Laserfiche WebLink
completely denude the existing environment institutes a <br /> development to such regional impact that at this point you, the <br /> Planning Board will have no choice but to refer this matter to <br /> the Cape Cod Commission. <br /> Art Traczyk then requested this matter be continued for <br /> ninety (90) days. <br /> The Chairman recognized Attorney Ford who expressed a desire <br /> to address Mr. Traczyk' s last comment with respect to the Cape <br /> Cod Commission. Attorney Ford stated: That he had read Mr. <br /> F��Ir `sir; Butler' s analysis; that he has a lot of respect for Mr. Butler as <br /> . �� an attorney, particularly as a land-use attorney. Attorney Ford <br /> then asked the Chairman if any correspondence had been received <br /> from the Cape Cod Commission. <br /> The Chairman explained that the Mashpee Environmental <br /> Coalition wrote to the Commission on June llth requesting that <br /> they become involved with the matter. There is a letter in the <br /> file dated June 25, 1996, signed by Margo Fenn. The Chairman <br /> offered to make a copy of said letter. The June llth letter went <br /> �At from the Mashpee Environmental Coalition to Armando and basically <br /> 44 lie'ru Margo responds in part: " . . .Your letter raised concerns about <br /> the potential water quality impacts of the Windchime waste water <br /> treatment plant on the Mashpee River. While we share your <br /> concerns about this, it appears that the Commission does not have <br /> regulatory authority over this project. Commission staff <br /> counsel, Patty Daily, has investigated the matter. Based on <br /> information that she obtained from the Mashpee Planning <br /> Department, the project qualifies for an exemption from <br /> Commission review under Section 22, etc. because the project <br /> obtained a Special Permit from the Mashpee Planning Board on <br /> a' April 24, 1987. . . ° And she quotes " . . . it' s Section 22, etc. <br /> exempts from DRI prior to ' 89 . . .received a Special Permit or <br /> Variance under Chapter 40A, and which development is constructed <br /> a yi ' or thereafter constructed in substantial compliance therewith. " <br /> !` t '1 <br /> :.:4 Attorney Ford asked if he could comment. He inquired as to <br /> whether the Special Permit is still in effect. Assuming it is, <br /> N for the sake of this discussion, the test is whether or not this <br /> ' .' ,q,,, proposal is something that is in substantial compliance with <br /> this. Substantial compliance is defined by the Commission: <br /> . . .A project will be deemed to be in substantial compliance if: <br /> AN <br /> Q ;, 1. The proposed project in use reflect the nature and <br /> purpose of the project and use in the original local approval; <br /> P, 2 . The changes do not result in the requirement for an <br /> N <br /> additional local development permit review in the form of a new <br /> permit, approval or a modification to the original approval; and <br /> {`wA .1� "��°ii�: 3 . The changes do not result in different or increased <br /> impacts as compared with the original local approval to the <br /> -23— <br /> u 'A XI <br />