Laserfiche WebLink
yt9"r�ft11`,�y�f <br />q�a.io'r,"ci <br />16 Great Neck Road North <br />Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br />Mr. Callahan noted the driveways go to the outside rather than inside. <br />Mr. Lehrer commented that the shared space is a lifestyle option that defines the typology. The things <br />that are not included in the draft proposal that need more discussion are density, how many dwellings <br />are we talking about? He hasn't provided a cap on the density, he is concerned about site design, <br />building form, and the shared amenities. He would also like to go over parking requirements. Their ideal <br />was a closer representation of a classic cluster subdivision with exception of subdivision of land. He <br />shared it's best for the Cottage Court typology for housing to have more shared amenities, shared <br />surface parking, and incentivize on street parking so community space is more well defined. He <br />provides brief language of what a Cottage Court is, different types of what it could be, minimum <br />requirements, and vague minimum and maximum requirements and s.f. of actual units. This creates <br />missing middle housing types on conforming lots with water treatment where affordability is transferred <br />back to the owner/renter. He included some affordable housing requirements that mimics the State's <br />inclusionary language. If the Board is interested in pursuing this further, he would do a deeper dive into <br />what constitutes a Cottage Court. Workshops and further dialogue will be established to propose a <br />clear infill of missing middle development in residential districts on conforming lots to increase density <br />and be harmonious to green spaces. He would like to avoid perpetuating affordability issues and <br />seasonality issues. Based on their site plan proposed initially, the Cottage Court is something that can <br />function well for their needs and a bylaw that would be translatable across the overall land area of the <br />town. As sewer phases come online, this typology might be advantageous elsewhere in the town. <br />Mr. Balzarini said with these 40, 000 s.f. or 80,000 s.f. minimums, the way it's written, if you have a five <br />acre lot and one acre of wetland, really only three acres, that equates to three houses. <br />Mr. Lehrer reiterated this lot is 5 acres that would not comply with that requirement. They could <br />construct three homes, but with the private water treatment you could do more. If this is the direction <br />the Board wants to go in, in working with Willowbend, then workshop in the coming months and <br />submission for October Town Meeting. <br />Mr. Balzarini stated affordability was mentioned. How can this be affordable in Willowbend? <br />Mr. Lehrer applied blunt feedback. What is most important to him is site design, building form, and <br />certain limitations that don't perpetuate the issues that exacerbate the housing crisis, but are <br />complimentary to the solution. This typology won't accommodate that goal. They won't be cheap. <br />Ms. Waygan noted the affordability piece where one in ten would be deed restricted affordable. You <br />would have 9 units in the missing middle, one unit would be affordable through lottery, like a habitat <br />house. <br />Mr. Balzarini inquired if the entry way to the complex would be different from the main entrance. He <br />does not want affordability to change the dynamic. <br />7 <br />