1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Minutes - February 14, 1990 Page 8. • Nicklus (cont.) Mr. Ferragamo: Therefore, we have only so much time to attend to our Board matters. The bottom line is that we are paying people and, in certain instances, they are designated as Assistants to the Planning Board. In this case we have a situation where the Assistant Town Planner acts as our Assistant and, I believe by job definition, that is condoned and allowed and all this stuff and it was done because our Town Planner doesn't act as our Assistant. He answers only to the Board of Selectmen. In creating the Assistant Town Planner position the attempt was to give the Town Planner some assistance and, then, to give the Planning Board some assistance because of all the things we have to attend to. Mr. Makunas: Why didn't we hire a Planning Board Administrative Assistant? Mr. Ferragamo: It's starting to look like maybe we would have gotten more accurate results because from both of these memorandums tonight.... Mr. Halpern: They don't represent what you said? Mr. Ferragamo: I can read those things and I can say, Boy, it's hard to • say we didn't say that but that's not what we said. You know what I'm talking about. I don't know what the situation is. I'm surprised by both of them tonight because the whole intent was to try to give you guys some support tonight from another agency. We reviewed it, we discussed it and these were our findings. And it was left up to a payroll person to communicate that. Obviously, I can't call you on every this and that. I am surprised that both of these memos came forward tonight with what I feel was an inaccurate picture of what transpired. Mr. Makunas: In fact, it was the opposite. Mr. Ferragamo: .It was accurate as to part of the discussion but it doesn't sound like the whole discussion was transferred over. The conclusion certainly was left out because, in both of these matters tonight, the conclusion was that the Planning Board advocated granting the relief that was requested. Mr. Makunas: That doesn't say that. Mr. Ferragamo: I know. They both said we were opposed. That's not our conclusion. In each case we had opposition to certain things.... this one, the piggy -back, the on-going thing and on the first one the only thing we were concerned with is that we wanted to be sure that you guys had the statutory variance power to vary a lot dimension.... Our comment was as long as you can do it -- do it. I wanted to clarify this. I clarified it on the Thompson issue and felt it was unfair not to clarrify it on the Nicklus application.