Minutes of Lamoine Board of Appeals
March 14, 2000
Chairman Fred Stocking called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Present were: Appeals Board members Jay Fowler, Fred Stocking, Warren Craft Sr., Clif Smith, John Holdsworth, alternate Melody Havey; Administrative Assistant Stu Marckoon, appellants Edward & Penelope Ciampa, appellant attorney Tony Giunta, Lamoine Community Association attorney Dale Worthen, members of the public Bob Giles, Andrea Nunn (court reporter), Aaron Porter of the Ellsworth American, Bill Trotter of the Ellsworth Weekly, Griff Fenton, Karen Crawford, Donna Fennelly, Douglas & Beverly Coleman, Evelyn Milner, Joan Bragdon, Mascha Litten, Pat Wallace, Richard Fisher, Karen Blennerhasset, Don Cooper, Richard King, Tom Keenan, Chuck Weber, Jane Washek, Tom Spruce, Susan Arthur, David Herrick and Bob Sharkey.
Minutes of February 29, 2000 Ė Fred said he would like to add the sentence "Mr. Giunta indicated he was satisfied" to page 2 of the draft minutes in the last paragraph. He said the list of exhibits listed in the draft did not include some he had admitted, namely for Ciampa #9, the report of Barry Timson, #10, the excerpt of the Gerber Report and #11 the big map. He said the Lamoine Community Association exhibits failed to include #4, an argument presented by Dale Worthen with two maps from the Gerber Report, and the petitions and letters should be marked LCA #5.
Mr. Giunta looked over the minutes and said they look complete. He said he did not see the February 7, 2000 Planning Board minutes as they had not been approved by the Planning Board at the previous meeting. He said he understood they will be added tonight and wanted to note that for the record. Mr. Worthen said he understands the draft minutes of the Planning Board meeting are now finalized.
There was no objection to any of the amendments to the draft minutes and the list of exhibits. Jay Fowler moved to adopt the minutes as amended. Warren Craft 2nd. Vote in favor was 5-0. (Secretaryís note: the final version of the minutes of February 29, 2000 has incorporated the changes outlined above).
Appeal Reopened Ė at 7:08 PM, Mr. Stocking reopened the appeal of Edward Ciampa (#2000-1). He said he would like to open up the record and add the appeal document filed by Mr. Ciampa, and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of February 7, 2000 as exhibits Board # 5 (appeal document) and Board # 6 (Planning Board Minutes). He said he didnít think the record would be complete without the two documents in evidence. Mr. Giunta renewed his objection, saying he assumed the appeal document was automatically part of the evidence.
Closing Statements Ė Appellant
Mr. Giunta said he did not submit any written findings of fact or conclusions of law. He said he hoped the attorneys sitting on the board of appeals could explain any complex legal matters. He said heís not sure which review process the Board of Appeals was using. He said one option is to review the evidence that went before the Planning Board and decide if that Boardís decision was correct. He said the other method is to disregard the public hearing before the Planning Board and have a whole new trial, and decide on the evidence before the Board of Appeals. He said he doesnít know which way to proceed.
Mr. Giunta said he reviewed the Planning Board decision and found a problem with procedural due process. In his review of the minutes of the Planning Board of January 3, 2000, he noted the board took action on the application submitted by Mr. Ciampa. He said at the February 7, 2000 meeting, a member was present and voting who was not present at the January 3, 2000 meeting. He cited a case called Pelkey vs. Presque Isle which is a violation of procedural due process. He said a Planning Board member cannot come in and hear half the evidence. He said the Planning Board is there to make an impartial decision.
Mr. Giunta asked if the Planning Board committed an error of law. He said the first finding was that the proposed gas station was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Building and Land Use ordinance allows for general commercial use and vehicle service stations are allowed in this zone. He said he did not see where they are not allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. He said a survey included in the plan showed 60% or more of the town felt a convenience store was wanted, and convenience stores generally include gas stations. He said the Comprehensive Plan makes the recommendation that no gas containers be allowed unless they are double lined. He said the experts testified that all the tanks are double lined. He said he does not see any violation of the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Giunta said the finding that Mr. Ciampa didnít produce plans for spill control is an abuse of discretion by the Planning Board. He said the Planning Board should have said the application was not complete and they could not act until the get more information. He said he does not find the risk to groundwater listed anywhere in the Building and Land Use Ordinance. He said the ordinance talks about undue adverse impact to community services, including the water supply. He said the word risk means nothing.
Mr. Giunta said in reviewing what the Planning Board did, the real issue is procedural. He said if this is a trial de novo, the Appeals Board has heard all the evidence. He said this is a gas station, and there seems to be a lot of concern over risks. He asked how many 50-gallon kerosene tanks are attached to garages, how many outdoor oil tanks are there over the aquifer. He said they are not double lined. He asked how many leaking automobiles are parked in driveways over the aquifer. He asked how many times does someone fill a chainsaw, a lawn mower or a rototiller and spill gasoline. He said in Lamoine, everyone has a subsurface waste disposal system, and the leachate goes down, not up. He said if he suggested a ban on people filling lawnmowers with gas, people would laugh. He said everyone is sitting here seriously, presented with a plan for double lined tanks, and all they hear is fear. He said they donít hear common sense.
Mr. Giunta said this is a gas station, not a nuclear plant. He said the safeguards are much safer than most of the people who live over the aquifer have in place. He said Lamoine has a record with the aquifer, and no one would consider a parking ban. He said yes, there are risks. He said this is so minimized, that based on the evidence there is no undue adverse impact. He said the Appeals Board should make a decision based on facts. He said the risks are minimal here. He said the worst thing that could happen is that a few gallons of gasoline leak onto a cement pad. He asked the Board to give the issue fair consideration. He said a lot depends on whether this is a review of the Planning Board decision or whether this is a new trial. He said the Law Courts decisions are confusing to his side.
Questions for appellantís attorney
Mr. Stocking asked if Mr. Giunta had a position to urge the Appeals Board on the issue of de novo or appellate review. Mr. Giunta said it depends on the case. He said he could cite a case where the Appeals Board looks at the evidence. He said the Law Court had a case last week, the sprawl case, where the Appeals Board was in appellate review of the Planning Board. He said he didnít know what the answer is.
Mr. Stocking said he talked with Maine Municipal Association and this case is classified as a modified de novo review where the Appeals Board decides from its own record whether the Planning Board decision was correct. He asked if Mr. Giunta agreed that if the Appeals Board should prefer they can confirm the Planning Boardís decision from the record the Appeals Board creates. Mr. Giunta said he disagreed; itís not up to the Appeals Board to make the Planning Boardís record. He said the Appeals Board has heard evidence the Planning Board never heard.
Mr. Stocking said Maine Municipal Association suggested that when the new plan was presented, the Appeals Board should have insisted that the appeal be withdrawn and the new plan be presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Giunta said case law says if itís not a major change, the appeal should not be withdrawn. He said he would have been happy to withdraw if Mr. Worthen would not raise the issue of estoppel, but Mr. Worthen has not said he would, so he cannot be in that position.
Mr. Stocking said the Appeals Board has to decide if the change from a suction system to a pressurized system is a major change. Mr. Giunta said whatever the decision from the Appeals Board, itís like to be appealed to Superior Court. He said if the decision is adverse to him, he would ask the Superior Court not to hear the case and file a new application with the Planning Board, then the court could combine the two proceedings.
Mr. Stocking asked if the Board of Appeals has the power to grant a permit with conditions. Mr. Giunta said it seems to him itís not a yes or no issue, there is no clear answer. He said he would not be troubled if the Appeals Board wanted to put conditions on a permit. Mr. Stocking asked if the Appeals Board has that power. Mr. Giunta said heís not sure if a court would overturn it.
Closing Statements Ė Lamoine Community Association
Dale Worthen said he drew up proposed written findings of fact. He passed out several papers and said he had a printout of the Pelkey case. He said the issue raised was on due process. He said the Pelkey case is different. He said the decision was sent back to the Board of Appeals in Presque Isle for findings when the Board had 3-new members, including one vocal opponent of Pelkey. He said the Maine Supreme Court said procedural due process has taken place if notice has been given about the hearings, and all have had the right to be heard. He said as long as the people voting on the board were at the public hearing, the due process question is satisfied. He said he believes all the people voting on the Planning Board were present at the public hearing. He said the applicant had the right to state to the Planning Board at the time of the vote and hearing that due process was not done. He said that issue was not raised, and it was not raised at the evidentiary hearing on February 29th before the Appeals Board, so he considers the issue waived.
Mr. Worthen said the Board of Appeals is clearly governed by the townís ordinance. He said the town has taken care to set out a standard of review in the ordinance. He cited section 8D where the Appeals Board can reverse a decision of the Planning Board if itís clearly contrary to the ordinance. He said he doesnít think there is any question about it. He said the ordinance lays out the standard of review. He said the appealing party has to clearly convince the Appeals Board that the Planning Board decision is contrary to the ordinance.
Mr. Worthen said in his review of the Building and Land Use Ordinance he saw the Planning Board held a hearing on February 7, 2000 for Mr. Ciampa and voted 3-to-2 to deny the permit. He said there were three findings. One was that it was not in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, and the other two that the application did not have specifics regarding a spill plan. He said Mr. Giuntaís argument that the Board should have found the application incomplete is countered in that the applicant could ask the Board to hold off because he didnít have the information. He said the applicant did not say that. He said the applicant presented the information he had, and didnít bring everything. He said the Planning Board can ask applicants to bring in any number of things but it doesnít mean the application is incomplete. He said the Planning Board decided that everything that must be in the application was there; they went forward and denied the permit.
Mr. Worthen said the Building & Land Use Ordinance shows clearly why the Planning Board decided the way it did. He said section 3 says that in all instances the burden of proof is on the applicant. He said page 5 talks about groundwater protection. He said the ordinance requires the applicant to provide sufficient evidence regarding protection and that the project does not contaminate the groundwater. He said on the table of uses that #6 allows general commercial use in the development zone, but #21 bans petroleum storage, distillation facilities in all zones. He said he thinks itís legitimate to interpret that petroleum storage is not permitted in the Development Zone. He said # 26 allows service stations/vehicles, but doesnít say anything about gasoline. He said there is no definition of service station, but common sense indicates that gas is there. He said to take #21 and #26 together; there is a legitimate question as to whether petroleum storage is allowed. He cited review criteria in Section 12, specifically sections "d", "f", "l", and "p". He said Section 14, pages 34 and 35 give the general requirements of the protection of natural resources and that projects shall not pose a threat to water quality and quantity. He said the Planning Board had the right to ask for an environmental impact study.
Mr. Worthen said new information was presented on February 29th. He said the high points from his clientís point of view are that the DEP certificate notes the proposed tank is within 300 feet of a private well, and the question was raised as to whether the storeís well is private or public. He said the pressurized system is not the same system presented to the Planning Board. He said the DEP said the pressurized system is more susceptible to leaks.
Mr. Worthen said the logical argument is you have a proposal presented to the Planning Board, the Planning Board reviews it and denies, that denial is then brought to you (the Appeals Board) on review. He said on appeal, everyone has a chance to present support or opposition. He said the information on the pressurized system is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the proposed suction system presented to the Planning Board. He said the result should be that the Board of Appeals takes the information, and says it has no impact because itís irrelevant, and this provides a rationale for supporting the Planning Board denial. He said there was no information presented to the Board of Appeals that the system presented to the Planning Board can do what it was supposed to do.
Mr. Worthen said there is some interesting language in Barry Timsonís report that this does not eliminate the threat of contamination. He said the evidence shows the underground tanks are not the problem. He said the problem is the piping, vehicles filling up, and tankers delivering gasoline. He said the expert witness for the Ciampaís said there would be spills.
Mr. Worthen said the Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Gerber Report into its findings on soils and geology (page 15). He said section 7 of the Gerber Report has a warning that the quantity and quality of the groundwater must be protected. He said pages 17 and 32 talk about protection of groundwater supplies.
Mr. Worthen said the testimony from the DEP talks about major spills with pressurized systems. He said the letter from Mr. Tolman said if the gas pumps are approved, the town is making a permanent, irrevocable decision on groundwater. He said the letter from Mr. Gerber shows there are some measurable releases from a gas station, and gas spills should not be considered on an aquifer. He said Dr. Borns testified the aquifer is a unique resource. He said Dr. Borns differs from Mr. Timson as to how far a leak would travel. He said the testimony from Mr. Hillier concurs with Dr. Borns because of spills and the porous soil. He said evaporation will not take care of spills in a majority of the year.
Mr. Worthen said these are the facts, and he proposed them as the findings of fact. He said they lead to the conclusion there was a switch in the proposal from what was submitted to the Planning Board. He said Mr. Ciampa has not convinced the Board of Appeals the decision from the Planning Board was clearly contrary to the ordinance, and the Appeals Board should uphold the Planning Board decision.
Mr. Worthen said in 1983 the Planning Board took a step to look at the aquifer, and the Gerber Report resulted. He said in January 2000 the Planning Board took a courageous step to protect the aquifer. He said the decision recognizes that all are entrusted with care of natural resources. He said the Appeals Board should uphold the Planning Board decision and protect the aquifer.
Questions for LCA Attorney
Warren Craft asked about the statement that one-gallon of gas could contaminate a million gallons of water. He said he thought it was one gallon of MTBE. Mr. Worthen said he did not recall it being that way. He said their expert testified that gas contaminated drinking water. He said MTBE is still present in gasoline. Mr. Craft said most of a gallon of gas evaporates. Mr. Worthen said on a hot summer day there will be good evaporation.
Mr. Stocking said Mr. Worthen made clear where he comes down on the standard of review. He said itís a de novo records but a review of the Planning Board decision. He said that means procedural due process does not arise for the Appeals Board. He said in creating a new record, the attendance requirements are not the same as in the Pelkey case. Mr. Worthen said Pelkey is completely different. He said if you go into the actual case it says if a voting member doesnít attend a public hearing, then there would be an issue. He said it doesnít apply here because of the change of plan at the Board of Appeals level and the additional evidence heard. He said the issue of the record at the Planning Board level is not that important.
Mr. Stocking asked if Mr. Worthen thinks the Appeals Board should proceed on the appellantsí original record. Mr. Worthen said he thinks thatís the only choice. Mr. Stocking asked if Mr. Worthen thought the Appeals Board can grant a permit with conditions. Mr. Worthen said the only time that is appropriate is in a negotiation session instead of a judicial session, when no one will appeal. He said in a case like this he doesnít think itís proper to grant a permit with conditions.
Mr. Stocking said heís troubled about the arguments about finding the application complete. He said it doesnít seem fair. He cited a case from Lincolnville reversed by the Superior Court. He said the Planning Board could find the applicant didnít meet the burden of proof, but they cannot find the application complete, then deny because the applicant didnít include some stuff. Mr. Worthen said there is a huge difference between a complete application and burden of proof. He said if the information required by the ordinance is provided, the application is complete. He said the Planning Board did not have to satisfy the burden of proof in the application.
Mr. Stocking reminded the audience the record was closed and there would be no comment from the audience. He asked if the Appeals Board can uphold all three reasons for denial, or just one to affirm the Planning Board decision. He set out the three reasons. Mr. Worthen said in regard to the last two elements of the decision that Mr. Ciampa, by presenting a new proposal, did not give information that goes contrary to the Planning Board decision. He said that most of the testimony was related to the first issue, the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Stocking said he would disagree with the assertion that this application is about petroleum storage, as that applies when storage itself is a primary income for the facility, and asked otherwise why have service stations in the ordinance. Mr. Worthen said he would not want to argue that matter very late into the evening. Mr. Stocking said OK.
Mr. Stocking said itís difficult to argue that this is a rare and natural area when itís included in the Development Zone. Mr. Worthen said not at all. He said a stream leading to the headwaters of the Jordan River is in the same zone. He said the area across from the Town Hall looks wet, and must be protected, and thatís in the same zone. He said if a specific area cannot meet criteria, it cannot be developed.
Mr. Stocking asked if the appeal refers to a major or minor change, and what Mr. Worthenís position is. Mr. Worthen said it appears to be a major change. He said the proposal was not presented to the Planning Board meeting. He said there is a significant difference as a suction system is less of a threat of major catastrophe.
Mr. Giunta asked if the change in from suction to pressure was for the better or worse. Mr. Worthen said itís a different proposal.
At 8:10 PM Mr. Stocking closed the arguments and opened deliberations.
Mr. Stocking said the Board heard lots of evidence and has a box of exhibits. John Holdsworth said the Board of Appeals should be here to determine if the Planning Board was in error in making its decision. He said most evidence doesnít pertain to that. He said he doesnít think the Appeals Board should consider the evidence given to them unless it addresses the appeal. He said all else was extraneous. Mr. Stocking said thatís where he comes down. He said the decision of the Planning Board is before us. He said there is no sense to consider a proposal except in terms of the decision the Planning Board made. Clif Smith said he concurred.
Mr. Fowler said his biggest problem is the pressurized vs. suction system. He said if itís a suction system, and there is a small spill, the pump stops working. He said pressurized systems keep pumping if there is a crack. He said he thought the Planning Board considered a suction system. He said he feels a suction system is a lot safer. He said he doesnít know whether it has to be pressurized or suction with double-walled tanks. Mr. Stocking said he didnít think the change was made for productivity, and said the pressurized system introduces risks. Mr. Fowler said the tanks and piping are double walled no matter whether they are suction or pressurized. He said he would feel a lot better with a suction system. There was a brief exchange from the floor on the cost of the system, and Mr. Stocking reminded that no more evidence would be accepted.
Mr. Stocking told Mr. Craft that he heard the evidence that a gallon of gas, not a gallon of MTBE, would contaminate a million gallons. Mr. Smith said thatís what he heard too. Mr. Stocking said he talked with Maine Municipal Association regarding the appeal. He said his understanding was that the Appeals Board should consider the original application. He said there is no right of the Appeals Board to make changes to the proposal themselves. Mr. Holdsworth said the Appeals Board doesnít have the authority, the Planning Board does. Mr. Stocking said the Appeals Board has to say yea or nay to the Planning Board.
Mr. Fowler asked if the Appeals Board had to consider the Pelkey case. He said to be fair to all parties; people voting on a measure should be those there for the most meetings. Mr. Stocking said heís inclined to put stock in the public hearing. He said there is no evidence anyone missed the public hearing. He said he doesnít think it applies at all, the Appeals Board is here for their own record, and cannot make the Pelkey case count.
Mr. Fowler said if everything were brought up, and if all the requirements were met, is it fair that 3 people make a decision on this if all the requirements are met? He said that bothers him. He said they have a list of requirements, and the party involved met the requirements, and just three people can disagree with that. Mr. Stocking said the Planning Board decision says the applicant did not meet the burden of proof of showing no undue impact on groundwater. He said read as a whole, the Planning Board was not satisfied the applicant met the burden of proof. He said that is allowed under the ordinance, and the Planning Board members are the town officials charged with making that call. He said the Appeals Board job is to say whether itís the right call.
Mr. Fowler talked about undue risk. He said he knows there is risk, but this is the same aquifer on which the town dump is located with wells drilled right down through. Mr. Stocking said the town stopped that. Mr. Fowler said the town didnít stop the wells from being drilled. He said there are Webber oil tanks on the same aquifer; the Irving tanks used to be there, a junkyard is there, MacQuinnís pit. He said contamination exists. He said the proposal is for a small gas station, and it doesnít make it any worse. He said more cars will stop at the intersection than drive in for a fill up, and asked how much more contamination is likely from leaking cars at the intersection.
Mr. Craft asked if the aquifer is contaminated, wouldnít we know by now? Mr. Fowler said it probably already is. Mr. Stocking said he thought the testimony was the aquifer was in great shape. Mr. Smith said the evidence shows the likely problem is from the delivery system, and it can affect the aquifer. Mr. Fowler said the record shows there were no major delivery spills; the problem came from leaky pipes and tanks. Mr. Smith said a spill would mainly dissipate into the ground where it can be scooped up. He said this will travel quickly through the sand and not cling like clay soil, and he thinks itís a big hazard.
Mr. Stocking asked to focus on the decision. He said there are a couple ways to do this, either a finding of fact and conclusion of law, then meet to consider the minutes or keep on talking. Mr. Fowler said he thinks it ought to be sent back to the Planning Board to see whether itís a suction or pressure system. Mr. Stocking said MMA discouraged the board from remanding a decision. Mr. Craft said the Appeals Board should decide, or the application should be withdrawn. He asked if a new proposal could be submitted to the Planning Board for a ruling. Mr. Smith said they should look at the three reasons given for denial, and if one was true, they should deny the appeal.
Mr. Stocking read reason one, that it was not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and could adversely affect groundwater quality and present risks to the aquifer. Mr. Smith said itís not a great risk, but there is some risk. He said the system is pretty good. Mr. Fowler said the risk is no more than what is there for other things. Mr. Stocking said since what they heard about, a pressurized system, itís hard to get the burden of proof shown on the Planning Board proposal. He said heís inclined to vote to support the first reason.
Mr. Stocking said Mr. Giunta wants to be heard again. There was brief discussion. Melody Havey said the Planning Board heard about a suction system. She said a service station is a permitted use. She said the Planning Board can dictate how, and the applicant said he would do what the Planning Board told him. She said if everyone agrees there are risks, a service station should not be a permitted use. She said the Appeals Board heard evidence that makes the system as safe as possible. She said she sees the argument that the burden of proof was not met. Mr. Fowler said the appellant agreed to a spill retention system greater than any other service station. He said that takes out a lot of the risk. Mr. Stocking said the ordinance says itís a Planning Board decision, if they are satisfied the review criteria can be met. He said heís heard no evidence to contradict that.
Mr. Stocking restated the first reason and took a straw vote, asking who thinks the Appeals Board should reverse the Planning Board finding. Vote was 1-4 (Fowler in favor, Havey abstained as alternate).
Mr. Stocking read the second reason for denial that the application did not include some provisions requested prior to the public hearing, specifically drawings of tank design, and drawings of the installations of piping designs. He said heís not so keen on this one. Mr. Fowler asked if there were drawings requested before the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Stocking said prior to the Planning Board hearing, the application was voted complete, and he doesnít think they can come back later to use that as grounds for denial. Mr. Smith said the Planning Board wanted more information; they can find the application complete then discuss it. He said thatís how it worked when he served on the Planning Board. He said if they asked for more information, and didnít get it, they can send it back to the applicant. Mr. Stocking said the Planning Board should deny then send it back to the applicant. Ms. Havey said they did find another applicant did not have a complete application at the same meeting. Mr. Fowler said all this should have been ironed out before the public hearing. Mr. Stocking called for a straw vote and asked who supports a reversal on that ground. Three were opposed. (Stocking & Fowler dissented)
Mr. Stocking read the third reason; there was a lack of written design features for containment and control of spills. He said this is a matter of the burden of proof, and the Planning Board was not convinced it was safe. Mr. Holdsworth cited a Supreme Court case regarding a complete application, and asked if after finding the application is complete, can the Planning Board say it is not? Mr. Stocking said that finding an application complete comes before making a final decision. He said itís not the same as what happened here.
Mr. Fowler asked how the applicant could make a written design of the dispensing plans if they were discussed at the same meeting. He said there is no chance to write that up. He said itís not fair. Mr. Stocking said the Planning Board has to go with whatís in writing, not a theoretical plan. He said the applicant didnít meet the burden of proof. Ms. Havey said the last phrase of #2, the lack of drawing and written design seems to be redundant. She said it was requested prior to the public hearing and itís not clear if they are two separate findings. Mr. Craft said the last two reasons look pretty much the same.
Mr. Stocking asked who would overturn based on reason number 3. Mr. Fowler said he would. Mr. Holdsworth, Mr. Craft, Mr. Stocking and Mr. Smith said they would not.
Mr. Stocking said theyíve talked about all the reasons and he wants a sense of where the Board is at. Mr. Smith asked if the Appeals Board denies the appeal, can the applicant go back to the Planning Board and start from scratch? Mr. Stocking said a pressurized system is a major change. He said he didnít know whether they can, theyíve already submitted a suction system. He said the applicant would have to convince the Planning Board there are enough changes. Mr. Craft asked if the Appeals Board concurs with the Planning Board, can Mr. Ciampa come back to the Planning Board to meet his burden of proof with the proper designs. Mr. Stocking said if the Planning Board says itís the same application as before, they could refuse to take it up again. He said thatís their business. He said he canít speak for the Planning Board, but if they made their decision based on aquifer issues, itís not in control of the Appeals Board. Mr. Fowler said he thinks a lot of things should be straightened out. Mr. Stocking said the Appeals Board can only tell whether the Planning Board messed up or not.
Mr. Smith moved to uphold the Planning Board denial. Mr. Craft 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-to-1 (Fowler opposed, Havey abstained).
Mr. Stocking said he would like to continue the meeting to consider the minutes and issue the written findings of fact. He said he would prefer to come back on March 21, 2000 at 6:30 PM.
Mr. Stocking told the audience the Appeals Board has rejected the appeal of Mr. Ciampa 4-to-1. They will meet next week for consideration of the minutes and findings of fact.
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 PM
Stu Marckoon, Adm. Asst. to the Selectmen,