3/3/2009 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Conservation Commission Minutes of March 3, 2009 Procedural Review Min 1lashee Ton Hall Present: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, Cass Costa, John Rogers, Jeff Cross, Lloyd Allen, Ralph Shaw Also Present: Conservation Agent-Drew McManus, Assistant Conservation Agent-Liz Leldhold The meeting commenced at 6:25 pen. Agent McManus stated that the meeting was designed to review the basics of the state.Act and local Chapter 172 Bylaw. Commissioners were given a copy ofthe PowerPoint presentation as ars aid during the meeting. MA wetlands Protection Act: 310 CMR 10.00 Agent McManus' presentation listed the eight interests of the state Act as well as the resource areas protected under the Act. Chapter 172By-law—Town of lashpee The presentation also included the Jurisdiction of Mashpee's Chapter 172By-law. Agent McManus emphasized the necessity of ensuring that commentary while revie vrng projects must be related to the Commission's jurisdiction. Areas in the Commission's jurisdiction are listed In the presentation. Decisions and Timelines Agent McManus noted the importance of adhering to the first point of issuing the Commission' determination within 21 days after the closing of the hearing. Some hearings have been continued repeatedly, and been extended beyond the 21 days for legitimate reasons but ideally the decision to issue or deny should be done within the 21 day time frame. Agent McManus discussed the third point regarding the Commission's option to deny a project. An effort has been made to limit the number o incomplete applications through the use of a check list on the application form, but sometimes there is still insufficient information and the Commission has a right to deny a project if consultants are consistently not providing enough information. 'Agent McManus expressed concern about.consultants who continually bring forth incomplete applications and suggested that it may be necessary to deny their project, requiring there to re-file the application, ensuring it is complete. Mr. Cross asked 'if the Commission has denied a project that is not complete to which Agent McManus stated it had not recently been done. However, the Agent further stated that it has become habit for hearings to receive multiple continuances, wasting the time of the Commissioners, while the policy is in place that requires applications be complete. Mr. Pinaud clarified that it is theBy-law that allows the right of the Commission to deny a project for insufficient information. Mr. Cross further questioned the Continuance Fee to which the Agent responded that the fees are a recommendation and an option for the Commissioners in the case of an incomplete application. The Agent would like to limit the number of Continuances - Contlnuances because it is very time consuming. Ms. Costa added that sometimes it seems to be an effort to wear out the public and manipulate the system. The Chair added that sometimes the Commission is faced with reaping difficult, decisions and should if the project is not in the best interest of the environment. Agent McManus reminded the Commission to consistently focus on how a project affects the performance standards of the resource areas involved. The Agent recommends that each Commissioner come prepared to hearings with a copy of the State Act and LocalBy-law. The Chair asked if all members had a copy of t he summary of the Performance Standards to which Assistant Agent Leidhold responded she would distribute the information to the Commissioners. Agent McManus reminded the Commission that the standards can vary from property to property so Commissioners must