Monday, August 29, 2005

Building Drama Part II

The planning board met again on July 26th to talk about Code Enforcement Director Chris Laskey decision to approve the Blue Ribbon Site Plan despite the board’s recommendation of disapproval with Mr. Laskey in attendance. From Mr. Laskey’s responses he seemed very sympathetic to all of the boards concerns but felt pressure legally from the developer. After seeking Town Counsel’s assistance he was advised he was in no position to deny the site plan.

Mr. Laskey, in reviewing the board’s concerns, requested the following details be included in the site plan:
  • Install a right turn only sign at the east exit.

  • Install a concrete walk in rear that will run parallel with and adjacent to the rear of the building.

  • Clearly define the pedestrian walkway from The Great Road to the front of the building.

  • A condition placed concerning any standing sign located on the site is reviewed by the Planning Board.

  • A condition placed stating all compact spaces to be limited to employees only.


Despite these extra conditions and changes placed on the Blue Ribbon Site Plan the board was still very disappointed with Mr. Laskey’s decision. Specifically they have concerns for both pedestrian and vehicular safety. They would also like the site fit into their long term plan of how the town center should look and would like to have all parking behind the building.

They have, rightly, chosen to appeal Mr. Laskey decision with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Once again, to be continued….

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Building Drama

So you say: What drama is there in construction other than the continued crusade against Avalon Bay? Well, a couple of month ago now the planning board voted for a recommendation to disapprove the Blue Ribbon Site Plan (I talked about it here and here). They voted to disapprove it because they had issues with vehicular safety movement, pedestrian safety, and different sections of the zoning bylaws that were not adequately provided for. They forwarded their decision along with a memo of why to the Code Enforcement Director, Chris Laskey.

Soon after the planning board made their decision to disapprove the Blue Ribbon site plan they received a memo from Chris Laskey. The gist of his memo is that he found the Blue Ribbon Site to be in compliance with the technical aspects and requirements and has approved the site plan. Just for reference, the planning board voted 4-1 against the site being approved and was a bit put off by Mr. Laskey’s decision. They looked into their options and decided to appeal Mr. Laskey’s decision to the ZBA. To this action they voted 5-0 to appeal and then consult with town counsel for the proper direction and appropriate wording for the appeal.

Last month they received a memo from town counsel in regards of how they should precede concerning Chris Laskey’s decision to approve the Blue Ribbon site plan. Town counsel pointed out that there is a possibility for a conflict of interest. It seems that Mr. Laskey has already sought advice from town counsel and has strategized with them concerning the Blue Ribbon site. The planning board is now planning to seek different counsel and Richard Jolly, Planning Director, has said he would invite Mr. Laskey to the next planning board meeting to discuss his decision.

To be continued…

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 08, 2005

Outstanding (not in a good way) Stuff

There doesn't seem to be any new news around Bedford so I'll fill you in on some older stuff, mainly outstanding issues with Avalon Bay. Last I heard there were four outstanding issues with Avalon Bay's construction. First, the entrance sign for the development is larger than what was stipulated in the conditions of their building permit. You can read Ann Kiessling-Cooper's letter to the editor concerning this issue here. Second, they have made the access road off of Davis Road smaller than what was stipulated and may cause issues with fire access. I know there is talk about making this access road one-way. Regardless of whether it is one-way or not the width will still have to be acceptable by the fire department. Third, they continue to start construction and make deliveries before the stipulated time. Lastly, issues regarding Avalon Bay's retention ponds, whether they are working and if they need to be treated for the mosquito population. There is a picture of one of the retention basins at Citizens for a Safe Bedford. The retention basins that exist now are just temporary and more than likely will not be a problem. That’s all I have for now.

Technorati Tags:

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Responsive State Reps

I posted recently that my wife got into a car accident and praised the auto body shop that did the work on our minivan. Well, it is now my time to rant. Part of the expense of the accident is this thing called "betterment". Something that I think is just wrong for someone that did not cause the accident to pay. I felt so strongly about it that I actually sent an email to my State Representative, Rep. Charles Murphy, the text of the email is below. What I am upset about is that I emailed him back on July 1st; it has been over a month and he never responded to my email. Not even an auto response from one of his staffers saying that he received the email.

I would like to hear what you other bloggers think about this? Is this something that is worthy of losing votes? Does anyone know what Rep. Murphy’s record on responding to his constituents is? Thanks all for your input.

Recently (6/27/2005) my wife got into an auto accident. Thankfully my wife sustained what seem to be minor injuries and my two boys were fine. I won't go into all of the detail of the accident but it was deemed not to be my wife's fault. I contacted my insurance company and they sent out an adjuster to examine my van. After getting back the estimates of the damages there were two items listed as betterments, which I am responsible for. It is these betterments that I am writing you about.

The explanation I got on the betterments was that there was already wear and tear to those items and that they were replacing them with new items and therefore I would have to pay the difference for that cost. That would make sense to me if the accident were my wife's fault. I was not planning on going out and replacing the tire anytime soon and because of the accident (no fault of our own) I am forced to, how does that then become my responsibility to pay? The logic of the betterments also starts a slippery slope for what insurance companies are responsible for. My entire van has wear and tear on it, is the next step for the insurance companies to prorate the entire vehicle claiming all of the work being done as betterments?

We in Massachusetts pay one of the highest insurance rates in the US. I think my family and I have paid into the insurance system (both of us level 9 drivers) more than enough. The entire idea of someone not at fault having to pay betterments is wrong and just another way the insurance companies are nickel and diming the consumer. I would appreciate you looking into this.

Sincerely,


Technorati Tags:

Monday, August 01, 2005

Vacation

Sorry for the lack of posts, I have been on vacation for the past week so I still need to catch up on everything that has been going on around town. I hope to get back into the swing of things by the end of the week.

One thing I do want to do is plug a couple local businesses. First, my wife got into a car accident last month and our minivan needed a lot of bodywork. We ended up bringing our car to Luther Bodyworks. We were very happy, Ken was great to deal with and they did a very nice job. Second, we had to border our dog for the first time. We ended up bring her to Crestview Kennels. Again we could not have been happier. Nancy was just great and also lessened a lot of the worries my boys had. Belle (the dog) came back both healthy and happy. Glad to be back in gold ole Bedford.

Technorati Tags: ,