My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/06/2026 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
05/06/2026 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2026 5:02:42 PM
Creation date
5/27/2026 10:24:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/06/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
of TMs s,s <br /> z. <br /> Aannin Board <br /> c� <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> .wlashpee, Aassachusetts 02649 <br /> Ms. Faulkner noted reassigning money the Commission assigned was not possible. She <br /> doesn't understand if they have identified better mitigation points, why couldn't they change <br /> it? It's part of the package they agreed to, wouldn't they agree this is much better and would <br /> help? <br /> Mr. Adams made a point to clarify the project already committed to the Commission, and that <br /> part is set in stone. <br /> Ms. Faulkner knows, and as lay people, they generated questions like the Hingham <br /> comparison to drive a more accurate trip analysis, how can they commit before they know the <br /> facts on a local level? <br /> Ms. Waygan thought they had a commitment to discuss that with the Commission, some <br /> mitigations proposed, because we live here, we know is not helpful. The Redbrook mitigations <br /> are silly. At the Mashpee Rotary, we have a letter from a business owner. The drawing you <br /> presented of what exists won't work. Some of those entranceways are deteriorated and locals <br /> know to avoid them because the asphalt is crumbling. At some of those entrances the <br /> pictures show markings for one way entries, which would cause huge issues. <br /> Mr. Kirrane stated they were told no by the Commission, the mitigation agreed to by this <br /> project is part of their design review. <br /> Mr. Milbury believes it would be beneficial for the Commission to speak with the local people <br /> who live here. <br /> Mr. Kirrane doesn't disagree with that process, where the Commission implements something <br /> before the Town can weigh in. As a condition, they commit to working with everyone. <br /> Mr. Tobin respectfully stated the purpose of trying to work simultaneously is an effort to save <br /> the client money. We want to help identify rational solutions that our local knowledge is relying <br /> on, but also not drive up costs for the applicant. <br /> Ms. Waygan asked if this was a written exchange or verbal and who they talked to at the <br /> Commission. <br /> Mr. Adams asked informally, if there is a way to take some mitigation and repurpose it. He is <br /> not against if the Town wants to reach out and take the $50,000 to use in other ways. The <br /> Commission is trying to solve for the greater regional effort. He asked someone he knew on <br /> the Commission about the process and reallocating the money. In terms of how this moves <br /> forward, they are committed to a certain amount of money. If that number of dollars goes <br /> 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.