Laserfiche WebLink
GrowStudyCom. <br /> Page 5. <br /> Chm. Terry said he feels the matter should now go to a public hearing. <br /> Set. Thomas said that the parking question is important - maybe what is planned isn't <br /> sufficient, looking at what happens down at the shooping center now at certain times. <br /> However, she said she has attended Planning Board Meetings for years, and that board <br /> only has time to deal with plans that are submitted to them, and comply with the legal <br /> requirements. They have been wearing blinders as far as planning goes, they need to <br /> expand their vision. What is done in one area is bound to have fall-out and effect an- <br /> other area. She does not feel the issue can be addressed piecemeal; it all goes hand- <br /> in-hand - and it has to, for balance. <br /> Mike Makunas said he feels the committee's original concepts have been developed by this <br /> plan. <br /> M . Anderson said she disagrees with Mr. Marsters - this committee has had input from the <br /> very beginning. The planners are finalizing what the committee has been saying for a <br /> year and a half, she said. They didn't come up with any of this on their own. <br /> Brian Barber cited the example of the committee changing its mind on garden apartments. <br /> At one point they didn't want them, then said they did for the elderly. And there have <br /> been other cases, and the planners have attempted to comply in each case. The office <br /> zone proposal also came from this committee, he noted. They have tried to evaluate and <br /> incorporate all suggestions. After the last meeting, they revamped the plan and came <br /> up with "incentive zones". They have tried to reflect the committee's desires in all <br /> aspects of the design. All of this is a proposal, he stated - not gospel. The basic <br /> concepts have been honored. He feels the process has been as originally conceived. It <br /> has to be a give and take mode. Now it is time to present it to a larger audience. <br /> Bill Kastarlak then spoke. He said the process has gone through several stages. Now <br /> they have to have the consensus of the committee. They started with diagnosing the <br /> illness, prescribed a treatment - and some of those ills have been put to rest. The <br /> emphasis has to shift back and forth from the town to the planners, he said. This is <br /> planning. . We have prescribed a solution for the problems - now the emphasis goes back <br /> to the town. There are definable issues that must be addressed. Then, there is imple- <br /> mentation. This process is following its natural course. The emphasis shifts from you, <br /> to us, and then back to you, he concluded. Good graphics are essential - we insist on <br /> quality in our graphics, in order to convey ideas better. <br /> Chm. Terry asked the committee if they were ready to set a hearing date? Mr. Marsters <br /> said he objected to including residential in the plan now. He feels one more session is <br /> needed on commercial, then one on( residential. The other members did not agree with him. <br /> Mike Makunas did not support more sessions. He said if he were to criticize Chm. Terry, <br /> it would be for allowing too much public input already. Any time any member of the <br /> audience has asked to sDeak, he has been given the opportunity, he said. Chm. Terry <br /> agreed - this has slowed the process, but he was trying to avoid criticism. <br /> George Benway asked where the idea of a 300 foot set-back along the Mashpee River had <br /> originated? He was told it was first proposed 2% years ago to the Planning Board. Mr. <br /> Benway asked if the Conservation Commission and D.E.Q.E. have had input? Are industrial <br /> parcels going to be affected, he asked? There are some acre lots down there. Chm. Terry <br /> responded that they could apply for variances. Mr. Benway said they are hard to get - and <br /> he feels this set-back requirement along the rivers is unfair to present landowners. <br /> Chm. Terry said he does not want to revise the plan four more times - maybe once or twice. <br /> He asked if the hearing should be on a Saturday? All agreed. The actual procedure will <br /> be to make a recommendation to the Planning Board, who will call the hearing. This <br /> committee agreed to suggest March 26, 1983, during the day. Mr. Marsters asked if there <br /> would be any changes in the plan, from what is now before the committee? Mr. Kastarlak said <br /> the comments heard tonight need discussion - not necessarily changes. He feels changes <br /> should not be made piecemeal - wait until after the hearing. The majority agreed. <br /> The minutes of January 26 were unanimously approved. Adjournment at 9:45 <br /> J <br />