Laserfiche WebLink
Dennis BaLzarini.argued that it is stated in the.regulation that the Planning Board <br /> has the authority to-recon ider. <br /> Al wilel.reinded the Board that Town Counsel has advised based upon <br /> infnrxatin provided by Planning Board/Staff, that the Planning Board does have the <br /> authority to address the changes being.proposed.. <br /> Dennis Bal zaru*ru' stated that he feels the proposed changes are significant and <br /> .should be taken into reconsideration by the Planning Board. One of the major issues of <br /> concern being an improvement, with regard to pedestrian safety, in front of the Roche <br /> Bros. <br /> Planning Board Members having stated their reactions to the presentation, the <br /> Chairman reco ed Mr. l iegathlin who addressed some of their concerns. <br /> With reference to the.significance of changing the loading area from Building C <br /> to Building B the entire pedestrian area is opened up and as a result, the entire width of <br /> the sidewalk is consistently between 18 and -feet. <br /> There being some discussion regarding the procedure and vote, the Town Planner <br /> clarified the language of the Statute— `Specific and material changes in the conditions <br /> upon which the previous unfavorable action was-based..." <br /> The Chairman then recognized Ann Sobolerski, Attorney representing-the <br /> Applicant. She addressed two issues with respect to the reconsideration. One being that <br /> Town Counsel determination that the Planning Board does have the absolute discretion <br /> and authority to review this modification and that it is the sole decision of the Planning <br /> Board to determine whether this matter is a sufficient change. <br /> She.then.referred to two statements made within the original denial that are <br /> incorrect. One being a statement made with respect to the Architectural Access Board <br /> not being in support or favor of this proposal. Applicant has appeared before the <br /> Architectural Access Board and they are in favor of the modification. The second <br /> statement made was in reference to the proposal taking away from open space mitigation <br /> required by the Cape Cod Commission, which is in fact incorrect. <br /> The vice-Chairman interjected making reference to a letter received from the <br /> Cape Cod Commission-in which they state there is no reference to open space in the <br /> Special Permit. <br /> With respect to the fact that the denial expressed a desire and requirement to <br /> preserve the pedestrian area is the sure and substance of the changes that have been made. <br /> modification of the plan preserves a significant and expansive pedestrian area for <br /> people to utilize. <br />