My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/04/1990 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
04/04/1990 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2022 5:04:47 PM
Creation date
6/22/2022 3:30:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/04/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
what is difference ' parking? <br /> Pat asked elf they have had a study done of the proposed <br /> speed of r <br /> differenceBuff stated that travel time <br /> .minute. <br /> road.Tom stated Olt was originally proposed for 35 mile per hour <br /> Doug stated there has been constant debate of whether it 'i' s <br /> ' roadway. Presently <br /> ' t is a negotiation. <br /> Tony asked how do we resolve speed issue?, <br /> chief.say what speed is? <br /> Selectman Hanson stated that speed limits are determined by <br /> police <br /> The congestion and terrain of the road will <br /> prevent .it from being fast. <br /> trafficDoug stated that a <br /> Louisenelghborhood around it. <br /> . designed provide viable <br /> option <br /> lt should be <br /> relieve congestion rotary, <br /> Doug asked if <br /> per hour and work . th parking, <br /> would that make everyone <br /> isn' tTony stated that the roadway looks like 'it 'is capable of <br /> being adapted 'if there 'is an improper assumption and it <br /> working. <br /> higher The worst that would happen 'is they would have to <br /> remove parallel parking and post lt a <br /> viable. alternative. <br /> Pat stated that Bob Mumford . coming 'into <br /> discussll be <br /> Planning Board meeting to discuss corridor study, by pass <br /> work and to , <br /> Applicant: New Seabury <br /> Location'.. Great Neck Road So.,, <br /> . Discussion. combined section _ 30 _ <br /> studiesRequest <br /> . <br /> Chri- - - <br /> s Burden and <br /> ke Grotsky were present represent <br /> SeaburyIng New <br /> extensionMike stated that they want to formalize the understanding <br /> of an (which <br /> . • <br /> zed <br /> at last meet ) © discussion,once the last <br /> years . Tom suggested <br /> they extend for 2 <br /> Tom explained the reason for a 2 year extension. The <br /> Planning Board would put off filing with commission for 1 <br /> year but the timme for the ` 1 <br /> vv . ome to <br /> Commission <br /> . ill require <br /> review when comes back f rom <br /> years. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.