Laserfiche WebLink
Preston confirmed that the draft would be available on the Mashpee Commons by Design <br /> website. <br /> Chairman Waygan stated that attendance at tonight's meeting was indicative of residential <br /> interest and response to Mashpee Commons' proposal. Mr. Ferronti agreed that there had been <br /> tremendous community interest shown, with over 304 residents participating. Mashpee <br /> Commons was all about transparency, sharing for the public to see and participate. The Chair <br /> suggested that copies of the draft be made available at the library. Mr. Preston added that they <br /> planned to continue the Mashpee Commons by Design process up until Town Meeting, including <br /> meetings with neighborhood groups or other interested parties. The Chair invited further <br /> comments from the Board. <br /> Mr. Kooharian stated that he was not happy with the short deadline,potentially cutting the <br /> Planning Board out of the process. It was the job of the Planning Board to review the matter but <br /> if it could not be completed by July 9, then their job would be taken away from them, which <br /> would not be good for Mashpee Commons, the Planning Board or the Town. It was a serious <br /> issue for the Planning Board, <br /> Mr. Cummings was in agreement, adding that it was received too late. <br /> Mr. Weeden stated that the draft offered a lot to digest in just a few meetings, adding that there <br /> was no way they could compile all of their concerns and have them addressed and negotiated in <br /> time for July SO. Mr. Weeden agreed with the Chair that Mashpee Commons was being <br /> transparent in engaging with the community and placed the blame on the Town who should have <br /> been familiar with the process. <br /> Mr. Hansen agreed that the presentations and involvement of the public had been very good. <br /> Although discussion had touched on buildings and open space, little focus had been placed on <br /> target demographic groups and the environment, including wastewater issues, as it would be <br /> addressed in a master plan. Mr. Preston responded that their proposal included a series of review <br /> steps, including a master plan review by the Planning Board, to review such details. Regarding <br /> demographics and affordable housing,'Mr. Preston stated that they were unsure what they would <br /> be building over the next few years, but a key piece would be the zoning necessary to move <br /> forward, with a better understanding of the feasibility. Once the processes were agreed to, they <br /> would be able to better identify the projects, but over the last few months, there had been interest <br /> expressed in 55+communities, workforce housing and deed restricted affordable housing, <br /> possibly with third party developers. Mr. Hansen suggested it should have been part of the <br /> presentation but Mr. Preston stated that he was asked to keep his presentation brief, with a focus <br /> on the process. <br /> The Chair suggested that, instead of replacing the underlining zoning, form-based code could be <br /> referenced in the Bylaw. Form-based code would not be voted on at Town Meeting, but changes <br /> would then not require the 213 vote. The Chair referenced the proposed Mixed-Use Plan <br /> Development Bylaw distributed to attendees at the meeting, which amended Section 1743 by <br /> adding a definition for Mixed-Use Development and adding a new section 174-46.1, which <br /> would agree with the intent of the Form-Based Code and be approved by Special Permit. In <br /> 14 <br />