Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, January 8, 2015
Public Present
Stephen Salsbury of Herrick and Salsbury, Janet Leston Clifford, Robert G. Clifford, Mike Deyling, Daniel Pileggi Attorney for The Shencavitz’, and the Aylens, Chip Haskell of CES Engineering, Ed Bearor Attorney for the applicant, Paul MacQuinn of Harold MacQuinn Inc., Jean Gilpin, George Gilpin, Dick Broom, Dianne Young, Erma Smallidge, Laurie Shencavitz, Gerald Shencavitz, Jeff Gammelin of Freshwater Stone, Elizabeth Roberts, Pamela Bowie, Keith Bowie, Paul Kozak, Jan Coates, Katrina Carter, Douglas Hopkins, Seth Singleton, Charlotte Singleton
Board Members Present
David Ashmore, Acting Chairman Bill Hanley, Lili Andrews, Meredith Randolph, Dennis Kiley
Also present was CEO Kimberly Keene, Attorney for the Planning Board James Collier, and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge.
Acting Chairman Bill Hanley called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm. He noted the voting members present.
December 10, 2014: Mr. Ashmore moved, with Ms. Randolph seconding, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion approved 4-0.
- Completeness Review and Public Hearing:
- Quarrying License Permit #001-2014
OWNER(S): Harold MacQuinn, Inc.
OPERATOR(S): Fresh Water Stone & Brickwork, Inc.
AGENT(S): Steven Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Edmond J. Bearor, Rudman Winchell
LOCATION: Off Crane Road, Hall Quarry
TAX MAP(S): 007 LOT(S): 075 ZONES(S): Residential 2
PURPOSE: To review completeness of quarrying license application, and conduct Public Hearing
It was the consensus of the Board to try to keep the meeting end time to 9:00 pm.
No conflict of interest was found.
Ms. Andrews confirmed adequate public notice.
Chairman Hanley reminded the Board that there were three items that needed to be determined for completeness. Those items included:
6.1D.10 – a site plan with the locations of all setbacks, including a clarifying letter from Mr. Musetti regarding the setback waiver and a site plan with the setbacks marked.
6.1D.19 – Information on fuel storage, and confirmation there would be no overnight fuel storage and no washdown of equipment or stone on site.
6.1N – Information on reducing noise including information on panels and other temporary noise control devices.
Regarding 6.1D.10, Mr. Salsbury noted that Mr. Musetti requested a 25-foot setback in his original letter. Rather than request a new letter, they revised the plan to show the 25-foot setback. Mr. Musetti’s letter was page 80 of the application. Mr. Salsbury pointed out the setback in question on the site plan.
With regard to 6.1D.19, Mr. Salsbury pointed out the notes on fuel storage and washdown.
With regard to 6.1N, Mr. Salsbury is proposing a 5-6 foot high berm along the north side of the project. Temporary hay bales would be used around equipment as well. Work at the quarry would not start till 8:00 am. The information on the noise was on pages 1601 – 1603. The berms and hay bales are in lieu of panels and curtains. Mr. Kiley asked for assurance that these measures would cut noise. Mr. Salsbury noted that blocking the noise should raise the noise up into the air rather than allowing it to go over the land. Mr. Salsbury felt the hay bales and berm would be acceptable noise control.
Ms. Randolph moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to find the application complete. Motion approved 5-0.
The Public Hearing ensued.
Ms. Andrews confirmed adequate public notice and stated that the abutters had been notified. No conflict of interest was found.
Mr. Bearor, attorney for the applicant, noted there were several experts in attendance to address aspects of the application. He referred to the first section of 6.2, General Requirements. Attorney Bearor felt the General Requirements were not review criteria, but a checklist to ensure each are completed. Mr. Pileggi, attorney for the Shencavitz’ and Aylens, noted he had submitted a position statement and materials. Attorney Pileggi stated the Board has to find that the application complies with the State law. Me. Pileggi did not feel the application complies with State law. He noted a picture of the quarry in 1967. It was not required to apply for a permit at that time due to its small size. But at that time the owners were told if they expanded, they would require a
permit. As can be seen from the site plan, there has been a major expansion beyond the 1967 area, and a permit is required. A notice of intent to comply is required. Furthermore the noise control information and the information regarding ground water is not adequate.
Jan Coates, an abutter to the quarry, hoped the Board would review the application with prudence and responsibility. She noted the operation would have an impact on residents of Hall Quarry. She felt the application did not adequately address noise or water contamination. She does not feel that what she’s heard so far sufficiently addresses the issues.
Janet Clifford, a resident of Hall Quarry, appealed for scientific data. Although she noted she was not an abutter, he has heard noise of operations in the quarry for years. She hoped there would be information on the decibels of the operation and data on the noise control measures.
Seth Singleton, a resident of Hall Quarry, asked the Board to consider the Town’s economics. The quarry will lower area property values, thus lowering the taxes. It would also inhibit real estate sales and construction in the Hall Quarry area.
Erma Smallidge, a resident of Hall Quarry, noted she hears trucks often. She pointed out the Quarry policy’s intent to protect health, safety, general welfare, natural resources, and property value. She asked whether if the Town failed to meet these standards, then could the Town be found negligent with regard to protecting these aspects?
There were no further opening statements.
A review of the application began and is attached to these Minutes. Attorney Collier suggested voting on each application item separately.
Ms. Randolph asked about compliance with State laws. It was Attorney Collier’s feeling that the Planning Board was not the vehicle to decide whether aspects of the operation conform or not to rules in the statutes; that was up to the DEP. Attorney Collier’s understanding was that this quarry is not subject to DEP standards. Mr. Collier suggested that section 6A1 could be addressed by having the applicant submit a letter from the DEP stating they have reviewed the submission and their finding is that the operation does not require a DEP permit. Attorney Collier felt that if the operation is not subject to regulation by the DEP, then the Board cannot regulate it as though it were. Chairman Hanley noted that Section 6.2A.1 states “The quarrying activity shall conform to all applicable
State laws and local ordinances and regulations.”
Mr. Salsbury said the applicant would be operating within a 1.1 acre area. Because of its size, the quarry is not subject to DEP regulations. If the applicant expands the quarry, a permit will be required and the applicant will file a notice of intent to comply. Mr. Salsbury felt it could be years before the quarry expanded. He reminded the Board that the applicant would have to return to the Planning Board every five years for permit renewal. He added that the quarry can remove only 2500 cubic yards per year. When the quarry finally expands, the applicant will have to close the previous site, remove any water there, and apply for the expansion. Mr. Salsbury added that when the quarry closed, they would have to file for an external draining permit for any water there.
Ms. Randolph inquired why, if the DEP only allows one acre of area to be quarried at a time without a permit, was the applicant requesting approval for a larger area, and was the Board expected to take it on faith that the activity would remain within the one-acre quarry area allowed by the DEP, and that the applicant will inform the State of any changes. Mr. Salsbury stated that as long as the applicant stays within the one-acre limit, they can move that acre around the area approved by the Planning Board. The applicant would close one area before they opened another.
Attorney Collier felt the applicant could apply for up to three acres. Mr. Collier reminded the Board that if the applicant is in violation, the neighbors will complain and the DEP will be called out. Attorney Collier was confident that if the applicant needed a permit they would apply for it, particularly in an area with so many neighbors watching the operation. Mr. Kiley requested a more detailed map showing exactly where the operation is as of right now. Other Board members agreed.
Attorney Pileggi stated that Section 6.2A.1 places burden on the applicant to convince the Planning Board that their operations conform to applicable law, and not on the neighbors to report on quarry operations. Mr. Pileggi agreed there is an exemption for a quarry under an acre in size, and an exemption for quarries that existed as of 1970. However, statutory language states that once there is a substantial change in plans the exemption no longer applies. There is no evidence within the application that the applicant has applied to the DEP and been told they require no permit. There’s no evidence that a notice of intent to comply has been filed. The Board can ask for proof that this operation is in compliance.
Attorney Bearor stated that the applicant did not believe they needed State approval, but they can check. Mr. Bearor requested the Board continue the process, and the answer to this question would be sought and presented before a final vote on the application. The ordinance does not require that State approval must be obtained ahead of time. Attorney Collier reiterated that if the applicant could get something in writing from the DEP it would be acceptable. Mr. Bearor did not know when such a response could be obtained.
Chairman Hanley wondered how much could be done with so much of the application connected to DEP standards and regulations. Attorney Collier asserted that the DEP standing was not required and the Board could continue without it. Ms. Andrews felt the discussion with the DEP needed to happen with the site plan to show the entire area in question, rather than stating the operation is a one-acre area.
Mr. Shencavitz, an abutter to the site, inquired about where enforcement of the permit would come from? He noted as an example that the residents were looking for enforcement this summer. When they contacted the Town to verify whether encroachment was occurring they got no response. When they approached the area, they were charged with criminal trespassing. Mr. Shencavitz pointed out that Attorney Collier was suggesting the neighbors will complain, however the neighbors cannot see the operations, and they are prohibited from entering the property.
Ms. Clifford voiced concern over the fact that the Board has been advised to simply believe the applicant when they say they are not required to have a permit. She requested confirmation that a statement made by the applicant would be verified as factual.
Mr. Ashmore suggested the DEP letter address the process of quarrying an acre, closing the area and then opening another acre to quarrying. He asked whether there were different requirements when a quarrying area is under one acre. Mr. Salsbury confirmed there were. Were the permit rules for an area over an acre vastly different than what is currently required? Mr. Salsbury affirmed that the Towns rules were similar to the DEP’s rules. He noted that if the applicant hits water the DEP would require monitoring wells, and re-applying.
Mr. Kiley requested that the letter the applicant submits to the DEP also be submitted to the Board, as well as the DEP’s reply. Chairman Hanley requested that the letter include specifically where the one-acre operation site would be. Ms. Randolph requested information on how the DEP will be monitoring the operation.
Regarding 6.2B, Erosion Control, Chip Haskell of CES reported. He noted the plan for a stormwater system, and its maintenance plan was on pages 70 to 74 of the application. Mr. Haskell described the stormwater system. In addition, dust control methods would be used to control tracking materials offsite. Mr. Haskell pointed out on the site plan the direction of the stormwater flow. It was noted that per the ordinance sediment would not leave the property. All the practices noted are in accordance with the DEP best management practices.
Ms. Andrews inquired where, specifically, the measures would be installed. Mr. Haskell pointed out where the system would go on the site plan.
Mr. Hanley asked about the maintenance of the erosion control measures. Mr. Haskell noted that inspection and maintenance of the systems are on page 72 of the application. Essentially the system would be checked and repaired after each rain.
Attorney Pileggi pointed out that the full build out hydrology plan shows runoff going to the Aylen and Shencavitz properties. Mr. Haskell stated the runoff heads southwest. The angles of the property delineate between the quarry area and the abutting properties. The runoff from the two parcels will remain separate. Attorney Pileggi inquired about whether there would be baseline documentation for current sedimentation concentrations to compare with levels during operations. Mr. Haskell stated there was no way to measure concentrations other than visually, and the DEP did not require it. Mr. Pileggi asserted the DEP has sedimentation concentration standards.
Attorney Pileggi inquired whether there would be any effort to control water trucked in. Mr. Haskell did not expect water trucked in to mix with stormwater. He pointed out that operations would not be occurring during wet weather. If water did happen to mingle, it would be treated as the stormwater was.
Chairman Hanley asked who would enforce this facet of the operations. Mr. Haskell noted the burden was on the applicant to maintain the site to the ordinance requirements. He felt that CEO Keene would enforce the operations. Attorney Pileggi asked whether water and photos could be monitored and sent to the CEO periodically. Mr. Haskell noted the maintenance process was to check the berms and repair as needed, check the silt fences and check for runoff – walk the perimeter and ensure the system is working properly. It was noted no erosion control experts would be onsite during quarrying operations. Mr. Haskell noted that if the controls put in place were failing the applicant would do more testing. The erosion controls would be something Freshwater Stone would hire a contractor
for, or possibly use a licensed staff member of their own. Various silt controls include woodchips, silt fences, wood stumps. Freshwater Stone would keep an eye on the system and maintenance.
Ms. Clifford pointed out that if a DEP permit is not required for this system, then the CEO is the only one inspecting the system. Mr. Haskell mentioned the DEP can visit any site at any time. He stated that it was up to the Town to ensure the operation is in compliance. He added it was in the applicant’s best interest to keep it in compliance. CEO Keene noted she would have to check the site and enforce it up to the DEP’s standards. Ms. Clifford inquired who would be called if a passerby noticed a problem. It was confirmed that CEO Keene would be the one to notify.
Mr. Shencavitz reported that there had been a problem with runoff onto his and the Aylen’s wetlands. At that time the DEP concluded the natural water flow did lead to the wetlands and they required Harold MacQuinn, Inc. to plug the flow. Rocks and hay were used to plug the leak, however water still permeates through. Mr. Haskell felt the water was flowing in that direction because the area has been undisturbed by the quarry. Building out further will change the flow. Mr. MacQuinn added he had repaired the leak and the repair had been approved by the DEP.
Ms. Coates inquired about the build out. She inquired about the existing area and the build out and the difference between them. Mr. Haskell showed the areas, including where water is coming from that is not part of the quarry area. Ms. Coates noted the plan for stormwater management was contingent on full build out.
Ms. Randolph added that the buildout plans shown are based on the applicant being exempt from the 50-foot setbacks, which has not yet been reviewed. Ms. Randolph did not fully understand why the applicant feels they do not have to comply with the 50-foot setbacks. She felt the setbacks needed to be established first. Attorney Collier noted that per section 6.2B, the erosion control says the sediment would not leave the parcel and the expert ensures the sediment will not leave the parcel. Ms. Randolph pointed out that some of the property is being disturbed right to the property line. Attorney Collier felt it did not matter as long as the stormwater is managed and sediment is not leaving the property. Mr. Collier noted that sediment runoff such as Mr. Shencavitz reported would be a
problem. Sedimentation can go within the setback area, however not off the parcel.
Mrs. Smallidge asked about the Best Management Practices and if there were definitive guidelines and a schedule for CEO Keene to make checks. After some discussion, it was agreed that quarterly checks would be made. Chairman Hanley noted that a quarterly log relative to the maintenance and upkeep of the Best Management Practices of the system would be sent to the CEO and this would be a condition of the permit.
Regarding Section 6.2C – Stormwater:
Mr. Haskell pointed out the table on page 69 of the application showing varying storm events. 2-, 10-, and 25-year storms were analyzed. It was noted that flowrates decreased at full buildout due to areas being re-vegetated. When areas were re-vegetated the flows would slow further. Natural contours of the area would be used for stormwater runoff.
The systems to be used, the sediment four-bay and level spreader, were described. These systems are sized based on the expected flows. The system would be built based on worst case flows. Mr. Haskell reported the systems would be installed when the quarrying in a particular area required it. He noted the natural flows head southwest. Once those flows can be directed to a single place, the systems can be used. There was no reason they could not be constructed now, however they may not experience flow until the flows occur. Mr. Pileggi noted that once the applicant builds the system they will also need a permit from the State. Mr. Haskell disagreed, noting that until water is reaching the system, no permit is required. A permit is not required simply to build the
structure.
Mrs. Smallidge inquired who would oversee the system, and would the Board be providing definitive guidelines for CEO Keene with regard to monitoring. Mrs. Smallidge asked where on the drawing the Crane Road was located, and noted that there was runoff coming from the road. Mr. Haskell noted he did not believe the quarry was draining to the Crane Road area. Mrs. Smallidge requested that a regular schedule of checks of the stormwater system be added to the conditions of approval, and that CEO Keene would be noted as checking the system. Chairman Hanley felt that the runoff log being reviewed quarterly by CEO Keene would also incorporate stormwater.
Ms. Clifford asked about the possibility of pollutants. Mr. Haskell stated that sediment was the bigger concern. He felt the Best Management Practices would protect from most pollutants. If gasoline were a pollutant affecting the area it would be addressed with spill kits at the site of the spill.
Discussion regarding Section 6.2C.1 through 6.2C.7 and whether the Board had discussed them to their satisfaction ensued. Ms. Randolph suggested that the runoff systems be installed now; the only way to know when it was needed otherwise would be when the runoff becomes a problem.
Mr. Shencavitz inquired when the public would be allowed to have a say on the question of the grandfathering. The public was assured this opportunity would be had. He asked whether there would be any input from the residents regarding the issue of grandfathering. He noted residents had information that may affect this issue. Bob Clifford, a resident of Hall Quarry, echoed Mr. Shencavitz’ question.
Chairman Hanley noted that during the public hearing the public is allowed to comment on a variety of issues. The question of grandfathering was not a part of the public hearing process. The process is now in the public hearing part. Could the issues be expanded to discuss these concerns?
Ms. Randolph voiced confusion because the Board is now discussing the issues based on a vote that decided the quarry was grandfathered, however the public has concerns they feel affect that issue. The public was not allowed to speak to the question of grandfathering, however the attorney representing landowners was allowed to speak. She asked whether the public was only allowed to speak through the attorney. Attorney Collier answered no. Mr. Collier noted the performance standards are something gone through point by point. Larger issues like grandfathering were addressed at the end. Attorney Collier felt the issue could be discussed, relative to something in the ordinance. Attorney Collier noted his job is only to ensure the procedures in place are followed.
Seth Singleton, a resident of Hall Quarry, voiced his concern and added that he had wanted to speak to the issue of grandfathering however the Board did not allow anyone from the public to speak. Ms. Clifford agreed the public was not allowed to speak to the question of grandfathering. She noted that the public had an issue with whether the application should have been submitted at all. Will there be a continuation of the public hearing to address that issue, or will there be time allowed for the public to speak to the question.
Chairman Hanley noted there would be several public hearings for this issue. If the public felt there were larger issues that have not been addressed, then they should discuss them within the framework of the public hearings.
Ms. Clifford said that was the public’s expectation, however the issue of grandfathering was voted on without the public ever being allowed to comment on the issue. She asked whether there would be public comment on the issue of grandfathering and would the issue be revisited. Chairman Hanley could not say the decision would be revisited, but it can be discussed. Ms. Clifford asked for confirmation that the issue of grandfathering be discussed by the public. Chairman Hanley noted the public can make comment on the decision. Ms. Randolph noted the whole process is based on the quarry being deemed grandfathered. If there is a possibility that the public has information that can overturn that decision, it should be addressed first. Mr. Kiley asked whether a decision can be
overturned. Attorney Collier affirmed it could as the application has not been approved. Attorney Bearor stated the applicant felt they had a right to apply based on the decision the quarry was grandfathered. The question was not discussed at a public hearing. The vote was made and the applicant has spent time and money on the process moving forward from the decision that the quarry was grandfathered. Mr. Bearor did not feel the Board could revisit the decision. Appeals can be made and comments can be made, however it cannot be revisited at this time. Attorney Collier disagreed.
Ms. Andrews pointed out that new quarries were not allowed, therefore, this quarry had to be grandfathered in order to move forward.
Chairman Hanley felt the question should be raised at the end of the review. Once this process is completed, then a larger discussion can be had. He felt it will not be a productive process otherwise. Attorney Collier stated the public could not comment on the grandfathering because the meeting was not publicized as a public hearing.
Mr. Kiley felt that going through all the quarry standards, only to then question the legitimacy of the quarry’s existence seems counterproductive. Chairman Hanley felt the Board would have to assess whether the question of grandfathering should be revisited. Mr. Kiley agreed, and felt that it should be done immediately. Ms. Randolph added that grandfathered setbacks also have to be addressed. Chairman Hanley felt the issue must be addressed with the public, but he did not know whether the question should be reconsidered. Ms. Randolph felt the public should have been involved in the question and it should be considered first and foremost.
Attorney Collier stated the Planning Board did not have a public hearing, therefore they couldn’t have public comment. He felt Attorney Pileggi was allowed to comment only to provide technical arguments for the Board. Mr. Collier felt Mr. Shencavitz has a valid point. Mr. Collier stated there were two choices: decide the grandfathering issue cannot be revisited, or listen to the public and revisit the issue. It was Mr. Collier’s opinion that either option will result in an appeal. If it is decided to revisit the issue, then the issue can be addressed now or after discussion of the application. It was Attorney Collier’s opinion that the issue of grandfathering was closed, but it was for the Planning Board to decide. Ms. Andrews mentioned Attorney Pileggi’s
information contained Mr. Shencavitz’ findings. She asked if there was more to review. Mr. Ashmore suggested allowing the public to make their comments and the Planning Board could decide whether to proceed or not based on the evidence presented.
Attorney Collier noted the question was whether the quarry was new, expanding, recurring, or existing. Mr. Collier felt there was no question the quarry was existing; the question was whether it was lawfully non-conforming pre-existing.
Ms. Clifford noted that Mr. Pileggi was not representing all the concerned residents, nor was there any advertised meetings allowing public input.
Attorney Bearor stated the applicant has followed the process. They feel they followed the rules and definitions. Mr. Bearor voiced confusion regarding revisiting the decision. He did not believe anyone came away from the original decision feeling the decision was not made.
Chairman Hanley asked Attorney Collier if the Board revisited the question of grandfathering, what the process or standards would be. Attorney Collier did not feel the process was nebulous. The Board should not bestow a permit to an operation not allowed to have one. Attorney Collier stated the quarry clearly existed.
Mr. Kiley inquired on what criteria an application can be denied. Attorney Collier replied that the criteria include the standards not being met, or the application applied for the wrong thing. Mr. Kiley asked if the Board goes through the process and at the end they find through comments made that the grandfathering was invalid, could they then reject the application? Attorney Collier felt they could. If the situation was not what the Board believed it was, then the application can be rejected. Mr. Collier reiterated he felt all comments should be specific to specific standards.
Chairman Hanley stated he was for hearing from the public regarding grandfathering. But the process needs to remain orderly.
Mrs. Smallidge voiced confusion at how the Board could vote on the grandfathering without hearing from the public. She inquired whether the Board read the letters submitted by the public. It was noted the Board did read the letters.
Attorney Bearor stated that nothing in the ordinance allows the Board to revisit the issue of grandfathering. If the Board revisits the issue, Mr. Bearor will file a preparatory judgment act to stop the process and get a decision on whether the Board has the right to take such action. He noted the applicant has moved forward, spending money based on the Board’s decision regarding grandfathering. Mr. Bearor feels the applicant now has some vested rights in the process. Mr. Bearor felt the issue was thoroughly vetted. The public can appeal the decision. It was noted a declaratory judgment was a decision by a judge to determine whether the action the Planning Board is embarking upon is appropriate due process. The Board noted this was a decision the Board would appreciate
hearing.
Mr. Ashmore reiterated he would like to hear from the public and then decide afterwards whether the issue of grandfathering needs to be revisited.
Chairman Hanley feels the Board needs to continue on the path they are on and at the end of the process the public can be allowed to communicate on other issues.
Mr. MacQuinn stated that if the Board is going to reconsider the issue, then he would prefer the issue be revisited now, rather than move forward with the entire process only to have the decision fail due to the grandfathering issue.
Attorney Collier noted in Article 4.1, Application Procedure, it says “a determination by the Planning Board that the application is complete in no way commits or binds the Planning Board as to the adequacy of the application to meet the criteria of this Ordinance.” Also, no decision has been made, therefore there is nothing to reconsider. Until the decision is made, the Board can go back and review any point of the process. Mr. Collier felt that nothing was a final decision until the application was voted on.
Mr. MacQuinn noted that if the decision is made, then doesn’t someone in opposition have the ability to appeal? It was agreed that once the final decision is made, someone can appeal any part of the decision.
Ms. Randolph hoped that the public could be heard, on the chance that evidence could be heard that might affect the decision.
Mr. Singleton noted the Board has made a decision. The residents are not merely looking for a chance to give voice, they are concerned about their community. It was his feeling that the Board should move forward with the process as it stands, then find where the situation ends up.
Ms. Clifford felt the Board has to take ownership of the decision they made. The public is trying to say there should be an opportunity to comment on the entire process and not just parts of it.
Mr. Kiley inquired whether public comment can be allowed at the end, and whether it gives the Board the opportunity to reject the application. Attorney Collier agreed it was something the Board could do, however he did not recommend it. The points made have to be on specific points in the application, but not on the process in general.
Attorney Bearor requested the Board make a decision.
Attorney Collier suggested that if the question is dealt with now, the residents can speak to their concerns, Attorney Bearor can go to court for his declaratory judgment. Once the judgment is made, the Board can then resume with the process. Attorney Bearor estimated the judgment would take eight to twelve months to occur.
It was noted the quarry could continue to operate in the meantime. Attorney Pileggi requested the Board find a way through the problem that allows due process and a consideration of the ordinance and the application is being considered through the ordinance. Whatever the decision, those involved will deal with it.
Attorney Bearor echoed Attorney Pileggi’s sentiment to keep the process moving forward.
Mr. Kiley stated that the Board told the public that they would be given a chance to speak, and if that wasn’t going to be allowed, then the Board should not have said it. The public deserves the right to speak. Attorney Collier stated that if the Board wants to allow the public to speak, then the ordinance would need to be changed to allow that.
It was agreed, to keep moving forward reviewing Section 6.2, then listen if people want to express other concerns. Attorney Bearor had no problem with that as long as the question of a grandfathering re-vote was not the plan. If a re-vote was the plan, then the applicant would not find that acceptable.
Attorney Collier noted that the application sections need to be gone through. It’s a matter of efficiency. There is nothing to stop the Board from revisiting other sections. Attorney Bearor stated if other sections could be revisited, then they would ask for the declaratory judgment. Mr. MacQuinn stated he would stop the process if there’s a chance the grandfathering question can be revisited.
Chairman Hanley suggested allowing the question of grandfathering be dealt with in the appeal.
Ms. Randolph felt that the question of grandfathering was not straight forward. She felt that either way the issue will be appealed. She was more concerned with the relationship between the Board and the Town.
Chairman Hanley noted the Board made the decision and he did not feel it should be revisited. He felt the procedure should be followed. Ms. Randolph felt that if the decision was to move forward then the public needed to be given ample opportunity to speak.
It was agreed the Board would continue with Section 6.2 at the next meeting. They would not revisit the question of the grandfathering but they are willing to hear the residents. It was determined that a vote was not necessary.
Mr.kiley moved, with Mr. ashmore seconding, to continue the meeting to a date approved on by the interested parties. Motion approved 5-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:54PM.
| 
