Laserfiche WebLink
Having put the question, the Chairman determined there was <br />no public opposition to the proposed Article. <br />Michael Dunning, Attorney for Owners of the subject parcel - <br />ia►de the following paints in support of his opinion that this <br />matter should not be allowed on Town Meeting floor. <br />It is his opinion that the expropriation of a Planning Board <br />Art-icle to be improper. Two of the previous speakers/suppor.ters <br />of the Article admitted that the Article had been written by the <br />Planning Board. If in fact the Planning Board wrote the Article <br />and if it is to be brought forward a second time, it is his <br />opinion that it should have been done so by action of the <br />Planning Board. Had the Article been presented in this manner, <br />those procedures set in place by the Board of selectmen with <br />reference t consideration of new zoning articles mould have been <br />adhered -to, there would have been time for proper Hearings... <br />At this point the Chairman interjected stating there is no <br />process in existence within the Town established by the Board of <br />Selectmen regarding review by appropriate Town Boards of zoning <br />articles. A suggestion that this become procedure has been made, <br />at this point there is no process in place. She requested the <br />speaker not use this as an anent. <br />Attorney Dunning agreed, stating however that had the matter <br />been brought forward by the Planning Board it would have been <br />done in a more timely manner, eliminating the current situation <br />whereby such a complex zoning article would not have to be made <br />within the "few days-" before Town Meeting. <br />This is a Planning Board Article and'should have been <br />brought forward by the Planning Board. He stated he has never <br />experienced a situation where an article drafted by a Board has <br />been taken over by a group as a petitioners, article. He feels <br />the manner in which this situation has been presented i <br />inappropriate. He stated this matter to be a very complex zoning <br />article and deserves better treatment than has been received at <br />this Hearing. He also feels a better explanation iB required, n <br />specifics of this lengthy and complicated article have been <br />addressed. <br />Attorney Dunning stated his personal opinion that the <br />proposed Article is ► big, broad zoning change which should have <br />been considered some time ago,, and which should have been brought <br />forward by the Planning Board (not by method of petition). <br />Attorney Dunning commented nothing negative has been said <br />against Southport. <br />The Chairman reminded Attorney Dunning the matter at hand is <br />not about Southport; she requested he confine his remarks to the <br />Article and his reasons for opposition. <br />� _ <br />