The ZBA indicated that they would like a peer review of the project. They did not indicate what part of the project should be reviewed. However, the many comments they made indicate that it would be a review of the building program, which would be outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Here is what that peer review would accomplish:
- Taxpayer money spent to conduct a peer review of the program which was written by an independent consultant and already reviewed by:
- Library Director
- Library Staff
- Library Building Committee
- Library Trustees
- Community Members
- The MBLC, which is dedicated to ensuring an objective unbiased review process for all applicants:
- As a recipient of a state planning and design grant, the building program was evaluated by a team of three independent reviewers.
- As part of the state construction grant, the application was reviewed by a team of five independent reviewers.
- Either a confirmation that the building program was well defined, or it wasn’t.
- No change in the project no matter what the result of the review. The grant was already submitted, approved, and awarded and a peer review would not change any outcomes including the building design.
- Delay of the project which could result in the loss of the grant depending on how long the delay is.