A. |
Deer Crossing |
|
Mr. Costello, town counsel, began by stating that he had spoken with Mr. Harrington last week before the meeting. He had a suggestion, which he thought was their best shot at a compromise here amongst all parties to get this thing resolved. Going with the septic system upgrade that they had approved at the meeting two meetings ago. If they took a look at the existing usage and the existing flows. Mr. Harrington had come up with a plan that got them in just below 10,000 GPD. It was 9995 GPD. Did he think this would be acceptable to the DEP? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington responded that he did think that this would be acceptable. The flows for the lounge/tavern for the reduction in the seating was in Title V. He had used it before. He didn’t know why he never realized that they weren’t using it in this situation. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello added that Carbo’s would lose 5 seats, Michelle’s would be 10 seats and Giovanni’s would be 13 seats. That was the compromise position. That was a hell of a lot better than the drastic numbers that were being thrown around before. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that they also might not be existent at all as of 1995, which was were they were before. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that when you looked at the pre-1995 figures and what has happened historically over the past ten years. You look at this board’s absolute interest and need to properly enforce Title V in this situation here. They had a system that they felt was suitable if constructed. It would meet the denitrification regulations and with these modifications it would work. These guys should work together to make it work They would all go away happy. How was that for a proposal? |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball had a different proposal. He wanted to run it by them. This was how he figured it out. Thanks to Mr. Harrington they found out another lounge area regulation that they could use. The way they started it. The retailing offices he gave their total gallons. He had Michelle’s at 65 seats. The barbershop at four seats. Carbo’s was at 70 seats. The hair salon was at five seats. Michael’s (Giovanni’s) was at 56 seats. Subway would be at ten and the Mashpee Bagel Shop would be at nine. He came out with a total of 9990 GPD. The only ones that would be losing a seat would be the bagel shop and then Michael’s (Giovanni’s) would get down to 56.
The last time they met he actually said to them that they were around 54 or 56 seats. They kind of didn’t balk at that. Carbo’s came back and said if he they got 70 seats. He would give Michael’s (Giovanni’s) five seats and he would go down to 65. He could do that. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that he could do that because it was all one system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that when he first approached this he tried to stay within the design plans that were issued for Buildings A, B and D. That was that previous spreadsheet that Mr. McGrath had done. He had 5144 GPD and 3203 GPD for building D. So he tried to stay within that. The way that he worked it out. He couldn’t stay within that for Building D. But, that was just going to have to be one of the concessions that Mr. Hajjar made that he was still under 10,000 GPD so he could be Title V compliant. But, he would have to do a whole new system for Building D. He was going to have to do one for Building A because that system was in failure. He meant to attach that. But,
he had the septic inspection report. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if he was going to be here today. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he didn’t think that Mr. Hajjar was going to be here. But, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Brady was here to represent him. He could present them with that information. He just had to dig it out. That system was in failure. He thought they would have a basis for a whole new compliant system with the flows according to whatever they wanted to come up with for Building A. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball continued by stating that the reason he did this was because Michelle’s in 1995 her seats were not at 65. But, as they progressed up to the year 2000 it did go up to 65 seats, as did Carbo’s and all of the rest of the establishments. He thought it was only fair to leave her at the 65-seats. If anyone was going to take a hit, it would have to be Michael’s (Giovanni’s) and anything after that would be the last three in the door. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that obviously the board had full authority using discretion to act on the individual license, as they deemed appropriate. They could certainly take those facts into consideration. As long as they kept the over property under 10,000 GPD. They would be in good shape. They could do whatever they needed to do. He didn’t think that there was any basis for anyone to appeal a reduction of seats. Again, they were looking at individual year to year permits. Each time a permit application came in they would have to consider the existing circumstances. At that point in time they would have to make their decisions accordingly any condition that they needed to. So
that was in effect doing under this process here was to allocate amongst the various permit applicants. The seating capacity that would be permissible so that the property could maintain it’s compliance with Title V. So the consideration Mr. Ball raised as was relative to Michael’s (Giovanni’s) was certainly something that the board could consider. The allocation of seats amongst the variance operations was something that was within their discretion. That was something that he didn’t think, himself, as town counsel, could tell them one way or the other, which proposal was better. They would have to consider based on the history and circumstances that were just mentioned. They needed to make their allocations accordingly. If they could get all of these folks at this meeting today. What was this, a working session? Let’s throw these various scenarios out to them and see what they. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked him if they were going to make any decisions. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that they were not going to be making any final decisions. The acknowledgement would be that the ultimate decision would be upon the BOH. But, they were trying to work here with all effected parties to come up with a solution that impacted each party as minimally as possible. How did they get to that point? They wanted them to help them out. Give the BOH some feed back that they could take into consideration when they acted upon the individual licensing of the permit applications. This is what we told them they would do. They had not done anything differently than what he had told their attorneys they would try to do. They would try to work a consensus here.
They would try to give something that would be suitable to both the board and the DEP that they knew would work. Mr. Hajjar is going to have to spend some money. But, not nearly as much money as he would have to spend if he had to go out and build a treatment plant, clearly. He shouldn’t have any great problem with this. There was no skin off of his nose. In terms of the individual restaurant operators. This was a heck of a lot better scenario than they were looking at initially. So this was a middle ground compromise. That was what they were trying to achieve. So he felt that they should just open it up for discussion amongst all parties. Let them have their say and their input. He would try to keep steering things towards the middle ground that they were trying to reach and accomplish. But, the ultimate decision was who got what number of seats is going to be up to the board for them to make the individual calls on an application-by-application basis. They were obviously
going to have a much better ability to do that knowing the overall situation for Deer Crossing accordingly and if everyone was in accord to this session here today and they know where the board was going. When they made those individual decisions it was going to come as a shock to anyone. They could take it as it came. Now what about the bank issue? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he thought it was part of the Deer Crossing Condominiums. He had asked for an opinion from both the consultant, who was Charlie Rowley who also helped consultant with the town on an engineering basis. But, he wanted to know because Mr. Hajjar was listed as a Trustee. It was Falmouth Road Trust and it was the trust that owned that property. What he was trying to determine was if this should get thrown into the mix as far as Deer Crossing? What he and Mr. Ball determined on Friday was that it was part of the original subdivision when the land was subdivided. But, it was not drawn up as part of the original buildings A-E for the Deer Crossing Commercial
Condominiums. It has had a separate owner up until Mr. Hajjar bought it. Attorney Dalton told him that he had actually bought it a year before he purchased the rest of the commercial condominiums. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if Mr. Hajjar bought the bank a year before he bought Deer Crossing. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello asked what septic system was it hooked into. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it had a separate Title V system. But, they were asking for an increase to that property. He refused to sign it. He refused to sign a building permit. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello asked why they wanted an increase. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington responded that they wanted to increase the size of the bank. It was offices by square footage. He refused to sign off on that until the determination was made. He thought that they had enough information now that it was not part of Deer Crossing. Nor was it part of the Title V issues that the board of health addressed. He was relatively comfortable with saying that they did not have to include this in the overall project. Was he 100% positive? No. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that this whole solution was going to be a give and take all around. He thought that they could certainly not turn their heads to it. But, acknowledge that given the circumstances of the different ownership plus what was shown on the original plan. They could consider that as a separate entity and a separate property for the purposes of these calculations. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball and Mr. Harrington agreed with him. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello suggested that they get going. |
|
|
B. |
Great Hay – Joe Weinstein |
|
Mr. Costello wanted to quickly add that he had had several discussions with Jack McElhinney relative to the Weinstein case. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady noted that she was not named in the suit. She was the chairman at the time. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that she also voted against it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady noted that she was the most vocal against it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that they wanted to try and settle this. This was a circuary (sp) review case in Barnstable Superior Court now. By March 8th, 2005, they had to file an administrative record, which Mr. Harrington had forwarded to him. He had all of the documents. They would file it with the court. They would have to submit a brief in support of their position. The court would consider the matter “de novo”, a new, based on the facts, some deference although minor deference would be given to the board to make a determination. There would be an independent ruling by the court based on the record that was established during the hearing before the board and
away they would go. This was a settlement proposal that came in. He and Mr. Harrington had spoken numerous times about this matter and his sense was that the board was fairly well entrenched in their position in this matter. He had an obligation however to obviously forward any and all settlement proposals that came regarding pending litigation. He didn’t think that they had to make any decisions now. But, what he would like to do was have the board members consider this proposal and consider it generally to see if there was any room for compromise or negotiation. The bottom-line was that they did not have to make any decision now that he had sprung that on them at the last minute. But, they had until early March before they had to really gear up legally and start taking… |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Costello if the DEP still didn’t have to render some kind of decision because they had to… |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello responded that the DEP sent him a letter. He asked Mr. Harrington if he remembered them discussing this mystery letter. He had sent this letter. He thought that they had seen this letter dated May of 2004 to Ann Bingham. It requested the DEP to state their position and agree to Mr. McElhinney’s position in this matter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he could see how they could agree to it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello responded that Ms. Bingham had initialed it. That was another point that they should keep in mind. He never had the DEP’s full support at the trial this afternoon. They had adopted… |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady thought that they had come to the board to ask permission to use town owed green space that had been deeded to the town. They wanted to use that land to increase the number of bedrooms in the homes he wanted to build. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady remembered being opposed to it because she did not think that they had the right to allow them to us town owned property. She thought that they voted that they could do that. She thought that the other board members voted that they didn’t care. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball said that they voted that they couldn’t do that. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that they wanted to use the 25+ acres of open space within the calculations for the purposes of compliance with the denitrification regulations. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady thought that it would have to go to town meeting anyways. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that that was correct because it was the opinion of their legal counsel was that it had to go to the town meeting and then to the state. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady thought that Mr. Ball and Mr. Santos stated that well if it had to go to town meeting anyway it was fine by them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington interrupted Ms. Grady and stated that the board approved it with the conditions that it still had to go to town meeting and then through the state legislature because it was conservation land. The board did actually approve it, but, with those other stipulations. They were challenging those portions of that decision by the board. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they wanted to avoid doing that. She thought that… |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he thought that they were still fighting the fight that Mr. McQuaid had written a letter stating that the board had agreed to it. He was using that letter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that they were using the history of the zoning approvals and whatever for this property. They were saying that the town should have considered this thing as an overall package as far back as when the permits were being applied for and the zoning approvals were sought. There was full acknowledgement that this would be the situation and they would be coming into the BOH later on. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it was the previous owner who gave the town the land as part of the special permit on the planning for the approval of the subdivision. So when Joe Weinstein got involved he bought the building lots. That was all he purchased. He didn’t even have purchase to the right to the open space because it was already given to the town. It was conservation land. He didn’t have any right to use it. That was why the Selectmen said no and told him to go to town meeting and the legislature. The Planning Board said no and told him that he would have to do the same thing and they wanted denitrification systems on top of that and all of the properties. Mr.
Weinstein didn’t like that. He came to the board and Mr. McQuaid told him that he had reviewed the numbers. The numbers made sense. But, Mr. McQuaid’s letter never said that he had reviewed a nitrogen aggregation plan. He paid money. He had a cancelled check and that $1100.00 fee for the nitrogen aggregation plan. No one had ever shown them a plan. No one had ever been able to come up with his aggregation plan. So he was saying that just by right of Mr. McQuaid’s letter and stating that the board of health knew about and was okay with it. That he should still have the right to use that land. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello wanted to throw in his two cents worth. It was an unsettled issue. What this would boil down to was a legal issue as to whether or not conservation restricted or open space restricted land such as this, which had been deeded by the predecessor in interest to the current property to the town as part of the overall subdivision approval process for this property could be utilized by the current owner as a component of the property for the purpose of the dentrification calculations. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked how Mr. Weinstein could do this if it no longer belonged to him. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello answered that it was part of the overall development scheme rather than approved by the town. He was claiming basically derivative rights as an individual unit of a lot owner. He was claiming that those rights were passed on to him as the bundle of rights that the developer of the subdivision had obtained from the town at the town meeting when he had obtained his approvals. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked if he wouldn’t have to get the DEP approval also. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello replied that he had sent a letter to Ann Bingham basically outlining their position on the matter. “My client’s position was that no such restrictions needed since the land was deeded to the town as part the zoning approval of the subdivision subject to an express restriction that the land be held “for conservation purposes” further it was my client’s view that the special permit for the subdivision, which he had previously forwarded and which was recorded similarly prohibits the development of the open space.” What he was trying to get the DEP to agree with was that since that space was permanently restricted could it be
developed and will not further burden the environment out here beyond what was allowed in the subdivision. They should be able to utilize that land as an open space component. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden suggested that that might set a precedent. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that that was the issue. He let them know that. That was what he was most concerned about. He had said to him that if they wanted to submit a settlement proposal by all means they were entitled to do that. They would in good faith consider it. But, the thing that they would have to be aware of is that the board of health was concerned about the precedential impact of this matter could actually cause. If they were going to propose a settlement, give the BOH something within that settlement that would allow them not to be saddled with this thing later on if another similar proposal would come up. Give them some mitigating factors in the settlement proposal
that they could relay on relating specifically to this property that they could work with. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that about a month ago a developer came in there and they had to buy extra land for his development for calculations. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello continued by stating that what he had asked the DEP to approve was that Mr. Weinstein was of the understanding that the DEP based on his preliminary review of the applications recorded document that he submitted made a tentative determination that it could approve the pending the application under MGL 310 15.2162 without the need for additional restrictions to the open space. The department would require evidence that the existing restriction was at least as restrictive as what would have been required under a standard departmental credit land use restriction. Now, he understood that the DEP had not yet made a final binding determination and that final departmental
action could not be taken until the BOH had approved the plan. The DEP’s counsel did in fact sign this letter approving that this was the DEP’s tentative determination in this matter. The matter had not been formally submitted to the DEP for approval because this board denied it. They hadn’t approved it and it didn’t go to through the process of the DEP until after they approved it. So it was kind of a Catch 22 here. The DEP could not have a formal say in this matter until a formal application was submitted. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked when that letter went out. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that it had been issued and received in May of 2004. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington couldn’t see how the DEP could go along with them because right in the DEP’s own form it said or within their regulation it said that they must have the owner’s permission to use that land. Right now the owner was the town. So the DEP would be going against their own regulation if they allowed this to go through because the town owned the land. It was given to them before he had rights to use the property. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that the DEP was probably and again he hadn’t spoken with Ann Bingham about this. He was just speculating as to what their view was going to be. They were probably going to say, “Well, we can infer the town, the owner’s approval, by virtue of the approval’s that had been previously been issued for the subdivision in that it required this open space to be conveyed and properly restricted for the purposes of subdivision approval. The town was aware that this land would be held in that restricted state in perpetuity accordingly the town can’t now take, even thought it was a different board with completely different jurisdictions
and regulations governing, the town can’t now take the position that they require additional different land to be held in open restricted state in order for you to meet these specific DEP regulations.” |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that there was no real documentation to substantiate that position. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello agreed and stated that it was an open issue. There was no black letter law on this point. What was going to happen was that it would end up before a judge down in Barnstable Superior Court who will consider the pros and cons. He wanted to be honest with them. This was definitely the type of case where the equitable considerations will be taken into account. A judge was more likely than not, they were going to argue on the detailed application of the regulations that applied to this board’s actions. They were going to look at the DEP regulations, the local regulations regarding denitrification. They were going to tie this in to hey, “They can’t
comply with the letter of the regulations because they don’t have the “owner’s permission” to utilize this property.” On the one hand, you an agency of the owner of the property, which doesn’t necessarily bode well for them. Yet on the other hand, there was nothing wrong. It was not a bad faith or an unreasonable position for us to take. What a judge may very well look at was well what was de facto the negative environmental impact going to be if they were allowed to build out the additional 11 or whatever houses given the fact that this land is permanently restricted as would have been required under the regulations had the owner granted the authorization. If the judge concluded that there was really no environmental downside or negative impact to this particular situation. He may very well rule that that land could be put to use. Now if a judge ruled that way and there was a court decision. That could have a far broader impact in terms of
precedent than this board merely trying to work this thing out. That was something that they needed to consider. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady agreed with him and that was her whole thing. She had conservation land across the street from her. So, could someone use that? |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that the difference would be that the conservation land across the street was not acquired by the town and not so restricted pertinent to or in conjunction with the approval of the establishment of her home. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it might have been. That was how a lot of the open space came about. It was acquired by the planning board to do cluster subdivisions and provided green space. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello agreed with Mr. Harrington and added that the thing that he didn’t like from a legal perspective if they tried this case was that they might be able to get the DEP to come in and say that it was okay to do this. It said in the letter that tentatively the DEP determined that this land was possibly suitable and adequate for consideration under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that at this point a settlement rather than a court judgment would be a… |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that a settlement was something that they could consider. But, the settlement should be on terms that they feel protect the Board’s interest and protect them going down the road. Which is why dropping this on them now he was not asking for any feedback right now. But, it was something that they should consider and maybe within the next month. Actually, within the next couple they would discuss this again. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron asked if a settlement could be so cut and dry that nobody else could come back and pursue this same avenue. Or was it so unique that it was unlikely to ever happen again? |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that a settlement of litigation was not per se going to bind you against any course of action in the future. Each application would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But, obviously it would never help them to set a... (The phone rings and I can’t hear what he is saying.) ...And then decide something different. What they may want to do was to consider some local by-law or regulation to distinguish property of this type and specify it as not being suitable or acceptable for use and compliance with our…Our denitrification regulations come into play with this I assume, do they? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington replied that that was incorrect. These were all state regulations. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron wondered if they should figure out how many other situations like this might pop up. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that the fact of the matter was…maybe he should have a little heart to heart with Ann Bingham. Maybe they could call her sometime. Let’s face it. If the DEP was prepared to have their attorney sign off on something saying that they had made a tentative determination that they would approve this application. Aren’t they shoveling sand against the tide? In effect trying to hold out on their own if the DEP wasn’t going to support them. The only way they were keeping this from being totally approved by the DEP was by withholding the local approval. They were trying to win a battle but they would ultimately lose the war is what it came
down to. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden felt that it was their war. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that it was and it wasn’t. Did they want to be involved in a quagmire? Did they want to have people filing lawsuits every time they withheld their approval on these things? |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden interjected that it was their regulation. They were the ones who created this whole thing. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that the bottom line was that if they approved this and it went to them and then they approve it under 15216. It wasn’t their battle anymore. They had established a precedent. The DEP has established the precedent. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden noted that the whole thing was to remove the nitrogen and then they were going to turn around and okay this. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello agreed with but the bottom line was that what they were trying to do was to be guardians at the gate at the local level. Yet, the DEP blowing their whole posture here by issuing a letter saying that it was tentatively determined that they would approve it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington interjected that they were partially here because of Mr. McQuaid’s letter that was written because there was something that was submitted to the board of health that showed that he gave a positive response. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that it was a situation that wouldn’t repeat itself. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that was what he was getting to as far as the settlement. If they did settle they could make it a condition that what evidence that was provided back when the subdivision was originally submitted to the town. No one else could state that because to state that the subdivision bought was to meet nitrogen-loading regulations. It may have been in this case because there was some evidence to that fact. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked if they knew that the cul-de-sacs could be listed as green area also. To be able to get the four bedrooms they used the green areas also. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello did not find that surprising. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington felt that that was a planning error. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden disagreed and stated that they came to the board of health for approval for it. She asked Mr. Ball if he remembered that situation. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked why the board would need to have anything to do with the green area. That was a planning board requirement. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that it was for nitrogen aggregation. They got the okay to use it too. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked who got the okay to use it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that it was Joe Weinstein. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked what nitrogen aggregation plan she was referring to. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that Mr. Weinstein asked if he could increase the size of the lots by using the green space in the middle of the cul-de-sacs and such. She said to Mr. Ball that he was on the board and he should remember that moment. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if she was referring to this subdivision. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked her the same question. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden confirmed that it was for that particular subdivision. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello asked if they had a copy of that subdivision. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that they did have a copy of that letter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello wanted to add that they consider it, think about it and maybe before mid-February or so in a couple of weeks. He would talk to Mr. Harrington again and they could give him some idea of what they would be inclined to do. And as what Mr. McElhinney suggested they could tailor a settlement agreement by specific reference to the historical events rather than to this subdivision in particular. That wouldn’t be necessarily be applicable to anyone down the road who came in and didn’t get that same type of … |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington interrupted Mr. Costello and asked if they could put in any other requirements too. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that that was why he was asking them… |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that he wanted to specifically be able to allow other bedrooms to go in with some other mitigation measure rather not so much denitrification even as an agreement should sewer ever go in that he already be on line for that. Just to say something along that effect to make an agreement to that effect. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello felt that that was absolutely appropriate. He felt that that was what they wanted and expected to hear back from them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked why Mr. Weinstein didn’t go in front of town meeting. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that he didn’t want to go that route because he didn’t think he would get approved. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that that was what they requested. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that they wouldn’t have to if they let him negotiate a settlement. Any time you went before town meeting it was a huge risk. He didn’t think that the board of Selectmen wouldn’t have approved this. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that they didn’t. The Selectmen already said no. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that it wouldn’t have ended favorably. It was a dead-end street. That was why they didn’t do it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they did not want to be hung out to dry. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that it wouldn’t so much be hung out to dry. He didn’t see any problem in discussing the settlement terms. If they didn’t ultimately get the mitigation factors that the board feels are important. He could make sure that they tailor the agreement to the extent that it was not going to be generally binding on this board for any subsequent approval or request for approval that comes through the door. But, his concerns in trying it. If the board wanted to try it then they would to the best of their ability. They would be hanging on to the specific and strict adherence to the letter of the regulation. They would be relying on the history. The
town knew darn right well from day one what was going to be involved here, the number of units and the permanent restriction of the twenty-five acres. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to utilize that restriction that they gave to the town for the purposes of developing the subdivision as it was initially contemplated? Secondly, they were going to throw this DEP letter in their face. They would have Ann Bingham come in and testify that well that they would tentatively deem it in compliance with their regulation. Why tentatively? Well, they couldn’t formally determine it because the local board hadn’t approved it as such that it hadn’t come to them. And, if the judge ultimately looks to them as most judges in the superior court do. They know that they were the board of health, concerned about environmental issues. Was this going to have any negative environmental impact down the road? If he looked and said that it would be no more so that what was out there now.
They would probably over turn their decision. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked how many times would they be allowed to hit the open space. The reasons they allowed them the open space was to get the subdivision they way he wanted it the first time. Now he was hitting it again. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello stated that certainly it was a different situation. The planning boards objective in open space was reducing density. The board of health’s open space concerns relate more to the denitrification aspects. But, their position was that if it was goose it should be good for the gander. Given the fact that the board of health was the town of Mashpee and the planning board was the town of Mashpee. The town of Mashpee was the only one who owned the property. Wasn’t this slicing it a little judge? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the planning board required the denitrification systems, too. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked why they didn’t put the topic on the warrant for the town meeting. Saying that under no circumstances was any town meeting to be used for open space in the case for nitrogen aggregation. |
|
|
|
Mr. Costello suggested that they meet with Mr. Fudala and discuss with him the fact that it was going to have to be something that was going to be built into site plan review or some planning of the subdivision. It was the only time it was only going to be a factor when they were looking at a subdivision. If they build some language into the subdivision regulations. But, they could adopt reasonable rules and regulations. But, he felt that it was something that should be built into the beginning of the approval process so that they wouldn’t have any unreal expectations as to what they were going to be able to use when they came to the board of health. He thought that was
what they were given here quite frankly by virtue of his predecessor’s letter. But, if that was built right into the regulations as to the limitations of the ability to utilize the open space or conservation restricted land for purposes of applying of nitrogen aggregation. That would be fine. If that was in there up front, they had a head’s up and couldn’t come in Johnny Come Lately after the fact. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to go out of the executive session at 2:55 PM and into the regular session. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Respectfully submitted by, |
|
|
|
|
|
Charlotte A. Garron, Administrative Secretary |
