APPEALS BOARD May 27, 2009
Re: Eggemoggin Heights Subdivision
Appeal Board members present: Tobey Woodward, Michael Rossney, Steve Tobey, Danny Weed, Chairman Fred Marston.
Others present: Palmer Little, Chairman of the Planning Board, Victor Smith, Vice Chairman of the Planning Board, Jon Thomas from the Weekly Packet, Barbara Grindle, assistant to the selectmen and 12 members of the public.
Mr Marston called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm.
He informed the Board that as far as can be determined there was no proper notice given for the public hearing on the final plan of the Eggemoggin Heights Subdivision.
Mr Little stated that public notice was published in the Weekly Packet for two weeks starting on October 23. This meeting was posted in at least three places. This was for a public hearing on November 10. This statement caused much confusion regarding the preliminary plan and the final plan. Minutes of the November meetings do not reflect this as a final plan and minutes of the September meeting call it a preliminary plan. It is not called a final plan until February when it was voted to accept the application and finalized plan with special conditions regarding the culvert sizes in the brook.
It was noted that the Appeals Board has the power to add conditions or to tell the Planning Board to do so. Mr McKechnie stated that if the appeal goes back to the Planning Board the burden is on Mr Duffy, if it stays with the Appeals Board, the burden is on the appellants. A de novo hearing would require the appellants to pay for any extra testing, etc. If the issues are raised at the Planning Board level, Mr Duffy would have to pay for the extra tests, etc.
A letter from the appellants was distributed to the Board listing their concerns.
After much discussion and a break where the appellants conferred among themselves, they withdrew their request to send the case back to the Planning Board and will continue with the Appeals Board and the de novo hearing. The Planning Board chairman will amend the minutes to clear up the confusion of preliminary vs final plans for review and approval if approved by the lawyers and Mr Duffy.
Voted: That the Appeals Board accept the appellants withdrawal of their request for the return of the appeal to the Planning Board with the expectation that the Planning Board will amend the minutes to make it clear that the Planning Board did in fact accept the final plan for review and vote. The Planning Board minutes will be amended to show that proper notification was given per the Ordinance, Section 6, Subsection 2, Paragraph A-6. The Appeals Board vote is subject to agreement from Mr Duffy and Attorneys Roy and Patterson and is accepted with gratitude for the accommodation of the appellants. The vote carried 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. The next meetings, properly advertised and posted will be 16 June at 7 pm and 23 June at 7 pm.
Barbara Grindle, Assistant to the Selectmen