Meeting was called to order by Ms. Havey at 7:10 PM.
Present: Ms. Havey, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Tadema?Wielandt, Mr. Wuorinen
Ms. Havey stated that the Board had received a letter from Mr. Hunt pointing
out that there was a
discrepancy between the minutes of the January 27, 2002 Appeals Board meeting and the written findings of the Board in the appeal by Mr. Alvarez. The purpose of this meeting is to listen to the tape of the meeting and decide if action is necessary.
Mr. Fowler suggested that the minutes of the last meeting be approved. In the discussion following, it was decided to postpone approval until the matter referred to above was resolved.
Mr. Tadema?Wielandt then played the pertinent portion of the tape recording of the proceedings of January 6, 2003.
Ms. Pettegrow questioned whether the Appeals Board found that there had been
a change of use.
Whereupon Ms. Havey stated the Board did not consider a change of use. Mr. Alvarez stated and Mr. Tadema-Wielandt agreed that the Planning Board did not consider change of use, so that the appellate process could not consider it.
Mr. Hunt questioned whether the board was considering only the Alvarez appeal, whereupon the Board indicated they were considering all. Ms. Havey stated that the three specific items in the Alvarez appeal would be covered by review of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance and the Site Plan Review. Mr. Hunt pointed out that the three points provide a roadmap for the Planning Board in their reconsideration. Mr. Tadema?Wielandt asked if the Appeals Board was to direct the Planning Board focus. Mr. Hunt stated that specific inclusion of reference of the three would not constrain the Planning Board in their consideration of the matter. Justin Bennett, Counsel for the Pettegrows, stated the inclusion was not necessary.
Mr. Hunt stated that the Planning Board actions imply that they were not inclined to consider the three. Mr. Bennett suggested that the second and third points raise again the question of expansion. Mr. Hunt stated that the parking lot enables expansion.
Mr. Wuorinen suggested and Mr. Tadema?Wielandt agreed that the Planning Board ignored the matter so that the Appeals Board cannot consider it.
Mr. Pettegrow asked if the fact that the Planning Board spent four hours at the site constituted a site plan review. All agreed that it did not. Ms. Pettegrow said that the Planning Board gave a permit. Ms. Havey stated that was irrelevant and enforcement was not a permit. Ms. Pettegrow said that even without a parking lot, expansion was possible.
A brief discussion of the case history followed.
Ms. Havey repeated that Mr. Hunt's request was to say what was voted on. After statements by Mr. and Ms. Pettegrow and brief discussion, Mr. Wuorinen moved and Mr. Tadema?Wielandt seconded that the Board find that it had previously voted to include the three specific points in their communication to the Planning Board and that the Appeals Board findings be amended to include them. The vote was three to one in favor.
Mr. Tadema?Wielandt then moved and Mr. Fowler seconded approval of the minutes of the January 27, 2003 meeting. The motion was approved four to zero.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM.
April 3, 2003