Town of Lamoine, Maine
Minutes of the Lamoine Board of Appeals
Chairman Chris Tadema-Wielandt called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Present were: Appeals Board members Chris Tadema-Wielandt, Warren Craft, John Wuorinen, Griff Fenton (Alternate), Reggie McDevitt (Alternate), Jay Fowler, Nick Pappas; Administrative Assistant Stu Marckoon, Gary Hunt (attorney for the appellants), Robert Alvarez (appellant), Paul Frederick (appellant), Michael Garrett (Planning Board Secretary), Tim Pease (Attorney for Anthony & Josette Pettegrow), and members of the public Merrill Davis, Dennis Ford, Gerald Ford, and William Pinkham.
Minutes – John Wuorinen read a minor grammatical change suggested to the minutes of April 13, 2004. Jay Fowler moved to approve the minutes with the amendment. Nick Pappas 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0, Craft abstained.
Other Business – There was no other business to bring up at this time.
Alvarez et al vs. Pettegrow – Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he spoke with both counsel, and due to short notice, the Pettegrows attorney, Ed Bearor, said he was unable to get all the experts here this evening. Tim Pease said he was representing the Pettegrows for Mr. Bearor tonight. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said notice was given and this is a public meeting, but a lot of substantive matters and issues are before the board, and it might be appropriate to decide on the procedures to follow during the hearings. He said the issue was raised on how to hear this, and the Site Plan Review Ordinance does not authorize the Appeals Board to consider this as an appellate only, and the Maine Law Court has held that lacking that language, the hearing must be de-novo, or a 2nd Planning Board hearing.
Mr. Pease said he had thoughts on that. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he’d like to hear from both sides. He said the Site Plan Review appeal was filed first, and the Shoreland appeal is the most recent. He said there is a difference in the language in the two ordinances. Mr. Pease said the Site Plan Review ordinance (section M1), sets out the circumstances under which the Appeals Board can hear appeals. He read from the section. He said the question is does the appeal fall under one of these categories in paragraph one, and he said he thinks it does. He said there was a finding by the Planning Board that this was not an industrial use. He said he’s not sure the appeal involves an error of administrative procedure. He said part “d” appears to be the route under which the appeal is proper (When errors of interpretation are found, the board of appeals may modify the interpretation or reverse the order of the board but may not alter the conditions attached by the board. All changes in conditions, other than changes made by the granting of a variance, shall be made by the board in accordance with the board of appeals' interpretation.). He said there seems to be something missing in the appeals possibilities under the Site Plan Review Ordinance, as nothing speaks to procedure. He said in the absence of specific language, a de novo procedure must be conducted. He then asked what sort of de novo hearing must take place. He said it could start from scratch, or do part of the process over. He referred to the Maine Municipal Association Board of Appeals Manual, page 42, from the Standard of Review section. He said the Board of Appeals is not limited to the record of the Planning Board or the Code Enforcement Officer. He said there could be a modified de novo hearing. He said such a hearing creates its own record, but it’s not a complete do-over, just on the specific issues appealed. He said in this case the Appeals Board would not act as a new Planning Board. He said it makes no sense to have a complete de novo. He said a de novo hearing to collect evidence on the specific items being appealed makes more sense. He said once the information is collected, the Board could decide whether the decision made was contrary to the ordinance. He said the measure of clearly contrary to the ordinance is suggested in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said the other choice is a complete de novo hearing, and the modified and complete are the only two choices, the board does not have an appellate review choice. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Pease was referring only to the Site Plan Review appeal. Mr. Pease answered yes. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if he thinks the Shoreland Zoning appeal could be appellate. Mr. Pease said it could be a modified de novo or complete de novo. He said the language is the same in the Southwest Harbor ordinance. He said the law court said that’s moving closer to an administrative appeal, but it’s not there yet. He read from the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, Section 16B3.
Gary Hunt said the language of the 1999 Appeals Board manual from Maine Municipal Association (MMA) has been replaced with a supplement. He handed out a cover page and a section from which he read. He said the position of MMA has changed, and they’ve eliminated the modified de novo option. He said unless the local ordinance expresses otherwise, there must be a de novo hearing. He said that means the Board of Appeals starts the review process from scratch and creates its own record. He said the Planning Board or CEO record is relevant only for reference. He said the Board of Appeals in this case is not deciding on the Planning Board or CEO decision, but only on its own record. He said the Board of Appeals must follow the performance and review criteria. He said it’s unfortunate that the ordinances don’t limit the Board to appellate hearings only. He said until recently, Lamoine officials thought the Building and Land Use ordinance appellate language applied to the other ordinances as well. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if this were brought under the Building and Land Use Ordinance, it could be an appellate hearing. Mr. Hunt said it could, but it’s not the ordinance being appealed under, it’s the Shoreland Zoning and Site Plan Review. He said he’s afraid if it’s anything other than a de novo hearing, it would go to Superior Court, and it would be sent back to the Board of Appeals, and another year would go by, depending on the court’s backlog. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Pease whether he had any thought that the conflict between ordinances would allow the Board to operate under the Building and Land Use Ordinance. Mr. Pease said his experience is that it’s not sufficient to withstand a court appeal. He said he agrees that it’s got to be a de novo hearing because it looks like that’s the only way it would hold up in court. He said the law court cases still leave open the question as to whether it could be a limited do novo hearing to what was appealed. He said the attachments to the appeal are specific areas, and it seems like other issues are not a concern to the appealing party. He said the law court has not advised on that. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he’s read the cases in question, and asked if there was anything new. Mr. Hunt said the law court has not resolved that issue. He said anything less than from scratch might be procedurally defective. He said if the Board wants to be confident it’s following the right process, it should start from scratch. He said the Pettegrows could submit the materials that were submitted to the Planning Board, and the Appeals Board could find whether it’s complete as was done at the Planning Board level. He said the Planning Board did not ask for some things the appellants thought should have been submitted.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he did not attend the Planning Board meetings, thinking it might go to the Appeals Board. He asked how many meetings the appeal might take. Mr. Hunt said the Planning Board had a meeting on each application for a completeness review, then a hearing. He said the public had no input at the completeness review. He said there was a 3rd meeting on each to render the decision. Michael Garrett of the Planning Board confirmed there were two separate decision meetings. Mr. Hunt stated again that each application had a completeness review, public hearing, and decision meeting. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if for a true de-novo hearing would it take two nights? Mr. Hunt said the Planning Board followed that course, and the applications were handled by the Planning Board, and both still exist. He said it’s not a matter of assembling new applications. He said if both exist, the same could be submitted to the Board of Appeals, and they could do a completeness review in one night. Mr. Pease suggested the second time around the applicant knows what is at stake, and it could take several days longer than the earlier process, possibly 4 to 5 days, if not more.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the attorneys had spoken in regard to stipulations? Mr. Pease said he could not speak to that. Mr. Hunt said there are plenty of things that are not in dispute, and some things that don’t apply. He said they could probably come up with some stipulations. He said he thinks since the board is not dealing with multiple appeals, it might not involve as many night meetings.
Jay Fowler asked if the public got a chance to speak when the Planning Board had its’ hearing. Mr. Hunt said there is a distinction between a public meeting and a public hearing. He said the public had its opportunity to speak at the hearing, and they were not cut short. He explained how the Planning Board process worked.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the first thing to decide is whether to have a de novo hearing. He said it’s clear to him from reading that the board needs to take evidence. He asked if the Board should do that on a limited basis, and retain its appellate role, which is Mr. Pease’s suggestion, taking evidence only on those matters being appealed, and deciding whether the Planning Board was erroneous in its decision, or does the Appeals Board throw out all from the Planning Board and behave as if the Appeals Board is the Planning Board.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said before the Board decides, there are some procedural matters to take care of. He said it’s clear there is a quorum, as all members are here. He asked if there were any conflicts with any members. Mr. Craft said he had a conflict. He said he did not think he could hear the case, as he is a close neighbor. He said he recused himself. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there were any concern from counsel. Mr. Hunt said he had a concern, but it’s nothing personal. He said Mr. Fowler ought not to sit on the appeal. He said if a Board of Appeals member is related to a Planning Board member, they should abstain. He said Mr. Fowler’s son was the chairman of the Planning board. He said Mr. Fowler attended the Planning Board meetings and spoke as a member of the public and gave his opinion. He said there is an appearance of a lack of impartiality. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he didn’t know if attendance and expressing an opinion is sufficient to create a conflict, but he has read something in the MMA manual about a close kinship. Mr. Garrett said Perry Fowler (then Planning Board chair) did not recuse himself from Planning Board action, but he also abstained from voting on any of the measures, so he was not a party to any votes. Jay Fowler confirmed that his son abstained from voting. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt noted that on all votes there was at least one abstention, and asked if Perry Fowler was that one. Mr. Garrett confirmed that Perry Fowler was the abstention. Mr. Hunt said page 20 of the MMA manual said the burden of proving bias is on the appellant, and read an example, and one is including testimony, and noted that Mr. Fowler took a side on the issues. He said since there are alternates on the Board of Appeals, he would like it to be clear and even though no bias is involved, using the alternates will not destroy the quorum. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it’s Mr. Hunt’s opinion on whether Mr. Fowler should not participate or just abstain from voting. Mr. Hunt said if Mr. Fowler recused himself or abstained, he should abstain from the whole thing, but could participate as a member of the public. Mr. Fowler said he doesn’t think the close relationship mattered in this case. He said he’s known Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Frederick a long time. Mr. Frederick said Mr. Fowler stated that he wished people from away had not moved here. A short discussion followed.
Mr. Fowler said future actions could be clouded by his participation. He said the board has to find facts and act under the laws, and his opinion has nothing to do with it. Robert Alvarez said if a person is excused from voting, they should not even sit at the table, according to the MMA manual. Mr. Fowler said he would excuse himself, and left the meeting. Mr. Craft said he is officially excused, but would hang around for the meeting. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt declared for the record that Mr. Fowler and Mr. Craft have recused themselves.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the next matter is whether Mr. Hunt’s clients have standing. Mr. Pease said there is no challenge to that. Mr. Wuorinen moved that the Appeals Board find that the appellant has standing, and the Board could hear the case. Mr. Pappas 2nd. Vote in favor was 5-0.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what kind of review it would be – limited de novo or full de novo, like a new Planning Board. Mr. Pappas said he would like to know what they would stipulate to, and if that would limit the Board’s scope. He said he’d be curious to see how it all plays out. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that might be one facet of a limited de novo hearing. He said there is still a difference in procedure and questioned whether the Appeals Board acts as a Planning Board or just compares its decision to the Planning Board.
Mr. Fenton asked if a de novo hearing could hear new evidence and how it would have to rule. Mr. Hunt said the applicant could submit new evidence the Planning Board did not hear. He said he could as well. He said he thinks it’s clear the job of the Board of Appeals is to make its own decision. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the Board would not be a Board of Appeals at that point. Mr. Hunt said yes, it’s a very fuzzy issue, and he thinks the Appeals Board has to act as though the Planning Board did not exist. He said the applicant did submit additional items the Planning Board asked for. He said he does think the Board of Appeals needs to start from scratch. Mr. Pease said he would argue that the Board needs to take evidence and inquired about the standard for evidence, whether to pretend the Planning Board never made a decision. He said guidance could come from the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said the courts say a de novo hearing is required, they haven’t said you need to reach a de novo decision. He said you need to collect evidence, and decide whether decision was contrary to the ordinance. He said there is nothing in respect to the Site Plan Review Ordinance. He said if it’s done under the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, it makes sense to apply the same standard. Mr. Fenton said the Appeals Board decision could be compared to the Planning Board’s decision, and they’re not mutually exclusive. Mr. Hunt said he didn’t think it’s possible to have a hearing with new evidence and draw a conclusion the Planning Board was wrong, if you hear evidence the Planning Board didn’t hear. He said he thinks the only sense to say the Planning Board was wrong must be based on the evidence the Appeals Board heard, but it’s the Appeals Board’s decision to make. He said if it were a contrary decision, the Board of Appeals would direct the Planning Board to issue or not issue the permit.
Mr. Wuorinen asked if there were any reason the two sides could not stipulate many facts. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said there is no reason they couldn’t but there might not be an advantage to their clients other than to save money. Mr. Hunt said he and Mr. Bearor could get together to find some things to streamline. He said only the things they disagree on would take up the discussion time. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the language in both appeals was similar, a misinterpretation of the ordinance language could be broad enough to take issue with whatever it is. Mr. Alvarez said that to streamline, stipulations could come in the de novo process hearing, where both sides could say some things are irrelevant. Mr. Garrett said both attorneys were cooperative before the Planning Board and cited specific areas where they disagreed.
Mr. Wuorinen moved to conduct a full de novo hearing as distinguished from a limited hearing. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt 2nd. Vote in favor was 5-0.
Mr. McDevitt said he and Mr. Fenton are new members who’ve just come on board. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said they were alternates. Mr. McDevitt said the record should show that the alternates will hear the case instead of the two who were excused. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said they’ve fulfilled their purpose to step in when needed. Mr. McDevitt said it should be so noted. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it is noted.
Mr. Hunt said they should come up with a schedule. Mr. Pease said it’s a busy time of year for his clients, and they would like the hearings to start in the fall if possible, or they’d have to shut down their business. He said there is some precedent for working on weekends, even Sundays. He said meeting should start earlier in the day, possibly a daytime meeting. Mr. Hunt inquired which business. Mr. Pease said their restaurant business. He said the restaurant is closed on Sundays. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he could sympathize, but by the same token, the appellants have complained about the disruption to their tranquility. He said he had no problem with a weekend, or starting early, but others on the board are gainfully employed. Mr. Pappas said he has a problem starting earlier in the day. Mr. Hunt said he had no problem with Sundays, but his wife might. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Massachusetts has blue laws, which prohibit certain things on Sundays and inquired whether Maine has similar laws. Mr. Hunt said there are none, except for car sales. Mr. Alvarez inquired about the requirement that appeals be heard within a certain time frame. He noted its going into its 3rd year. Mr. Hunt said the appeals have been pending for a while. Mr. Alvarez said the abutters have been subjected to problems. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said another couple of months wouldn’t make any difference. Mr. Wuorinen asked about the legal implications of deadlines. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the language in the ordinance does not deprive the board from making a decision if the evidence is not heard within 35-days. Mr. Pease said if it were filed in a timely matter, the Appeals Board could take its time. Mr. Wuorinen said failure to act could automatically grant a permit. Mr. Hunt said this ordinance does not do that. He said the extensions were agreed to by both parties, and should serve to make the process more efficient. He said if the Board were locked into 35-days on the Site Plan and the Shoreland zoning, it could really take forever. Mr. Pease said the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance says the Appeals Board has to act within 35-days of the close of the public hearing. Mr. Hunt said the Appeals Board could do as the Planning Board and deliberate at a separate meeting after closing the hearing. He said that was a good way to handle it. Mr. Alvarez said the biggest aid would be timely submissions to the Board. He asked if the attorneys would agree to send materials at least 10-days prior to the meeting. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he did not disagree with that.
Mr. Hunt said the Board must look at the applications for completeness. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that meant this evening. Mr. Hunt said no, no one’s prepared. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Board needs to figure out when to meet, then how to proceed. He said it would be like a Planning Board meeting. He said Mr. Bearor would submit the application and the Board would go through it item by item. Mr. Hunt said he’d get in touch with Mr. Bearor. Mr. Pease said Mr. Bearor would handle this. He said who presents when will be an issue. He said the person filing the appeal has the burden of proof and would go first. He said unless the board could direct that now, perhaps the parties could sit down and work that out with the stipulations and could give suggestions in writing prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hunt said they could lay out the applications and put in order of presentation, and let the board know areas where they disagree on completeness. Mr. Garrett said the ordinance requires a site visit, and that could be helpful. Mr. Wuorinen agreed. Mr. Pappas said he agreed. Mr. Hunt said that could be done before the next meeting, and it would be helpful to see the site. Mr. Wuorinen said until the Board has the application, they might not know what’s going on. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said they don’t anticipate a new application. Mr. Hunt said they could add something to the existing application. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if they should be able to add something to the existing application. Mr. Hunt said if there were something they didn’t submit before, there was some discussion with the Planning Board at the public hearing, some information should have been there, and Mr. Bearor said they would have submitted it if they’d asked for it. He said the Pettegrows might want to add more information to support the application. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said they need to find out when it will happen. Mr. Hunt said he’s quite flexible. He said he didn’t want to disrupt the Pettegrows business. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he’d like to continue the hearing to a date certain.
Mr. Pease gave Mr. Bearor’s Schedule. Individual Board members gave their schedules. Mr. Hunt gave his schedule. Discussion followed on the calendar, and Sunday, August 22nd was agreed to as a date, with a site visit on August 21st. The attorneys agreed to get the information to the town office by July 30th.
Mr. Alvarez said he had a complaint. He said he was asked to leave the Planning Board site visit, and it’s technically a public meeting, so that’s a violation of the right to know law. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Pease to advise his clients that the public has the right to attend a site visit. Mr. Marckoon said there is a difference between a public meeting and a public hearing, in that a person can attend the meeting, but not necessarily participate. Mr. Alvarez said the MMA manual clearly states this is a public hearing. Mr. Marckoon said he disagreed.
Discussion followed on sending the information to the town hall by July 30th. The site visit will meet at the site at 8:30 AM on the 21st. Mr. Marckoon asked that 6-copies be submitted. Mr. Hunt said he agreed.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the meeting on the 22nd would start at Noon at the town hall. He said the lawyers would decide what applications are submitted, and who’s going first, and what documentary evidence, what expert testimony and the like there would be. Mr. Hunt said the meeting on the 22nd would be to go through the application for completeness. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked why not have the public hearing on Sunday. Mr. Hunt said there needs to be a completeness review, and if there is something lacking, the Pettegrows would not have the opportunity to fix it. He said the Board could start, and recess, then continue when the corrected application is available. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Pease if he would have any trouble getting his experts to appear on a Sunday. Mr. Pease replied that he hoped not, since they are flexible.
Mr. Fenton asked how things would be worked out after the Site Plan Review and Shoreland Zoning applications are found complete. Mr. Pease said the lawyers’ tasks between now and July 30th is to give the Board a road map. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he would have no quarrel receiving information before July 30th. He declared that the public hearing on the Alvarez et al vs. Pettegrow matter would continue to Saturday, August 21, 2004 for a site visit at the Pettegrow property at 8:30 AM, to be followed by a meeting on Sunday, August 22, 2004 at Noon at the Town Hall.
A short discussion followed to make sure the Board members all have the same copy of the ordinances.
Proposed Appeals Board Ordinance – Mr. Craft said he had no problem except for section three, the standard of review. He said it should be up to the Board of Appeals whether to hold a de novo hearing or not. Mr. Garrett said the Pettegrow case drove the Planning Board to draft the proposed ordinance. He said other ordinances have conflicting sections regarding appeals. He said the intent was to override the individual ordinances and allow the Appeals Board to hear appellate cases. He said it is a new ordinance, which must go to town meeting for approval.
Mr. Craft read from a Maine Townsman article Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Planning Board wants to make the Appeals Board an appellate board, not a second Planning Board. Mr. Wuorinen said it seems the Planning Board proceedings could take place, and that board could miss an important aspect of an application, and if the Appeals Board conducts an appellate review there might not be a chance to find such a hole in a Planning Board decision. He said the Board of Appeals loses nothing by going de novo. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said if that were the case, every Planning Board decision could come before the Board of Appeals. Mr. Wuorinen and Chairman Tadema-Wielandt discussed the philosophy of the scope of the Board of Appeals, Mr. Wuorinen advocating that the Board be a watchdog for the appellant, and Chairman Tadema-Wielandt saying that the Board should limit its scope to the issues in question. Mr. Pappas agreed with the Chair that that should be the Board’s scope. Mr. Fenton said the ordinances ought to reflect the Board’s appellate role. Mr. Craft said it should be the decision of the Board of Appeals on whether to hold a de novo hearing.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the town meeting gives the authority on whether it’s an Appeals Board, and a lengthy discussion followed on the recourse for appellants and the philosophy of Appellate vs. 2nd Planning Board. Mr. Craft noted the language in the proposed ordinance required a de novo hearing if there is a tie vote on the Planning Board. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Planning Board is trying for a separate Appeals Board Ordinance. Mr. Garrett said they’re trying to do the Appeals Board a favor. Mr. Wuorinen read a passage from the proposed ordinance and said he didn’t understand the language but thought it might be broader than an appellate board. A short discussion followed on conflicts in state laws and court rulings. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how the town would be educated to pass the ordinance. Mr. Garrett said he has no difficulty with making a presentation by saying it gives the Board of Appeals the ability to narrow its focus. There was a discussion on which ordinances conflict. It was suggested that the proposed ordinance specifically identify which ordinances and the specific sections that would be overridden. Mr. Garrett noted that if the Board of Appeals approves the language, there is an open space for the time for appeals. A discussion followed on consequence if the deadline is not followed, restrictions on filing a second appeal, back and forth rulings and appeals. The Appeals Board felt one sentence should change the word “brought” to the word “heard”.
Mr. Wuorinen said he had trouble reconciling appellate in the second sentence of section 3-C and read the passage. A short discussion followed. It was suggested to change the wording to read “ordinance(s) appealed from.”. Mr. Wuorinen suggested that it is better to have a mission to enforce the ordinances than to depart from the mission by eliminating de novo hearings. He said if the Board of Appeals does not have a de novo hearing, it does a less than complete job of decision making. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that would be substituting the judgment of one board over another. Another debate followed on the role of the Board of Appeals and the philosophical difference in regard to the Board’s role among the members of the Board of Appeals.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what to do next. Mr. Garrett said without the Board of Appeals’ endorsement, he considers it a dead issue, and he’s not interested in pursuing the ordinance if the Board of Appeals is not in favor. Mr. Fenton asked about a time line for passage. Mr. Garrett said he had none. Mr. Craft asked if it could be at the next regular town meeting. Mr. Fenton suggested putting it in the hopper for now and reviewing and discussing it later. He said for now, the reference to individual ordinances that would change and the language change in 3-C should be included. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said there is no board consensus. He said he thinks it’s a good ordinance, but he’s just one member. Mr. Garrett said without a board endorsement it’s a dead issue. Mr. Craft said it’s up to the Appeals Board now. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it’s a town issue, and a question of how people want land-use issues decided. Mr. Fenton said he thought it was a wonderful proposed ordinance, a few commas need to change, but the public should vote on it. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the board would visit this in the fall. Mr. Craft concurred. Mr. Garrett asked that the Board get the corrections to him. It was agreed those specific changes would be in the language of Section 3-C and the list of specific ordinance sections affected. A short discussion followed on time limits for filing and acting on Appeals.
There being no further business, Mr. Fenton moved to Adjourn, and Mr. McDevitt 2nd. All were in favor.
Stu Marckoon, Secretary Pro-Tem
Lamoine Board of Appeals