pages: PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-04-24 | 10 | was biased in her decision. She was very familiar with this area, and noted that the check cashing business and the car dealership were in the Webster Street business district. She noted that the area was mostly residential, with the exception of Ralph's Market. She was surprised that more residents were not in attendance, and believed this would be a dramatic alteration to this neighborhood. She did not know whether this was an appropriate location for a dental practice. President Cunningham noted that the use permit ran with the property, and would remain in force if the current owners were to sell the property. Ms. Pudell added that the use permit would be good only for the specific use proposed. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that most of the nearby commercial uses were on corner sites near Webster or in a cluster of similar uses; this would be the first introduction of this kind of frontage. She was concerned about introducing a commercial use at this site. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the site and spoke with Mr. Stewart about this site. She noted that the subject traffic would occur during business hours, and that the greatest demand was during the evening hours. She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean that they would be parked there all day. Mr. Lynch noted that Alameda was an urban environment, and would like more detail with respect to complaints about the "noise problem." He noted that there were many medical facilities located throughout Alameda, and he has yet to see any devalued property prices. He added that another complaint addressed decreased privacy. He believed that if a resident did not want this business as their neighbor, they should just say that. President Cunningham noted that the property is currently vacant, and inquired whether there was a current problem with the property not being occupied at night. He would like further information on traffic impacts. He would like to hear comments from the other neighbors. M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Mariani and unanimous to reopen the public hearing. AYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0 Mr. Stewart noted that no one has addressed the salability of the homes in the future, and agreed with Ms. Mariani's concerns. He noted that many neighbors were opposed to this project. Mr. Colinberg wished to clarify the definition of "buffer," which meant being protected from something. He was not convinced by the Jennings' statement that many neighbors had changed their minds from opposition to support. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. This item was continued to the meeting of May 8, 2006. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 April 24, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf |