In last week’s story about the Greylock development proposal, The Local incorrectly characterized the Planning Commission's recommendations on zoning variances. The commission only recommended approval for multi-family household living within existing structures, not for the additional buildings called for in the current proposal. The commission recommended maintaining the current single-family zoning, citing the developer's failure to demonstrate economic hardship for proposed new construction.
Look for further reporting on this issue in next week’s Local.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
You can also purchase this individual item for $1.50
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 digital subscriber with an active subscription, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
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 |
In last week’s story about the Greylock development proposal, The Local incorrectly characterized the Planning Commission's recommendations on zoning variances. The commission only recommended approval for multi-family household living within existing structures, not for the additional buildings called for in the current proposal. The commission recommended maintaining the current single-family zoning, citing the developer's failure to demonstrate economic hardship for proposed new construction.
Look for further reporting on this issue in next week’s Local.
