1 00:00:22,650 --> 00:00:35,850 This is actually the first meeting that we've held since July 1st, so this is our annual meeting, and the first matter that we must consider is the appointment of officers of the board. 2 00:00:35,850 --> 00:00:40,090 with respect to the Office of Chair. Are there any nominations? 3 00:00:43,480 --> 00:00:47,260 I nominate our current Chair, Stephen Sears, for Chair. 4 00:00:48,360 --> 00:00:49,020 I second. 5 00:00:50,300 --> 00:00:50,860 All in favour? 6 00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:56,800 Four in favour and I abstained. 7 00:00:58,620 --> 00:01:02,540 I nominate Wayne Berry as the Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 8 00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:05,380 I second it. 9 00:01:05,580 --> 00:01:07,060 I seconded by Ms. King Kate. 10 00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:09,280 All in favour? 11 00:01:14,710 --> 00:01:20,650 I also nominate Mr. Barry as the secretary of the board. 12 00:01:20,650 --> 00:01:23,070 Can I vote on this one? 13 00:01:26,090 --> 00:01:26,730 Is there a second? 14 00:01:26,750 --> 00:01:27,350 It's asking. 15 00:01:28,130 --> 00:01:28,650 I second it. 16 00:01:29,410 --> 00:01:30,050 All in favour? 17 00:01:32,100 --> 00:01:34,700 The vote is 4-0 in favour of Mr. Barry's appointment 18 00:01:34,700 --> 00:01:36,340 and the secretary of the ZBA. 19 00:01:40,570 --> 00:01:45,290 Are there any reasons for recusals of any member 20 00:01:45,290 --> 00:01:49,010 in considering the matters before the ZBA today. 21 00:01:50,860 --> 00:01:51,860 There are no such matters. 22 00:01:52,660 --> 00:01:54,480 Are any conflicts of interest present 23 00:01:54,480 --> 00:01:56,680 between any member of the board and any matter 24 00:01:56,680 --> 00:01:57,500 under consideration? 25 00:02:00,810 --> 00:02:03,370 No conflicts of interest are identified. 26 00:02:06,460 --> 00:02:06,860 All right. 27 00:02:10,860 --> 00:02:14,900 We'll now take up the matter of Mr. McCormick's appeal. 28 00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:18,260 And the first thing that we have to consider is 29 00:02:18,260 --> 00:02:22,680 is there a quorum present to reverse a decision 30 00:02:22,680 --> 00:02:30,000 of the HPC, if that is indeed the decision. And there are five voting members present so 31 00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:37,620 that satisfies the core requirements for any consideration of HPC matters. I trust that you 32 00:02:37,620 --> 00:02:41,160 agree with that, Mr. Brown. Yes, Chair. 33 00:02:44,900 --> 00:02:51,360 There is some remaining business that we have to take care of, including approval of minutes, 34 00:02:51,360 --> 00:03:08,540 But we'll take that up after the hearing on the McCormick appeal and the same thing with respect to the necessity for appointment of alternate members because we're a little thin on the ground here, and I want to make some points following argument on this appeal. 35 00:03:17,130 --> 00:03:26,130 All right. Just a question before we begin Mr. Brown, you contend in your papers that this is an administrative appeal. 36 00:03:29,010 --> 00:03:38,670 But that's not the case, it's really a decision of, it's an administrative, it's an appeal of a decision from another board. 37 00:03:39,250 --> 00:03:50,290 So it's under Section 2, D of Article 6, administrative appeals generally are only for appeals relating to decisions of the Code Enforcement Officer. 38 00:03:50,410 --> 00:03:57,730 And those are appeals under Section 2, A of Article 6 of the Zoning Audence. 39 00:03:57,730 --> 00:04:07,030 So, I know it's just a matter of terminology, but there isn't any doubt that this is an appeal from a decision of another board, namely the historic president. 40 00:04:07,070 --> 00:04:08,790 There is no doubt of that, yes sir. 41 00:04:08,990 --> 00:04:10,150 Very well. 42 00:04:10,650 --> 00:04:19,790 It does have some consequence in connection with met as relating to appeals from other boards. 43 00:04:22,010 --> 00:04:29,450 There are a number of issues that are raised in this appeal, but would you agree that the central 44 00:04:29,450 --> 00:04:33,930 preliminary issue is one of jurisdiction, and that is whether the appeal in this case 45 00:04:33,930 --> 00:04:34,970 was timely filed? 46 00:04:36,190 --> 00:04:39,310 I believe it was, and that that is not, in fact, an issue before the board. 47 00:04:39,730 --> 00:04:48,530 I know that we did take some time to establish that as having been met conclusively, simply 48 00:04:48,530 --> 00:04:53,170 to put those facts before the record or in the record before this board, but I do not believe 49 00:04:53,170 --> 00:04:59,590 it's something that is a question to be significantly discussed here today. 50 00:05:02,030 --> 00:05:04,650 Respectfully, I think we disagree as a board. 51 00:05:07,010 --> 00:05:09,390 That is an issue and you've devoted probably 52 00:05:09,390 --> 00:05:14,310 50% if you're total briefing to that one issue. Well, there's not much else to say. 53 00:05:14,310 --> 00:05:21,570 I mean, it's all the same facts from the first go around in the HPC didn't add anything to their new findings effect. 54 00:05:21,990 --> 00:05:25,430 So, quite frankly, the only thing I have to talk about is the timeliness issue. 55 00:05:26,070 --> 00:05:31,250 Well, I mean, if I may, I'll simply say, this appeal was filed July 13th. 56 00:05:31,310 --> 00:05:34,330 That's within 30 days of the 2011 issue in the written. 57 00:05:34,330 --> 00:05:35,450 Well, where though? 58 00:05:35,770 --> 00:05:39,010 It was filed here with the town office. 59 00:05:39,970 --> 00:05:45,530 The zoning ordinance is very specific as to where an appeal needs to be filed. 60 00:05:46,030 --> 00:05:52,630 It's in the office of the town clerk and ordinarily what happens is the town clerk 61 00:05:52,630 --> 00:05:58,890 stamp the filing as filed and not only dates it but states the time of the date. 62 00:05:59,070 --> 00:06:06,190 And if you want to see an example of that in your supplemental memorandum that was filed 63 00:06:06,190 --> 00:06:14,320 on August the 5th. Right, I hear there's the timestamp that says received town clerks office, 64 00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:24,390 August 5, 2026-234 PM. I don't see any such timestamp on papers that you've put as part 65 00:06:24,390 --> 00:06:30,870 of the record that you've put before us. So how do we know that it was filed on in the office 66 00:06:30,870 --> 00:06:35,630 of the clerk as required by the zoning ordinance on July 13th? 67 00:06:35,630 --> 00:06:39,510 I can't speak to that. Does it indicate a date upon which it was received? 68 00:06:40,290 --> 00:06:41,950 By the tone clerk's office? No, it doesn't. 69 00:06:42,150 --> 00:06:45,110 Does it indicate a date upon which it was received by the town? 70 00:06:45,550 --> 00:06:47,690 Nope. There's no date stated on it at all. 71 00:06:48,570 --> 00:06:51,330 You know, I can tell you that the town clerk set up this meeting. 72 00:06:51,530 --> 00:06:57,910 It was accepted by the town for this hearing set on this agenda. 73 00:06:58,270 --> 00:07:01,590 So, she suggested it came through some wrong channel. 74 00:07:01,590 --> 00:07:07,530 was otherwise not accepted. I don't know what to say. The check was cached. All of the notices 75 00:07:07,530 --> 00:07:08,970 were sent to all parties. 76 00:07:11,750 --> 00:07:14,550 You know, at most this would seem like some sort of clerical 77 00:07:14,550 --> 00:07:20,410 or administrative error. It would not in any way seem to affect the substance or underlying 78 00:07:20,410 --> 00:07:24,870 merits of the application. Nor does it seem to have affected in any way the administrative 79 00:07:24,870 --> 00:07:28,770 to posture or procedure in and for progress. 80 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:39,060 This proceeding, because here we are. In every aspect of it that was necessary to play out has played out the way it was needed to get here. 81 00:07:39,820 --> 00:07:45,860 So I don't agree that anything mistake into a place, I don't see where it did. 82 00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:51,420 And even where that the case, I don't see how that would be prejudicial to the process before us today. 83 00:07:56,650 --> 00:08:00,550 Well, the original copy we got said it was hand delivered. 84 00:08:01,990 --> 00:08:02,870 You're enough? 85 00:08:03,370 --> 00:08:05,270 Well, that's your writing. 86 00:08:05,630 --> 00:08:07,130 Is your header and your writing? 87 00:08:07,310 --> 00:08:08,110 Is his viahand delivery? 88 00:08:08,390 --> 00:08:09,970 Do you know who delivered it into him? 89 00:08:10,110 --> 00:08:10,930 I would have. 90 00:08:11,190 --> 00:08:14,010 You would have, and whom do you put it in some of his hands? 91 00:08:14,470 --> 00:08:14,830 I do. 92 00:08:15,070 --> 00:08:15,710 I did. 93 00:08:16,490 --> 00:08:17,210 You know what the name was? 94 00:08:17,210 --> 00:08:17,770 I don't recall. 95 00:08:19,850 --> 00:08:20,810 And I'm not a witness here. 96 00:08:21,110 --> 00:08:22,110 I apologize, I. 97 00:08:22,670 --> 00:08:23,170 No, it's. 98 00:08:24,310 --> 00:08:27,930 Here's the dilemma that we find ourselves in. 99 00:08:27,930 --> 00:08:29,090 The 100 00:08:31,460 --> 00:08:38,840 dated decision from the HPC is dated May 27th of 2026. 101 00:08:40,160 --> 00:08:46,420 There's a specific provision in Article 12, which deals with the HPC and appeals, which 102 00:08:46,420 --> 00:08:50,720 royals is Article 6, and indicates that that is the procedure in provisions, which will 103 00:08:51,460 --> 00:08:58,000 maintain or deal with and tell us how to handle these appeals. 104 00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:01,560 And that indicates that it's 30 days from a written appeal. 105 00:09:02,940 --> 00:09:12,240 Now, I mean, I guess it may not still be relevant here if you're saying that whatever evidence you have of receipt is insufficient evidence of receipt. 106 00:09:12,700 --> 00:09:16,960 I guess if that's the case, nothing before you would be sufficient except for that addendum. 107 00:09:16,960 --> 00:09:21,950 So my point is more particular. 108 00:09:22,210 --> 00:09:26,930 There's a general rule that governs appeals generally. 109 00:09:27,390 --> 00:09:30,710 And that's in Article 6, Section 3A. 110 00:09:31,950 --> 00:09:34,990 But that's not the section that applies here. 111 00:09:35,270 --> 00:09:37,930 There's a specific section of the zoning ordinance 112 00:09:37,930 --> 00:09:41,790 that deals with appeals of denials of certificates 113 00:09:41,790 --> 00:09:44,010 of appropriateness by the HPC. 114 00:09:44,070 --> 00:09:48,450 And that's found in Article 12, Section 3, 115 00:09:48,450 --> 00:09:55,470 Section 12, which says, any person agreed by a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission 116 00:09:55,470 --> 00:10:00,190 on an application of a certificate of appropriateness may appeal the same within 30, 117 00:10:00,730 --> 00:10:04,210 30 days from the date the decision is rendered, 118 00:10:06,570 --> 00:10:11,360 and we know when the decision was rendered 119 00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:19,740 by the HPC because that's a dress specifically on page 1 of your brief opening brief and it says, 120 00:10:20,880 --> 00:10:27,820 In these are your words, Crohn M. McCormack, the owner and applicant for 15 Portland Road appeals 121 00:10:27,820 --> 00:10:31,900 to the zoning board of appeals from the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission 122 00:10:31,900 --> 00:10:35,140 denying his application for a certificate of appropriateness. 123 00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:40,340 The Commission rendered that decision on remand from this board denied the certificate by 124 00:10:40,340 --> 00:10:48,820 a vote of 40 on May 27, 2022, and issued its written decision and findings of fact to 125 00:10:48,820 --> 00:10:52,840 undersigned on June 11th, 2026. 126 00:10:53,740 --> 00:10:54,020 That's right. 127 00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:54,480 The question. 128 00:10:55,140 --> 00:10:55,300 The question. 129 00:10:55,660 --> 00:10:56,420 The question. 130 00:10:56,420 --> 00:10:56,620 The question. 131 00:10:56,620 --> 00:11:00,680 The question is when was the decision rendered? 132 00:11:01,520 --> 00:11:06,820 And you say in your brief that the decision was rendered on May 27th, 2026? 133 00:11:07,100 --> 00:11:07,560 That's fair. 134 00:11:07,820 --> 00:11:08,680 Mr. Chair, respectfully. 135 00:11:09,000 --> 00:11:13,600 I think it's abundantly clear to me that Article 12 points to Article 6 is the appropriate 136 00:11:13,600 --> 00:11:14,120 procedure. 137 00:11:14,580 --> 00:11:18,320 I believe that we are more than within the timeframes necessary for this. 138 00:11:18,320 --> 00:11:26,800 further the the decision to which you are pointing has either both no appeal rights 139 00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:32,580 noticed or any time frame in what's so ever right acknowledging or identifying to us that 140 00:11:32,580 --> 00:11:37,860 an appeal was either necessary or within any or within which any any time frame of which 141 00:11:37,860 --> 00:11:42,760 we needed to take it so if if you know again completely irrelevant I'm not asking you to 142 00:11:42,760 --> 00:11:47,520 wave our argument is we are timely in any view of the ordinance that you want to look 143 00:11:48,420 --> 00:11:53,540 Full stop. All right. If this boards determination though is that you want to look at this in 144 00:11:53,540 --> 00:11:57,400 a side that we're untimely and you want to deny it based on that, I don't want to waste 145 00:11:57,400 --> 00:12:02,540 your time or mind in doing this. Just get to it. We'll go to court and we'll have them deal 146 00:12:02,540 --> 00:12:06,780 with it and look at all the other violations in this thing as far as due process and failure 147 00:12:06,780 --> 00:12:11,520 to give us notice. We'll take care of that. We'll come back here. You can rule on the issue 148 00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:15,620 with timeliness again, right? And then you can determine if you want to send this back for 149 00:12:15,620 --> 00:12:19,540 third re-man, right, or if you're going to give us a certificate of appropriateness, then, 150 00:12:19,560 --> 00:12:22,640 or maybe we'll get the superior court to just take care of all this for the town at that 151 00:12:22,640 --> 00:12:29,560 point, right? So I've made my argument repeatedly. I think it's abundantly clear, right? 152 00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:34,080 I think the town of the HPC is falling down on their face, but again and again, no matter 153 00:12:34,080 --> 00:12:40,380 how many times have been given, right? And if the board has already had discussions about this, 154 00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:44,860 right? If the board believes that this is a decision that's keystone and is going to determine 155 00:12:44,860 --> 00:12:49,180 this, then I'd rather just go ahead and have the board do what you're going to do or make 156 00:12:49,180 --> 00:12:54,520 that decision, then spend a lot of time, spend in our wheels, and go and know or with it. 157 00:12:54,880 --> 00:13:03,360 Well, any reviewing authority is going to have to scrutinize the chronology of the relevant 158 00:13:04,220 --> 00:13:09,440 events in this matter, and I want to make sure the record is crystal clear on that. 159 00:13:09,900 --> 00:13:12,200 So, let's take it one step at a time. 160 00:13:12,660 --> 00:13:15,440 You were before the HPC on May 27th, 161 00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:17,160 on behalf of your client, 162 00:13:17,340 --> 00:13:20,080 seeking a certificate of appropriateness to demolish 163 00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:21,840 the building at 15 Portland Road, 164 00:13:21,940 --> 00:13:23,800 the main building in the L is accurate. 165 00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:25,020 As correct. 166 00:13:25,880 --> 00:13:27,160 You were present at the hearing, 167 00:13:27,380 --> 00:13:30,220 and you heard the decision that was issued on that day. 168 00:13:30,300 --> 00:13:30,620 That's correct. 169 00:13:30,620 --> 00:13:32,000 By 40 vote, right? 170 00:13:32,680 --> 00:13:33,800 I don't recall the vote. 171 00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:34,700 It was 40. 172 00:13:34,700 --> 00:13:43,820 And you knew that the HPC had on that day denied the certificate of appropriateness, right? 173 00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:52,720 I knew that they had voted on findings of fact, which were to be written and signed in a proved at a later date. 174 00:13:53,980 --> 00:14:00,360 Well, the findings of fact were attached to the May 27th 2020, 2020-26 decision, wouldn't they? 175 00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:07,100 They remain on sign. The only thing there at sign is there's certificate, which, again, brings us back to, you know, what's actually there. 176 00:14:09,850 --> 00:14:17,550 So, they remain on sign. In fact, the findings you're pointing to still have the January 14 date on them. 177 00:14:18,130 --> 00:14:18,150 Well, 178 00:14:21,060 --> 00:14:31,680 the fact of the matter is that you were aware on the date that the vote was taken, the application for a certificate of appropriateness had been denied by the HPC. Isn't that so? 179 00:14:34,620 --> 00:14:40,980 Again, what I understood was that they had determined certain facts that they wished to 180 00:14:40,980 --> 00:14:46,420 include in any amended findings of fact, pursuant to direction by this board. 181 00:14:47,000 --> 00:14:52,960 That's what I understood, which amended findings of fact did not issue until June 11th. 182 00:14:54,340 --> 00:14:59,860 All right, and well, you didn't actually make a transcript. 183 00:15:03,660 --> 00:15:13,840 So we have no way ourselves to determine what was said on that date, what was considered, what was discussed, but regarding findings of fact? 184 00:15:14,060 --> 00:15:18,340 The findings are fact of that board. That's what you have before you did determine. 185 00:15:18,340 --> 00:15:27,900 But we have no way of knowing what the course of discussions was, what kind of debates they were regarding arguments that were being made. 186 00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:30,660 That's all known to you, but not known to us. 187 00:15:30,860 --> 00:15:35,180 That would all be in everything relevant would be and should be included in the findings effect. 188 00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:39,420 All that you're here to determine and consider is what's in the findings effect. 189 00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:41,420 This is not an evidentiary hearing. 190 00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:44,460 I don't know what else to say there. 191 00:15:44,460 --> 00:15:46,560 Like all of that else would be completely irrelevant. 192 00:15:46,780 --> 00:15:48,840 We shouldn't be considering you're talking about that. 193 00:15:49,120 --> 00:15:54,240 You make many arguments concerning the three engineering reports 194 00:15:54,240 --> 00:15:56,460 that are referred to in your papers. 195 00:15:56,520 --> 00:15:58,760 All consistent, all in favor of the applicant. 196 00:15:59,340 --> 00:16:01,020 None of them have been put before us. 197 00:16:01,160 --> 00:16:02,360 They're all in their record. 198 00:16:03,740 --> 00:16:08,060 They were all included in the first HPC appeal with a ZBA. 199 00:16:08,340 --> 00:16:11,180 That was, in fact, included in the second appeal submitted 200 00:16:11,180 --> 00:16:13,640 to this board in its entirety. 201 00:16:15,900 --> 00:16:17,420 with all due respect it was not. 202 00:16:19,560 --> 00:16:23,020 We've got what you've put for us in your package, 203 00:16:23,820 --> 00:16:25,920 the state did you lie the 13th, 2026, 204 00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:28,460 but it isn't stamped the file by the town clerk. 205 00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:32,220 And we've got your supplemental memorandum file 206 00:16:33,400 --> 00:16:35,300 on August the 5th. 207 00:16:35,500 --> 00:16:37,980 But we don't have those engineering reports. 208 00:16:38,020 --> 00:16:39,440 How are we supposed to know what's in them? 209 00:16:39,620 --> 00:16:42,120 Tell you what, candidly, that only helps our case. 210 00:16:42,700 --> 00:16:45,020 I mean, if you want to talk about that, 211 00:16:45,020 --> 00:16:51,520 You're looking at a findings of fact determination by an HPC completely void of any explanation, 212 00:16:51,920 --> 00:16:55,360 you know, justifiable for why they decided what they decided. 213 00:16:56,260 --> 00:17:01,520 So to say that you're missing information that would further explain or validate one side 214 00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:05,140 of the other, that's not our shortfall, right, or our shortcoming. 215 00:17:05,400 --> 00:17:06,160 That's theirs. 216 00:17:10,570 --> 00:17:14,250 Having a little difficulty following that line of thoughts there, I have to tell you. 217 00:17:14,510 --> 00:17:16,110 That's getting more into the meat of the matter. 218 00:17:16,110 --> 00:17:21,950 I think the matter we're discussing right now is the time limit us of filing and how it was 219 00:17:21,950 --> 00:17:27,750 filed, when it was filed, when it was paid for those are all issues that this board needs 220 00:17:27,750 --> 00:17:35,750 to consider to make a decision on whether we're going to hear it at all based on the filing 221 00:17:35,750 --> 00:17:36,050 time. 222 00:17:36,110 --> 00:17:45,190 As you put it in your supplemental memorandum, an appeal period is jurisdictional and if we don't 223 00:17:45,190 --> 00:17:48,550 have jurisdiction because this was not timely file. 224 00:17:48,690 --> 00:17:51,010 We don't have jurisdiction to hear anything further. 225 00:17:51,890 --> 00:17:55,730 So the only decision, I mean, the initial decision that we have to make is whether or 226 00:17:55,730 --> 00:17:58,550 not this appeal was, in fact, timely filed. 227 00:17:59,410 --> 00:18:07,770 And the time period for filing an appeal for certificates of appropriateness from the ABC is 228 00:18:07,770 --> 00:18:14,530 specifically defined in Article 12, Section 3, Subsection 12 of the Zoning Ordnance. 229 00:18:14,530 --> 00:18:20,290 are deals specifically with appeals from the denial or grunting of certificates of appropriate. 230 00:18:20,410 --> 00:18:22,930 And we can keep talking back and forth at each other all day. 231 00:18:23,070 --> 00:18:27,690 I'll simply say one more time, I believe, and I've stated, I believe the ordinance is 232 00:18:27,690 --> 00:18:32,510 back to me up here, Article 12 says 30 days from when the decision is rendered, its own sentence 233 00:18:32,510 --> 00:18:39,430 adopts Article 6 section 3 procedure, 3A runs from issuance of a written decision, section 3C11, 234 00:18:39,430 --> 00:18:44,530 commission itself forth with furnish reasons. It took him 15 days and it was accompanied 235 00:18:44,530 --> 00:18:49,750 by a written apology. Didn't include any appeals right notice. Didn't give us anything 236 00:18:49,750 --> 00:18:51,170 in the way of any timeframes. 237 00:18:52,250 --> 00:19:00,050 Well, you knew, you knew that the new, you knew that the yes, sir. You knew on June the 11th 238 00:19:00,050 --> 00:19:06,270 at the latest that the written decision had been rendered on May 27th, didn't you? 239 00:19:08,910 --> 00:19:13,510 You're saying, well, even though I was present at the HPC meeting on May 27, and even though 240 00:19:13,510 --> 00:19:19,090 they voted to deny the certificate of appropriateness, I didn't know that the written 241 00:19:19,090 --> 00:19:20,190 decision had been... 242 00:19:20,190 --> 00:19:20,830 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 243 00:19:20,830 --> 00:19:22,050 I have nothing further to add. 244 00:19:22,410 --> 00:19:23,050 Thank you. 245 00:19:29,080 --> 00:19:29,320 Yes. 246 00:19:30,320 --> 00:19:32,160 Are the board members may have some questions? 247 00:19:36,820 --> 00:19:45,520 Mr. Goran, I wondered if you had read the minutes from the March 16th, 2006. 248 00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:46,300 meeting. 249 00:19:47,340 --> 00:19:48,360 Is there any Board of Appeals? 250 00:19:49,140 --> 00:19:53,100 Zoning Board of Appeals, March 16, 2026. 251 00:19:54,640 --> 00:19:57,820 No, man, I did not read the minutes of the 2026, 252 00:19:58,020 --> 00:19:59,560 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 253 00:19:59,840 --> 00:20:02,460 The minutes indicate that you were present? 254 00:20:02,660 --> 00:20:03,040 Correct. 255 00:20:04,940 --> 00:20:07,720 There was much discussion that went on. 256 00:20:08,180 --> 00:20:10,840 And I want, I'm going to read a little bit of this 257 00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:14,380 because I know you don't have it, and it's, let's see. 258 00:20:14,380 --> 00:20:19,800 extensive discussion and sued about the HPC's finding of facts. 259 00:20:20,700 --> 00:20:28,540 After lengthy exchanges, ZBH airs airs remarked that the HPC's ruling was in his view legally 260 00:20:28,540 --> 00:20:35,740 deficient, as it lacks specific supporting facts for its legal condition, other board members 261 00:20:35,740 --> 00:20:36,900 concurred. 262 00:20:38,060 --> 00:20:41,220 The ZBA then entertained the following motion. 263 00:20:44,130 --> 00:20:47,410 It's a little log, please have patience. 264 00:20:48,170 --> 00:20:53,810 The motion was, move that the Zoning Board of Appeals vacate the findings of fact signed 265 00:20:53,810 --> 00:21:03,810 by the chair of Historic Preservation Commission in the HPC application, number 25, H21, January 26, 266 00:21:03,810 --> 00:21:13,990 in 2006, but erroneously dated January 16th, 2006, on the ground that each specific finding 267 00:21:13,990 --> 00:21:21,030 failed to state the facts upon which the purported finding was based, and therefore 268 00:21:21,030 --> 00:21:28,970 failed to comply with clear and well-established main case law and statutory law, expressing 269 00:21:28,970 --> 00:21:38,230 to expressly requiring legal conclusions to be based on specific factual findings, which must 270 00:21:38,230 --> 00:21:44,390 be made clearly, which must be made clearly by the administrative body at issue. 271 00:21:45,150 --> 00:21:52,650 In addition, and as an integral part of this motion, that this case, the remanded to the 272 00:21:52,650 --> 00:21:58,810 historic preservation commission, so that each and every one of the legal conclusions must 273 00:21:58,810 --> 00:22:05,790 be supported by clearly stated findings of fact to each such conclusion. 274 00:22:08,230 --> 00:22:14,450 I can finish this at the specific factual findings on each of the 10 separate approval criteria 275 00:22:14,450 --> 00:22:21,730 identified in the January 16th, 2020, and 26 findings of fact must be made in sufficient 276 00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:38,620 The prize, the zoning board of appeals, or any reviewing court of the factual basis of each of the legal considerations. 277 00:22:39,500 --> 00:22:49,740 That is a motion it was moved by Mr. Sayers, I seconded the motion, show of hands, five in favor, none opposed one absent. 278 00:22:50,900 --> 00:22:58,180 So at that meeting, it was so voted that the H.P.C. 279 00:23:00,340 --> 00:23:08,120 reasons had to be made to the fact that each of the findings of fact, I didn't find 280 00:23:08,120 --> 00:23:17,100 them anywhere, and it is up to the applicant, not to the zoning board of appeals, but to 281 00:23:17,100 --> 00:23:26,480 the applicant, to make sure that all of the required submissions are in the packet, I did 282 00:23:26,480 --> 00:23:27,660 find it. 283 00:23:37,260 --> 00:23:40,700 So, you're asking me to provide something to the HPC didn't create. 284 00:23:44,520 --> 00:23:46,740 No. You were 285 00:23:46,740 --> 00:23:55,580 at that meeting. You did not oppose this motion. You did not speak to the fact that you 286 00:23:55,580 --> 00:24:01,720 couldn't get them because it's your responsibility or your clients responsibility to attempt 287 00:24:01,720 --> 00:24:09,800 to get those. If you couldn't get them, you can get that in writing. But the person who's 288 00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:15,420 filing the application is responsible for submitting all of the information. So what I'm 289 00:24:15,420 --> 00:24:22,980 saying is you were at this meeting, you heard the application, you heard the motion that 290 00:24:22,980 --> 00:24:29,120 was made and unanimously voted and yet we do not have the information. 291 00:24:29,120 --> 00:24:41,000 That's correct. I don't think it's a misstatement to say that the only supportive materials 292 00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:48,840 or statements of factor law that I included as it relates to the HPC's decisions were 293 00:24:48,840 --> 00:24:54,960 specifically explicitly with themselves included in their findings of fact. And I did not 294 00:24:54,960 --> 00:24:58,660 to provide any additional information or materials to this board? 295 00:24:59,800 --> 00:25:00,960 I think that's by point. 296 00:25:01,140 --> 00:25:02,720 OK, thank you. 297 00:25:03,740 --> 00:25:07,580 I do not believe that was an error on my part, but I do appreciate your point to that. 298 00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:09,480 And I don't thank you for putting that in the record. 299 00:25:09,840 --> 00:25:16,440 It specifically says in this big document that we're responsible for that it is the appellants 300 00:25:16,440 --> 00:25:19,560 responsibility to get all the materials. 301 00:25:20,820 --> 00:25:21,840 And it's not here. 302 00:25:28,040 --> 00:25:33,940 I'm sorry if I threw you a curve ball, but that's that's that. 303 00:25:38,580 --> 00:25:44,580 Just a question for you Mr. Rowan, whose responsibility is it to prove that the 304 00:25:44,580 --> 00:25:46,700 ZBA has jurisdiction of this appeal? 305 00:25:47,740 --> 00:25:49,080 It would be the applicants. 306 00:25:50,200 --> 00:25:50,800 Thank you. 307 00:25:52,520 --> 00:25:56,140 Any other questions from board members? 308 00:25:59,640 --> 00:26:05,120 I'd like to get to the first decision we have to make, which is whether it was timely file 309 00:26:05,120 --> 00:26:05,600 or not. 310 00:26:06,240 --> 00:26:11,340 There's certainly an expiration on both sides of the table here that on the interpretation 311 00:26:11,340 --> 00:26:14,140 of what it was filed and whether it was timely or not. 312 00:26:14,700 --> 00:26:20,780 We have with us tonight a Dan Stockford from the firm of Brandon Isaacson, and he's had 313 00:26:20,780 --> 00:26:28,420 opportunity to review the submittals that we have in front of us, and is there anything 314 00:26:28,420 --> 00:26:34,640 or is there anything that you see as different from what we have been discussing as far 315 00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:40,460 is the timing of submissions, like what 316 00:26:44,940 --> 00:26:47,760 you've described is consistent with my understanding 317 00:26:47,760 --> 00:26:53,540 the review of what's been submitted and what the applicable timeframes are. 318 00:26:54,140 --> 00:26:58,620 Mr. Stockford is here tonight representing the Zoning Board of Appeals, not the town of Kenny 319 00:26:58,620 --> 00:27:04,300 Bug, not DHP. He's here for our benefit. This board only. 320 00:27:08,960 --> 00:27:10,720 Mr. Stockford, is it? 321 00:27:10,720 --> 00:27:11,320 Yes. 322 00:27:13,340 --> 00:27:19,940 There isn't any dispute in this case that it is the Appellan's burden of proof to establish 323 00:27:19,940 --> 00:27:24,460 jurisdiction on the part of the ZBA over this appeal, is that correct? 324 00:27:24,780 --> 00:27:25,560 That is correct. 325 00:27:29,920 --> 00:27:32,720 Any other comments from members of the board? 326 00:27:36,110 --> 00:27:46,130 In light of what we have heard so far and in the things that have been submitted to us, it appears 327 00:27:46,130 --> 00:27:47,930 that few 328 00:27:51,000 --> 00:27:59,960 things, one that the submission on the 13th as Mr. Braun alleges, we don't have intake 329 00:27:59,960 --> 00:28:00,640 on it. 330 00:28:00,780 --> 00:28:07,260 We don't have anyone who actually took it in their hands, said yes I have this, I am accepting 331 00:28:07,260 --> 00:28:09,340 it on behalf of the town. 332 00:28:10,360 --> 00:28:16,160 As you stated on the additional submission, it was clearly stamped by the town clerk. 333 00:28:18,120 --> 00:28:29,420 We also have the question of payment, I guess, that also is covered in article 6 that has to be submitted at the same time. 334 00:28:29,960 --> 00:28:42,860 And while we do have evidence that the town did receive a check, it certainly is not accepted or received by the town on the date of the 13th. 335 00:28:42,860 --> 00:29:05,810 It puts this board in a very difficult position of saying that either it was officially received and not received because we have no way of knowing how it was received or when other than Mr. Braun's submissions and position that he got it in on time. 336 00:29:05,810 --> 00:29:19,800 And even that is if you're counting the days between his beginning period of starting on the 11th, 337 00:29:20,500 --> 00:29:28,420 and then we get to the 11th of June, or July, excuse me, July, we've ended on a Saturday, 338 00:29:29,840 --> 00:29:36,160 and we give them the benefit of the doubt under a civil rules of procedure that says, 339 00:29:36,160 --> 00:29:40,340 You can go to the next business day, which was the 13th. 340 00:29:40,560 --> 00:29:47,920 I just find it very exasperating that you're crossing the line and breaking the tape at the last minute. 341 00:29:49,200 --> 00:29:52,660 It would have been a lot easier for us to look at this and go, oh yeah, no problem. 342 00:29:52,800 --> 00:29:54,500 Plenty of, got it in plenty of time. 343 00:29:54,820 --> 00:29:59,980 And now you're asking us to consider the fact that you started. 344 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:10,960 We're counting from a different date than the date of the meeting. You know, you got 30 days out and then all of a sudden, you got three more days to get it in and then you took that last, last day to get it in under your testimony. 345 00:30:12,300 --> 00:30:12,360 And 346 00:30:15,050 --> 00:30:20,190 I just think it puts this Board in difficult position of determining timely submission. 347 00:30:21,550 --> 00:30:28,710 And we have no, we have heard from council, our council for this evening that he didn't see any difference in our position. 348 00:30:28,710 --> 00:30:33,210 has been put forward already compared to the appellant position. 349 00:30:42,330 --> 00:30:44,470 There are two arguments to consider. 350 00:30:45,130 --> 00:30:48,430 The first, this is just my own individual views. 351 00:30:48,810 --> 00:30:55,970 Now, I'm expressing, as a former attorney specializing in both trial and 352 00:30:55,970 --> 00:31:01,990 appellant litigation, it's extraordinary to me that any responsible 353 00:31:01,990 --> 00:31:09,190 party would wait until the last day to file a notice of appeal because it's 354 00:31:09,190 --> 00:31:13,350 jurisdictional. Failure to file it, failure to satisfy all of the 355 00:31:13,350 --> 00:31:19,830 applicable requirements is fatal and you leave yourself no time to correct those 356 00:31:19,830 --> 00:31:20,630 is. 357 00:31:23,350 --> 00:31:34,350 Filing on the last day somewhere and not getting a stamped failed stamp from the office 358 00:31:34,350 --> 00:31:39,910 of the town clerk just leaves me shaking my head I have to say. 359 00:31:45,050 --> 00:31:51,750 But it's the burden of the 360 00:31:51,750 --> 00:31:57,130 jurisdiction upon this body have been met, and I don't see that that has happened here. 361 00:31:59,670 --> 00:32:04,890 So, is there any further discussion that anyone wants to have based upon those comments? 362 00:32:08,860 --> 00:32:14,860 I have a motion if the Board is prepared to entertain it. 363 00:32:17,970 --> 00:32:25,150 Just to be clear on the issue of jurisdiction and timeless, this is not require a vote of 364 00:32:25,150 --> 00:32:30,970 majority of four, this only requires a vote to meet the quorum of a meeting because we're 365 00:32:30,970 --> 00:32:34,430 not on talking about the case when we talk about getting there. 366 00:32:34,930 --> 00:32:36,410 Boots, as I understand it, 367 00:32:39,680 --> 00:32:45,420 from Article 6, Section 1E of the Zoning Holdenance, votes to 368 00:32:45,420 --> 00:32:54,220 reverse the decision of the HBC require four votes of the ZBA votes to sustain a decision 369 00:32:54,220 --> 00:32:56,600 of the HPC with any required three votes. 370 00:33:05,690 --> 00:33:08,210 Are we voting on the decision of HPC though? 371 00:33:08,310 --> 00:33:09,910 We're just voting on the issue of jurisdiction. 372 00:33:10,350 --> 00:33:12,090 We're voting on the issue of our jurisdiction. 373 00:33:12,610 --> 00:33:13,730 So I would say 374 00:33:21,000 --> 00:33:23,560 that I agree with that interpretation. 375 00:33:24,360 --> 00:33:28,460 Will we be voting on the HPC charge? 376 00:33:28,480 --> 00:33:32,980 We will be voting on the issue of whether we have jurisdiction or not. 377 00:33:35,860 --> 00:33:39,200 That's the subject matter of the motion that I propose to make. 378 00:33:39,740 --> 00:33:40,520 Of that motion. 379 00:33:43,630 --> 00:33:50,390 Okay, we will not, we cannot get to the HPC decision until after we determine if we have jurisdiction. 380 00:33:50,850 --> 00:33:52,710 Thank you. Thank you. That's what I do. 381 00:33:53,430 --> 00:33:55,510 We don't have jurisdiction to do anything else. 382 00:33:56,410 --> 00:33:57,370 That's clarification. 383 00:33:58,490 --> 00:33:59,450 Thank you. 384 00:34:01,180 --> 00:34:03,320 If I, you have any suggested language. 385 00:34:04,120 --> 00:34:07,160 I do, but Mr. Bruno, I would offer one thing to the board. 386 00:34:07,320 --> 00:34:09,600 I'll speak it out loud and then it's up to you if you hear. 387 00:34:09,600 --> 00:34:15,920 I would offer and say that evidence has a really solely to this issue of time when it's 388 00:34:15,920 --> 00:34:20,160 if it in any way would sway, and only because some of the things, you know, you're saying 389 00:34:20,160 --> 00:34:22,840 you're just kind of pissing me off as a practitioner, right? 390 00:34:23,380 --> 00:34:29,200 Where I'd you provide email correspondence from town council indicating on July 9th that 391 00:34:29,200 --> 00:34:34,440 despite all our understanding between each other, the matter would not be automatically coming 392 00:34:34,440 --> 00:34:41,340 back to the ZBA, but rather the town was going to require the applicant to take a firmative 393 00:34:41,340 --> 00:34:44,240 action themselves to bring it back here. 394 00:34:44,560 --> 00:34:50,980 In thus, I had an 11th hour race to get this application back to the ZBA. 395 00:34:51,280 --> 00:34:59,900 Mind you again, an HPC decision that had no notice of appeal or time frame with which to 396 00:34:59,900 --> 00:35:00,880 file that appeal. 397 00:35:00,880 --> 00:35:07,080 would that sway you in your determination as to whether or not it might have been reasonable 398 00:35:07,080 --> 00:35:13,860 to file it at the 11th hour? Why would a practitioner do that? I mean just talking 399 00:35:13,860 --> 00:35:18,040 about what evidence I might, I would say I could provide that email correspondence between 400 00:35:18,040 --> 00:35:23,940 the town council and I as to explain why it came in on the day it did. But beyond that I 401 00:35:23,940 --> 00:35:29,080 wouldn't offer anything else to the board. Are you saying that you have written documentation 402 00:35:29,080 --> 00:35:36,020 from Ben McCall? I do. That you did not include in the packet anywhere? I do. Yeah, I write it, 403 00:35:36,240 --> 00:35:39,840 written, wrote, bought McCall saying, hey, when's this going back to CTA? Him saying the town says, 404 00:35:40,020 --> 00:35:45,980 you need to do it. I said, well, that's not how I understood it to be, but okay. And I, 405 00:35:46,080 --> 00:35:50,700 30 days, well, let's get that shit done because I guess we're almost out of time. 406 00:35:53,480 --> 00:35:54,160 So now we have 407 00:35:54,160 --> 00:36:00,780 an appeal that has, you know, that we have a decision that has no time frame, no notice of appeal, 408 00:36:01,360 --> 00:36:09,340 And again, I'm not asking for a waiver, I say that Article 12 and Article 6 allow for this and that this is in fact a timely appeal, 409 00:36:11,740 --> 00:36:11,880 right? 410 00:36:12,500 --> 00:36:30,120 And I included what I thought was relevant to this, right, which, again, is that the written decision from the town 11 days late with their apology for why they did not issue this unsigned unjustified, 411 00:36:30,120 --> 00:36:38,340 date not changed, findings of fact, by email to us, for which we still have never received a physical copy. 412 00:36:40,060 --> 00:36:47,020 I thought that correspondence was sufficient to explain whatever there might be, you know, for a perceived delay. 413 00:36:47,740 --> 00:36:52,180 But potentially not, and again, if I need to take this to appeal at a higher level, then that's what we'll do. 414 00:36:52,660 --> 00:36:56,540 But again, I just, I wanted to speak it out and say that I do have at least one additional piece of correspondence. 415 00:36:56,540 --> 00:36:59,820 I could enter the board as evidence if that might make a difference. 416 00:37:08,050 --> 00:37:08,830 Anything further? 417 00:37:14,530 --> 00:37:14,790 I do. 418 00:37:16,290 --> 00:37:20,410 Why wasn't why didn't you submit that correspondence with the town attorney? 419 00:37:25,990 --> 00:37:29,170 But generally inclined to only argue things when they're necessary. 420 00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:57,980 Not throw my colleagues under the bus. And again, as I just simply stated, I believe that the materials I submitted to the board were sufficient for the purposes necessary today. I believe Article 6 is clearly invoked by Article 12, and I believe that the materials submitted as far as the correspondence from the decision makers at the HPC are sufficient to justify the timeframes that are before the board today. We're not asking for a waiver. 421 00:37:57,980 --> 00:38:08,700 We're asking you to find that this application is timely as is, and I can't, I can't speak to whatever there is as far as administrative issues with the processing. 422 00:38:08,800 --> 00:38:14,720 All I know is it clearly got to the town, it clearly got processed. The check was cached. 423 00:38:16,100 --> 00:38:16,940 You know, but again. 424 00:38:25,360 --> 00:38:28,260 Do you have a copy of that information from? 425 00:38:28,300 --> 00:38:28,580 I don't know. 426 00:38:29,560 --> 00:38:31,300 Is this pertinent to the timeliness? 427 00:38:31,540 --> 00:38:33,360 That would be my first question to the board. 428 00:38:34,460 --> 00:38:36,020 I didn't see it being put. 429 00:38:36,720 --> 00:38:39,260 I don't know what I don't really know what it's said. 430 00:38:40,860 --> 00:38:47,560 My suggestion would be that the board leave it to the appellant to decide whether he wants to 431 00:38:47,560 --> 00:38:50,020 present that as part of the record or not. 432 00:38:51,100 --> 00:38:56,220 And the only difficulty I have with that is that this is an appeal from another board of the 433 00:38:56,220 --> 00:39:03,240 Now, therefore, an appellate standard of review applies, except you've taken nothing but evidence 434 00:39:03,240 --> 00:39:04,140 tonight on this issue. 435 00:39:04,880 --> 00:39:12,320 At this document that Mr. Bronis referring to is not part of the record on appeal, and under 436 00:39:12,320 --> 00:39:24,400 30 AMRS section 20691C, we're not permitted to accept additional materials that are not part 437 00:39:24,400 --> 00:39:25,700 the record on the appeal. 438 00:39:27,360 --> 00:39:35,400 Matt, my view is that if it's a document that relates to the threshold issue of jurisdiction 439 00:39:36,120 --> 00:39:43,740 which would not have been litigated before the commission, I think it would be permissible 440 00:39:43,740 --> 00:39:49,780 for you, that it is permissible for you to consider external evidence on that issue. 441 00:39:53,200 --> 00:40:00,140 Any of you's from my colleagues on the board as to whether we should take a look at this document. 442 00:40:03,200 --> 00:40:07,580 I have a comment that I think is relevant. 443 00:40:09,160 --> 00:40:24,000 The process and the documentation of substance, the documentation of submission is well laid out in Article 6, Section 3, A1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 444 00:40:24,000 --> 00:40:40,260 It states what must be done and what records must be kept and we don't have that and that's based on as far as I understand both based on state law as well. 445 00:40:41,600 --> 00:40:41,600 So, 446 00:40:44,050 --> 00:40:54,710 if I were going through this, I would have made a checklist of every single thing because it's so critical but it's stated here in very clear language. 447 00:40:54,710 --> 00:40:55,430 How 448 00:41:07,300 --> 00:41:10,540 do you want to take a vote on this? 449 00:41:10,880 --> 00:41:12,460 Whether to review this? 450 00:41:12,640 --> 00:41:13,080 The mission? 451 00:41:15,980 --> 00:41:19,860 Whether we should actually take a look at the document in the first place to determine whether 452 00:41:19,860 --> 00:41:23,980 it really does bear materially on the issue of jurisdiction or not. 453 00:41:24,560 --> 00:41:28,260 And then the question is whether to admit it because it's not part of the record on appeal, 454 00:41:28,540 --> 00:41:34,660 and is ordinarily not to be considered because of the statutory prohibition on 455 00:41:34,660 --> 00:41:38,500 acceptance of additional evidence in an appellate proceeding? 456 00:41:43,780 --> 00:41:47,060 Well, I'd like to see why Ben McCall checked in on it. 457 00:41:47,340 --> 00:41:52,580 I'm not sure that he has any jurisdiction to waive any dates for 458 00:41:52,580 --> 00:41:57,680 timeliness for this board or any other board and you guys what advice he might have been giving 459 00:41:57,680 --> 00:41:59,580 or questions he might have been asking. 460 00:42:04,180 --> 00:42:05,960 That isn't his room. 461 00:42:06,280 --> 00:42:08,380 Well, I'm not saying he did, and to be clear. 462 00:42:08,380 --> 00:42:12,740 No, no, I know, but I'm just saying, you know, frankly, Mr. Brown, you've been, how many 463 00:42:12,740 --> 00:42:18,560 hours have you spent in front of this board, a lot of hours, different cases, and I understand 464 00:42:18,560 --> 00:42:24,500 your arguments, but I'm not sure that as Robbins said, I'm not sure that change is anything 465 00:42:24,500 --> 00:42:29,120 for us to look at as far as the dates and the timeliness, and that's really the question 466 00:42:29,120 --> 00:42:36,040 we're looking to settle tonight, is whether we can accept your submission as a timely, 467 00:42:38,360 --> 00:42:38,360 was 468 00:42:39,420 --> 00:42:43,660 for us to take a look at and move on to the next section. 469 00:42:58,810 --> 00:43:04,790 Do anybody who wants to make a motion for us to review this document, despite the statutory 470 00:43:04,790 --> 00:43:09,850 prohibition on acceptance of extraneous material, not in the record. 471 00:43:20,960 --> 00:43:22,900 Well, I'll make the contrary motion then. 472 00:43:22,900 --> 00:43:32,040 I move that we do not accept any material that is beyond the record on a peel place before us by the appellant. 473 00:43:37,180 --> 00:43:40,380 The motion is seconded by Mr. Kalis. 474 00:43:41,860 --> 00:43:42,340 Well, in favor, 475 00:43:45,490 --> 00:43:46,110 5-0. 476 00:43:50,230 --> 00:43:52,470 I'm going to proceed to another motion. 477 00:43:53,130 --> 00:43:53,890 Here it is. 478 00:43:54,630 --> 00:43:57,310 I move that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 479 00:43:57,510 --> 00:44:00,130 because the record placed before the zoning board of appeals. 480 00:44:00,710 --> 00:44:03,850 My counsel for the appellant discloses that the appeal was not filed 481 00:44:03,850 --> 00:44:11,170 with the town clerk within 30 days from the date on which the date on which the decision 482 00:44:11,170 --> 00:44:18,930 rendered by the Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, which was May 27, 2026. The specific grounds for 483 00:44:18,930 --> 00:44:23,990 this motion are that under Article 12, Section 3, Subsection 12, of the town of Kennebunk, 484 00:44:24,110 --> 00:44:30,370 Selning Ordnance, the HPC's oral 4-0 vote to deny the certificate of appropriateness and its written 485 00:44:30,370 --> 00:44:41,150 decision to deny that certificate to the appellant were both rendered on May 27, 2026. So any appeal of that 486 00:44:43,810 --> 00:44:56,010 That deadline expired with no such appeal having been filed and without the necessary fees required by Article 6, Section 3.A1 of the zoning ordinance having been deposited with the town clerk. 487 00:44:56,430 --> 00:44:59,490 Accordingly, the appeal that the Appellan claims he filed on July 13. 488 00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:03,860 2020, six was untimely, and it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 489 00:45:07,960 --> 00:45:09,180 Any discussion of that motion? 490 00:45:13,840 --> 00:45:15,180 Jim, did you get that? 491 00:45:20,580 --> 00:45:23,880 There's a couple of different parts of that motion that you're making. 492 00:45:24,240 --> 00:45:33,180 One was the date of the decision by the HPC, the date that it should have been filed based on 30 days on that decision. 493 00:45:33,180 --> 00:45:37,940 The fact that payment was not risk to the American. 494 00:45:38,280 --> 00:45:40,120 No proof that payment was received. 495 00:45:40,120 --> 00:45:42,300 No proof that the document was received. 496 00:45:42,780 --> 00:45:46,440 It was filed in the office of the town clerk. 497 00:45:46,940 --> 00:45:52,440 Both of those points have to be approved by the Appellan in order to confer jurisdiction upon us. 498 00:45:52,540 --> 00:45:54,920 Neither has been approved. 499 00:45:56,000 --> 00:45:57,460 And the move is for dismissal. 500 00:45:57,740 --> 00:45:58,220 That's right. 501 00:45:59,400 --> 00:46:01,640 We're dismissing whether without prejudice. 502 00:46:01,640 --> 00:46:04,040 this appeal it would be with prejudice. 503 00:46:04,040 --> 00:46:05,480 With prejudice, okay. 504 00:46:08,320 --> 00:46:08,980 Is it awkward? 505 00:46:10,920 --> 00:46:11,620 We okay on that. 506 00:46:11,620 --> 00:46:12,400 Did you get the motion? 507 00:46:12,720 --> 00:46:13,340 Most of it? 508 00:46:14,620 --> 00:46:15,540 I didn't want to. 509 00:46:15,540 --> 00:46:17,080 I wasn't able to transcribe it all. 510 00:46:17,760 --> 00:46:18,020 Okay. 511 00:46:18,540 --> 00:46:21,320 I got the substance on it. 512 00:46:22,320 --> 00:46:23,220 So just everybody knows. 513 00:46:23,380 --> 00:46:25,420 With prejudice means you can't come back. 514 00:46:27,060 --> 00:46:29,440 And I think it would be on time when at this point anyway. 515 00:46:33,310 --> 00:46:33,530 Further? 516 00:46:33,850 --> 00:46:34,310 For many more. 517 00:46:34,310 --> 00:46:35,550 I understand the motion. 518 00:46:37,250 --> 00:46:37,850 All in favor, 519 00:46:41,310 --> 00:46:42,550 the vote is 5-0. 520 00:46:49,210 --> 00:46:50,930 The motion to dismiss the lack of jurisdiction. 521 00:46:51,450 --> 00:46:52,790 Those things seconded, please. 522 00:46:53,530 --> 00:46:54,450 I think Mr. Kellis. 523 00:46:59,280 --> 00:47:02,640 Now, we have to reduce this to an order, I believe, Mr. Software. 524 00:47:04,400 --> 00:47:07,980 And in that order has to contain findings of fact and a decision. 525 00:47:10,400 --> 00:47:16,540 I'm going to read out the text of a draft order here, and I'll ask for comments. 526 00:47:16,540 --> 00:47:23,600 At its meeting held on August the 17th, 2026, and this is denominated and order, dismissing 527 00:47:23,600 --> 00:47:28,740 appeal to lack of jurisdiction. At its meeting held on August the 17th, 2026, the town 528 00:47:28,740 --> 00:47:33,460 of Kenobunk, Zoning Board of Appeals, heard an appeal, in this case, filed by the Appellant 529 00:47:33,460 --> 00:47:39,320 Crow and M. McCormack. The Appellant appeals a decision rendered on May the 27th, 2026 530 00:47:39,320 --> 00:47:45,960 by the town of Kenobunk's historic preservation commission, HPC, denying the issuance of 531 00:47:45,960 --> 00:47:50,600 certificate of appropriateness to the appellant. The appellant claims that he filed an appeal 532 00:47:50,600 --> 00:47:57,020 of the HPC's decision on July 13, 2026, and that this appeal is timely. After considering 533 00:47:57,020 --> 00:48:01,840 carefully, each of the arguments made in the appellant statement of grounds on the appeal grounds, 534 00:48:02,160 --> 00:48:08,240 dated July 13, 2026, and in the appellant supplemental memorandum in support of the appeal 535 00:48:08,240 --> 00:48:14,560 supplement filed with the town clerk on August 5, 2026, and after hearing the submissions of 536 00:48:14,560 --> 00:48:18,980 the Appellan's Council, the ZBA makes the following findings of fact and decision. 537 00:48:20,440 --> 00:48:24,700 Findings of fact, one. The appellan claims that he filed this appeal on July 13, 538 00:48:25,340 --> 00:48:30,160 2026, but the paper supposedly filed on that date, and not stemmed filed by the office of the 539 00:48:30,160 --> 00:48:37,720 town clerk on that or on any other date. Two, the appellan did file his supplemental memorandum 540 00:48:37,720 --> 00:48:43,600 with the town clerk on August the 5th, 2026 and the town clerk stamped it as quote received 541 00:48:43,600 --> 00:48:51,940 unquote on August the 5th, 2026 at 233 p.m. This appeal involves the HPC's denial of a 542 00:48:51,940 --> 00:48:57,300 certificate of appropriateness dated May the 2027, 2026. The appellant had requested the 543 00:48:57,300 --> 00:49:03,760 certificate in order to demolish a historic house and L located at 15 Portland Road in Kenobunk. 544 00:49:03,760 --> 00:49:09,260 This property is located in a historic district that lies within the jurisdiction of the HPC. 545 00:49:09,980 --> 00:49:15,780 This certificate was signed by the chair of the HPC on May 27, 2026, and the HPC's 546 00:49:15,780 --> 00:49:18,420 quote, findings of fact, unquote, or attached to that certificate. 547 00:49:19,380 --> 00:49:24,580 In that certificate, the HPC rendered its decision that the Appellancer request was, quote, 548 00:49:24,620 --> 00:49:29,980 not in conformity with the provisions of Article 12 of the Kennebunk Zoning Ordnance, and 549 00:49:29,980 --> 00:49:34,060 that the same will be in substantial derrogation of the purpose is set forth in such 550 00:49:34,060 --> 00:49:39,780 ordnance, unquote, for. In section 2A, if it's supplemental memorandum filed with the 551 00:49:39,780 --> 00:49:43,560 town clerk, the appellant conceits an appeal period is jurisdictional. 552 00:49:44,580 --> 00:49:50,280 5. The appellant also conceits on page one of his grounds that the HPC, quote, rendered unquote 553 00:49:50,280 --> 00:49:57,660 its decision on his application for a certificate of appropriateness on May 27, 2026, 6, 554 00:49:57,660 --> 00:50:04,660 Article 12, Section 3, Subsection 12, is specific on the limitation period applicable to HPC decisions 555 00:50:04,660 --> 00:50:08,040 on applications for certificates of appropriateness. 556 00:50:08,280 --> 00:50:13,120 Quote, any person agreed by a decision of the historic preservation commission on an application 557 00:50:13,120 --> 00:50:19,900 for a certificate of appropriateness may appeal the same within 30, 30 days from the date the decision is 558 00:50:19,900 --> 00:50:25,880 rendered and that the appeal is to be addressed to this board. The HPC rendered its written decision 559 00:50:25,880 --> 00:50:32,560 issue on May 27, 2026, the appellant was present at the HPC hearing held on that date and was aware 560 00:50:32,560 --> 00:50:38,860 of the HPC's decision by a vote of 4 to 0 to deny his application for a certificate of 561 00:50:38,860 --> 00:50:44,240 appropriateness on that date. The appellant was also aware of each of the HPC's findings affect 562 00:50:44,240 --> 00:50:51,300 undergirding that decision on that date. The 30-day appeal period governing his appeal expired 563 00:50:51,300 --> 00:50:57,180 on June the 26th, 2026, which was 30 days after the HPC's written decision, denying the 564 00:50:57,180 --> 00:50:59,420 Appellan's request for a certificate of appropriateness. 565 00:51:00,160 --> 00:51:00,320 9. 566 00:51:00,420 --> 00:51:06,600 The appellan did not file any appeal of the HPC decision rendered on May the 2026 within 567 00:51:06,600 --> 00:51:12,360 the 30 day appeal period prescribed by Article 12, Section 3, Subsection 12 of the Zoning 568 00:51:12,360 --> 00:51:12,940 Ordnance. 569 00:51:13,600 --> 00:51:13,860 10. 570 00:51:14,020 --> 00:51:18,620 The appellan claims that he was supposedly unaware of the HPC's written decision, until 571 00:51:18,620 --> 00:51:23,180 The copy of it was sent to him by a secretary working in the Kinabunk Community Development 572 00:51:23,180 --> 00:51:28,780 Department on June 11, 2026. He also argues that the 30 day appeal period should not 573 00:51:28,780 --> 00:51:34,580 run from the rendition of the HPC's May 27, 2026 written decision as required by Article 574 00:51:34,580 --> 00:51:40,140 12, Section 3, Subsection 12 of the Zoning Oldenance, but rather should run from the date 575 00:51:40,140 --> 00:51:46,300 of delivery to him of a copy of that decision on June 11, 2026. The appellant, however, 576 00:51:46,300 --> 00:51:51,240 was well aware of the HPC's decision and each of the reasons for that decision on May 27, 577 00:51:51,640 --> 00:51:57,160 2026 because he or his attorney was in attendance of the HPC's meeting on that date, which 578 00:51:57,160 --> 00:52:01,660 was also the date upon which the HPC rendered its written decision denying the appellant 579 00:52:01,660 --> 00:52:04,420 sound application for a certificate of appropriateness. 580 00:52:04,680 --> 00:52:04,920 11. 581 00:52:05,300 --> 00:52:10,020 Upon the record presented to this board by the appellant, the board is not persuaded that 582 00:52:10,020 --> 00:52:15,200 this appeal was filed with the town clerk in quotation marks, quote filed with the town clerk 583 00:52:15,200 --> 00:52:19,860 on quote, as required by Article 6, Section 3.8, one of the zoning ordinance. 584 00:52:20,680 --> 00:52:24,600 The Appellan's notice of Appeals is not stamped to by the turn clerk, and there is no 585 00:52:24,600 --> 00:52:29,840 other evidence showing that the Appellan's Appeal was actually filed on July 13, 2026. 586 00:52:30,940 --> 00:52:39,340 In addition, Article 6, Section 3, A1, requires appellants to pay certain specified fees, quote, at the time of the filing of the appeal. 587 00:52:40,760 --> 00:52:46,180 13. There is no evidence that the appellant actually paid these prescribed fees at the time of filing of the appeal. 588 00:52:48,900 --> 00:53:01,220 14. The board concludes therefore by unanimous vote of 5 to 0, that this appeal is not timely filed, and that the required fees were not deposited with a town clerk by the deadline specified in the zoning ordinance. 589 00:53:01,820 --> 00:53:06,640 decision. The appellant has conceded that limitations periods applicable to the filing 590 00:53:06,640 --> 00:53:12,180 of HPC appeals or mandatory and jurisdictional, and because he failed to file, his appeal 591 00:53:12,180 --> 00:53:16,920 or pay the required fees by the deadline specified in his own ordinance, his appeal is dismissed, 592 00:53:17,240 --> 00:53:20,280 a lack of dismissed, we've breached this for lack of jurisdiction. 593 00:53:25,290 --> 00:53:33,450 Any discussion of 594 00:53:35,720 --> 00:53:35,740 those 595 00:53:40,880 --> 00:53:43,540 All in favour of this motion, as amended, 596 00:53:46,820 --> 00:53:48,180 by addition to the words with prejudice. 597 00:53:51,240 --> 00:53:54,260 The vote is 5 to 0, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice, 598 00:54:06,850 --> 00:54:07,710 notice of decision. 599 00:54:08,090 --> 00:54:10,790 There's a notice of decision that's required within seven days. 600 00:54:11,390 --> 00:54:21,690 But that's the, those are the findings of fact, and the decision I've actually put them in writing in my own appallingly typed version of this. 601 00:54:23,170 --> 00:54:29,370 And I will give them to either you or to Mr. Schlockhack, as you see fit, to reduce the 602 00:54:29,370 --> 00:54:29,610 writing. 603 00:54:30,550 --> 00:54:36,710 We actually have to notify the appellant that he has 45 days to appeal to this decision. 604 00:54:40,710 --> 00:54:42,510 I think you may ask that before I disappear. 605 00:54:43,690 --> 00:54:43,710 Yes. 606 00:54:43,850 --> 00:54:44,470 Just a second. 607 00:55:15,840 --> 00:55:18,200 in terms of other business, 608 00:55:30,430 --> 00:55:35,310 there are minutes of prime meetings of the board, which have been 609 00:55:35,310 --> 00:55:44,470 circulating by Mr. Schlockhack. I have previously submitted some proposed edits typographical 610 00:55:44,470 --> 00:55:50,350 edits, only not substantive to Mr. Schlockhack. You received those, right, Jim? 611 00:55:50,350 --> 00:55:51,090 Okay. 612 00:55:51,350 --> 00:55:53,110 Thank you. 613 00:55:53,590 --> 00:55:54,190 Okay. 614 00:55:55,050 --> 00:56:03,710 Does anybody have any comments on the January 21st, 2026 meeting minutes? 615 00:56:10,820 --> 00:56:21,360 In that case, I move that the January 2626 minutes as amended be approved by the Board. 616 00:56:21,900 --> 00:56:22,420 All in favour? 617 00:56:22,720 --> 00:56:23,260 Is there a second? 618 00:56:23,260 --> 00:56:24,060 by the way. 619 00:56:24,300 --> 00:56:26,460 Secondly, by Mr. Kalis, all in favour? 620 00:56:36,490 --> 00:56:36,630 Yes, not. 621 00:56:36,750 --> 00:56:37,750 Look at my notes. 622 00:56:38,110 --> 00:56:39,090 And I withdraw my motion. 623 00:56:39,670 --> 00:56:39,810 Got it. 624 00:56:39,810 --> 00:56:39,870 Got it. 625 00:56:40,350 --> 00:56:40,750 Okay. 626 00:56:41,070 --> 00:56:41,290 No problem. 627 00:56:47,820 --> 00:56:48,420 Do you plus that? 628 00:56:48,800 --> 00:56:56,740 The copy that we received in our packet is the corrected copy. 629 00:56:57,740 --> 00:56:58,340 Is that not? 630 00:57:03,310 --> 00:57:06,390 I'll be pleased to show you if you like the correct copy here. 631 00:57:10,960 --> 00:57:11,640 I have two copies. 632 00:57:11,880 --> 00:57:13,180 I don't want to. 633 00:57:13,180 --> 00:57:28,180 To eliminate any confusion, I propose that we defer a voting on this. Why don't you submit to us, Jim, the corrected minutes, and then we can vote on that, that next meeting, which is going to be pretty soon. I think in about three days. 634 00:57:28,180 --> 00:57:31,660 Is my 16th correctly as well? 635 00:57:33,540 --> 00:57:38,440 Yes, I think I made some amendments of the March 16th minutes as well. 636 00:57:38,440 --> 00:57:43,830 So what I'll do is you'll get four of these corrected to my... 637 00:57:43,830 --> 00:57:46,710 We won't do hard copies, you won't have time. 638 00:57:47,250 --> 00:57:49,810 Could I also request that... 639 00:57:50,670 --> 00:57:54,290 Corrected copies of the November... 640 00:57:54,290 --> 00:57:57,610 I mean, it's the 2025 minutes, be circulated too. 641 00:57:57,610 --> 00:58:01,890 I know I submitted some corrections. 642 00:58:02,670 --> 00:58:08,330 I actually submitted my own handwritten version of those minutes to you, Jim, and they contain 643 00:58:08,330 --> 00:58:09,770 some errors that need to be corrected. 644 00:58:10,630 --> 00:58:11,830 So I need to go. 645 00:58:12,290 --> 00:58:13,010 I can't remember. 646 00:58:13,010 --> 00:58:14,550 I can't remember the exact date. 647 00:58:15,330 --> 00:58:15,750 But whatever. 648 00:58:22,340 --> 00:58:22,460 Yeah. 649 00:58:23,060 --> 00:58:23,200 Okay. 650 00:58:27,660 --> 00:58:34,060 Final matter that I'd like to take up is the Board's Memberships. 651 00:58:35,800 --> 00:58:57,380 We need some younger blood, I believe, for younger generation of blood on the board, and I think that we absolutely need to identify two people who are willing to do the extremely substantial amount of work that's required to serve on this board and have the ability to do that as you can. 652 00:58:57,380 --> 00:59:02,080 Today's really excellent illustration of the care with which provisions of the zoning 653 00:59:02,080 --> 00:59:03,860 movements have to 654 00:59:08,720 --> 00:59:10,520 be laid to do with other applicable provisions. 655 00:59:12,900 --> 00:59:22,480 So I'd like to charge you with identifying the names of some individuals that we can speak 656 00:59:22,480 --> 00:59:31,100 with and try to persuade to shackle themselves and their schedules in the future. 657 00:59:32,020 --> 00:59:35,380 I am not that confident like powers of persuasion, 658 00:59:39,460 --> 00:59:42,220 but can we all try to come up with a couple 659 00:59:42,220 --> 00:59:47,600 of names that people who might be gullible enough to accept the 660 00:59:50,000 --> 00:59:51,060 abilities of office. 661 00:59:51,540 --> 00:59:52,100 That's all convinced. 662 00:59:55,060 --> 00:59:58,920 One question, Jim, were you here for the 21st January 21st meeting? 663 00:59:59,160 --> 00:59:59,980 That was a... 664 01:00:01,140 --> 01:00:12,740 No, this candidate was not here, not present. She's not listed as present, but her calendar shows if she was. So, some of you can have to go back to your notes. 665 01:00:12,740 --> 01:00:13,420 You 666 01:00:16,460 --> 01:00:21,720 would have been an alternate. 667 01:00:37,740 --> 01:00:39,300 You would have been an alternate. 668 01:00:39,300 --> 01:00:39,500 You would have been an alternate. 669 01:00:43,060 --> 01:00:45,300 Do you want to make any other motions? 670 01:00:49,180 --> 01:00:50,340 Motion to adjourn. 671 01:00:51,800 --> 01:00:52,400 Seconded. 672 01:00:52,580 --> 01:00:53,180 All in favour? 673 01:01:00,310 --> 01:01:01,330 Well we made a motion. 674 01:01:02,050 --> 01:01:03,330 Mr. Kellis made the motion. 675 01:01:04,690 --> 01:01:07,710 Mr. Robinson made the motion and I seconded it. 676 01:01:07,710 --> 01:01:16,350 and the motion is now adjourned at 7.58 PM or 17.26.