Canterbury Meadows settlement

Argued the settlement bypasses the charter, land development code and Planning Commission, questioned the economic-hardship claim, and objected to characterizing Planning Commission volunteers as conspiracy theorists.

Said the dense layout fails the rural residential conservation standard, urged council to respect the charter and let the Planning Commission do its job, and warned the city's charm would be lost.

Speaking for her mother Leonore Cosma, questioned the hardship claim (citing rejected purchase offers), alleged a conflict of interest involving Council Member D'Eramo's brother at Tucker Ellis, and asked for drainage and wetlands review.

A letter from longtime resident Tom Mayer of 7153 Valley View Road was read into the record opposing the settlement, arguing it violates the land development code's rural zoning, wetland, and open space requirements and urging council to reject it.

Ward 3 Council Member Sutton spoke from the audience as a Ravenna Street resident, with his attorney, arguing the settlement conflicts with state and local law, creates a pay-to-play precedent, and abandons the rule of law; he said he was prepared to seek court relief if approved.

A Ravenna Street resident represented by counsel said her public records requests for the hardship claim went unfulfilled and questioned Council's authority and the 'now-compliant development' language.

Said residents speaking are protecting their homes and community while the developer does not share the same values.

A Stow Road resident's letter read into the record urged council to send the development back to the planning commission instead of settling, and said adjacent residents were never notified of the matter.