Laserfiche WebLink
cooperation if not collusion" making the point that the Town <br />Planner should be allowed to explain a complicated submission. <br />e also pointed out inaccuracies regarding the statement made <br />that "The Planning Board is allowing this to be appropriated by a <br />special interest group'. <br />Mr. Dolan stated citizens have the right to submit any <br />petition they want, which is the case in point, using language <br />from an existing Article. He defended the Town Planner's <br />position by saying it was not presented as a proponent of the <br />Article, but rather the Town Planner merely explained the <br />Article. <br />Don Myers comments were brief and succinct by stating his <br />opinion that a legislative matter has become personal. The <br />discussion should be focused on what is in the best interest for <br />the Town. He feels the letters submitted into the Record <br />reinforce the concept that this is a personal action, detracting <br />focus from the legislative intent this Petition Article attempts <br />to accomplish. <br />The Chairman stated she has taken the time to thoroughly <br />read through the Article, addressing earlier comments made that <br />zoning articles are difficult to understand/read, to which she <br />agreed, acknowledging the situation is such out of necessity. <br />However, she does not agree with opposition to something ]used <br />upon the argument that it is too dif f icult to read or lack of <br />time to do so. <br />She stated she had been in favor of the Article when it <br />first appeared before the Planning Board in 2000 and that she <br />continues to be in favor of the proposed Article. she stated <br />clearly the Article being proposed has had a proper review. The <br />Article was discussed two weeks ago and again this evening, being <br />the proper process. Everyone concerned with this Article has had <br />the opportunity to be heard, both for and against. To say that <br />the Public Nearing process is somehow diminished than if the <br />Planning Board had proposed the Article is "ludicrous". The <br />process remains the same. <br />After careful consideration and -many hours of review of the <br />proposed Article and opposition thereto, the Chairman stated she <br />again this evening sought concrete objections to the Article, to <br />which she heard none. She then suggested the Planning Board is <br />due an apology for the tone and wording of both letters read into <br />the Public Hearing Record. <br />The Chairman them asked if there were any other Board <br />c ornment s . <br />* Don Myers added that during his review o the proposed <br />Article he found some points that he liked, some that he <br />uestion d, and some that he did not care for. At the end of the <br />