillance, investigation and disease control. Dr. Trucksess noted the Mason County Health Department would be holding Sexually Transmitted Disease clinics beginning January 9th. Morbidity rates for the 1994 year and the month of December were reviewed aloud by Dr. Trucksess. TOBACCO REGULATION IN FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Will Satak, Environmental Health Specialist, stated that in August, 1994, the Board of Health received a proposal from the Health .Officer to end smoking in restaurants. At that time, the Board of Health requested the Food Advisory Committee to review the proposal and submit recommendations. The advisory committee met several times and received information from several different sources. On September 20th, the general public attended a meeting in which the Washington State Health Officer was present. Steve Bowman from the Department of Health Youth Tobacco Prevention Program submitted information on the financial effects of a smoking ban in restaurants. The Food Advisory Committee changed the name from "Proposal to Ban Restaurant Smoking" to "Proposal for Food Service Establishments to Identify Smoking Status." The reason for this was because there never was a proposal to "ban" smoking in the true sense of the word. The proposals of the Health Officer and the advisory committee are mainly for proper labeling of establishments as,either smoking or non-smoking. The advisory committee supports the intent of the smoking ban, which is to reduce illness from side stream tobacco smoke. However, they could not support the ban as written because it could possibly be too financially burdensome to some existing establishments. For that reason, the advisory committee felt that the proposal could be altered in format so that it would be less financially burdensome yet still meet the intent of the original proposal. Mr. Satak reviewed definitions of smoke, smoke-free and non-smoking areas as proposed by the advisory committee. The advisory committee was recommending that 1) all smoking be prohibited in licensed food service establishments that have designated themselves to be smoke free. 2) smoking be permitted in licensed food service establishments that have designated themselves to be smoking establishments, and 3) all smoking establishments can set up a non- smoking area, but can not designate the area smoke free unless the two areas do not share the same air space or ventilation system. The advisory committee had deleted the section of the Health Officer's proposal pertaining to employees signing a statement of awareness of the potential dangers associated with working in a smoking environment due to legal questions. The committee also did not recommend that the signing of the establishment be required, but felt this matter should be left up to the law makers to determine the method of signing. The committee believed it should be some type of sign but they wanted to leave options open. The committee felt it was important for people to .be informed so they could decide for themselves if they wanted to enter an establishment which was either smoking or non-smoking. ' i . MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH . January 5, 1995 - Page 7 of 9 Board Member Cady asked why a regulation was needed if an establishment had already designated itself as smoke-free by the owner. Mr. Satak responded that it was a matter of truth in labeling; if an owner was saying the establishment was smoke-free, then it should be just that. Chairperson Faughender questioned how an establishment would be designated if there were separate rooms which were not closed off from one another. Mr. Satak replied the rooms could not share the same air space and be designated smoke-free. Dr. Trucksess commented that the thrust of his proposal was to protect people from environmental tobacco smoke. He noted that environmental tobacco smoke was a toxin worse than asbestos and causes more deaths in this country than asbestos. In looking at regulations for asbestos there are sealed rooms, separate ventilation systems, special masks and clothing to protect from asbestos, however, people walk into a restaurant and are deluged with tobacco smoke. Not only the customers are affected but the employees who work there day in and day out suffer the greatest risk. Dr. Trucksess remarked that smoking was the greatest public health problem in this country today. That was why it was being addressed. He was trying to avoid having a restaurant designated non-smoking if the tables were right next to each other. He noted separate rooms were a good idea and even without separate ventilation, it would reduce the impact. Within a year or two there may be laws against environmental tobacco smoke and the problem may be addressed for us. Dr. Trucksess.submitted a letter signed by all the physicians in Mason County which supported the Health Department's proposal regarding the control of restaurant smoking. Personal Health Director, Steve Kutz, remarked that a new term had been created, which was smoke-free. He noted the difference between the terms smoke-free and non-smoking. Board Member Cady commented that when she enters a non-smoking restaurant she does not expect it to be a smoke-free area. She stated that she felt they were not giving the public enough credit to get up and move out of an area if there was smoking right next to them. She commented she was more in favor of education than over-regulation, and she would like to have the letter signed by the physicians mailed to the restaurants. She noted there was a way to make an economical impact by not going to those businesses without proper non-smoking areas, and she would probably be opposed to more regulation on this matter. Board Member Hunter stated he felt neither proposal was ready for public hearing at this time. Although he would probably never be able to accept the Health Officer's proposal, he would like to review the advisory board's version, and perhaps, with some changes, hold a public hearing on it sometime in the future. Chairperson Faughender remarked that he appreciated all the work done by the Health Officer and the Food Advisory Committee. He noted that the trend was going toward non-smoking, as shown by the increase of non-smoking restaurants. He stated he could not support either proposal MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 8 of 9 because society seems to moving on, its own to a smoke-free environment. He believed it was not the county's role to take this on, considering the possibility of a lawsuit by the tobacco industry. Board Member Hunter asked the Health Department to investigate the possibility of providing a plaque commending those restaurants who have gone to a non-smoking establishment. Board Member Cady stated the plaque could possibly read that Mason County congratulates the facility for.becoming smoke-free, and could be placed at the entrance of the restaurant. PUBLIC HEARING SET/ON-SITE SEWAGE REGULATION Brad Banner informed the Board that the State Board of Health has requested that certain requirements be met in the wording of the current On-Site Sewage Regulation which was recently amended by the Board of Health after public hearings and input by the On-Site Advisory Board. He recommended that a public hearing be set to address these changes. Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that a public hearing be scheduled for February 2, 1995, at 10:30 a.m., for the Board of Health to consider changes to the On-Site Sewage Regulation. Motion carried unanimously PUBLIC HEARING SET/SOLID WASTE REGULATION Mr. Banner recommended that a public hearing be held to consider changing one section of the Solid Waste Regulation. He explained that the Mason County Board of Health should establish fees for permits, not the Commissioners as stated in the current regulation. Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the Board set a public hearing on February 2, 1995, at 10:15 a.m., to consider amending the Solid Waste Regulation as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. CONDOM DISTRIBUTION Mr. Kutz asked that the proposal to consider condom distribution be placed on the February 2nd agenda. The Board concurred. ADJOURNMENT Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting be adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH M. L. Faughender, Chairperson MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH January 5, 1995 - Page 9 of 9 O v William O. Hunter, Board Member ABSENT Mary Cady, Board Member Respectfully Submitted, Lorraine Coots