Laserfiche WebLink
<br />questioned the relevance to an elevation project and stressed the extensive mitigation <br />proposed – not required under Mashpee regulations. Mr. Colombo asked about the elevator <br />– may be in the future but not being proposed under the plan. Mr. Colombo asked about <br />putting in capture drainage points and pour foundation with drainage vents with a dry well <br />installation. instead of simply pouring a solid slab to mitigate water damage. The applicant <br />indicated that he has not seen 100 year-event plan to mitigate for flooding to the septic <br />system. Overall, Mr. McManus thought this was a substantial improvement being in a <br />velocity zone over existing conditions. <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENT: Arlene Wilson (Representing neighbors) emphasized that the plans <br />and revisions have missing information and suggested the Commission was possibly leaving <br />itself open to things being built that “you don’t want built.” Ms. Wilson suggested that the <br />plans should reflect actual existing conditions and accurate future work. She also objected <br />to some plantings (a garden) were not native species. <br /> <br />Summing up the hearing, Ms. Zollo noted that several conditions needed to be addressed in <br />a motion: ground water encountered during construction (dewatering plan), submission of <br />revised plan showing no elevator, and native species used in pollinator area (garden). Mr. <br />McManus clarified that the garden was administratively approved, and the applicant was <br />mistakenly led to believe that putting in a garden was not subject to Conservation <br />Commission approval/jurisdiction. Ms. Clapprood concurred with Ms. Zollo that the approval <br />be subject to conditions and was comfortable moving forward. Ms. Zollo informed the <br />applicant that there may be several iterations subject to staff approval of the plan. Mr. <br />McManus echoed this telling the applicant to provide (as suggested by Ms. Wilson) existing <br />conditions and what is proposed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Zollo made a motion to close and issue with the following conditions: revised plans <br />(accurate current conditions and proposed showing any dewatering necessary and that no <br />elevator is proposed at this time. In addition, that native species are going in the pollinator <br />garden), no fertilizer in contravention of regulation 31, and that no order be issued prior to <br />staff approval which was seconded by Ms. Clapprood. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Alexandra Zollo (Yes) <br />Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) <br />Sandra Godfrey (Yes) <br />Paul Colombo (Yes) <br />4 – 0 (unanimous) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> NOI: Notice of Intent <br />RDA: Request for Determination of Applicability <br />COC: Certificate of Compliance <br />EXT: Request for Extension <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Pre/Post Agenda Items <br /> <br />Mr. McManus provided the following updates: <br /> <br /> <br />