My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/8/2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
3/8/2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 9:16:17 AM
Creation date
4/25/2018 9:16:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/08/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Conservation Commission Executive Session Minutes <br />Thursday, March 8, 2018 <br />Mashpee Town Hall <br />Waquoit Meeting Room <br /> <br />Commissioners Present: Dale McKay, Thomas O’Neill, Chad Smith, Brad Sweet, <br />Robert Anderson, Stephanie Simpson (Associate Member) <br /> <br />Also Present: Andrew McManus, Conservation Agent and Judy Daigneault, <br />Recording Secretary <br /> <br />EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation Discussion <br /> <br />The Agent reviewed the background of the proposed bridge proposed for Gooseberry <br />Island. He stated the Commission voted to deny the project and there was some <br />misinterpretation of the time and it was determined that we did not make the 21-day <br />deadline for issuing the denial. Therefore, the Commission lost any standing under the <br />bylaw to comment on this bridge proposal and the denial thereof. <br /> <br />He said the applicant has been working with the Department of Environmental Protection <br />on the design of the bridge. DEP has issued a superceding order of conditions denying <br />the project from the original bridge design. The applicant’s appealed DEP and in doing so <br />the town was not notified of this appeal. Town Counsel feels the Commission should be a <br />party to this appeal process so any documentation submitted or future motions would be <br />shared. The opportunity is here for the Commission to vote to allow town counsel to file a <br />motion to intervene with these proceedings so the town can stay in the loop through this <br />appeal process. The bottom line is eventually the commission will be able to be part of the <br />process and share any documents or correspondence. He said he feels the applicant will <br />eventually have to come back to the Commission with a new bridge design. He said Town <br />Counsel recommends the Commission vote to be in favor of filing a motion to intervene so <br />we can be a party through the appeal procedure and he said he agrees. He noted the <br />packet he provided is everything that has taken place up to this point. <br /> <br />Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to authorize town counsel to file a motion to intervene in <br />the litigation to represent the Commission in the applicant’s appeal of the DEP’s <br />SOC denying the bridge project. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Sweet, <br />yes; Mr. O’Neill, yes; Mr. Smith, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes; Mr. McKay, yes. Vote <br />unanimous 5-0 <br /> <br />Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to Close the Executive Session and return to open <br />session. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Sweet, yes; Mr. O’Neill, yes; <br />Mr. Smith, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes; Mr. McKay, yes: Vote unanimous 5-0 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.