My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/16/1997 MASHPEE COMMONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes
>
12/16/1997 MASHPEE COMMONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2018 5:28:09 PM
Creation date
5/9/2018 11:50:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
MASHPEE COMMONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/16/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
unclear as to what has been included within the commercial aspect <br /> of the fiscal impact. <br /> Mr. Fudala commented upon the three possible scenarios : The <br /> inclusion of what is currently built would prove to be <br /> problematic with other~ impacts such as traffic. The other <br /> two being valid possibilities: The currently permitted area, <br /> plus any unbuilt portions of the permitted area future building, <br /> allowed under new zoning exclusively. He stated he did not have <br /> a preference; however, he is in agreement with Mr. storms that <br /> this determination should be made in ars attempt to avoid any <br /> further confusion among the studies under discussion. <br /> 1r. Chace commented on the high-low range issue as it would <br /> relate to the traffic study. Hi=s point being, working with two <br /> 2 sets of numbers could tend to be confusing, whereas <br /> determining an average (between the high/low range) number would <br /> be more efficient. <br /> Mr. Fu.d .l a expressed concern for a possible lass of <br /> important information if this suggestion were to be adopted. He <br /> expressed a preference for working with a range of numbers, as it <br /> would tend to be more realistic. <br /> After brief discussion in this regard, Selectman T is i i o <br /> suggested perhaps this discussion is premature due to the <br /> necessity of determining impacts on both scenarios prior to a <br /> reconciliation of numbers agreeable to everyone. <br /> Mr. Chace suggested n discounti g" the / T numbers; to which <br /> Selectman Dina io responded it is not a possibility at this time. <br /> Mr. Brais requested to comment on this suggestion. He <br /> stated one of the differences between the studies to be not <br /> simply prices, but within the unit mix. He stated this to be <br /> fairly important in particular with regard to the types of units <br /> built within the low-range, high-end, single family housing. <br /> Community Character would come into question. If the Z/V market <br /> is not achieved, the current market value would dictate. <br /> Mr. Brais stated the single-family units were based upon <br /> what is being offered in the market place, including new <br /> development units . Although the estimates require fine tuning, <br /> the fundamental purpose of the oTJM estimates is to offset /v in <br /> the event their market range is not realized. <br /> With regard to an average cost approach, Mr. Brais commented <br /> that the range would better inform people of the risks/rewards. <br /> The Seasonal properties may be considered a benefit to fiscal and <br /> traffic impacts; if the low-end scenario becomes a reality, the <br /> outcome would be much less favorable. <br /> Selectman Dinizio inquired of Mr. Brais the outcome/use of <br /> -4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.