|
|
Post by admin on Jun 22, 2009 10:58:21 GMT -5
I understand that this issue will be on this Wednesdays meeting agenda. June 24th at 7:30
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 25, 2009 4:50:12 GMT -5
I understand that this issue will be on this Wednesdays meeting agenda. June 24th at 7:30 I did go to the meeting last night, but I did not stay for the whole thing. It was going to be a very long meeting and could not stay. There was about 20 people in attendance, I assume to see what transpires with this case. I will try to get some info as to what happened after I left. If there isn't already, ther may be a piece from the APP. Kim Predham was there. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 25, 2009 14:07:06 GMT -5
I understand that this issue will be on this Wednesdays meeting agenda. June 24th at 7:30 I did go to the meeting last night, but I did not stay for the whole thing. It was going to be a very long meeting and could not stay. There was about 20 people in attendance, I assume to see what transpires with this case. I will try to get some info as to what happened after I left. If there isn't already, ther may be a piece from the APP. Kim Predham was there. My understanding is that they did not get to the public portion of the meeting. That the applicant had her say, and the board adjourned the meeting - due to how late it was - so that it may hear the members of thepublic at the next meeting. That is probably not very good timing for Ms. Davis, whose words will no longer be fresh in the mind of the board - but rather (I assume) the unhappy public will have the last and most memorable words on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 25, 2009 15:55:14 GMT -5
I did go to the meeting last night, but I did not stay for the whole thing. It was going to be a very long meeting and could not stay. There was about 20 people in attendance, I assume to see what transpires with this case. I will try to get some info as to what happened after I left. If there isn't already, there may be a piece from the APP. Kim Predham was there. My understanding is that they did not get to the public portion of the meeting. That the applicant had her say, and the board adjourned the meeting - due to how late it was - so that it may hear the members of the public at the next meeting. That is probably not very good timing for Ms. Davis, whose words will no longer be fresh in the mind of the board - but rather (I assume) the unhappy public will have the last and most memorable words on the subject. This is correct. Ms. Davis did do a long presentation. The public portion will be on July 8th. I do not know when the board will actually vote to approve or deny the application. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2009 4:59:36 GMT -5
Last night was the public portion of this issue at the planning board meeting. I understand that Ms. Davis asked for a continuance in order to rebut the approximate 22 people who spoke up at the meeting. I will try to get further details later.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2009 16:43:50 GMT -5
Last night was the public portion of this issue at the planning board meeting. I understand that Ms. Davis asked for a continuance in order to rebut the approximate 22 people who spoke up at the meeting. I will try to get further details later. Some more details..... Apparently, not all of the public who spoke were against the variance. I understand that about half were speaking in favor of Ms. Davis. I do not have names or further specific details, but I also understand that those who spoke for her were mostly from out of town. One of the people who spoke against Ms. Davis did make mention of Ms. Davis going door to door with a picture of Mexicans, threatening to rent to them if she does not get her way. Also, some of the lawyers who were present got into a heated exchange. It is clear that people are digging their heals in on this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 10, 2009 4:58:55 GMT -5
Last night was the public portion of this issue at the planning board meeting. I understand that Ms. Davis asked for a continuance in order to rebut the approximate 22 people who spoke up at the meeting. I will try to get further details later. Some more details..... Apparently, not all of the public who spoke were against the variance. I understand that about half were speaking in favor of Ms. Davis. I do not have names or further specific details, but I also understand that those who spoke for her were mostly from out of town. One of the people who spoke against Ms. Davis did make mention of Ms. Davis going door to door with a picture of Mexicans, threatening to rent to them if she does not get her way. Also, some of the lawyers who were present got into a heated exchange. It is clear that people are digging their heals in on this issue. Apparently, there was at least one person from the borough who spoke in favor of Ms. Davis. I believe that MS. Davis would have been wise to seek out others from the borough in her favor. I know that some people who live here agree with her, inluding my wife. This is an interesting issue where individual property rights are being balanced against the efforts to keep a nice area residential. |
|
|
|
Post by truthinesshurts on Jul 24, 2009 11:56:39 GMT -5
Per News Transcript, this application was to be continued at the 7/22 P/Z Board meeting. Does anyone know what the outcome was?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 25, 2009 5:25:24 GMT -5
Per News Transcript, this application was to be continued at the 7/22 P/Z Board meeting. Does anyone know what the outcome was? I put a post up here that may have had some bad info so I deleted it. When I get the good info, I will post again. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 31, 2009 5:00:26 GMT -5
|
|
