HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-18December 15, 1975 - Monday
SPECIAL MEETING
The BOARD OF APPEALS held a Special Meeting on Monday evening, December 15, 1975
at 7 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and
voting: ~rank Serio, Jr., Chairman; Alfred E. ~¥izelle, Vice-Chairman; William N,
Salemme, Clerk; Louis Di~ruscio; and James D. Noble; amd Ralph Joyce, Jr. Assoc. Member.
HEREFORD CASE:
The Chairman noted that all members had a copy of the memorandum and was hopeful that
this would also satisfy the Planning Board question regarding same. The matter was
then opened for discussion. Mr. S~lemme questioned the use of the word "opinion"
rather than "decision". Mr. ~rizelle stated that this is a m~tter of sem~miics. Mr.
Salemme then asked if the BOARD could quote a de~ision of the Appeals Court in this
memorandum and asked for a copy of the document. Mr. Frizelle stated that the BOARD
~ad brought this up to the Planning Board at a meeting some time ago. He then showed
a marked-up copy of the Appeals Court decision to Mr. Saleratus.
Ralph Joyce questioned the last paragraph of the memo as to whether or not this request
for plans can be incorporated into it. Mr. Frizelle said that the BOARD will request
this inasmuch as Hereford had agreed to it (per John Willis, Sr.) at the meeting.
A motion w~s made by Mr. ~rizelle and seconded by Mr. Di~ruscio that this memorandum
dated December 15, 1975 replace the one passed on December 9. The vote ~s unanimous.
Mr. Frizelle commented that he noticed in this evening's newspaper that this m~tter was
going to be brought up at the Selectmen's meeting for discussion and felt that the
BOARD should make an official decision to the effect that it will not discuss its
decision with the Selectmen. He felt that the Selectmen do not act as intermediaries
and that the BOARD would set a preceden% by allowing its position to be subject to a
mediator of any sort. He further stated that he had also said this in relation to the
Planning Board because if anyone has a~ grievance they should take it to the courts.
My comment, he stated, is not meant to reflect any b~d light on anyone, but we have to
preserve the position that we are in. He then asked for a discussion of 2he matter.
Mr. S~lemme reiterated what Nr. ~rizelle had said about any grievance should go to the
courts. Mr. ~¥izelle felt that if we start putting ourselves in a position of setting
down meetings to discuss our decisions we are setting a bad precedent and giving away
some of our authority. If we officially meet with another body in our capacity as a
Board, we are subjecting ourselves to a bad precedent, said ~rizelle.
Selectmen Guthrie speke from the floor stating that he was sure Mr. Frizelle's attitude
is that of a practiciB~ attorney - to get it into the courts. However, we do have the
authority to do this - any elected official is accountable to the electorate and if you
think that an appointed Board or official has no accountability to the appointing auth-
ority you are wrong. Further, Mr. Guthrie stated that Mr. Frizelle's actions were pro-
bably the m~in reason for the cause of the problem. The committee seems to want to be
autonomous, with a lawyer for themselves. We do have a Town Counsel, said Guthrie, and
took issue with Mr. ~rizelle. I don't know who you want to be accountable to, whether
or not it is some judge who does not have the best interests of the Town at heart. We
put off the meeting with the Selectmen previously because you ooul~ln't make it, said
Mr. Guthrie. Now if you chose not to show up we will hold the meeting without you. He
also commented that the Planning Board has the perfect right to question the BOARD. We
(Selectmen) are not interested in interjecting ourselves in the decision making process
of a particular case, but we will interject ourselves when we feel there is a problem
between two Boards or when any Board that we appoint is not acting in the best interest
of the Town.
December 15, 1975 - cont.
Mr. Frizelle stated that Mr. Guthrie had the facts a bit mixed up and, because the press
is here, he felt it ought to be cleared up. He said that he had no wish to perpetuate
la~ryers; the m~tter I am discussing is a matter of principle. True, we are accountable
to the Board of Selectmen - the issue is where the Board makes a decision and the fact
that there is a process for review of that decision. The statute gives a time limit and
that is the "rush" which you probably referred to. I don't want to go to court every
time there is a decision, it is costly for everyone involved, he said. The Selectmen's
authority just doesn't lie within this matter. I am only trying to keep it within the
narrow framework with which the law allows, said Mr. ~rizelle.
Mr. Guthrie disagreed that..they are setting a precedent by questioning the BOARD. He
felt that they have this power. I am convinced that if the Board of Selectmen did not
interject here this would not have been resolved this far, if it has been at all. I
don't believe you understand the principle of chec~and balances, he said. This BOARD
is accountable to the Board of Selectmen - the facts are, if this is not resolved the
Selemtmen will decide who will get counsel, etc. Mr. Frizelle retorted that who gets
counsel is not the issue. Mr. Guthrie stated that another problem is that you did not
talk with the Planning Board - we want the Boards to have some communication between them.
If the BOARD takes the attitude that they don't want to discues the problems involvimg
the Town with the Selectmen, something is wrong.
Mr. Frizelle commented that it troubled him to have Mr. Guthrie with a club over the
BO~'S head as to who is going to appoint counsel. Mr. Serio interjected that obviously
Mr. Guthrie is upset about something which I was not aware. Mr~ Frizelle thought that
because the press was present he was trying to make points, and added that he (~rizelle)
spent much time writing decisions for the BOARD. Ralph Joyce voiced his opinion that the
BOARD ought to make itself available to any aggrieved party at all times. Mr. Salemme
felt that Mr. ~uthrie w~s upset about the fact that the BOARD did not discuss an~vthing
with the Planning Board on reconsideration. Mr. ~rizelle answered that the Planning
Board had notice of the hearing and had enough time to express their concern. We did
not vary from a complete law~ he said.
Mr. Serio stated that he intended to be mt the meeting with the Selectmen at 8:30 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M.
Cbairman
Secretary