Skip to content
Search Canton

Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

July_3_2003

Zoning · Source year folder: 2003 · Record 28019

Open original municipal record ↗Open interactive reader

Saved text from 1 of 5 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.

Source page 1

Minutes of the Meeting of July 3, 2003.

PRESENT: Paul B. Carroll, Chairman
 James F. Fitzgerald, Jr.
 Gregory L. Pando

ALSO
PRESENT: Attorney Mark Bobrowski, counsel to the ZBA
Sue Franco, Recording Secretary

 Mr. Carroll opened the Public Meeting at 12:05 p.m. in the Salah Hearing Room,
Memorial Hall. He stated the purpose of the meeting is for the Board to conduct its third
deliberation session regarding the petition of Roseland Property Company.

 Also in attendance was Attorney Rich Gallogly and Mr. Tom Connery,
representatives of Roseland Property Company.

 Attorney Bobrowski stated he submitted a proposed draft denial decision to the
Board which is based upon the original Roseland petition.

 Mr. Carroll stated he feels the decision reflects his understand of the facts of the
case as they were discussed on several occasions.

 Attorney Bobrowski stated the Board wants to make sure that on July 10, 2003,
they are doing nothing more than tweaking this decision.

 Mr. Carroll stated the Board would formally render a decision on this matter on
July 10, 2003.

 Mr. Fitzgerald it is his understanding that the Board asked Attorney Bobrowski to
prepare a draft denial for Roseland in the event the Board votes to deny the petition on
July 10, 2003. He stated the Meeting was called today because of the closeness of the
40-day count, the Board wants to ensure that if they vote to deny the petition on July 10,
2003, the proposed decision is ready to be signed. He commended Attorney Bobrowski
on a well-drafted decision. He stated it is his understanding that the Board was never
furnished a copy of the purchase and sales agreement from petitioner.

 Attorney Bobrowski stated he would make it a jurisdictional issue at the HAC that
petitioner produce that.