Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. I egathlin informed the Board that Applicant has submitted a reapplication <br /> and reconsideration of the Modification to-the Special permit. All of the abutters have <br /> been notified; the Town.Ter is in receipt of one letter of opposition and one later in <br /> favor. <br /> Applicant has addressed those issues of concern previously expressed. The <br /> loading area has been relocated from Building C to Building B; and the parking area has <br /> been reduced from 1 -spaces to 1 -spaces, which is a 25% reduction. As a result, the <br /> pedestrian path ad j a nt to Building C has been increased to approximately 18 to -feet. <br /> The reprised plan was resubmitted to Plan.Review evie on February 26, 2009 at which <br /> point it was approved with a recommendation to submit to the planning Board. Based <br /> upon these merits, the Applicant.is.respectfully requesting a reconsideration -of this matter <br /> by the Planning Board. <br /> The vice-Chairman then opened the discussion to planning Board comment: <br /> James Leonard stated that he feels the changes being presented are minor <br /> modifications, not substantial changes; and that the loading zone issue was not a major <br /> concern ofthe planning Board `"a subject of no interest to the Board, or very minimal <br /> interest; move it, don't.move it, leave it out...whatever" . In order to maintain the <br /> integrity of the regulation that states material changes are required for re-Consideration, <br /> his decision stands that Applicant has not met that.criteria. He also expressed a fear of <br /> setting a precedent whereby an Applicant could request reconsideration of an unfavorable <br /> vote by the Board. <br /> Joseph Mullin asked to respectfully disagree with the previous speaker stating that <br /> he has researched the statute and case later-and feels strongly and is confident that the <br /> changes being presented by the Applicant meets the criteria of the statute. He also stated <br /> that he-feels-this reconsideration should be approved; and that he has-taken the time to <br /> speak with employees of various establishments and stores in the subject area and has <br /> found there is extremely strong-support for this proposal and that it would greatly <br /> improve the area. He.is very much in favor of the proposal before the Board. <br /> Al wickel stated that he feels the changes being proposed are significant. He has <br /> also spoken with businspple in the area and has found that a major issue of concern is <br /> a lack of sufficient parking, inaessibility for the.elderly and handicapped. <br /> Mary waygan stated she disagrees that there have been significant changes.made <br /> to the plan. She stated that in order to qualify for reconsideration by the Planning.Board <br /> the plans must specifically address the specific reasons stated in the previous unfavorable <br /> negative vote. She feels that the proposed changes are not significant enough and do not <br /> address the issue of the pedestrian mall at Joy Street being modified into a one-moray street <br /> with parking and loading zone. The new plans should not be allowed to come back <br /> before the planning Board as designed as the plan continues to call for the modification <br /> of the pedestrian mall at Joy Street into a one-gray street-with parking and loading. <br />