patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

2nd Public Hearing Tonight on 80-Unit Condo

Here's a look at what's happening in Attleboro.

 

1. A second public hearing will take place tonight on the proposal to build a mixed-use development, including 80 residential units and 6,615 square feet of retail, at the corner of Wall and South Main streets. This session will take place before the Zoning Board of Appeals at City Hall at 6:30 p.m.

The first hearing took place March 4 before the Planning Board. Nobody spoke at the hearing who was not directly connected to the project. The project is proposed by a private developer on land currently owned by the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority. 

2. School district superintendent candidate Kenneth Sheehan will be interviewed in public by the school committee at 7 p.m. in Attleboro High's Room 178E. The other candidate, Anthony Azar, was interviewed last week.

3. The Willett Elementary School PTO will meet at the school at 7 p.m. at the school. All Willett parents are invited to attend.

4. Are you chatty? Why don't you try chatting in written form with lots of people? Blog on Attleboro Patch. Go here to get started.

5. The National Weather Service's daytime forecast calls for mostly cloudy skies, a west wind traveling 6 mph to 14 mph with gusts up to 24 mph and a high near 39. At night, it is expected to be mostly cloudy with a low near 19.

    Related Topics: Five Things

    Jerry Chase

    6:00 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013

    I'm aware of two city councilors planning to be at the ZBA Public Hearing tonight; yet hoping to see more.

    Reply

    Jerry Chase

    11:25 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013

    City councilors Jay DiLisio and Jeremy Denlea were in attendance. So was Judy Robbins. I wonder how that flight back from Seattle was . . yesterday.

    Reply

    blueskies

    7:53 am on Friday, March 15, 2013

    Sorry Jerry...did not see that she was in Seattle this week I would definitely expect her to be spending the holiday with her family and they do live in Seattle...what I read was that she would be returning from Seattle on April 1 so would be able to connect with Council AFTER that date...that she would not be able to give Council much of an update this week since so much of what is going on is either executive session or in process as the various permits etc are before the different boards. (and she has attended I believe all of these board meetings not Just the one last night). Was curious after listening to the meeting last night, where were all the negative speakers?? I had seen so much written here, fully expected to hear some familiar names last night, but didn't.

    Reply

    Jerry Chase

    11:38 am on Friday, March 15, 2013

    My reference using the word, 'yesterday', was . . "tongue in cheek", so to speak.

    I spoke deliberately narrowly as to the two of the nine requests, as regards reducing the amount and size of parking stalls for the project. For example, after it was built,
    how would a fire chief or a police officer visiting the place on official business, how
    would said officer fit their Crown Vic or SUV into a reduced-sized space . . . or even
    find a space. Plainly, the City ordinance which mandates by formula a minimum amount of available parking was written with care and good reasoning. Further, to grant variances or special permits without due comtemplation tends to render the zoning ordinances worthless. There is also the legitimate fear that there could develop a dual-system of one set of rules for the "favored" versus another set for the "disfavored". I think that all would agree that such favoritism is, or would be, abhorent by definition. As the pledge concludes, " . . with liberty and justice for all."

    Reply

    Jerry Chase

    11:43 am on Friday, March 15, 2013

    Now, for a moment, let's look at their request in terms of numbers. The ordinance requires 224 parking spaces. Crugnale's plan is for 143. That's a reduction of 81 spaces, in pure numbers. In percentages, it figures to a 36% reduction. This is very significant. There will be NO on-street parking nearby---none! And there's not much within the neighborhood, either. I simply wished to describe the proposal fairly----neither negatively, nor enthusiastically . . . as it should be received: on its merits or lack of same. As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

    Reply

    Leave a comment