Laserfiche WebLink
VN <br /> Aanninq Board <br /> Town o Mashy e <br /> \•L)3.III�I life/ <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> regulation on a smaller scale. It is his opinion that perpetuating isolated lot line to lot line patterns will <br /> spread further issues. He suggests starting here in considering a form based approach. <br /> Ms. Waygan states it reminds her of architectural and site design standards in the zoning bylaw, for <br /> front lots on Rt. 130, and they found it difficult to deal with, almost half of them didn't apply, should we <br /> remove those sections from the zoning bylaw? <br /> Mr. Lehrer wants to reassess.When we look at redevelopment in particular, you are looking at a scale <br /> that goes beyond a singular lot. There needs to be a framework for development that will apply. It does <br /> grant their Planning Board some discretion in determining dimensional criteria, which we do in the <br /> bylaw. Create that approach with predictable form for that whole district. <br /> Ms. Waygan noted they had a problem reporting to us that they met with architectural and design <br /> standards. The Cape Cod Coffee and the liquor store, we had to say okay you're fine. <br /> Mr. Lehrer agreed that's a good example, there's broad discretions to determine what's appropriate but <br /> doesn't give consideration for what happens around neighborhood scale disjointed development. It's an <br /> assessment and evaluation of performance on a singular site and not a consideration of an entire <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Ms. Waygan gave the example of thinking of creating another lot, that would have to comply with the <br /> piece of zoning, not form based code, and one of the engineers had a very hard time complying with it. <br /> There is nothing in there saying how specifically they would waive it. <br /> Mr. Lehrer referenced standards for development in C3 zoning. Those standards are difficult to comply <br /> with especially if there are variant interpretations of what the byelaw is. We can clarify those. <br /> Review Planning Board Meeting Dates for 2022 <br /> Schedule is located in the packet. <br /> Mr. Lehrer identified the meeting on October 5, 2022 is a holiday. There will be no regular meeting <br /> scheduled for October 5, 2021 at the recommendation of the Board. <br /> CHAIRMANS REPORT <br /> No updates. <br /> TOWN PLANNER REPORT <br /> LCP Update <br /> He has a meeting with the consultants on 12/03. He is working with department heads to go through <br /> the stakeholder lists. He thanked the Board for their a-mails relevant to existing studies, reports, and <br /> analyses. He received a number of responses from other department heads. He will be updating <br /> Weston and Sampson with the materials Friday. We are thinking to launch in early 2022. They provided <br /> a number of external third party digital online engagement platforms that he has been filtering through. <br /> 11 <br />