Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Planning Board <br /> August 210 1985 <br /> Page 6 <br /> Meetinghouse village condominium proposal and save both the Town and Mr. <br /> Grogan considerable time and expense in litigation. He expressed objection <br /> to the fact that the Board gave the applicant no idea what their basis was <br /> for turning the proposal down or what would have been an acceptable number <br /> of units. Mr. Dubin clarified the position of the Board at the time of <br /> the denial: although the Board voted 2-1 for the proposal, 4/5e was needed, <br /> so it still constituted a denial. Out of the present Board members, <br /> Mr. Ferragamo was not yet on the Board and Mr. Collins was not present for <br /> the whole hearing. Mr. Dubin felt they should try to settle on an agreeable <br /> number of units. If the matter went through the Court, the proposal <br /> would probably come back to the Board for reconsideration. <br /> Mr. Dubin noted that the main objection to the plan had been traffic <br /> problems. He raised the point that multi-family generates less traffic <br /> as well as less demand on the tax dollar than single family. Also the <br /> terrain in the area would be less suitable to a conventional grid sub- <br /> division. <br /> As concerns density, Mr. Dubin pointed out that the area is zoned for <br /> either multi or single. At the time, the by-law said that you could have <br /> more multi than single-family units: in the 90s for single, about 200 multi. <br /> He questioned the fact that sin' family was allowed only k as opposed to <br /> 3/4 the density. Mr. Kissane felt that it had to do with the amount of <br /> roadways needed. Also the bog would not be buildable in a conventional <br /> grid, but would be considered in the total acreage of a multi. <br /> Mr. Kissane felt that Mr. Grogan would probably consider about 175 units <br /> to be the minimum to make the plan economically feasible. He added that <br /> the major expense would be the planned sewerage treatment plant. Also <br /> with the proposal for 204 units there was an allowed commercial use <br /> which would be given up if the number of units was reduced. Mr. Rowley <br /> noted that under the previous proposal there was a verbal agreement by <br /> Mr. Grogan to assist the Town in doing reconstruction to the Meetinghouse <br /> Road, Central Ave. intersection. He asked whether Mr. Grogan would be <br /> willing to do that if the number of units was reduced. Mr. Kissane felt <br /> it would depend upon the number. <br /> Mr. Dubin asked the members of the Board to think the matter over for the <br /> next meeting. <br /> Questions from the public: <br /> - At the public hearing on this proposal, one of the major concerns was <br /> that the 204 units was only half of the eventual proposal. Mr. <br /> Kissane denied it. <br /> - When the present residents bought into that area it was zoned for single <br /> homes. This proposal would have a huge impact on their lives. The <br /> Board should stand by its decision and not be "blackmailed" by the <br /> applicant. 175 units is not a compromise. A compromise would be <br /> two or less units per acre. Mr. Ferragamo denied the Board was being <br /> threatened. He explained that if the judge did uphold the Board's <br /> decision Mr. Grogan would return with a new proposal - he will build <br /> something there eventually. Mr. Dubin explained that there are some <br /> benefits to having multi-family units as neighbors. Multi-family <br />