Town of Otisfield
Planning Board “WORKSHOP” Minutes
July 25, 2012
1. Call to Order: The workshop was called to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Attendance: Members present were, Chair- Dan Peaco, Vice Chair - David McVety, Secretary - Karen Turino, Herb Olsen, Beth Damon, Alternate - Rick Jackson & Alternate - Stan Brett.
Richard St. John – Code Enforcement Officer
Tanya Taft – Secretary
Selectmen: Hal Ferguson & Rick Micklon
Town Attorney: Philip Saucier from Bernstein Shur
3. Announcement of Quorum: Board had a quorum
4. Approve Secretary’s Report:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes from July 17, 2012 *Motion to table these minutes until August 7, 2012. DP/KT – Unanimous.
5. Discussion & Comments from public:
A. Kristen Roy: Provided a submittal into public record.
B. John Potto: I have a letter for each member of the Board that I would like to have read before next meeting. PB accepted and submitted letter into public record. No discussion. ~
6. Residence - Based Business Applications:
A. None.
7. Shoreland Zoning Applications:
A. None.
8. Site Plan Applications:
A. None.
9. Subdivision Application:
A. None.
10. Miscellaneous:
A. None.
11. Upcoming Dates:
A. Planning Board Meeting August 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM. - Community Hall
B. Planning Board Meeting August 21, 2012 at 7:00 PM
12. Discussion & comments from Code Enforcement Officer:
A. US Cellular: Map R2, Lot 8A - KJK Wireless / US Cellular. Because of the denial of the Administrative Appeal – The “Friends of Scribner Hill” hired an Attorney – David Lourie to represent them and took the Town to Superior Court. The Town’s attorney Philip Saucier, from Bernstein Shur, went to court on July 9, 2012 to represent the Town.
UPDATE: A letter of decision was received on July 17th, 2012 from Superior Court and Robert W. Clifford, Active Retired Justice. There was an “Order on Remand” stating the Planning Board must make a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the above matter. The letter stated the Planning Board should not open the record for more details, unless it determines in its sole discretion that it should consider additional evidence. (Court document - submitted into public record) Planning Board requesting Town Attorney is present at any upcoming meetings regarding this issue while court proceedings are still going on.
13. Discussion & comments from Board: WORKSHOP: Annual Review & Updates
A. Findings of Fact: Trainings / Outlines / Process & Procedure: Town Attorney: Philip Saucier explained that tonight’s workshop is for process and procedure only. We had a hearing in Superior Court; one of the issues was the judge looked at the meeting minutes, which reflect no detailed finding or conclusions on how PB reached their decision. The court would like us to memorialize the decision made and then come to a conclusion. Did the applicant meet the criteria of the ordinance requirements to gain approval from the PB? It is up to the Planning Board on how they wish to go through the F.O.F., at this workshop, and August 7th is the night to create the actual F.O.F. for the US Cellular case. The PB may wish to have one more meeting after that to review the Findings and decide if all
agree to adopt what was written. If Planning Board members review and find it acceptable, it will then be sent back to the judge. This item will not go back to the Board of Appeals, because it still belongs to the judge. It is at the Planning Board’s sole discretion to take additional evidence. You can decide to open the record if you want or if you choose not to, that’s ok too. Phil suggests that they decide formerly on that later. He explained the Planning Board may get to a point where additional information is needed. In summary Philip explained this is all pretty straight forward, the decision has not been disturbed, the Planning Board just needs to let the Judge know why this application was approved. If this does continue, it will go back to the judge and he will set up a briefing schedule.
Discussion: Philip Saucier explained that Tanya & Rick had provided a blank template for the PB that included prior minutes, the Wireless ordinance, and a breakdown of the Standards of Review in a line-by-line format. He states that for standards, you have a finding and a conclusion of each one. DP: Should we make motions, line by line or all at once? Philip Saucier: I suggest you vote on each one going down, rather than doing a block all at once. One amendment w/ form: the vote line should be changed to the “conclusion”. For example there is a finding that something may be 160 feet tall, you would then say, “Yes it meets the standard because it is less than 180 feet” Philip will have the form ready to go by next meeting. The form that Rick Micklon developed is perfect and he is only tweaking
that one item.
RJ: If there are 5 people on the board and you have a vote that all 5 people vote yes, do the Alternates get to vote and are they required to record those votes. Philip Saucier: Yes, all members can vote, but suggests listing Alternates separately, so that it shows how everyone voted.
BOS: Would like it noted for the record that we are going to send out letters to everyone within 1,000 feet of perimeter of property about next meeting. The letter will be brief, concise and to the point. This letter is not required, but PB agrees and they would like to give a courtesy letter to all of the abutters, so that they can be there. We will do the perimeter of the entire property. HO: What is the legal way to do it, is it the perimeter of the entire property or the property being leased. Philip Saucier: I can tell you that the interpretation of that requirement is now being debated in our court hearing. From the actual site is what we consider the reasonable interpretation and that’s how it was originally done, but we can be more inclusive at this point and go w/ the larger notice to include everyone so
there is no argument.
RM: This meeting should be held at the Community Hall due to the potential audience size. MIM is posting in newspapers.
CEO: Phil used an earlier example re: the finding & conclusion; saying a line may have only one fact, you were looking for, the height of the tower. If you look back through the package, what anyone feels is important, bring it to the meeting. You can have several facts associated w/ one item. It’s up to you. It’s not just one fact per line. HO: don’t we have to have the same facts that we used before. Philip Saucier: Yes, but the court is allowing you to have more then what you had. KT: there could still be multiple facts on the same topic. DM: FAA determined there was no lighting needed and a few of us noted that it could be dangerous. Is that an opinion that should be brought up? Philip Saucier: Yes, You bring to the table what you bring to the table and the PB votes on an agreed fact. SB: We are
filling out a record for the court. Why would we want to open it up for additional evidence? My point is that if we open it up for new evidence, then it would have to be opened up to the public and then it’s a whole new process? SB – I don’t feel comfortable reiterating all of that. If we are memorializing what was, we may not need new information. RJ: we could ask for a specific piece of information. Philip Saucier: You may have heard something orally, but now that you are going back through it you may want it on paper. Sometimes oral evidence is enough. A tape recorder is recommended, but not necessary. It is a good backup though. HF will get one. CEO: He likes the template that was created. Suggests PB members review the template, look at records before you come to mtg, take your own notes, figure out where, what, how, and bring it up at the mtg and discuss it and vote on it. I want to be clear; you should discuss the facts first. Karen may have a fact
that’s different from the rest. Put it in pot and figure what’s most important to the PB as a whole and make conclusions as a whole. RM: PB members did not all need to agree, just remember the majority carries the vote. You could have a 3/2 vote, and then at the end, one conclusion. The entire PB has to decide, but it doesn’t have to be unanimous. You don’t have to agree w/ anyone. Form your own conclusion. Refresh your memory. Just come to terms as a board. HF: you should put down the alternate vote, it shows the consensus. You also have an alternate who was not an alternate at the time and vise versa. Phil Saucier: Yes it can be listed as (4) were voting, (1) alternate. If it’s challenged, here are the votes of everyone. Template will be edited to show findings and there will be conclusions of each one. If FOF looks good to PB members, then you adopt it. TT will send it on to Phil for his review and then it will go back to the judge.
DP: asked everyone if they had any other questions or comments. All agreed they felt better about the process. Philip Saucier: If anyone has questions for me during the F.O.F. meeting, they can be asked during the meeting.
B. PB By-Laws: *Motion to table this until a future workshop. BD/HO – Unanimous.
C. PB Policies: *Motion to table this until a future workshop. BD/HO – Unanimous.
14. Pending Applications:
A. None.
15. Adjournment: With no further business, the workshop was adjourned at 8:15 PM. HO/DM – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft
Recording Secretary
Approved by: Dan Peaco, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
Approved on: August 7, 2012
| 
