Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Select Board <br />September 8,2025 <br />Minutes <br /> <br />Motion made by Selectman Weeden to execute the warrant with supplemental visual <br />aids as recommended. <br />Motion seconded by Selectman Richardson. <br />Vote: 5-0 Unanimous <br />Roll Call Vote <br />Selectwoman Wyman-Colombo-yes <br />Selectman Weeden-yes <br />Selectman Cotton-yes <br />Selectwoman Kelley-Wilson-yes <br />Selectman Richardson-yes <br /> <br />Discussion of Project Eligibility/Site Approval Letter from Mass Housing, dated <br />August 26, 2025 <br /> <br />The Mashpee Select Board convened to review and discuss the project eligibility <br />determination letter issued by Mass Housing for a proposed Chapter 40B development <br />project. The Board expressed widespread concern that the summary provided by Mass <br />Housing did not fully or accurately reflect the breadth of the Town’s original comments and <br />concerns submitted in response to the eligibility notification. Selectman Weeden opened <br />the discussion by noting that the Mass Housing letter mischaracterizes the project’s <br />consistency with local and adjacent massing, particularly by referring to the proposed <br />building as a four-story structure that is in keeping with its surroundings. Several members <br />disagreed with this assessment, noting that the building's height is inconsistent with <br />current zoning and neighboring properties. Member Weeden emphasized that this sets a <br />dangerous precedent that could allow future developers, including current landowners <br />such as Mashpee Commons, to seek height variances based on this project’s approval. <br />In addition to zoning concerns, the Board focused heavily on public safety issues, <br />particularly fire safety and emergency response. Selectwoman Kelley-Wilson, Selectman <br />Cotton, and Selectman Richardson highlighted the fact that the building’s height exceed <br />the capabilities of existing ladder trucks.. The question was raised whether the Town would <br />need to purchase additional equipment at taxpayer expense or whether the developer <br />9 <br /> <br /> <br />