Board of Health

No meeting in December January 07, 2016 An organizational meeting was held at 5:00 p.m. Present were: Ian Murray, Chairman; John Bogdasarian, M.D. Member; Sandra Knipe, RN BSN, Member; Stephen Curry, Director; Joan Hamlett, Tobacco Control Alliance; Jamie Gamsby, Resident Approve Minutes of Meeting: Minutes of November 19, 2015 meeting were accepted as presented. Lead Inspector Training Funding: Paul Hunter, Director of the state’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program in association with the HUD grant has offered the course to the health department at the state cost of $1,200 per person. The training is a 6 day course that normally costs $2,800 per person. The course runs from January 19 – 26, 2016. Our Director would like to send four people from the office. Rita McConville, regional inspector will be funded by the PHDIG Grant. Matt Bernard and Jay Dulmaine, both CDBG inspectors have been approved for funding under the CDBG grant. Our Director is proposing to fund Jean-Francois Leblanc from the A. A. Kujanpaa Trust Fund. The BOH will then have five full code lead inspectors in the department. Michael Burns is the only inspector at this time that can determine lead paint levels of testing, and is a licensed Lead Determinator. Sandra Knipe made a motion to use $1,200 from the Kujanpaa Trust Fund to fund Jean Leblanc for lead inspector training. Ian Murray seconded the motion. Conflict of Interest Law Discussion: Ian Murray will confirm with the City Clerk via email that he received the Conflict of Interest Law. Staff Reports: Jean-Francois Leblanc has created a new database to help inspectors with up to date reporting. Each inspector has updated the database for 2015. The inspectors now enter their weekly totals into the database and it automatically transfers to a monthly report. Sandra Knipe made a motion to accept Sanitary Inspector staff reports. Ian Murray seconded the motion. DEP Sustainable Material Recovery Program, School Recycling Grant & Letter of Commitment: The Health Department received a grant from the Department of Environmental Protection for school recycling. The grant assists with the implementation of school recycling in the classroom as well as in the cafeterias of all public schools. Basically it dedicates about $19,000 for time spent by BOH staff. Jean-Francois Leblanc will take control of the grant and charge his time accordingly. There is a little under $22,000 to purchase equipment for the schools. The schools have expressed interested in solving the Styrofoam issue that exists in the cafeteria. Basically, there is no method of recycling the Styrofoam trays used at lunch time which creates excessive waste. The School Committee needs to adopt a recycling policy as part of this grant. That should happen by months end. They are looking at a written policy that our Director has given them for review. The Board has to commit to the recycling grant along with the schools’ Superintendent, Principals, Facilities Director and the Fire Chief. Funds can also be used for educational materials as well. Our Director will keep the board members informed as to what the money is being spent on. Ian Murray would like to see the school recycling grant back on the agenda for next month so he can share the training he attended. Sandra Knipe made a motion that the Board commits to the recycling grant. Ian Murray seconded the motion. Tobacco Flavor Ban Discussion: Joan Hamlett is here to talk about the draft regulation regarding the flavor ban. The ban includes cherry flavor, sweet tart flavor, etc. that targets the eleven to sixteen year olds. What is already known from cigarettes is when flavored cigarettes were taken away and the price was raised, the youth use went down significantly. Within the last few years the industry came out with new products and the flavor vape was booming. Vaping is dangerous because any drug that can be liquefied can be used in a vaping device. The E cigarette regulation that says you can’t use the E cigarette in public, can be stretched to say that no one can vape in public places. We would be looking at the new regulation and adding the flavor component to it. We would also be changing the definition of tobacco products to include nicotine delivery; the new definition would also include anything that could possibly be put into ones mouth to vape in. If the regulation passes we would need only one application and one permit to include all tobacco products. The definition of tobacco products definitely needs to be changed. There is also a cessation sign requirement included in new draft regulation. Anyone selling these products would be required to post the sign. “Capping” which is included in the proposed regulation, means there would be a maximum number of stores that are permitted within the City. Fitchburg’s permits have never gone up, they have only gone down. Also included in the regulations is language regarding no sales within 500 feet of a School. Any existing business would be grandfathered; no new businesses could open. In regards to suspensions, Fitchburg only suspends stores for one year after five sales. Joan feels that this needs to be updated. Our fining structure right now is $100, $200, $300 and our compliance record is fairly good. Our tolling period is 24 months; the choice for the proposed regulation is 24 or 36 months. Our suspensions are 3 days, 7 days and 30 days; they would like to see 14 days and 60 days, with the tolling period. We don’t suspend permits until the second offense. Most boards suspend permits on the first offense. The biggest change to the regulations is the flavor ban which hopefully will include Fitchburg, Gardner and Leominster as a tri city effort. The flavor ban does more to reduce the use by youths. Joan Hamlett would like to meet with each Board to have their questions answered with D.J. Wilson on the draft regulation. Before a public hearing is scheduled she would like to hold a joint meeting with Fitchburg, Gardner, Leominster and any other town that wants to be on board with the regulations as a multi town effort. Her goal is to have an implementation date of July 01, 2016. Hearing Request-Jamie Gamsby, 219 East Street: Jean-Francois Leblanc received a complaint in December about chickens at 219 East Street. An inspection was made on December 4, 2015 and on December 7, he issued an order to the owner of the property, Jamie Gamsby. The order stated that Ms. Gamsby violated MGL Ch. 111, §31 & Ch. 111, §122. Mr. Leblanc also cited Ch. 92 of the Fitchburg City Code regarding farming or agricultural. He also cited Ch. 84, §1 of the city code which determines the definition of a pet. He also included city code Ch. 181, which is the Fitchburg Zoning Regulations. Ms. Gamsby asked for a hearing to dispute Mr. Leblanc’s order to remove the chickens. Mr. Leblanc was on vacation and was not able to attend the meeting. Ms. Gamsby is here today to ask permission for the family to keep their four Silkie chickens as pets. Her surrounding neighbors from East Street to Pearl Street and John Fitch Highway all support the family in their cause to keep the chickens as pets. The anonymous complaint has made quite an impact on her family. She has responded to every city code that Mr. Leblanc cited her for. She stated that the chicken coop is no larger than a dog house. The Silkie chickens according to Ms. Gamsby are different than regular chickens. The chickens are smaller in size and very fluffy; the eggs are half the size of a regular chicken egg. They don’t use them to eat and to date they have not laid any eggs. The Silkie chickens were given to her daughter as a birthday present. They are the family’s pets. Our Director had asked Mr. Leblanc why he didn’t comment under the MGL nuisance. His response was that he did not find a nuisance. This regulation gives boards of health the authority to examine into all nuisances and source of filth. Zoning simply does not allow the keeping of chickens in the City unless the property has five acres of land. The Board does have the authority to issue a permit or not according to Mr. Curry but he is not sure that the Board can override another Board’s regulations. Ms. Gamsby does not feel the keeping of her chickens is a zoning issue. She is not cultivating or harvesting. Mr. Curry reminded the Board that they have the authority to amend or withdraw the order sent to Ms. Gamsby. Dr. Bogdasarian stated by definition a farm animal is a domesticated animal intentionally kept or reared in an agricultural setting for produce such as food, fiber or labor. He doesn’t feel that the Silkies meet this criteria. He also pointed out that Ms. Gamsby is not raising poultry for commercial or subsistence purposes, only for companionship and enjoyment. By definition a pet does not include farm animals. He considers the Silkiest a pet, not a farm animal. Dr. Bogdasarian suggested that as long as Ms. Gamsby maintains the Silkies as pets, he has no problem with it. Ian Murray agreed with Dr. Bogdasarian’s interpretation of the circumstances. His question is by withdrawing the complaint, will it open up the keeping of chickens in the City. Dr. Bogdasarian responded that Silkies are a different breed of chickens that cannot be used for egg production or feed. Mr. Curry suggested the Board deal with this issue on a case by case basis. The board members had an extensive discussion about the issue and continues to argue that Silkie chickens are different because they are not used for consumption, egg laying or healthy eating. Sandra Knipe made a motion to withdraw the order and allow the Silkie chickens to remain as pets with the following conditions including; submit to inspections upon request, maintain the property free of nuisances, a maximum of four Silkies shall be kept, no chicken coops in the front yard of property and do not allow the Silkies to run ‘free range’. Dr. Bogdasarian seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 6:45p.m. Respectively submitted; Tina M. Kreidler Principal Clerk/Stenographer