Laserfiche WebLink
water quality monitoring modification request and asked only for the release of escrow funds for <br /> the purpose of upgrading the Windchime plant. The Chair confirmed that, under the description <br /> for proposed modification, Mr. Bennett would withdraw without prejudice, #2. Mr. Bennett <br /> confirmed that he was, but added that Mashpee's Special Permit, under Section 6, defined the <br /> required monitoring. Mr. Bennett confirmed that they would withdraw without prejudice. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to accept the withdrawal of Item #2 on the cover <br /> sheet,without prejudice. Mr. Weeden seconded the motion. All approved unanimously. <br /> Mr. Balzarini stated that Windchime could return to modify the Special Permit specific to the <br /> monitoring. Mr. Bennett confirmed that he would like to have a further conversation regarding <br /> the required monitoring program because it was his opinion that it was heavy handed and not <br /> well-designed. <br /> Regarding Item#1, Chairman Waygan turned to staff for comments. Mr. Lehrer confirmed that <br /> the request to release escrow to upgrade the plant was within the parameters of the Special <br /> Permit, Mr. Lehrer read Section 9 of the Permit. Mr. Lehrer stated that a clear default to meet <br /> Mashpee's level treatment had been noted and the release of funds would be placed toward <br /> improving the facility to treat to 5 mg/L, not to exceed 10 mg/L. <br /> Mr. Rowley agreed with Mr. Lehrer's opinion regarding the Special Permit. Mr. Rowley <br /> inquired about the DEP permit and the amount of funds needed for the replacement of a more <br /> sophisticated plant. Mr. Bennett confirmed that the FAM represented 25% of the cost of total <br /> replacement of the plant, adding that comparables were included in the package. W. Bennett <br /> confirmed that a letter dated September 22, 2017 referenced a cost of$663,000. <br /> The Chair invited additional public comment. Ralph Laudly, Ivy Lane, stated that he supported <br /> the plan to request the funds to assist with upgrade costs. The Chair asked for a show of hands <br /> of support from the audience. <br /> The Chair asked whether-Mr. Lehrer had drafted a Special Permit Modification, Mr. Lehrer <br /> responded that escrow funds were part of the Special Permit, noting that the Board could vote to <br /> reduce the amount to zero without a modification to the Special Permit, since it was already held <br /> by the Treasurer and since the project proponent's request no longer included modification to the <br /> monitoring program. The Chair inquired why the release of funds was included on an <br /> application to modify the Special Permit. Mr. Lehrer responded that there had been discussion at <br /> meetings and after reviewing the minutes, it was determined that while seeking a modification to <br /> the monitoring, the project proponent could also request the release of funds through escrow. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that he had previously advised that a Special Permit Modification was not <br /> necessary to release the escrow funds. The Chair inquired whether, if the paragraph was not <br /> struck, it would require the applicant to re-fund the account. It was Mr. Lehrer's opinion that <br /> once the account was reduced to zero, the Special Permit would not require the funds be <br /> 5 <br />