| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 9:11:05 PM
|
| Thanks for the info Tetris. I knew it was going to pass but did the abutters get to speak and do know which elected officals were there? |
Edited by - Tails on 07/28/2008 9:12:03 PM |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 9:29:58 PM
|
| Now that this hearing is over, it goes back to the city council. I expect it to pass so that the sale of the old city yards can finally move forward. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 9:30:54 PM
|
The meeting was run like the public hearings at the City Council meetings. The petition was read. The mayor presented the city's reasons for wanting to discontinue the street. The meeting was then opened up to a public hearing. You were given a chance to speak for or against the petition. The only ones to speak in favor of the petition were some of the city council members in attendance (Sachetta, Miller, DiPerri and DiFlorio). The jist of all their statements was that it is the right thing to do for the city, no matter who the buyer is.
The people to speak against the petition were the lawyer for Woody's, the owner of the Harley Davidson property, one of the home owners in the area and two of the other business owners in the area.
The lawyer for Woody's stated his client wasn't so much against the discontinuance; her issue was just insuring that the prescriptive easement that was awarded to her by the court was not compromised in any way. He stated one other fact that we were not aware of. According to his information (and he has been the lawyer involved in all of this litigation for Woody's), Fourth Street does actually continue thru Garden Street to the parkway. He gave no other detail but I would tend to believe him. That is why the protection of the easement is so important to his client.
The owner of the Harley Davidson property then spoke. Again, he didn't so much speak against it. He just let it be known that if this were to go forward, he would be seeking half of the Fourth Street property. I'm not really sure what his rights to the property would be but this would seem to be a new fly in the ointment in the sale of the old city yards.
The homeowner just stated that he was against it. The two businessmen weren't so much against it either but they stated that they were promised an invitation to the walk thru that the mayor had done had done on the site but were never contacted with a date and time. After they reviewed some picture of the site with the mayor and the board, they had nothing further to say.
At this point, the public portion of the hearing was closed. The only issue that really came up in the debate portion of the hearing was whether or not the discontinuance would have any impact on the abutters. The mayor assured the board that it would not. The vote was then taken.
I may have missed a few details but not anything that I would considered critical to the discussion. |
Edited by - tetris on 07/29/2008 3:38:00 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 9:57:28 PM
|
I think I would have made sure that anyone that wanted a walkthrough knew the date/time before the planning board hearing, but it's done and I hope the discontinuance issue will be over now for all concerned.
Does anyone know what his plan for the old city yards is?
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 10:39:24 PM
|
| Part of Chuck DiPerri's speech was that Mr Thibeault could not move Wood Waste to the site because he bound to use the property as described in his reply to the RFP. I can't recall all the details of it but, at the time, he proposed a three phase plan. I don't believe that plan matches up with any of the things that we have been hearing lately though. It will be interesting to see how that issue pans out or gets reconciled. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Planning Board 7/28/08 Wood Waste
