Laserfiche WebLink
DISCUSSION WffH MASHPEE.COMMONS <br /> Doug Storrs presented a letter in response to the comments from the Sewer Commission to the <br /> Cape Cod Commission and NE A. Everyone reviewed the letter. The main reason Mashpee <br /> Commons is here is to seek the s pport of the Sewer Commission. How can the-town and <br /> Mashpee Commons move together in a cooperative manner to address wastewater in the rotary <br /> area to meet both Mashpee Commons' and the town's goals. <br /> After MEPA certifies the Draft EK,they will move towards a final EIR. They have chosen the <br /> development agreement approach with the CCC. This will bring all three parties to the table at <br /> the same time. <br /> John asked what town boards are.involved in the agreement` <br /> Tom said the Planning Board negotiates the agreement and the Selectmen have to endorse it. If <br /> they disagree with the contents,the Selectmen can send it back o the Planing Board. <br /> Dennis asked about the net neutral nitrogen concept. Duncan wood attempted to explain it. <br /> Worn explained the Sewer Commission's only disagreement is the methodology used for <br /> calculating the "pounds". <br /> Duncan spoke to Ed Eichner at the Commission who explained they "blended"techniques from <br /> their technical report to develop this methodology. <br /> Duncan said if true flow is used, then true flow should also be used for the new development- <br /> compare apples to apples. Worn agrees. <br /> Torn said the Sewer Commission disagrees with the CCC's methodology but it is their call. <br /> The other main issue the Sewer Commission has is agreeing to pay for Mashpee Commons' <br /> mitigation. If the municipal facilities are tied in,MC is looking to get their cost back from the <br /> town. <br /> .Duncan explained the numbers are used in a variety of ways. The Cape Cod Commission has to <br /> be satisfied,regardless of what the town says,that there is a tradeoff: Theirs is a concern for the <br /> ernbayrnent. The CCC however,has nothing to do with the design and flows of the treatment <br /> plant. The design is based on title 5, unless them are existing records to prove otherwise. <br /> Doug thinks if Mashpee Commons and the town had a coordinated approach, it would hold more <br /> weight with the CCC. However,,they are now dealing with three approaches: D P -tine ; <br /> CCC-blended, tow--actual numbers. <br /> Why should the town subsidize Mashpee Commons" mitigation` Duncan explained there are <br /> capital costs involved for connections and the capacity and there are operating costs. <br /> Tom explained that MC has to satisfy the CCC, at their expense, whether they deal with the <br /> town or not. It cannot be at the town's expense. For example a proposed subdivision of 30 lots <br /> will be required to have de-mite septic system, which will add$300,000 expense to the project. <br /> The owners do not re-coup this expense. <br /> The mitigation required by the CCC is Mashpee Commons' responsibility and the town should <br /> not pay thenq back. It is the cost pf doing business-for getting the permits. <br /> Duncan respnded that if MC d ided to leave and the town went forward with their oven <br /> i 2 <br />