Laserfiche WebLink
with the flexibility to create the Master Plan that they envisioned and understood the difficulty of <br /> creating a Master Plan with unclear regulations. Mr. Kooharian hoped that Mashpee Commons could <br /> move forward with the proposed Article in place. <br /> Mr. Lehrer referenced the Planning Board's Article, wishing to express his concerns about the Article <br /> as well as addressing Mashpee Commons' Form-Based Code, developed from a year-long <br /> participatory, citizen engaged process. Mr. Lehrer.addressed what he perceived to be concern <br /> expressed by the Planning Board that Mashpee Commons' proposed Form-Based Code would <br /> circumvent the authority of the Planning Board. As elected officials, Mr. Lehrer confirmed that the <br /> Board would be responsible for managing the new phase of growth in Mashpee while relying on both <br /> resident and Board feedback. <br /> Mr. Lehrer summarized that the Form-Based Code was a long, graphics-based document of over 250 <br /> pages but that Article 7 laid out the administration of the Form-Based Code. The Chair stated that they <br /> would be reviewing the document line by line during the next Agenda item. Mr. Lehrer wished to <br /> provide an overview,noting that there were four sections to include Small plan review, Large Plan <br /> Review, Master Plan Review, Special Plan Review and other areas listed. Mr. Lehrer provided an <br /> example whereby during Small Plan Review,the Building Inspector would be granted authority to <br /> approve projects,building by building. The Large Plan Review,projects greater than 10,000 square <br /> feet,would be reviewed by the Planning Board, by project. The Master PlanReview would also be <br /> reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Lehrer disagreed that the Mashpee Commons' proposal was an <br /> effort to circumvent the Board, suggesting instead that it granted the Planning Board more opportunity <br /> to review because the current 1986 Permit was delegated to the Zoning Board of Appeals. <br /> Mr. Lehrer expressed several concerns about the Planning Board's proposed Article. Mr. Lehrer stated <br /> that it was his goal to identify areas that could support density in Mashpee, allowing for smart growth <br /> for the future,while creating great spaces and generating revenue for the Town, while also preserving <br /> Open Space. Smart growth and development was necessary to support future generations. Mr. Lehrer <br /> stated that the proposed Article would enable the Planning Board discretion on dense projects <br /> throughout the R-3 and R-5 districts,but cautioned that it was unstudied and required further review. <br /> Mr. Lehrer expressed concern about a one to one land swap due to shifts in the economy and lapses of <br /> Special Permits,where land may have.already been turned over to Conservation. In addition, Mr. <br /> Lehrer expressed concern about a 15%.inclusionary requirement, but suggested that economics should <br /> be further reviewed to determine whether the regional lending environment could support such a <br /> requirement. The Cape Cod Commission presently required 10% and it was Mr. Lehrer's opinion that <br /> it would be unreasonable to ask a single landowner to exceed the thresholds determined by the Cape <br /> Cod Commission. Referencing density control, it was Mr. Lehrer's opinion that greater constraints <br /> would be created. Finally; Mr. Lehrer stated that Mashpee Commons had undertaken a year-long <br /> process to engage with the public, in which Mr. Lehrer participated since February. Mr. Lehrer stated <br /> that the Mashpee Commons' proposal was the outcome of feedback received from the community, <br /> granting the Planning Board the opportunity to review projects as before. Mr. Lehrer noted that the <br /> Planning Board's Article was only just being reviewed for the first time this evening and expressed <br /> concerns from a technical standpoint. <br /> 3 <br />