Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FW: [LandUseBurlington] Q&A info pages for TMM, Art. 23

Expand Messages
  • Paul A. Valleli
    Shari, The meeting with the BoS wasn t necessary, they just requested that I meet again with John Clancy, which Ernie and I did. I emailed my report of that
    Message 1 of 5 , May 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Shari,
      The meeting with the BoS wasn't necessary, they just requested that I meet again with John Clancy, which Ernie and I did. 
      I emailed my report of that meeting to LUC members and to Paul Raymond. John Clancy and John Petrin are asking me to shorten the Warrant Article and the Guide. You helped me with the warrant article but I cannot do that to the Guide without weakening it to the point of uselessness.
      Let's discuss this tonight.
      Paul 


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Shari Ellis <samandlee@...>
      To: LandUseBurlington-owner@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Sally Willard <sally@...>, landuseburlington@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, 05 May 2013 07:46:23 -0400 (EDT)
      Subject: Re: FW: [LandUseBurlington] Q&A info pages for TMM, Art. 23





       




      Paul,

      I have looked over your Q&A pages briefly and agree with Dave. 
      It is far too much information to be put on the back table the night
      of Town Meeting.  If you feel that it is ready to be distributed, I
      would have it sent out now, in order that it can be digested prior
      to the meeting.  In addition, I think that there are some parts of
      the answers that could be taken out as they are superfluous. 

      Did you have your meeting with the BOS?  Did they make a
      recommendation?  We can discuss this more on Wednesday night at LUC
      meeting, however, my overall comment, is that I continue to believe
      that this article should be postponed until September Town Meeting. 
      General and Zoning then can be discussed together.  May TM is filled
      with budget and financial information and is already cumbersome.  In
      order to give the Lighting Bylaw enough time for consideration and
      deliberation, it would make more sense to postpone.   Just my
      opinion.

      Shari


       

      On 5/4/2013 7:06 PM, Sally Willard
      wrote:
       

       

      Paul,


      I will look it over soon but I can already say
      that it is too long! TMMs are swamped with stuff
      and the shorter and clearer, the better.


      Dave

       

       

      On 05/04/13,
      paul valleli<paulvalleli@...> wrote:

       

       

      [Attachment(s)
      from paul valleli included below]

      Here
      is a copy for review and comment.

      I
      plan it as a handout at TM and send to
      committee chairpersons in a few days. I
      will be away until Sunday PM

       

      Paul

       

       





    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.