TOWN OF PRINCETON
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
August 22, 2012
The meeting opened at 7:30 p.m. for the first of two public hearings. Present were: Chairman Jerry Gannelli, Jon Fudeman, John Mirick, Ann Neuburg, Tom Daly and [alternate] Rick McCowan
7:32 p.m. Public Hearing Accessory Apartment - Minutes in separate file
36 Esty Rd – Barbara Gates/Chavarus-- hearing closed 7:43 p.m.
Request made for “GIS Standards for Digital Plan Submission” with help from CMPC staff. Pages to be forwarded to PB members in time for next agenda. Board voted AIF [all in favor] to approve minutes from July 18, 2012.
8:00 p.m. Public Hearing Accessory Apartment - Minutes in separate file
48 Hubbardston Rd - Justin Hebb – hearing closed 8:10 p.m.
Resumed regular meeting, with 14 residents in attendance, PB began to address Worcester Road Village District Project Advisory Committee. Jon F. and Jerry G. immediately recused themselves, with Jerry leaving room and Jon sitting in audience. They cited differing advice from Ethics Commission experts with Jerry reading legal opinion from Town Counsel and Jon citing Amy Nee from the commission. John M. explained that the remaining 3-member board can make recommendations and that since this is not a site plan or special permit, the Board did not need 4 votes to make a decision. Some discussion ensued about physical parameters of the Village District, but boundaries are as yet undecided. Tom D. asked why board member cannot act as a regular citizen if not voting on the board.
At this point, Jerry was called back into room to join in discussion of the ethics issue and how Conflict of Interest law pertains to this case. The main question will be whether a board member must surrender his right to participate as a citizen, even after declaring himself as such.
Resident Jim Whitman questioned the applicability of Ethics Commission rules to the PAC and Jon Fudeman read an excerpt from Ethics Rule 19.
Tom D. reported that the memo from town counsel should be re-sent, as it seemed that some did not receive it. He also offered to contact Amy Nee for clarification of her advice to Jon F., to seek some consensus from among the legal experts.
It was noted that the PAC report—with recommendations—is on the website.
After discussing various ins and outs of disclosure and the committee process in light of the Ethics Commission, John M. stated that it’s a two-step approach: considering what the Ethics Commission allows, then acting on whatever you are comfortable with. John M. suggested that for future meetings, PAC be addressed at end of agenda to accommodate 2 members recusing.
Administrative Business
The board reviewed the mail.
For next meeting: PB agreed to keep PAC discussion to end, after regular business. The PAC issue will be around the division of north and south sectors.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. All were in favor.
Respectfully Submitted
___________________
Marie Auger
Administrative Assistant
Referenced Documents:
Assessors’ Map 15;
Mass. Ethics Commission Advisory sect. V;
Memo dated July 25, 2012 from town counsel Atty. Judith Pickett re: disclosure/conflict of interest.
| 
