1/5/2011 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

summary and Mr. liedzwiecki responded that-the Development Agreement is a contract and that all parties must agree to move forward, starting with the minimum performance standards in the RPP as a baseline. Mr. I iedzwiecki stated that the Development Agreepent provides extra flexibility to order to accept substitutes. Mr. Rowley inquired about the value of the analysis of the whole project since it will occur over a long period of time with the potential for changes. lir. Niedzwiecki sued that it presents a risk, such as determining the cost of money compared to the cost of money in 20 gears or regulatory changes, and creates difficulty in establishing an exact number. However,Mr. liedzwiecid indicated that enough information can be generated to be directionally correct and that the different phases or milestones may require updates to a matrix. Mr. l ied wiecki referenced an example in Hyannis regarding transportation that also involved phases. tlrlr. I iedzwiecki noted that, more commonly, the applicant will request modifications due to changes over time. Also, should the RPP and certain standardschange, applicants my wish to re-negotiate heir contract. Mr. Rowley questioned to what extent the agreement is tiled to the zoning bylaws and.fir. Meed wiecki responded that rules may need to be frozen and the applicant will be held to the standard of the RPP at the time, but that some modification from the parties involved may need to be allowed and that the processes can be v rit en into the agreement. Mr. Balzarini questioned if major rnodificapfions would occur in a public hearing. Mr. Niedzwiecld responded that the Commission has set rules for modifications,but that they could be altered. Mr. liedzwiecki noted that in past DISI decisions,, certam changes have been classified in the agreement as either major or minor. Mr. Balzarini inquired whether arbitration would be available if there was disagreement between the Town and the Commission regarding whether a modification is minor or major and Mr. Niedzwiecki responded that the process could be.outlined in the agreement. Mr. pudala added that major and minor modifications are defined in the Town's Special Permit regulations, which could serve as a model for the Development Agreement and 11r. Iiedzwieki confirmed that they could be incorporated into the Agreement. llrlr. Pudala referenced the Economic Development Butletir4 and whether the applicant conducts a fiscalimpact study that is reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Richardson responded that it has varied by project and has been driven by the subcommittee or whether the applicant proposes cerWn benefits related to fiscal impact. Ms. Richardson stated that she works with the Town to acquire out and perform calculations. Mr. Fudala stated that the Planning Board has expressed interest in hiring a co to review the fiscal impact of the project but that the Board is unsure about what the Commission will review in regard to fiscal impact_ Mr. Babandni. stated that he would not wit a consultut if the Cape Cod Commission review of fiscal impact satisfies the needs of the Board. Board members asked abourt how the Commission acquires the nee a Bary information and Mr. Nieftwiecki responded that a report will be provided to the Planning Board for their review. Mr. Balzarini questioned whether the report will provide actual numbers and Mr. Nieftwiecki responded that the report could shore, based on phases, a range of pot 'a] tax benefits, a range of potentia] costs to the'Down and assumptions and estimations. The Chair questioned whether a report of a previous project may be available to the Board in order to become farm liar with some of the terms ms and Mr. l ied wiecki responded that he will forward the economic analysis of the Circuit City project in Hyannis. Board members discussed other development projects, such as Legacy place in Dedham. Mr. Iiedzwiecki will also share the economic analysi and assumptions made for the Golden Triangle in sandwich and a project in downtown Hyannis. Mr. Kooharian questioned whether the Commission had reviewed similar projects and 11r. Iiedzwiecki responded that the project is unique due to its form based ming, but that they have reviewed projects with similar size and scope. The Chair inquired about what makes fora based zoning-unique and Mr. Niedzwiecki responded that it does not control use,, opening it up to the free market, but that it does coi the character and feel of the development. IIrJr. Storrs stated that it is up to the developer to dine market feasibility, adding that everyone wants a net positive impact. Mr. Storrs stated that fiscal impact is based upon asm1mptions that will be agreed upon by al parties and that parameters will be determined collectively so that an additional consultant will be unnecessary. Mr. l iedzwiecki suggested that an additional consultant will likely request the information already collected by the Cape Cod Commission, but chane for their services. Mr. EWzarini indicated his support for the 4