Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-29November 29, 1975 - Smt. Special Meet ir~g The PLANNING BOARD held a Special Meeting ~n Saturday morning, November 29, 1975 at 9 A.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepul~S~ Chairman; F~tz Ostherr, Vice-Chairman; William N. Salemme, Clerk; Paul R. L~mprey and John J. Nontmiro. Mr. Nonteiro asked Mr. S~e~me the reason why he had voted '~o" at the last meeting. Mr. Sale,me answered that/~d not think that he had referred to the whole of See. 5 in the Decisions he 'thought that he had voted on Sec. 5.1 (5) only. Sitting on the Appeals Board I voted for it, he said, and sitting on the Planning Board ! couldn't very well vote against m~self. The BOARD discussed the Board of Appeals reconsideration meeting and what had ~ranspired at that meeting. Mr. Monteiro voiced his opinion that the BOARD must represent the will of the Town as elected officials. The Committee worked so hard on this By-X~mw that we have no other direction than to go to court on the matter, he stated. Mr. Chepulis felt that there is cause to bring it to court and questioned what the BOARD should do in view of the reluctance of the Selectmen to appoint a special counsel for the appeal. The Board of Appeals did refuse to allow this to be solved on a local basis rather than a court action. Everyone has had a chance to review Mr. S~lisbury's letter to the Selectmen, stated Mr. Chepulis and, therefore, do we go ahead and, if so, how do we do it? In other words, do we engage our own counsel and how do we compensate such a person? Should the action be on an individual basis or are there any means of obtaining monies from the Town for this? Mr. Lamprey thought that the first thing is to find out if the Selectmen have changed their minds since reading Arnold Salisbury's letter. Mr. Benjamin Osgoed spoke in regard to the Board of Appeals by stating that they are fearful of losing some of their authority and felt that they were anxious for it 5o go to court. This same thing is going to come up with every By-_~w that comes along if this issue is not settled now. If they are not going to abide by Town Meeting, there is no need for the Board, he said. The Chairman of the Selectmen, John Coady was present. Mr. Chepulis stated that the Sec%ion 5 of the Zoning By-Law was only an exemplar of the whole By-Law. Mr. Ostherr's thoughts were that the Town has been dealt an injustice and it is the sentiment of the BOARD that we intend to appeal this although a formal vote has no% been taken as yet. Mr. Monteiro added that another reason is because this was voted upon by the townspeople at the Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Ostherr commented that the Committee spent much time on this and researched every pit in Town plus mamy cour~ cases. Our real concern is not with this gravel pit~ but with the Board of Appeals action on a Town By-Law. Mr. Co, dy stated that the PLANNING BOARD was justified ia pursuing the issue. He stated that the Board of Selectmen could either s~y "yes" or '~no"; if we say '~es" we can go on down the road, but if we say "no" then your Board has a choice to make. His hope was that it could be resolved at the town level, but obviously it cau't. Mr. Coady then asked to hear from Mr. Salemme because he wears two hats. Mr. Salemme said that the Selectmen's meeting of last Monday was at the wrong poiat in time. Mr. Coady said that it was very clearly stated that we would abide by Town Counsel's ruling if the Board of Appeals meet- ing did not pan out. Mr. Salemme stated that he should have been the first one there to see that the Section was not eliminated and~ as you can see, it was not clear to me that we were eliminating the whole of Sec. 5. Also, at the meeting that the PLANNING BOARD had regarding this, said Salemme, I was the only one to vote '~o" on the motion of Paul November 29, 1975 - cont. Lamprey to write to Town Counsel for a ruling. I didn't realize that it w~s Sec. 5, said Salemme and it was Sec. 5.1(5) that I voted on for the Appeals Board decision. Nr. Lamprey informed those present that the Committee on Earth Removal came in t0 the Board of Appeals and g~ve t-hem an interpretation of the new By-Law. During our.discussion we told them that a pit operator would have to come in for a variance if he w~nted to vary from the By-Law. A motion was m~de by Mr. Ostherr that the PLANNING BOARD appeal to the Superior Court the decision of the Board of Appeals with respect to the Herefor~ Corp. E~rth RemovaI Permit. Mr. Lamprey seconded the motion and the vote w~s unanimous. Mr. Chepulis prepared a memorandum of record which outlines the sequence of events and what our course of action w~s; the conclusion depends on what happens with the Board cf Selectmen. Mr. Ostherr made a motion stating that,in the event that the Board of Selectmen vote ~o not support our issue of obtaining special counsel for the Planning Board, we authorize the Chairman to engage special counsel for the appeal. Mr. Lamprey seconded and the Vote PosSibilities for special counsel were discussed and the BOARD was in ~greememt on Attys. Julian D'Agostine or Robt. Minasian. The BOARD also concurred that if the Selectmen so vote to hire Town Counsel for the appeal it has no objection to Arnold S~lisbury. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 A.M.