John R. Vavrek

By NANCY CREVIER

Published: Jul 08, 2005 12:00 am

John R. Vavrek

John R. Vavrek, 58, formerly of Westport, died on June 14 in Aspen, Colo., of natural causes.

Survivors include three brothers, Gerald E. Vavrek of Newtown, Lawrence J. Vavrek of Newtown, and James S. Vavrek of Besalt, Colo.; a sister-in-law, Cindy Vavrek of Newtown; and two nephews, James Vavrek and Matthew Vavrek, both of Newtown.

A Mass will be offered at 11 am, July 11, in St. Lukeâs Roman Catholic Church, 84 Long Lots Road, Westport. Interment will be in Assumption Cemetery, Westport, immediately following.

The Newtown BeeÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â July 8, 2005

Comments

Comments are open. Be civil.

0 comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Way We Were

Early Deadlines, Holiday Closings For New Year

Hendrik Bagmeyer

NFA Deep Brook Trail Scouting Day Postponed

Dolores M. Winans

Head on a swivel at all times - especially in grocery parking lots! Keep an eye out for folks turning at the flagpole - it befuddles them at times.

Please Drive Safe In 2025

How do you propose tapping the brakes, Dave? 8-30g already trumps any local regulations- you don't have a brake pedal to push. Brookfield, Trumbull and now Ridgefield have a clear case for a moratorium based on the development (thanks to 8-30g) that has already occurred. I don't see a clear case for Newtown to request a moratorium... yet.

Backs Moratorium On Dense Development Applications

Nobody is suggesting shutting the doors on new neighbors. What neighboring towns are doing, and what we should be doing too, is to tap the brakes on all of the multi-family residential development proposals so that we can spend 6 months updating our regulations such that if you want to build dense residential housing here, XX percent of it needs to be affordable (we will never make any headway on increasing our percentage of affordable housing otherwise, short of 8-30g), and the rest needs to be done in as low an impact manner as possible. Low impact on traffic, health & safety, the environment and on the cost of town services.

Backs Moratorium On Dense Development Applications

Hey, there you go! Richard solved it. Thanks, that seems so easy- we'll just get rid of the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court. Seriously, the 2nd amendment doesn't create violent criminals or mental illness. The Supreme Court doesn't create violent criminals or mental illness. The problem is not the tools, but the criminals & the mental illness. The state of Connecticut seems to be focused on the tools, like Richard, while ignoring the users of those tools.

Why Gun Violence Is Higher In The US

Ned, please familarize yourself with 8-30G, and then please share the unique flaws that may be helpful in formulating a denial An 8-30g project can be denied only on very narrow grounds – i.e., if it presents health, safety or other concerns that exceed a town’s need for affordable housing. According to the TOG website, “projects cannot be rejected for incompatibility with a Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD); density; traffic congestion; height; aesthetics; concerns of neighbors or the community; and failure to comply with local zoning regulations.” 8-30g proposals are rarely denied by planning and zoning officials because the burden of proof on appeal is on the town. Appeals are costly, but a municipality can be successful in a court case if it has sufficiently established that the concerns leading to denial are factual and substantive.

P&Z Should Reject Vessel Proposal

<< Dec 2024 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31	1	2	3	4

Log In

John R. Vavrek

Leave a Reply Cancel reply