pages: PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-08-27 | 10 | and realized that Mr. Vu was not the original planner. She noted that there had been a disconnect between what the Planning Board was looking for, what was in the staff report, and what ended up being built. She wanted to ensure that the conditions reflected the stated intentions of the Planning Board. She would like to see more reflection of the Board members' emotional comments to give the conditions the teeth they expected. She noted that she had become very frustrated with this project, and added that the staff report read, "On August 22, the Board reviewed and approved 6-1, the final waterfront design, landscaping and building elevations." She wished to correct that vote, which was 5-1, because she was opposed to the project at that time; Board member McNamara was absent. Ms. Woodbury would like to have this discussion on-site, and that she would be able to help the Board through this process in articulating their wishes. She agreed with President Cook that the Board should not have to review every single detail in the conditions. She noted that the approval was in the resolution, and suggested that the Board ensure that the appropriate items were captured in the conditions. President Cook expressed concern that the comments that were carefully documented in the minutes don't seem to carry much weight over time in the projects. Ms. Woodbury noted that they must be included in the conditions of approval. Vice President Kohlstrand cautioned that the Board should not do the staff's job, and although she understood President Cook's frustration, she did not want to further slow the process down. President Cook noted that because staff had little time with the drawings and documents, the Board members had even less time to review them. Page 10 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf |