Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fulone asked to clarify a question. He stated his understanding of the request was to create a <br /> subcommittee comprised of all three parties to focus strictly on the proposed zoning change. The <br /> findings of this subcommittee would then report back to the Planning Board. Attorney Cox said <br /> that Mr. Fulone's understanding of this was correct and further explained that they were not <br /> trying to eliminate anyone from the process but in fact were trying to create more process by <br /> having more meetings between the regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings. She clarified <br /> the development agreement collaboration process is a larger piece than just the zoning. The <br /> proposed zoning overlay is just a component and an exhibit to the overall development <br /> agreement. <br /> Attorney Cox reiterated that they felt it would be helpful to have smaller group meetings and had <br /> no intention of eliminating anyone from the process. She pointed out that this is a Planning <br /> Board process and these are public meetings. <br /> Ms. Waygan addressed the applicant directly and stated that each of the Planning Board <br /> members understands what it means to do a bylaw change. She questioned what members were <br /> going to be cut out of this process. <br /> Chairman Phelan reiterated that as the applicant had previously explained, it was not their <br /> intention to cut board members out of the process. The intent was to gather information. He <br /> stated that he did not understand how Ms. Waygan felt that she was being eliminated from the <br /> process and that all information would be brought back to the Board. He explained that at this <br /> point the applicant has only made a proposal in an effort to streamline the process with a smaller <br /> group. Chairman Phelan emphasized this is only a proposal and it has not been decided that only <br /> two people can attend meetings. It would be a decision made by the entire Board. <br /> Mr. Balzarini commented that he felt that the entire board should be involved and that perhaps <br /> by only having two board members participating that it may ultimately slow down the process. <br /> He stated that this was not just a zoning change but a change to Mashpee as we know it. It is <br /> important for everyone in the Town to be involved. Perhaps the process can be reviewed at a <br /> later time to make the decision to continue with fewer Board members. <br /> Chair Phelan stated that there was no motion made to only have two members elected to the <br /> subcommittee. He suggested that based on the discussions,perhaps a board member make a <br /> motion for the entire Board to participate and if the Board decides that the process is too <br /> cumbersome then a change can be made later. He reiterated that there was no intent on the part <br /> of the applicant to eliminate anyone from the process. He was not aware that Mr. Balzarini and <br /> Ms. Waygan would have the feeling of anyone being eliminated from the process. He noted as <br /> Ms. Waygan had pointed out previously, the Planning Board has a major role in the process. <br /> Mr. Lehrer indicated that he would like to tone down the language and have a productive dialog <br /> and to proceed in a collaborative manner. His interpretation of the request from the applicant is <br /> to refine language and that it may be more difficult to accomplish well without a more refined <br /> process. The process as proposed he noted could help to ensure the presentation of a cohesive <br /> and functional piece of zoning regulatory language that will have a profound impact on <br /> Mashpee's built environment. He pointed out that subcommittees have no authority to vote or <br /> 4 <br />