Planning Board Special Meeting minutes 032019

Browse Search

Approved 4/3/19 that says this is what we mean by the argument. This is a typical argument that should go with the proof to have the 281 whole package; the production, the argument, and the overarching burden of proof. 282 283 Randy Marshall: This hasn’t been in there before. How we have suffered by not having this clause in our UDO? 284 285 James Bryan: There’s always the potential of litigation for ambiguity or not following local ordinance. 286 287 Randy Marshall: But we have not had any challenge up to this point that would seem to suggest that we to have this in 288 there. 289 290 James Bryan: To my knowledge, we have not. 291 292 Randy Marshall: How do you define reasonable? 293 294 James Bryan: Up until that last clause, I think that’s spot on. Going back to David’s example regarding the kennel. David 295 and his co-members on the Board had to vote, and one of them could have said I think it’s going to decrease the value 296 while four of them could have has said it would increase the value. If they give the applicant the permit and it gets 297 appealed to Superior Court, the court will review the decision and ask if they had competent material and substantial 298 evidence. If the applicant did, then the court would find in their favor. It is a discretionary decision that the Board is 299 allowed to make. 300 301 Randy Marshall:. If we allow the clause to stay, what prevents us from adding another clause that says whoever is not 302 persuaded has to provide us with the reasons they are not persuaded? 303 304 Michael Harvey: That already does happen. 305 306 Randy Marshall: You have to put it in there so whoever reads it has it concretely in front of them and it’s not implied that 307 they have it. If someone says they are not persuaded, after the burden of proof has been met, I think they should have an 308 obligation to the applicant to delineate the reasons why they are not persuaded which provides recourse to contest the 309 decision preventing them from getting what they are seeking. 310 311 Kim Piracci: Is this is one issue we have tonight? 312 313 Lydia Wegman: Yes. 314 315 Kim Piracci: I’m a gemologist; and at some point, it’s not up to me to give a gemology lessons to my clients if that person 316 has hired me for my expertise. There’s a hang up on the word persuasion, and he has said several times that it is not the 317 legal standard. The legal standard is this other thing. These three professionals are kind of in agreement that these 318 wordings should be in here and said it’s an improvement over what we had. Michael has said it’s already if you are not 319 persuaded you have to say why and yet it seems to keep going back and forth. At some level, we have to trust our paid 320 professionals and that’s what I would like to do at this time. I don’t see an end to this discussion. Even though I get your 321 point, I trust him because he’s a legal expert. 322 323 Adam Beeman: I don’t think we should be making it more difficult for normal people to understand and go through the 324 process. You are making it to the point where I have to hire a lawyer to do this so they can interpret the law for me. 325 326 Kim Piracci: Is it not already that way? 327 328 Hunter Spitzer: From precedent it seems like this is already the expectation. It was an implied expectation that the 329 applicant would have the burden of persuasion and now we are putting it into concrete text. If you are going for a Special 330 Use Permit or a Variance you will probably need a lawyer anyway, so I believe the process is the same, and I don’t think 331 this makes it any more difficult if you already have a lawyer. 332 333 Adam Beeman: No, but it can discourage someone from doing it in the first place. We can vote, but we will obviously we 334 will not get anywhere with me. 335 336