Board of Health

Easthampton Board of Health Meeting Minutes December 7, 2021 50 Payson Ave., Easthampton, MA 01027 PRESENT: Maggie Hebert (MH); Aimee Petrosky (AP); Beth Rist (BR) late; Bri Eichstaedt (BE), Health Director, Brian Chapdelaine (BC), Health Inspector; Jackie Sienkiewicz (JS), Recorder. Also Present: Megan Ward Harvey (MH), Bridget Diggins (BD), Lisa Coughlin (LC), Edward Stamas (ES), Jean Pao Wilson (JW), Kevin Mackie (KM), Shelley Fournier (SF), Jennifer Axon (JA), Deborah Chandler (DC), Christine Stamas (CS), Stephen Bryla (SB), Michael O’Neil (MO), Joe Dilk (JD), Sandy Kurtz (SK), Mordi (last name not given) (M?), Greg Nuttleman (GN), Steve Henderson (SH) Meeting held on Zoom and recorded. Motions A motion to open the meeting at 5:37 PM. was made by AP and seconded by MH. All in favor – 2, Opposed – 0. Vote was taken by roll call. A motion to accept the meeting notes of November 2, 2021 was made by AP and seconded by BR. All in favor – 3, Opposed – 0. Vote was taken by roll call. Public Speak Time: LS stated that she was a resident of Easthampton and mother of two children. She said that the mask mandate must end, that the masks were harming young children and that there was no science behind masks being effective in stopping the spread of Covid. She stated that she hoped that the BOH would not mandate vaccines next. ES said that he is opposed to vaccine mandates. He paraphrased a speaker from the last meeting saying that without studies being present to prove the effectiveness of masks, we are being forced to wear masks. ES also stated that vaccines were not effective because vaccinated people were still getting Covid. JW related her experiences with going into public places and not wearing a mask due to a health condition. JW asked that the BOH consider revoking the mask mandate and allow people to make their own decisions concerning masks. KM, a resident of Northampton, stated that he is opposed to children being experimented on for the sake of elderly people. KM said that the enforcement of mask mandates were unconstitutional, illegal and violates civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. KM stated that masks have been proven to contribute to grave health concerns. SF stated that her son, who has had breathing issues since birth, feels bullied at school by teachers, staff, and others if he removes his mask. SF stated that mask mandates were preventing emotional and social learning because they hide facial expressions. AF stated that there was almost zero risk of children dying of Covid and no case proven of Covid being transmitted from children to adults. JA said that she has health issues that make it difficult for her to wear masks and feels discriminated against if she does not. JA stated that masks should not be mandated. JA also commented that the vaccine should also not be mandated after seeing information released by Project Veritas. JA expressed her concerns about children being denied developmental cues due to wearing of masks. DC stated that she was a resident of South Hadley that she refuses to call Covid a pandemic and refuses to wear a mask. DC explained about a visit to a local store and being denied service due to her refusing to wear a mask. Criminal charges were brought for this visit and several others. SC stated that she was a patriot and a member of several freedom-fighting groups fighting to protect their constitutional rights. DC finished by stating Covid “was bullshit.” CS stated that she has concerns about children having to continue to wear masks. CS said that she felt it was detrimental to the ability of children to learn and it could have long-term damage to their health with continued wear. CS stated that the mortality rate was very low in children with Covid. CS said that it should not be the burden of the majority to protect the hypothetical minority who might be at risk amongst children. ● Meet Bridget Diggins, Public Health Nurse: BE introduced BD as the new, full-time Public Health Nurse. BE stated that the position was now full-time with FEMA money to cover the difference. BE explained that CTC on a state level was ending and putting a bigger share of the work at the local level. BD gave the BOH a brief history of her education and work background. A motion was made by AP and seconded by MH, to move out of order as stated in the agenda.. All in favor: 3, opposed: 0. Vote taken by roll call. ● Stephen Bryla, Go with the Float: Request to reduce bacteriological testing from bi=weekly to every three weeks: BE explained that Go with the Float, owned by SB, is permitted under the pool code/an agreement made by the BOH on 10/16/18=. BE stated that Go with the Float has been testing bi-weekly. BC compiled a spreadsheet with testing results dating back to 11/18/19 (see attached). Aside from a few dates in late 2018/early 2019, all the tests results were within range. SB stated that he has shown that the test results have been good for some time and would like to have tests taken at three-week intervals now. BE said that in addition to reducing bacteriological testing, SB was asking for daily testing be reduced from three times a day, to two times a day. A motion was made by MH and seconded by BR to reduce water testing at Go with the Float from three times a day to two times a day and change lab testing from bi-weekly to every three weeks. All in favor: 3, opposed: 0. Vote taken by roll call. At this time in the meeting, AP interrupted to ask to speak to the Chair. MH agreed. AP said that in the chat feature of the Zoom meeting, there were threats being made about going to Board member’s homes. AP requested that the chat feature be disabled at this time. MH agreed and reiterated the rules stated at the start of the meeting concerning conduct and speech. A copy of the chat is attached. A motion was made by AP and seconded by BR to reopen the Public Hearing from August 4, 2021 regarding the two well variances. All in favor: 3, opposed: 0. Vote taken by roll call. MH started the hearing by stating that due to one of the Board members, BR, not being at the August 4, 2021 meeting, according to the Mullin Rule, that member should acknowledge they missed the hearing and that they have reviewed the recording of that same meeting and provide a written memorandum stating that they have done so. Alternatively, that member would need to abstain from the entire public hearing. BR stated that she did review the recording of the hearing and has signed a memorandum stating that. (see attached) MO introduced himself to the BOH as the attorney representing the Hampton East Condominium Trust. MO introduced JD, president of Connecticut Valley Artesian Well Co. JD read a letter that he had sent to the Board, attached. JD addressed concerns from Michael Czerwiec and Greg Nuttleman about contamination of the aquifer and cones of depression. JD also addressed geothermal wells that have been drilled by his company at Williston Northampton School. MH ask JD if he was a hydrologist or a well driller and to explain the difference. JD stated that he was not a schooled hydrologist but has been drilling wells for more than 50 years. MO spoke about the purpose of the private well regulations, Section 1, is to provide safe drinking water from private wells; MO stated that Hampton East was not seeking a permit for a drinking water well, but for an irrigation well. MO stated that the Trust was seeking to drill an irrigation well on property and groundwater that they own. MO cited Section 6.4C of the regulations that does allow for a variance if a connection to public water lines was not feasible, if it were to create an extreme financial burden or that the use of the private well would not pose a reasonable risk to the quality or yield of water and pose no risk to the health and safety of the general public. MO stated that there was no public connection for irrigation. MO stated that it did create a financial hardship. MO stated that the population of Hampton East was mostly senior citizens on fixed incomes. MO quoted a memo from a former DPW Director, Joe Pipczinski (JP), dated November 3, 2014, (see attached), concerning a previous well variance application from Hampton East. In that letter, MO said that JP advised against the variance due to the lack of funds it would cause the City. MO stated that these residents today should not be called on to subsidize the bill of others. MO repeated the points given by JD concerning the safety of these irrigations wells. MO asked that the letter from JD as well as his letters dated, August 4, August 31, and September 7, 2021 be included in the minutes. MO requested the well variances be approved. Public Speak: SK said that he was the President of the Hampton East Condo Association, which is a community of about 60 units comprised of mostly 65 years and over. SK stated that their choice of engineer, well driller, and lawyer were all chosen because of their concern for the environment and climate concerns. M? addressed statements by Greg Nuttleman, DPW director, at a previous meeting concerning past contamination of the Barnes Aquifer and noted that this was a very different situation. JD stated that while this was an irrigation well, any well that he drills is done in the same way as a well for potable water. KM said that he was disappointed in the way that this meeting was being censored. MH interrupted KM to say that this portion of Public Speak was for the well Hearing only. GN stated that his concerns were addressed in the previous hearing. GN suggested that the residents of Hampton East address the amount of water used to water the grass currently and possibly consider other, more efficient ways to water the grass. GN said that there were protection zones around aquifers to prevent contamination. JD responded to GN by stating irrigations wells were built with more protection than a geothermal well. MH asked if any Board members had any questions of MO or JD. MH asked the applicant if they had access to public water for drinking and irrigation. MO replied yes. MH asked what would be the use of the proposed well. MO answered for irrigation only. MH confirmed for watering the lawn and landscaping. MO replied yes. MH asked what a quarterly water bill for a resident was. A bill of $248.00 per unit was determined. AP noted that several residents present in the meeting seemed to disagree with this. MH asked SK, as chair of the association, if he could confirm this amount. SK asked to confer with SH who is from Classic Management. MH agreed. SH stated that the annual cost of irrigation of the common areas and lawns has been $36,000.00 per year for the past 3 years. The irrigation system is checked annually and has been upgraded in the last 4 years. MH stated that based on these figures, residents paid roughly $50.00 per month for the irrigation of the property. MO again referenced the 2014 memo stating there was a concern for loss of revenue if the well variance were approved. MO stated that this was subsidizing other users. MO also stated that JD made it clear that the well was being built to protect the City’s drinking water. A motion was made by AP and seconded by BR to close the public hearing for the well application at Hampton East. All in favor: 3, Opposed 0. Vote taken by roll call. A motion was made by MH and seconded by AP to open discussion among the Board member concerning the well application by Hampton East Condo Association. All in favor: 2, Opposed 0.1 Abstained, BR (briefly left during the public hearing). Vote taken by roll call. MH said that Hampton East already has a connection to Easthampton water and that a well for irrigation does not constitute a public safety issue amongst the residents of the condominium association. AP stated that while she believes all Hampton East parties have the best intentions for the wells, without any training in this area, she would have to rely on the specialists provided by the town to make this decision, specifically the testimony of GN and Michael Czerwiec at a previous hearing, concerning the clear and definitive risk of contamination. MH said she did not feel any scientific proof or data was presented that specifically determined the wells were not going to affect the Easthampton water supply. MH and AP discussed financial hardship versus manifest injustice as stated in the code. MH also mentioned JD not being a hydrologist, and as such did not have the answers to some of the questions. A motion was made by AP and seconded by MH to deny the application for a well variance. It does not meet the definition of manifest injustice. All in favor: 2, Opposed 0.1 Abstained, BR (briefly left during the public hearing). Vote taken by roll call.  A motion was made by MH and seconded by AP to deny the well application for Hampton East due to the existing connection to the public water system and the denial would not create an undue hardship to the applicant. All in favor: 2, Opposed 0.1 Abstained, BR (briefly left during the public hearing). Vote taken by roll call. ● Discuss current COVID-19 case number, trends and metrics. To include update from contracted Epidemiologist, Megan Ward Harvey: BE introduced MH as the contracted Epidemiologist to the BOH. Megan is an Epidemilogist and professor at Springfield College. Megan is tasked with creating the weekly COVID-19 dashboard and previously part of the COVID task force with the schools. MH and the Board discussed the PowerPoint presentation. See attached. Board members discussed the current metrics and the need to continue the mask mandate. The Board invited MH to attend monthly BOH meetings with more data to help them decide when to rescind the mask mandate. ● Health Director Update: BE updated the Board on testing being done in the City, vaccine clinics, and the state Contact Tracing Collaborative (CTC) ending. ● Tavern on the Hill- Review plan submitted by owner to continue use of 2-bay sink: BE explained that the owner is not present. BE read the plan sent to the Health Department by the owner. The plan was discussed with some clarifications. (see attached). AP recommended BC confirm they are using sanitizer and they have adequate space for air drying. In addition, BE send to the owner, iin writing, that this is a temporary variance, and when the establishment does any updates to the kitchen, they would need to come into full compliance, i.e. putting in a 3-bay sink. A motion was made by AP and seconded by BR to approve the plan presented in lieu of a three bay sink. All in favor: 3, Opposed 0. Vote taken by roll call. A motion was made by BR and seconded by AP to adjourn the meeting;. All in favor: 3, Opposed 0. Vote taken by roll call. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.