Laserfiche WebLink
process would not allow the same clarity as Mashpee Commons' FBG, Mr, Baizarini suggested <br /> working out the differences. The Chair stated that she had asked for comment regarding that <br /> possibility, but on one opted to speak. <br /> Resident Margery Hecht indicated that she supported the Bylaw and the elected Planning Board <br /> and stated her appreciation that the Board cared about the future of Mashpee. Ms. Hecht <br /> suggested that if there was a disconnect between Mashpee Commons and the Board, it was <br /> nothing compared to the public, who moved to Mashpee due to its green space, rural character <br /> and its history. Ms. Hecht suggested that, when Mashpee Commons referenced preserving the <br /> character of the Town in their draft, they were referring not to Mashpee, but to Mashpee <br /> Commons, which was a problem. Ms. Hecht felt that the Bylaw allowed Mashpee Commons•to <br /> have their project approved with FBC. Ms. Hecht indicated that she recently drove through <br /> Mashpee Commons, on a hot day, and suggested that it would likely be hotter with the removal <br /> of the trees in the area. It was Ms. Hecht's opinion that the forested land in the center of Town <br /> contributed to the character of Mashpee. <br /> Mr. Preston responded to Mr. Balzarini's comment regarding Deer Crossing, acknowledging that <br /> residents liked the idea of maintaining the character of living in the forest. Mr. Preston <br /> referenced the trees that had been nurtured in front of the library, noting that it was their <br /> intention to begin working on the edge of the property to create a better version of the forest. <br /> Mr. Preston emphasized their need for a predictable path forward. Mr. Balzarini confirmed:that <br /> he liked the FBC but did not understand the difficulty with providing a master plan. The Chair <br /> stated that she would be requesting the minimum and maximum number of units per zone and <br /> the minimum and maximum of heights per zone. Mr.Preston responded that he could provide <br /> the information in very broad strokes. Mr. Kooharian stated that the FBC provided great detail, <br /> It was clarified that not every character zone would be represented in a plan. Mr. Kooharian <br /> stated that it was important for the Board to have a broad, working concept of what would go <br /> where, for better visualization and allow for better decision making, since the current document <br /> did not translate into a master plan. <br /> Mr. Weeden referenced their regulatory plan detailing the character districts, suggesting that <br /> conceptual relationships fitting the areas together would be more helpful, noting that Mashpee <br /> Commons must have an idea about how it would be laid out long or short term. Mr. Preston <br /> referenced a vision plan, stating that they could look only at the area closest to the most recent <br /> construction for their 5-10 year plan. Beyond 10 years, Mashpee Commons could only make <br /> best guesses based on good urban design and planning practices. The Chair inquired how the <br /> vision plan would differ from the regulating plan. Mr. Preston responded that height would be <br /> included in a regulating plan. The Chair inquired whether any plans would include the current <br /> rotary, adding that decisions could not be made without consideration of traffic impacts. Mr. <br /> Weeden stated that Mashpee Commons was offering a vision and not the reality. Mr. Preston <br /> responded that, studies conducted during the master.plan, considering the rotary redesign, <br /> indicated that it would perform better than it did today. The Chair again stated that the designs <br /> needed to include the existing rotary. Mr. Preston stated that they would work together to make <br /> the best solution work, with options for the rotary. There was clarification that the project would <br /> be phased and Mr. Weeden stated that an overall plan would provide better clarity. <br /> 11 <br />