Laserfiche WebLink
" vrrrrrr fa <br /> NTown otMasdvee Aanninq Board <br /> '•...,(E721J11A4T� <br /> c <br /> 16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br /> :Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Ms. Waygan is saying you can procure based on an hourly rate procurement or lump sum. Is the scope <br /> of work being referred to by the applicant and Commission adequate in relation to traffic and <br /> environmental? She wants to see the scope in which they are working. Also, for the environmental, let's <br /> get someone who can explain what level we need. Again, If the study from 2001 is acceptable then <br /> great, but she doubts it. <br /> Chairman Fulone repeated the request was for a consultant to do a peer review of the scope of work. <br /> Aside from not being notified, he is asking Ms.Waygan what from their response did she disapprove of. <br /> Ms. Waygan has never seen a project defined by this size, one that requires a Development Agreement <br /> and a bylaw change, but the impact studies look at a scope that is far smaller. It is not a 10% <br /> difference,we are talking about the majority of the project being cut out of the traffic study. I want to <br /> know if that is a good idea or a bad idea. I want to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt with a <br /> neutral consultant explaining why it's okay for these things to be segmented. Segmentation is very <br /> rarely allowed, in land use modeling bylaws and activity centers, it is prohibited in most bylaws to <br /> segment a project. When you look at them individually it will never trigger a mitigation. We do know <br /> they are trying to segment. <br /> Mr. Cotton wanted to make a suggestion. Everyone is saying the similar thoughts, his suggestion would <br /> be to authorize Mr. Lehrer to reach out to Cape Cod Commission and Mashpee Commons, so he can <br /> then authorize at the next meeting a consultant, but he would have something drafted up, a scope of <br /> work that he can present in the next two weeks. <br /> Ms. Waygan wants to go forward with the vote. <br /> Mr. Balzarini stated this is a 25 year permit and they only want to show a fifth of the project. They <br /> already told us they want a 25 year build by right permit. We know what they want, they gave us <br /> numbers, so let's look at those numbers. We already have enough to look at. They gave us a traffic <br /> study from their 40B project. <br /> Chairman Fulone repeated that was part of the scope of work not the actual traffic study.A lot of what <br /> Mr. Balzarini is talking about is part of the Development Agreement negotiation process that hasn't <br /> started yet. <br /> Ms. Waygan made reference to the Commission and the applicant working on the Development <br /> Agreement already, we are not part of the process. <br /> Mr. Fulone understands the Commons is still providing documentation for the application. <br /> Ms. Waygan stated they are determining if the application is complete. In part of that, they are framing <br /> the scope of work forthe environmental impact and traffic studies. <br /> Mr. Fulone reiterated they are not negotiating on the Development Agreement. The work has started on <br /> the application. <br /> 6 <br />