Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council refers proposed historic preservation project ordinance and removes duplicate petition from calendar
Summary
The council referred a citizen-initiated amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a "historic preservation project" classification to the Public Welfare subcommittee and Planning Board and removed a prior, replaced petition from the agenda.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Gardner City Council on May 5 referred a citizen-led petition to amend the zoning code to create a new "historic preservation project" section to the Public Welfare subcommittee and the Planning Board and scheduled a joint public hearing. The council also removed an earlier, now-replaced item from the agenda.
The petition, described in the agenda as submitted by "chair city church and 10 registered voters," proposes adding a new section titled "historic preservation project," amending the table of uses to allow certain uses by special permit, and modifying off-street parking, loading, and drive-through standards to facilitate historic preservation projects. Councilor Mack moved to refer the item; Councilor Thibaut Munoz seconded. The council approved the referral and ordered a joint hearing with the Planning Board. Councilor Mack also moved to remove item 11506 from the calendar because it was replaced by item 11534; that motion passed.
No substantive policy decisions were adopted at the meeting; the council’s actions were to refer the item for committee review and to schedule a public hearing so that the Planning Board, the Public Welfare subcommittee and the public can examine the petition’s details.
Councilor Mack said he moved to refer the item and to schedule a joint public hearing between the council and the Planning Board. At a later point on the agenda Councilor Mack moved to remove the earlier petition from the calendar because it was superseded by the new item.

