12/01/2010 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Cannon, Transportation Engineer for the Cape iQod Commission, described the standard scope of word minus discussion about rail options that the Cape Cod Commission would utilize for a major project such as the rotary in order to identify a preferred Otemative that would then be designed_ Mr. Cannon also expressed concern about the revised Vanasse scope of work. fir. Cannon supports the addition of reviewing the Jobs Fishing load intersections but noted that rotary"preferred * rovement strategies" requires a more in depth review. The Chair expressed preference for Nor. Cannon s text in his December 1. 2010 Mashpee Rotary Scope of work in the second paragraph of"Background."' Mr. Cannon referenced Section 3.4 in his scope highli 5 the importance of public meetings and participation and citing the importance of public support for such a Pro ect. Mr. Cannon encouraged the Planning Board to determine the number of meetings needed and ensuring that comments from the public are addressed and/or incorporated, adding that the final report should be provided to the Board for comments. Mr. Fudala questioned whether some of'the work had already been completed. Mr. Cannon confirmed'that he spore with Mr. Storrs and agreed that much of the work has been completed. llrfr. Cannon-emphasized-that Mr. Storrs needs to reach out,to the Town and to the Board. It was suggested that Mr. Storrs believed that inclusion of the Mashpee rotary Report creates confusion and Mr. Cannon recommended that there be two reports, a Commons Report and a separate Mashpee Notary Report that would result in a preferred alternative in order to move forward. Board members emphasized the need for fiurther study of the rotary due to the development's impact on the rotary's effectiveness. Mr. Cannon will reiterate to fir. Storrs the preference of the Board and forward the Commission's proposed Rotary Scope of Work to fir. Storrs' traffic consultant. MOTION:: Mr. B rini made a motion requesting that Mr. Cannon forward a copy of the Mashpee Rotary Scope of Work to llfir. Storrs. Mr. Mullin seconded the motion. Ail voted unanimously. The Chair thanked fir. Cannon for his work sand fir. Cannon sued that the last meeting allowed him to better understand the views of the Board, particularly as it to the MiApee rotary. Mr. Cannon suggested that addressing the rotary may bring Mr. Storrs and the Board closer together. Town Manaer Joyce Mason stated that over the years there have been several rotary studies and questioned the necessity for Mashpee Commons to start over. Mr. EWzarini responded that the Planning Board wants to take the next step to make it work and the Chair added that there was a need to determine what land needs to be saved for future expansion and improvement_ Ms. Mason noted thatt the stated must be involved and the Chair asked if the Town Manager would be able to contact the state since she leas been requesting state involvement, fir. Balarini stated that Air. Storrs has been asked to contact the smote adding that the Planning Board is not asking Mashpee Commons to fix the rotary, only to initiate a study, Mr. Cannon added that a lot of work has been completed on the rotary and that the plan offers a goad starting point.. Mr. Cannon again emphasized the need for public endorwment. Mr. Fudala questioned the anticipated costs and Mr. Cannon responded that he could ask but that the information is not typically available. Discussion of Town Consultants for Mashpee Commons A Spechd Permit Review Regarding the proposed RFP Development Review/Impact Analyses, 11r. Cannon has not yet reviewed the document but would be able to look at it more closely over the next few days. Mr. Fula responded that Mr. Storrs reviewed the document and offered some recommendations including meeting together to discuss it further. Mr. Fudala noted that Mr. Storrs nested clarification about the responsibilities of the Board"s consultant compared to his consults t and what is required by the Comm-ssion. Members were in agreement that they do not wish to duplicate anyone's efforts_ Mr. Petersen referenced Mr. Cannon's opinion that there is a gap between the goals of the Planning Board and Mr. Storrs. Mr. Petersen agreed with Mr. Storrs' st t m nt that"the feasibility of'this project is up to the applicant-and not the'role of the Planning Board to ascertaie but added that the Board has a right to 4