Sunday, February 16, 2020

Meetings of Interest in the Week Ahead

Tomorrow is Presidents Day, so there are no meetings scheduled, but there are plenty to make up for it in the following three days.
  • On Tuesday, February 18, the DRI Committee meets at 2:30 p.m. at City Hall. The deadline for submitting bids for immediate repairs to the roof of the Dunn warehouse is Tuesday at 12:30 p.m., so it is expected that the outcome of the second invitation to bid will be made known at this meeting. When this meeting was scheduled back on January 28, it was agreed that it would held at 3:00 p.m., but the calendar on the website indicates the meeting time is 2:30 p.m.
  • Also on Tuesday, February 18, the Common Council Finance Committee meets at 5:30 p.m. and the regular monthly meeting of the Common Council takes place at 7:00 p.m. Both meetings takes place at City Hall. Among the things the Council will be voting are these proposed laws and resolutions: the six-month moratorium on new short-term rentals; defunding the Tourism Board; increasing the mayor's term of office to four years; selling the vacant lot at Fourth and State streets; undertaking a vacancy study as a first step toward imposing rent control; doubling the fee for parking at the meters along Warren Street.  
  • On Wednesday, February 19, the Zoning Board of Appeals meets at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. The meeting will begin with two public hearings on area variances required to convert an accessory building at 960 Columbia Street into a residential unit and to replace a deteriorated accessory building with an addition to the principal resident at 521-523 Clinton Street. After the public hearings, during the regular meeting, it is expected that the application for the area variances needed for the proposed addition to 620 Union Street, the former Home for the Aged, will be presented.
  • On Thursday, February 20, the Common Council Economic Development Committee meets at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK

1 comment:

  1. The planned extension to the former 'Home for the Aged', a handsome building, does not look at all in keeping, inspite of the attempt. The porches also look ugly. I do hope that the blurred out trees, which do exist in the garden and are fine big trees will not be removed. This project is too large for the area. My humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete