That day finally came, almost 25 years later.
Can someone please explain to me why the Newport Project is "consistent with the 1985 Town Master Plan"?
1985?!?! Ronald Reagan was sworn in for his second term. "We Are The World" was recorded. Wham! was popular, I mean....c'mon! 1985?!?!
Link to PB Attorney's proposed resolution.
AYFSWTS?
7 comments:
Reading the resolution makes one wonder just who really wrote it.
Well....ya gotta wonder!
Geez. It's ridiculous.
Well - I guess this 1985 plan was technically "the most current".
The Town Master Plan that the previous administration was working on was never completed....so.....1985 it is.
I thought that maybe they'd refer to the LWRP and IBHMP for consistencies (they are more recent), but apparently 1985 works for them.
Saying (in the proposed resolution) that they "deliberated at length" and that it is consistent with the Bay Harbor Management Plan is not really true.
I don't recall the board ever discussing the LWRP or the IBHMP. Ever.
Jax said-
"I don't recall the board ever discussing the LWRP or the IBHMP. Ever."
They NEVER did! I kept waiting for that conversation and it never happened. It will be interesting to see the Planning Board vote on the final site plan, including this 17 page lawyer constructed resolution. ;)
One of the major issues that many residents spoke about was the height of the project. This subject was never even debated-discussed or deliberated at a board meeting. The public didn't even know the height of the buildings at the Feb. meeting after the board joked about not knowing themselves at the January meeting.
The plans online say 53 feet.
How was any public input/concern taken into account if the buildings are still over 50 feet? The height is at the boards discretion. Oops, I forgot they are only doing what RSM told them to.
This plan isn't consistent with the LWRP or Bay Harbor Management Plan. So I wonder how they are going to say yes to a resolution that claims that it is.
What should outrage the public is NO consistency. How are some applicants hammered over small details of different shades of white for a sign but 53 foot buildings 25 feet from the waters edge warrant NO discussion!
If that doesn't look fishy I wonder what does?
The 50' limit seems more a guideline, since no particular building was under consideration when it was adopted.
I'm all for letting the board use their discretion, unless affected residents have material objections against 53' height and present them formally.
Well, I'd just like to know what the height is.
After 3 years, you'd think there would be a definite number to the height of the condos.
The Town Code (that I accessed through e-code) said 45 ft., and it is up to the discretion of the board to make that height LOWER if they feel that the visual impact would be compromised. Nothing about increasing the height - just lowering the height.
Eh - Codes Schmodes! Who needs 'em?
Just let the developer build however high he wants.
To hell with the LWRP and IBHMP and Town Codes!
Hey anonymouos 1:37am- objections were raised and they were substantially ignored by the Planning Board.
Post a Comment