Comments on: Kingsley Condo Project Takes Next Step

By: James D'Amour

James D'Amour — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:05:09 +0000

Agreed with Tom, re: the quorum issue here. Mr. Allen’s project certainly would be a contributing factor into the shaping of downtown, albeit toward its fringe. Such an important project requires better input. Without going into the merits of the project, this city would be better served with the oversight of most, if not the entire commission.

I considered it a great privilege to serve on the Planning Commission during my time there and while not all of its members can be there at absolutely every meeting (life intervenes), Mr. Allen and the city were ill-served by this (despite his project moving forward to council), with so many members missing.

]]>

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:02:18 +0000

Argh… “decided they needed” etc. Anyway, I forgot the money quote, from a Toll Brothers VP: “I think it’s unfair to expect very high-income homeowners who paid a fortune to live in their building to have to be in the same boat as low-income renters, who are very fortunate to live in a new building in a great neighborhood.”

]]>

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:00:19 +0000

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:28:23 +0000

“‘So petitioners out there shouldn’t be afraid that we’re going to ignore [their projects] because we’ve got all these other great things to work on, and the community shouldn’t be afraid that if there aren’t petitions, there won’t be enough work for staff to do,’ he said.”

Neither of these two scenarios are the real concern. The real concern is that both the ZORO and R4C/R2A studies appear to be stalled for yet another year. Both were initiated way back in 2008 and have been constantly back-burnered as staff and planning commission made other, arguably less important projects, higher priorities.

These incomplete efforts continue to leave the entire community–especially neighborhoods outside of the official downtown–vulnerable to conflicts due to the zoning ordinance’s lack of consistency with the master plans or itself for that matter. The zoning ordinance is still not in compliance with State laws passed back in 2006 and 2008. When is the planning commission going to get serious about completing what it started six years ago?

]]>

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:25:35 +0000

It would seem the bylaws of the planning commission need to be updated to reflect the zoning ordinance that requires certain items to have six affirmative votes to receive an approval recommendation. If there are only five commissioners present, then the item probably should not be voted on, but rather postponed to the next meeting. Clearly, a simply quorum is not sufficient to conduct all the business the planning commission is responsible for conducting.

]]>