10/21/2020 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

assist the Planning Board in making an informed decision with regard to the application"; removal of "site" maintaining "plan review"; addition of section J which would ensure that there would be no conflict of interest in the Town of Mashpee. Finally, Mr. Rowley recommended that"applicant" be used in place of"bidder." Mr. Lehrer confirmed that he would reformat the letters to numbers. Regarding writing samples, Mr. Lehrer noted the importance that the consultant be able to provide a strong quality of writing in reports to the Board, but also did not wish to make the process onerous. There was consensus from the Board that writing samples would be a good idea and not onerous. Mr. Rowley suggested that candidates could provide written reports submitted to other towns, removing the client's name if concerned. Regarding the timeline, Mr. Lehrer indicated that the draft identified a posting date for the first week of November, with an application deadline of December 4. Mr. Lehrer emphasized the importance of addressing the matter quickly. There was consensus from the Board regarding the proposed timeline. Mr. Callahan inquired whether there would be an adequate number of applicants and Mr. Rowley responded that he was unsure of the number as there were limited firms on Cape and some candidates could be ineligible due to existing work with Mashpee. Mr. Lehrer noted that the quality of the RFP and the methods of advertising were critical in attracting candidates. There were no further recommendations for edits. MOTION: Ms. Waygan made'a motion to approve the RFP as amended during this meeting, for release in early November. Mr. Callahan seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. Mr. Rowley recommended advertising with Massachusetts Association of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors. Mr. Lehrer would forward the final version of the RFP to members of the Board. Any parties interested in receiving the RFP should contact the Town Manager's office. Discussion Regarding Potential Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw Proposals-Mr. Lehrer indicated that the timing to consider Inclusionary Zoning was appropriate, confirming that there were some provisions in the Bylaw requiring affordable housing based on thresholds, to include Open Space Incentive Development (OSID) and Cluster Development Bylaws. Mr. Lehrer felt that inclusionary zoning could play a pivotal role in developing affordable units, provided the Bylaw was further considered regarding its ability to develop a sufficient number of units that would trigger the threshold, to create affordable units. Mr. Lehrer emphasized taking a closer look at those areas in Mashpee that would be a candidate for redevelopment,to create a new path of development that would trigger the threshold,thereby malting progress in the development of affordable housing units. Mr. Lehrer cited the OSID Bylaw, its creation intended for Mashpee Commons, and their plans to increase development, which would have increased the availability of deed restricted affordable units in town. However, Mashpee Commons did not choose to develop using the OSID Bylaw. To move forward, Mr. Lehrer emphasized the necessity that the language and modifications to the Bylaw generate affordable units. Mr. Lehrer further noted that with limited land available and the current land use regulations, development would not trigger existing thresholds to develop affordable units. Use of parcels located on Route 151 and Route 28 could be improved with redevelopment, once actions were taken on wastewater and adjustments made to enhance inclusionary requirements. Ms. Waygan referenced the three resources she forwarded, to include the Cluster Subdivision Bylaw, which regulated an additional affordable unit after the development of 10 units, the OSID which counted affordable bedrooms, rather than units, and Yarmouth's Bylaw which triggered an affordable unit after the development of 5 units and was created due to limited land options. Ms. Waygan also 2