To the Editor:
In response to the Thursday, Nov. 14 front page disingenuous endorsement of “Monstergate,” please note that in addition to the preposterous fantasy of convention hotel goers …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
In response to the Thursday, Nov. 14 front page disingenuous endorsement of “Monstergate,” please note that in addition to the preposterous fantasy of convention hotel goers staggering up to the wonders of a miraculously transformed Apponaug, something rather important was overlooked, i.e. the proposed zone change consists of:
1. General business and open space, with exemptions for a building with greater than allowable setback;
2. On a lot with less than required coastal and freshwater wetlands setback;
3. Less than required parking area setback;
4. Less than required parking spaces;
5. Greater than allowed driveway width;
6. Less than required loading spaces;
7. Less than required landscape buffer along street frontage.
Newspapers are assumed to print both sides of the news, presumably without prejudice. May I assume this important data will appear in equally large headlines on the front of next Tuesday’s paper?
Lynn Potter Vosselman
Warwick
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here