2/4/1985 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 amount of growth Mashpee has ever seen. I think we should have approached it indirectly in gradual steps or we wouldn' t be shocking these people into protecting theirland. However, we proposed it and as people have said , there are alot of plans in there now. No one can predict how many of those will be c! dropped if this article is defeated, but you have to keep in mind is that' s the danger. What to consider if this article is defeated, we have to take time and do it in a gradual way. Will we gain or lose? Many lots have been created, many will die if this article dies , but many will go through because they have been decided. R. Jonaa : I' m not going to bell you how to vote, not going to say your kids aren' t going to college, or the bank is go- ing turn you down etc. Improved upgraded density makes a whole lot of sense to me. There' s overdensity in this town this is one of the ways to slowing it down. R.E. Developer There is one thing we can forecast if this article passes. You are going to get the growth for sure because none of those petitioners with those plans for the planning board can economically take and drmp those plans. They will be forced to go ahead and get them approved , put them on the market and sell them. That' s a fact. R. Dubin : Growth is inevitable. I think everyone would like to see reduced growth and actualy fairly easy to vote for this article like this. The best thing we can do along with intensified planning, is to try to buy open space. That' s when you can accomplish something. If we don' t act now it won' t be there when we get ready to spend the money. I think with this article we can encourage a certain amount of additional growth that we vouldn' t otherwise see. On the other hand, we' ll reduce some of the land that hasn' t been subdivided. It ' s going to be a trade-off. Earl and I dis- cussed it and Jbund that no one can accurately predict it will reduce the number of houses you have in town 10 years from now. It ' s not going to reduce it dramatically due to the nature of the system. We couldn' t make a change at this point and time that would accomplish that purpose no matter what we wanted to do. It doesn' t mean you vote against it because it won' t have all the results you might hope for. If it had some of them, then I think a person would vote for the article. i�.E. Developer: What ' s the technical purpose of including the established neighborhoods ie. Lonomscoy, aesonnsett , Johns Pond?