My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/17/2021 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
02/17/2021 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2021 5:00:38 PM
Creation date
3/5/2021 4:16:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/17/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Balzarini: Have you had any experience dealing with the Cape Cod Commission? <br /> Mr. Bows said a long time ago he worked with the Cape Cod Commission as a co-op student but <br /> they have not had any recent experience working with them. <br /> Mr. Callahan: What municipalities have you worked with? <br /> Deb Keller responded by stating she has performed peer reviews for Braintree, Scituate and <br /> Marion. Mr. Palmieri said that he has done peer review primarily for Pembroke, Duxbury, <br /> Halifax, Hanson, Scituate, Marion and a few years ago in Bourne. Deb added that they have <br /> been expanding down to the Cape and is currently working in Sandwich, Yarmouth and <br /> Falmouth on projects at varying phases. <br /> Mr. Bows concluded the meeting by saying that their lack of experience with the Cape Cod <br /> Commission would not hinder their ability to achieve the goal of becoming Mashpee's peer <br /> review consultant. He said that they had a chance to review the regulations and that they were <br /> impressed with how concise and well written they were. He said he felt perhaps not having <br /> projects or working in town and not being involved in local town politics may actually be <br /> beneficial <br /> -Conclusion of Interview with Merrill Corporation- <br /> Mr. Phelan asked if Mr. Lehrer had anything to add. Mr. Lehrer said this may be a good <br /> opportunity to discuss process and next steps. He said he would ask the Planning Board to take <br /> the next two weeks to review the information presented by both final applicants and to prepare <br /> some notes and comments for the Boards next meeting and hopefully vote on awarding a <br /> contract at that time. <br /> Mr. Lehrer concluded that the Board just heard from two very different applicants. He indicated <br /> that the questions revealed a lot of information about the applicants and their differences. He <br /> added that both applicants were responsive to the RFP and both demonstrated that they had the <br /> professional and technical expertise to deliver to the Board. He asked the Board to think about <br /> the responses they heard, the types of projects reviewed in the past, and to consider the type of <br /> relationship they would like to have with the consultant and to think about the personalities of <br /> each. <br /> He asked that the Board send him any comments and notes they might have taken. He said the <br /> Board should come prepared to the next meeting to deliberate and take a vote to award a <br /> contract. <br /> Mr. Fulone asked if there was a price difference between the two applicants. Mr. Lehrer said it <br /> was a marginal difference and was contained in the RFP documentation. Mr. Lehrer indicated <br /> that, unlike with Mr. Rowley, that when a Special Permit application or a Definitive Subdivision <br /> Plan is received, the plan will be submitted to the awarded consultant at that time to provide a <br /> quote. This quote will then be transmitted to the applicant who shall be required to submit a <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.