Town of Lamoine, Maine
The Official Website of Lamoine's Town Government
Lamoine Board of Appeals
Minutes of May 24, 2010
Chair Hancock Griff Fenton called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM
Present were: Appeals Board members Nick Pappas, John Wuorinen, Jay Fowler, Merle Bragdon (alternate), Jim Crotteau, Griff Fenton; Secretary Stu Marckoon, Appellant Attorney Michael Ross, Planning Board members Michael Jordan, John Holt; Appellant surveyor Steve Salsbury, and Appellant Tim Gott.
Selection of Officers Mr. Fowler nominated Mr. Fenton as the chair. Mr. Wuorinen 2nd . Vote in favor was 4-1 (Fenton opposed)
Mr. Wuorinen nominated Mr. Pappas as vice chair. Mr. Fowler 2nd . Vote in favor was 4-1 (Pappas opposed)
Mr. Pappas nominated Stu Marckoon as secretary. Mr. Crotteau 2nd . Vote in favor was unanimous.
Minutes of February 25, 2009 Mr. Fowler moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Wuorinen 2nd . Vote in favor was 5-0.
Appeal of Doug Gott & Sons, Inc. Chairman Fenton summarized the case, saying that Gott, who owns Map 3 Lot 8, has asked for a review of the denial of a gravel extraction permit and a site plan review permit by the Lamoine Planning Board.
Chairman Fenton said the first issue is determining whether the Appeals Board has jurisdiction in this matter.
Mr. Marckoon said that section M of the Site Plan Review Ordinance and section G of the Gravel Ordinance refer to appeals.
Mr. Crotteau moved to find that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction per both ordinances. Mr. Pappas 2nd . Vote in favor was 5-0.
Mr. Crotteau moved to find that the appellants have standing to file. Mr. Pappas 2nd . Vote in favor was 5-0.
Timeliness of Appeal
It was noted the appeal was dated May 5, 2010, and the Planning Board decision was made on April 13, 2010. Mr. Wuorinen moved to find that the appeal was filed within the time required by ordinance. Mr. Crotteau 2nd . Vote in favor was 5-0.
Mr. Marckoon reported that alternate member Reggie McDevitt who was unable to attend, is an abutting landowner. Mr. Fowler asked whether he, as a general contractor, would be considered to have a conflict. Mr. Ross said that he and his client have no problem whatsoever with Mr. Fowler serving on the panel in this case. No other conflicts were stated.
The board and appellant agreed that all six board members present would serve on the hearing panel, in case that one member could not attend a particular future session. The board agreed that a quorum requires at least three voting members.
Mr. Ross said he would like to have a de novo hearing, though it could be argued as an administrative hearing because of the ordinances involved. He said a de novo hearing would have everything needed for the record and explained a de novo would go back to ground zero. He explained the differences between an administrative and de novo hearing.
Chairman Fenton said new information is not allowed in an administrative hearing. He said a limited de novo hearing could review just the areas of the decision being appealed. Mr. Wuorinen said he likes the idea of a de novo hearing because it gives a broad idea of what the application is about. Mr. Bragdon said the ordinance does not allow for a de novo hearing because it was not a tie vote, and not a request for a variance.
There was a discussion about whether new evidence could be allowed at the hearing. Mr. Ross asked that the deadline for submission be 1-week before the hearing date. Mr. Wuorinen said he would like the ability to ask for further information. A discussion followed on whether that could be done.
Mr. Wuorinen moved to hear the case as an administrative procedure. Mr. Fowler 2nd . Vote in favor was 5-0.
Rules of Procedure The Board informally requested the following:
The board agreed that the appellant would make their presentation followed by the Planning Board presentation, and public input from abutters. Chairman Fenton said the hearing would be confined to only the issues being appealed. There was a discussion of whether this would be a true public hearing and agreed that the Chair would determine the standing and appropriateness of testimony.
Mr. Ross renewed his request that the deadline for submission to the Appeals Board be one week prior to the hearing date. There was no objection. Mr. Holt asked if the Planning Board could have access to the submission by Mr. Ross. Mr. Marckoon said it would be available at the town office and he would scan it and post it on the town's website.
The date for the hearing was set for Monday, June 21, 2010 at 7PM at the Lamoine Town Hall, to end no later than 10:00 PM. If more time is needed, the next meeting would be on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 7PM.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:42 PM.
Stu Marckoon, Secretary