Madakeas committee forwards three redevelopment alternatives to Select Board after reviewing housing, sports‑field and wetlands tradeoffs

The Madakeas Utilization Committee on April 16 reviewed a draft report and three concept plans for the town‑owned Madakeas property and voted to forward Alternatives A, B and C to the Select Board for consideration at the board’s May 12 meeting.

Consultant Heather Gould presented the three alternatives — Alternative A (mixed residential with a 120,000‑square‑foot sports building and four multi‑use fields), Alternative B (a recreation hub with roughly 66 apartment units and about 480 sports‑area parking spaces) and Alternative C (moderate housing density with expanded recreation and the option for full‑size baseball and softball fields). “We have the three concept plans for you to look at and respond to,” Gould said during the presentation.

Committee members focused on three recurring issues: unit counts and parking, wetlands and vernal‑pool buffers, and project phasing tied to a potential school decision and an existing solar lease. Several members asked the consultant to show housing unit counts and parking numbers more clearly in the plan graphics. “It’s just the configuration of the way the layout was,” Gould said when committee members asked why parking differed between alternatives; she agreed the plans could be reconfigured to add about 10 spaces to make comparisons consistent.

On environmental constraints, staff explained local regulatory buffers: a 35‑foot no‑disturb zone around some resources, a 50‑foot no‑structure zone and an additional 100‑foot buffer that typically requires Conservation Commission or conservation administrator review. “The 50 foot is you can't put a building within 50 feet of a wetland,” the staff member said, noting the vernal pool itself is a protected resource area with its own buffer.

Members also discussed phasing and finance. Staff and the consultant emphasized that phasing decisions — especially whether the school remains on the site and whether ground‑mounted solar must be preserved or relocated — will influence whether housing or the sports complex can proceed sooner. The committee urged the report to better highlight funding options, grant opportunities and the need for a market and fiscal analysis to guide facility size and parking demand.

On motions and votes, the committee passed three separate votes to forward each alternative to the Select Board. The motions included a request that the consultant adjust parking counts where appropriate and that the report emphasize on‑building solar options rather than relying solely on ground‑mounted arrays. Parker Lavoie moved to forward Alternative B “with the additional spaces in the parking,” and the committee approved that motion by roll call.

Members debated whether to add a separate committee letter listing late ideas received during the outreach process (examples raised included a museum, training center and tournament‑oriented fields). The committee instead passed a narrower motion to include a short executive‑summary sentence noting possible synergy with the Cape Cod Baseball League and to thank the community for participation.

Next steps: staff and the consultant will revise the draft to include clearer parking and unit counts, explicit discussion of wetlands buffers and phasing implications, and a brief sentence in the executive summary about the Cape Cod Baseball League as a potential local partner. The committee scheduled a further review meeting before the Select Board presentation (the committee discussed a May 4 review session), and the Select Board presentation is set for May 12.

The committee adjourned after confirming meeting logistics and a final minutes vote would follow, ending the April 16 session.