Laserfiche WebLink
more sprawl and runoff issues. Mr. Weeden responded that he would like a better understanding of <br /> what to anticipate, adding that the developer would be maximizing their density to increase profit, <br /> which would be changing the character of the Town. <br /> Mr. Rowley stated that public services would require increases and changes due to an increase in <br /> density. The Town's emergency services would be concerned about the density and the layout. <br /> Parking could become an issue for visitors if it was not accessible, and reference was made to the <br /> limited parking located at the Post Office, so that visitors would walk by the stores. Mr. Balzarini <br /> suggested leveled parking at the area nearest the Mobil station due to the depression in the grade. Mr. <br /> Balzarini expressed concern about the addition of more intersections to access Mashpee Commons. <br /> Mr. Weeden expressed interest in hearing feedback from the Fire and Police Departments about the <br /> potential density and size of alleyways. Mr. Rowley responded that the Fire Department offered their <br /> input to the 40B project, ensuring safe access to the property. Mr. Hansen suggested consideration of <br /> using pervious surfaces for parking purposes. <br /> The Chair would draft a list to be sent to Mr. Ferronti at Mashpee Commons <br /> Proposed Mixed-Use Planned Development Bylaw—The Chair inquired whether the Board <br /> wished to move forward with the proposed Bylaw, or to ask the Board of Selectmen to remove the <br /> item from the Warrant. The Chair reported that she had attended the most recent Board of Selectmen <br /> meeting where they had begun reviewing the Warrant, with continued review spanning the next two <br /> meetings. There was consensus from the Board to wait to pull the Article until the next meeting, while <br /> also continuing discussions with Mashpee Commons. Town Manager Rodney Collins stated that, <br /> regardless of whether or not the Planning Board withdrew their proposed Article, the Petition Article <br /> would remain on the Warrant unless it was withdrawn. Mr. Hansen suggested that an Article without <br /> support of other Boards may not pass. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that thresholds would be established to determine large and small project review in <br /> the Mashpee Commons proposal, adding that the Planning Board could recommend those thresholds to <br /> allow for Planning Board review. <br /> Mr. Rowley took a closer look at Article 7 of Mashpee Commons' FBC proposal. Mr. Rowley found <br /> that, the closer he looked, the more frustrating it became as it pulled out some aspects of 40A or <br /> Subdivision Control. Because it was not laid out for the typical approval process, it could cause <br /> confusion. Mr. Rowley expressed concern about technical details, such as the registering of deeds and <br /> documents, which did not belong in the document, and whether the Building Inspector would be able <br /> to make a determination whether a project should be reviewed by the Planning Board. It was Mr. <br /> Rowley's opinion that the issuing Board should be responsible for reviews. Mr. Rowley felt that it <br /> would be difficult to administer Article 7, as it was written, and that it would make sense to return to <br /> the existing procedures, and not give the authority to another entity. Mr. Rowley added that the Article <br /> allowed for an applicant to have the Board of Appeals overturn decisions made by the Planning Board, <br /> whereas now, the matter would be reviewed by Superior Court. There was consensus from the Board <br /> for Mr. Rowley to draft a summary detailing Article 7. Mr. Lehrer suggested that if Article 7 required <br /> a comprehensive report, it would be a legal review that should be addressed by Town Counsel. The <br /> Chair responded that Town Counsel could also review it. Mr. Weeden stated that there would be a <br /> difference between a legal review and a technical review. Mr. Rowley responded that he would be <br /> summarizing the administrative point of view and how the Planning Board would administer the <br /> document. Mr. Rowley added that there may be some aspects of the document that could warrant legal <br /> review: There was consensus from the Board to have Mr. Rowley draft a report about the document. <br /> 3 <br />