Laserfiche WebLink
" vrrrrrr fa <br /> NTown otMasdvee Aanninq Board <br /> '•...,(E721J11A4T� <br /> c <br /> 16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br /> :Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Chairman noted the public will have adequate notice to be able to attend. It was agreed upon by all that <br /> Tuesday will be sufficient. <br /> MOTION <br /> Mr. Balzarini motioned for the public hearing to be held on September 14, 2021 at 7:20pm. Mr. <br /> Callahan seconded. All in favor. <br /> NEW BUSINESS <br /> Discussion regarding procuring consultants to review CAC technical analysis <br /> Mr. Balzarini wants a traffic study for the whole project for 25 years. He was shocked this was the entire <br /> study, they aren't including all phases of the new project. He asked about the permits, as they have 2, <br /> he wants to know if they will be rescinded, he never got an answer. They want 25 years but broken <br /> down over phases and the traffic study done for each phase. He did not like how the Commission <br /> thinks this is a reasonable direction, they don't live here they should have input form the people of <br /> Mashpee. Let's say the Planning Board wants another study down the road, does the Commission <br /> make that decision? It seems like the Commission controls the whole thing. Looking at it now the <br /> Commission seems to be in the back pocket of the Commons over the last four years, first with form <br /> based zoning. We have been working on this for at least four years. The Cape Cod Commission is a <br /> consultant now. Mr. Balzarini wants a study for the entirety that this project is, there are a bunch of <br /> studies that will be needed. He doesn't like it and it won't be voted on by him. <br /> Ms. Waygan noted they never asked forthe Planning Board's opinion regarding the scope of work for <br /> the traffic study. She then stated we are not in equal footing. <br /> Mr. Lehrer referenced the memo included in the packet was just the scope of work, and they will require <br /> a study to render a decision. This document states what they think is an adequate scope. The <br /> Commission generally agreed with the approach. In regards to the statement made about being a <br /> negotiating party with no influence, he disagrees. Mashpee has an opportunity with the Development <br /> Agreement to assess traffic interventions as the build out happens. What you are seeking, a traffic <br /> study forthe entire scope of the proposal, isn't possible. We can create a framework as a condition of <br /> the Development Agreement that would require further studies. <br /> Mr. Balzarini wants a build off on the entire project because he doesn't want to be blindsided by the <br /> size of the project later down the road. <br /> Ms. Waygan said if they are proposing a project and they want approval for the scope they are <br /> requesting, they won't get that. <br /> Chairman Fulone stated in the Development Agreement we would have stipulations that as phases <br /> progress additional studies would be triggered. <br /> Ms. Waygan noted that after 5 phases you can't then realize you need a four or five lane road. You <br /> need a study forthe whole project to determine if Rt. 28 will require four lanes. Town Meeting can then <br /> make that decision. It's very dangerous to proceed here without the whole scope. <br /> 2 <br />