Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Halifax Board of Health withdraws violation notice for 285 Holmes Street after owner’s attorney disputes applicability
Summary
The Halifax Board of Health voted July 15 to withdraw a notice of violation for 285 Holmes Street after the owner’s attorney argued the state sanitary-code provision cited did not apply to the industrially zoned commercial property and the town health agent recommended withdrawal.
The Halifax Board of Health voted July 15 to withdraw a notice of violation issued for 285 Holmes Street after the property owner’s attorney argued the cited sanitary-code provision did not apply to the site and the town health agent supported rescinding the order.
At the telemeeting, the board heard from the town’s health agent, who said the matter began when the fire chief reported what appeared to be a hydraulic-fluid spill of less than 10 gallons and took initial action. The agent said a neighbor, identified in the record as Jake Okerfeld, later raised concerns and the issue was handled during a transition period in the health office when an outside consultant (Kayla Smith) issued an order letter and the owner requested a hearing.
Anne Sobolesk, representing the property owner and the development LLC, told the board the site is industrially zoned and “it’s not a residence,” and argued that “the cited provision of the state sanitary code doesn’t apply in this particular circumstance.” She further said the fire chief and a DEP representative evaluated the scene and found that the incident did not trigger requirements under the Massachusetts contingency plan.
The health agent told the board he agreed with the owner’s representation and said he would follow up in his capacity as the town’s official health agent. The chair then moved to withdraw the violation notice; a member seconded and the board approved the motion by voice vote. Individual roll-call tallies were not recorded in the transcript; the board’s response was recorded as a spoken “Aye.”
The agent said he will confirm any remaining follow-up steps, ensure required documentation is accurate going forward, and handle any necessary testing or corrective work. The order letter on file had been issued before the agent’s official appointment and the agent noted the letter did not bear his name.
The board did not specify further enforcement at the meeting; the agent indicated he would take responsibility for any future actions needed related to the property.
