Laserfiche WebLink
ti <br /> i <br /> where there would be no discussion or guidelines for it. Mr. Scipione stated that he had seen top <br /> criteria flagged. Mr, Jack pointed out that each member may have different concerns, such as <br /> traffic, and there may not be a consensus among members. Mr, Barrett agreed with Mr. Jack and <br /> suggested assigning importance of criteria to each town to be reflected in the final decision.. <br /> Mr. Barrett referenced page 3 and Site Information, noting that in the last sentence"operation of <br /> UCRTS is governed by the operations and Maintenance Manual." <br /> In the Comparative Evaluation Criteria on page 6 and 7, Chairman Laurent referenced <br /> Experience and an initial reference to municipal experience, inquiring whether additional weight <br /> should be added for anyone with previous municipal experience. Mr. Jack felt that additional <br /> weight was not needed since proposed uses were not necessarily needed by the towns. Chairman <br /> Laurent inquired whether the Board felt there was a sufficient difference between Advantageous <br /> and Highly Advantageous. Mr. Barrett expressed concern using "similar to." Mr. Jack <br /> responded that it afforded greater latitude for receiving proposals, Chairman Laurent suggested <br /> that Highly Advantageous require the exact experience as proposed. Highly Advantageous will <br /> be re-worded to reflect that the proposer had two years} experience as included in the proposal. <br /> Mr. Scipione recommended flexibility. <br /> Regarding compatibility on page 7, it was noted that compatibility with current use would be <br /> changed to compatibility with permitted use. <br /> Mr. Wilton suggested that in Exceptions and regional Benefits, in 2.7, there would likely be <br /> concerns of potential impacts that would vary town to town and inquired whether more <br /> specificity was needed. Mr. Jack agreed and requested greater definition regarding{regional. <br /> Mr. Jack emphasized that it was not the Board's responsibility to address problems outside of the <br /> Upper Cape. It was suggested that"Upper Cape Regional Benefit"' be Highly Advantageous. <br /> Mi-. Tilton further suggested the needs to identify the benefit. Mr. Richard suggested leaving the <br /> benefit ambiguous because it could vary by town. <br /> Regarding traffic on page 8 and Non Advantageous being linked to traffic on the bridge, <br /> Chairman Laurent referenced her concern about increased local traffic and Mr. Jack agreed. Mr. <br /> Tilton suggested leaving the bridge traffic in Highly Advantageous and local traffic as Non <br /> Advantageous. There was question regarding increases since there has been no traffic since the <br /> closing of the UCRTS and It-* Barrett recommended returning to average figures from 2010- <br /> 2013. <br /> 010- <br /> 013. Further consideration was needed regarding Traffic. <br /> Mr. Barrett suggested that Highly Advantageous References should include "in the business <br /> being proposed." There was agreement from all. <br /> On page 9, 5.6 Mr. Tilton inquired whether a proposal bringing in excess of 50,000 tons per year <br /> could be viewed differently if traffc mitigation was offered. Mr. Jack felt that"may be'} covered <br /> the issue. Mr. Sciptone suggested that mitigation could be included in the Traffic Criteria on <br /> page 8. Mr. Richard will address the wording. <br /> 2 <br />