MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD EXECUTIVE SESSION
PROPOSED APPEAL OF ZBA DECISION OF JUNE 4, 2010
HANIOTI PROPERTIES, LLC – OVER-SIZED SIGN
JUNE 21, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Vincent Vignaly, Patricia Halpin, Patrick McKeon, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Paré
OTHERS PRESENT: None
The Chair opened the executive session at 7:20 p.m. following a roll call vote at the regular session of the Planning Board. Mr. Vignaly reported that, when he attended the June 16th meeting of the Board of Selectmen (“BOS”), he did not get a positive response to his request for funds as well as representation by Town Counsel in the Planning Board’s quest to appeal the ZBA Decision, dated June 4, 2010. This Decision grants a Variance to Hanitoti Properties, LLC for an 80 sf sign (twice the size allowed by the Zoning Bylaws). Members of the BOS did not consider the Master Plan when arriving at their decision, nor did they like the idea of “one Board suing another”.
Mr. Vignaly stated that he is now leaning towards not filing this Appeal in Land Court. Hanioti went through the required process, but the ZBA did not hold to the standards of the law. Ms. Halpin stated that there is a larger issue than the sign with which the Planning Board might disagree, and that is the process of dealing with questionable decisions of the ZBA. Mr. Vignaly tried to explain the Planning Board’s frustrations to the BOS, but they did not see that this is the only option for dealing with the ZBA. Mr. McKeon stated that he wants to see a “more egregious” case before the Planning Board goes ahead with a suit in Land Court. Appealing the sign, however, makes the Planning Board look as if it is “anti business”. Criteria for showing hardship wasn’t
met by the ZBA. Ms. Halpin agreed that the Planning Board needs to write a letter and educate the public about this debate.
Mr. Vignaly stated that the reasons for going ahead with a suit in Land Court include:
- Obtaining an independent, definitive decision;
- Showing that the ZBA did not meet the standards of the law and the Planning Board’s position is correct;
Minutes of the Executive Session 2.
June 21, 2010 – Appeal of ZBA’s Hanioti Decision
3. Deterring the ZBA from making similar bad decisions in the future.
Reasons not to go ahead with the suit include:
- This is not a “big deal”. There are other over-sized signs on Route 12;
- The Planning Board would appear to be “anti-business”;
- Costs incurred and time spent by the Chair;
- Public perception that this is “one Board suing another”.
Mr. McKeon made a motion, seconded by Mr. Salate that the vote taken by the Planning Board on June 9th to appeal the ZBA’s Hanioti Decision, be rescinded.
Mr. McKeon: Aye
Mr. Salate: No
Ms. Halpin: No
Mr. Vignaly: Aye
As Chair, Mr. Vignaly’s vote broke the tie and the motion passed. Members agreed that a letter would be drafted and sent to The Banner.
At 8:24 p.m., Mr. Salate moved to close the Executive Session and return to regular session of the Board. Mr. McKeon seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Mr. McKeon: Aye Ms. Halpin: Aye
Mr. Salate: Aye Mr. Vignaly: Aye
Date Accepted:______________ By__________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:_______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
