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 noted the VHB memofrom 2020 said otherwise, but they haven't asked us. We need a <br /> traffic consultant to help us understand if we should be commenting on this stuff to push for the rights of <br /> Mashpee. I don't want to get caught up in the phases, for protection of this Town we need a traffic and <br /> environmental engineer on retainer to help us through this process. We should send a letter demanding <br /> we are part of that conversation and we have the technical support. <br /> Mr. Phelan stated Ms. Waygan is making assumptions about negotiations. He firmly supports peer <br /> review of both studies to see if the scope of work is sufficient.To have an open ended check with two <br /> consultants on retainer makes it complicated for the Town, as well as costly.We should do the peer <br /> review, see where that gets us, and then make assessments based on modifications, if any. <br /> Mr. Lehrer has an issue regarding procurement. As an hourly rate, we don't have an understanding of <br /> how many hours would be billed. How many total hours are we talking about? A completed study allows <br /> for reasonable understanding of that. <br /> Ms. Waygan says you set a budget. <br /> Mr. Phelan makes a point when you tell someone you have a budget, that's typically where they cap <br /> you. <br /> AMENDED MOTION <br /> Ms. Waygan makes an amended motion to procure a consultant for the purposes of peer <br /> reviewing the scope and level of the traffic study and environmental impact report as required <br /> by MEPA, proposed by the Mashpee Commons to the Cape Cod Commission for the <br /> Development Agreement. Mr. Balzarini seconds. All in favor. <br /> CHAIRMANS REPORT <br /> Chairman has some thoughts he wanted to discuss about public comment. He had a good conversation <br /> with a Mashpee resident where they disagreed on most everything they talked about, but it was civil, <br /> respectful, and productive. One issue discussed was the opportunity to allow for public comment. He <br /> always thought it was odd the public could talk at the Board and the Board couldn't have a dialogue <br /> back, he is not sure how it came to be, but it's strange. One of the things he is suggesting for <br /> discussion and agreement, is to allow for more dialogue rather than the Board listening and not <br /> commenting right away.There has to be guidelines in place to allow this. Comments and questions <br /> would be directed to the Board if they are related to the topics from immediate past or current meeting. <br /> Be respectful of everyone's time. He personally prefers a time limit to allow other business to be <br /> handled. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions are not facts. Behavior has to be <br /> appropriate. Everyone needs to be respectful, thoughtful, and courteous. Some conversations will be <br /> spirited, if it is not the meeting will be managed accordingly. If it is not a productive dialogue appropriate <br /> action would occur. <br /> Ms. Waygan discussed in the past when there was a topic of discussion that was not going to get <br /> through the meeting with everyone coming up, there would be individual workshops. She has never <br /> limited comment to two minutes, even during a very contentious public hearing. She has always <br /> suggested people limit comments to 3-5 mins. and Chair would then ask to wrap it up. In some cases, <br /> there was someone representing an entire neighborhood so they were given up to 20 minutes to talk. <br /> 7 <br />