Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor:
My views of the L.O.M.P. Subdivision have not changed since I read the Town Council’s response to my letter. My objections are still valid.
I have a very high personal respect for Brad Fisher and Peter Skowronski and sincerely regret this public difference of opinion. My major differences with the Council’s letter are:
1) . The 60-day time limit for approval or denial of the application. I doubt that the 60-day clock was running since all of the required information was not submitted. If it was, the application should have been denied until the required information could be examined by the Planning Commission and Town Council.
The letter implies that the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the L.O.M.P. Subdivision because the required information was not submitted. The Planning Commission’s minutes state that denial was recommended because the application did not comply with section 6-8-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance (off-lot septic) among other reasons.
2) . Personal interest was technically an error on my part for which I apologize. This should have stated, Evelyn Willis disclosed that she had done business with The Inn; the gross or net, not clear Which, did not exceed $10,000.
3) . Waived requirements, not variance granted. Paragraph 4-1-4 which covers variances, exceptions and waivers requires “extraordinary hardship" to the developer before any of the above can be done. Hardship cannot be financial. The “ex
94.0%