Laserfiche WebLink
" vrrrrrr fa <br /> NTown otMasdvee Aanninq Board <br /> '•...,(E721J11A4T� <br /> c <br /> 16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br /> :Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Mr. Phelan understands the need for getting a study done for the whole scope, but we are getting <br /> ahead of ourselves. We haven't made any decisions. We may decide we don't want that full scope of <br /> 1,700 units or certain areas we don't want developed. He fully supports the need for a study, but not <br /> until we get to that defined type. <br /> Ms. Waygan posed a scenario where we wanted `x' amount of housing units, then the traffic study is <br /> done and we realize it is too much traffic for Mashpee to manage. <br /> Mr. Phelan wanted to reinforce, he doesn't understand the issue with repeated studies. Based on other <br /> developments going on in Town, this next phase cannot support what they propose to do, there are <br /> other criteria in Development Agreement, and then phase 5 won't look like the phase 5 from 20 years <br /> ago. Say other development happens in South Cape Village or even they change the traffic coming into <br /> East Falmouth or on Route 28. It is prudent we do additional studies as we progress, if we find <br /> additional problems we can address it. We can incorporate that into the Development Agreement. We <br /> haven't even defined the scope. What they have given so far is very preliminary, and we all already <br /> disagree Trout Pond and the Mashpee River. Modifications are going to reduce the size of this. Traffic <br /> studies should be performed based on what we are going to do. <br /> Ms. Waygan stated there is a zoning bylaw change. This is like the chicken and the egg. <br /> Mr. Balzarini thinks once they are given a permit for 1,700 housing units and so much commercial,all <br /> the studies we need won't matter once they are given the permit. <br /> Mr. Phelan exclaimed not if it's written in the Development Agreement, it is binding. We haven't gotten <br /> there yet. <br /> Ms. Waygan noted proposals like this happen all the time. Development Agreements, whether two <br /> party or fifty, is not going to shake the world or merit special treatment because there are three parties. <br /> She has never seen a project that would be asking forthis much(referring to a large quantity) but only <br /> studying the impacts of this much (referring to a smaller quantity),It may reduce what you want to <br /> provide and allow based on the study for the entire project. <br /> Mr. Phelan repeated that we haven't defined what the entire project is. Once that gets defined, he has <br /> no problem having a traffic study on that whole project but also beyond that study to ensure <br /> safeguards. <br /> Ms. Waygan reminded the Board that the applicant is responsible for bringing this to the Planning <br /> Board. For what they are asking for,they need to provide studies and to show us impacts. They are <br /> going forward with Commission with something smaller. This is smaller than anything they presented to <br /> us, and they recently presented, this is so small in comparison. The Commission is not treating us as a <br /> full third party, they are having conversations without us. I think the reason why I agreed with Mr. <br /> Balzarini, and so glad the Chair put on this agenda, was how to procure these consultants. We need a <br /> traffic consultant right away. The Chief Procurement Officer is in attendance tonight. We need guidance <br /> on how to procure a consultant to assist us with this traffic issue right now. <br /> 3 <br />