pages: PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-08-27 | 5 | issue had been solved if some of the work was going out to consultants. Ms. Woodbury replied that staff people were still required to manage a contract, but the bulk of the work would be performed by the consultant. She agreed that complying with State law was key, and suggested that the Planning Board identify the top priority as bringing the codes, ordinances and the General Plan into compliance with State law. President Cook recommended that the Planning Board make bringing the City's plans and ordinances into compliance with State law the top priority. She suggested that if necessary, additional resources could be requested from City Council to fulfill that priority. Ms. Woodbury noted that it was important to plan ahead, even if everything could not be commenced this year. She suggested that staging the projects would make best use of staff resources SO that everything did not occur at the same time. Board member McNamara did not believe it was the Planning Board's position to micromanage the Planning Department, and to identify the resources needed to get the work done; she added that was the job of the Planning and Building Director and staff. She encouraged the Board to rely on staff to accomplish that goal. Ms. Woodbury noted that the only item on the first page of the work program not required by State law was the Zoning Overlay District. She noted that was an application and entitlement submitted by City Council, which the Board must move forward. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for the Fall of 2007, and suggested that waiting for that input may make it less of a priority. Board member Lynch inquired whether the City Council had considered the financial impact of that application, and he believed it would cause a tremendous negative impact on that neighborhood. He inquired whether the neighbors were aware of it. Ms. Woodbury replied that would be part of the discussion. Vice President Kohlstrand believed the Mayor brought that issue up during the joint session. Board member Lynch expressed concern that people may not realize the consequences of such a petition, and did not want that to be an issue after substantial financial and time resources have been expended. Board member Cunningham requested that the impact of parking within the 20-yard front yard setback be studied. Ms. Woodbury replied that could be added. Ms. Woodbury noted that the parking study was completed for Webster and Park Streets, but it did not mean the City could not look at parking regulations for the stations if a change in ordinance was being considered. She suggested that there may be flexibility for the stations, as well as parking in the front yard setback. She noted that those items may be examined at the same time, with a more global solution. Page 5 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf |