(add name)
10 Prospect, somewhat rushed, once bylaw passed to further frame or adjust could be longer
about land use and rights
ill informed spot zoning decision
inconsistent with the legal principle
fragmenting the area of the two, two abutting streets are scenic roads
no specific criteria for planning board
conforming law to the development
not the concept per se
should require demonstration of traffic and avoidance of safety issue
voiced issues and were apparently ignored
could be the wrong property number on the documents
why considering now?
the property have tried over numerous years and been previously denied
shouldn't the entire use base be considered?
concept of APR per the commonwealth, could that be applied
Notified in Aug, meeting positioned for feedback as important to the project
did refer to the Master Plan
several Town Councilors did attend, meeting was completely off the record
the neighborhood was a test case for similar proposals
the property can only be re-purposed back to RR1
just the land owner will gain the benefit of this law
all amenities are provided by others within a short drive
no mention of the timing of the proposal at the meeting
no record of the meeting
there were some in favor (friends and family)
received notice of series of meetings in Oct regarding of the Planning Board, etc. to Town Council
what was supposed to be a long process is now being completed in 2 months or so
there were not many abutters at the Planning Board meetings
comment on 'no issue' due the attendance at the Planning Board
now an addition of signing and lighting to the proposal
a classic example of 'spot zoning'
request suspension of action in lieu
- Bruce Barker
part 1, non-confirming
part 2, vacant
told by Planning Board that the site plan will take care of that
rusting backhoe
directly against spot zoning, court said no
is at risk and likely would not survive appeal
traffic concerns
proposal for 40 seats, to draw more traffic
have you tried to pull out of Spring St at 7 AM?
let's slow down, maybe there is a way to accommodate
- Cynthia Garbacy
there was a lot of opposition to the proposal
at the meeting in August
however, wait on this particular plan
it is not ready, definitions are not proper
confusion about general vs country, liquor yes or no
I fear after the Depoto's
maybe there would be a Tedeschi's there
40% produce but that is competition for our farm
I could work with the Depoto's
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0 via roll call
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0 via roll call
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0 via roll call
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0 via roll call
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0 via roll call
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0 via roll call
Bissanti recused himself
motion to approve, seconded, passed 8-0
Pfeffer - the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. if this did not happen, a 40B could bring in more and we would have less say about it
motion to approve, seconded, passed 8-1 (Vallee no)
fees reviewed, proposed and revise the bylaw for the first time in 15 years
simplification to enable online purchasing
consolidated, removed, added and updated
some fees increased in light of current expenses
Vallee - we are feeing people to death, I would vote against it
Padula - a difficult system cleaned up, well done
Mercer - some of the fees were cut in half, some were raised, we had questions and they were answered
Kelly - thanks to Padula, Pellegri, and Mercer for their work to understand and review this
motion to approve, seconded, passed 9-0
No comments:
Post a Comment