1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:15,240
So we do have a quorum, and we're in good shape there. Just to cover our agenda, we have approval of minutes, meeting minutes from Wednesday, June 24,

2
00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:27,840
at that meeting we had a variance application and a special exception that we approved.

3
00:00:28,900 --> 00:00:35,060
So the first board members you received the minutes for this for that meeting.

4
00:00:35,840 --> 00:00:39,660
Are there any edits or anything that needs to change?

5
00:00:41,400 --> 00:00:41,800
Seeing nothing.

6
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:51,480
No. No. Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes for the June 24th,

7
00:00:51,600 --> 00:00:57,920
the 26th meeting. You're going to clarify it probably was a couple of us that were there

8
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:02,440
that I'm voting today that we need to vote on this. So you want the state who's going to vote for

9
00:01:02,740 --> 00:01:09,880
the acceptance of the minutes. Because they weren't there. Can't vote. Okay. Well then let's see who

10
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:19,220
This present can Mitch wait a minute, who is voting, sorry, let me make sure I have the right people voting,

11
00:01:21,620 --> 00:01:22,300
it's a little finding,

12
00:01:27,830 --> 00:01:45,230
so I had Mitch Picard, Ken Churchill, John Campbell, Michelle Marion, so that's for, and then to chair myself, so, where was I, oh, I had to take a motion to accept the minutes for that meeting.

13
00:01:45,230 --> 00:01:46,650
Motion to accept.

14
00:01:48,860 --> 00:01:50,160
Second, Michelle.

15
00:01:50,880 --> 00:01:51,800
Makes a second.

16
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:52,820
All in favor.

17
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:54,360
Just give me a hand vote, please.

18
00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:55,300
Okay.

19
00:01:55,480 --> 00:01:55,760
Five.

20
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:56,200
Five.

21
00:01:56,880 --> 00:01:57,540
Okay.

22
00:01:58,260 --> 00:01:59,480
So the first.

23
00:02:01,520 --> 00:02:06,040
The special exception that we heard that night.

24
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:07,180
Andrew Beal.

25
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:08,980
Two Blackbird Lane.

26
00:02:08,980 --> 00:02:10,680
Request the special exception.

27
00:02:11,320 --> 00:02:13,260
Accessory residential unit.

28
00:02:13,260 --> 00:02:26,240
You have, in your, well, I, you had received, so then the findings of fact, for that matter,

29
00:02:27,060 --> 00:02:34,600
the official record that, for that, for the, for the issuance of that special exception,

30
00:02:34,600 --> 00:02:40,100
and the certification of the Board of Appeals,

31
00:02:40,360 --> 00:02:44,180
which will be recorded at the registry of deeds.

32
00:02:45,920 --> 00:02:48,280
Because there's six of these different documents,

33
00:02:48,540 --> 00:02:53,060
I'm just going to take the documents for Andrew Beal all together,

34
00:02:53,420 --> 00:02:59,140
where there are any changes, exceptions, for those documents.

35
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:00,520
None that I noticed.

36
00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:10,560
Okay, then for the special exception, Andrew Beal, two black bird lane,

37
00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:20,660
a magnetic command map, the 95, a lot, 30, I would entertain motion to accept the package.

38
00:03:21,700 --> 00:03:24,760
Make a motion to accept the package as written.

39
00:03:25,140 --> 00:03:25,400
Okay.

40
00:03:27,460 --> 00:03:27,600
Second.

41
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:28,280
Okay, John.

42
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:32,300
second that, give me a hand vote, please, all in favor?

43
00:03:33,620 --> 00:03:34,580
Five, zero.

44
00:03:36,620 --> 00:03:42,990
And then the other, the other matter was a general variance

45
00:03:43,870 --> 00:03:48,450
for Brendan Morris, 148, Beach Ridge Road.

46
00:03:48,610 --> 00:03:51,110
Request a general variance, vertical expansion.

47
00:03:51,590 --> 00:03:54,910
The property in question is 148, Beach Ridge Road,

48
00:03:54,990 --> 00:03:58,410
York, Maine, map 86, lot of 24.

49
00:03:59,810 --> 00:04:05,550
Again, same three documents, this required findings

50
00:04:05,550 --> 00:04:12,730
of fact, a official record and a certification for recording

51
00:04:12,730 --> 00:04:17,770
at the Board of Appeals, sorry, registry of deeds.

52
00:04:19,110 --> 00:04:22,830
So in the same way, there's any changes required

53
00:04:22,830 --> 00:04:23,930
on those documents?

54
00:04:24,390 --> 00:04:24,810
Mm-hmm.

55
00:04:26,580 --> 00:04:26,820
OK.

56
00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:30,240
I'd entertain a motion, then, to accept the general variance

57
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:32,340
for Brendan Morris, 148-B.

58
00:04:32,580 --> 00:04:33,480
DRAD mode.

59
00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:34,140
Motion to accept.

60
00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:36,320
Second.

61
00:04:37,500 --> 00:04:37,540
Second.

62
00:04:37,540 --> 00:04:37,760
Here.

63
00:04:37,940 --> 00:04:39,180
Second seconds that.

64
00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:40,880
Then I'd have a vote.

65
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:41,500
Hand vote.

66
00:04:42,820 --> 00:04:43,100
In favor.

67
00:04:43,740 --> 00:04:43,980
Five.

68
00:04:45,020 --> 00:04:45,340
Okay.

69
00:04:51,510 --> 00:04:52,190
So then.

70
00:04:53,810 --> 00:04:56,090
Also on tonight's agenda.

71
00:04:57,810 --> 00:04:57,890
The.

72
00:04:57,890 --> 00:04:59,890
The only matter we have tonight.

73
00:05:01,290 --> 00:05:05,150
Kenneth McCullough, a four woodcock land request and a minister.

74
00:05:05,150 --> 00:05:13,630
rate of appeal, failure to follow town conflict of interest policy, insufficient analysis of scientific

75
00:05:13,630 --> 00:05:21,310
evidence, failure to verify material facts before approval, and insufficient finance, fire, safety,

76
00:05:21,710 --> 00:05:23,050
and mitigation standards.

77
00:05:23,050 --> 00:05:34,310
The property in question is 445 U.S. Route 1, York, Maine, map 54, lot 10C.

78
00:05:40,230 --> 00:05:47,230
So on that, for that matter, I would ask the five board members here, President tonight,

79
00:05:47,990 --> 00:05:52,770
just does anyone have a conflict of interest on this matter?

80
00:05:55,380 --> 00:05:55,820
No.

81
00:05:55,820 --> 00:05:59,840
can know. No. No. No. No. No. From that.

82
00:06:01,980 --> 00:06:07,400
Okay. As moving on, then I'll just make a couple of comments about the

83
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:09,000
how we'll handle this tonight.

84
00:06:11,540 --> 00:06:16,820
This hearing tonight is in a pellet review. The town zoning ordinance

85
00:06:16,820 --> 00:06:24,900
dictates in cases of administrative appeal of planning boards of a planning board decision. The Board of Appeals

86
00:06:24,900 --> 00:06:27,360
will act in an appellant capacity.

87
00:06:28,340 --> 00:06:29,220
Is everybody hearing me?

88
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:30,560
Okay, is this mic for working?

89
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:33,460
In this capacity of board,

90
00:06:33,460 --> 00:06:36,040
only reviews the existing record,

91
00:06:36,460 --> 00:06:38,040
no new evidence is allowed.

92
00:06:39,640 --> 00:06:44,420
The board, this board has reviewed only existing planning,

93
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:47,980
only the existing planning board record,

94
00:06:48,440 --> 00:06:50,180
concerning wiggly-bridge distillery,

95
00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:53,600
amendment to an approved plan,

96
00:06:53,600 --> 00:07:08,800
Matt 54, lots 10B and 10C owned by the Wiggly Bridge Distillaries LLC and approved at the planning board meeting held on May 7th, 2026.

97
00:07:10,640 --> 00:07:15,600
So tonight there will be no new public comment allowed.

98
00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:22,140
The board will hear argument strictly from the parties, the appellant, the planning board,

99
00:07:22,760 --> 00:07:26,920
and or their legal counsel, and the property owner.

100
00:07:27,740 --> 00:07:29,940
But in this case, I think it's the property owner's representative.

101
00:07:34,850 --> 00:07:46,270
So, for the moving on to our next step as a board for this appeal is the question of timeliness.

102
00:07:49,090 --> 00:07:54,910
I'll just make a point here. The council for the Wigley Bridge.

103
00:07:55,910 --> 00:08:02,830
Distillery has raised the point that the timeliness definition for the site plan and subdivision regulations,

104
00:08:02,830 --> 00:08:12,170
which is the guiding document for the planning board is different from the definition for the board of appeals found in the town's zoning ordinance.

105
00:08:13,870 --> 00:08:22,390
The 30 days, excuse me. The 30 days of vote of the decision.

106
00:08:22,390 --> 00:08:26,330
I'm sorry, excuse me, I'm getting out of the out of order.

107
00:08:28,690 --> 00:08:40,090
Yeah, the site planned subdivision regulations section 13.1 states that the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the vote of the decision.

108
00:08:40,950 --> 00:08:50,590
While the zoning ordinance section 18831 states 30 days after written notification of the decision.

109
00:08:51,650 --> 00:09:06,150
So, in this case, the zoning ordinance, 18-1-4-2, which concerns permits issued by the planning board states the following.

110
00:09:06,790 --> 00:09:16,870
If the design and or performance standards of the zoning ordinance are in conflict with those of the site plan and subdivision regulations,

111
00:09:16,870 --> 00:09:21,130
the standards of the zoning ordinance will apply.

112
00:09:25,490 --> 00:09:27,610
So, in this case,

113
00:09:31,130 --> 00:09:41,870
this application was, sorry, the application for the appeal was received on July 6th.

114
00:09:41,870 --> 00:09:45,390
I'm sorry, let's back up.

115
00:09:45,770 --> 00:09:57,210
The decision was made on or written decision was made on June 11, 2026.

116
00:09:57,690 --> 00:10:02,770
The appeal application was received on July 6, 2026.

117
00:10:03,850 --> 00:10:11,230
30 days from that would fall on July 11th, a Saturday, and for me the deadline would

118
00:10:11,230 --> 00:10:22,310
July 13th, which, in this case, the application was submitted on the 6th, so it's considered

119
00:10:22,310 --> 00:10:23,230
timely.

120
00:10:25,070 --> 00:10:27,810
Any comment from the board about that?

121
00:10:32,250 --> 00:10:32,530
Okay,

122
00:10:35,970 --> 00:10:44,370
the next criteria to be covered before we discuss this matter would be the standing

123
00:10:44,370 --> 00:10:45,530
of the appellant.

124
00:10:48,280 --> 00:11:14,960
In this matter, the appellant has submitted a colon evidence of standing, but having not submitted the form for standing as required in the application process.

125
00:11:14,960 --> 00:11:18,440
And in this case,

126
00:11:20,500 --> 00:11:29,720
the evidence of standing for administrative repeal hasn't been properly described

127
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:39,500
in the application, so I just would read just for the public from the form.

128
00:11:40,200 --> 00:12:02,720
If you are peeling a decision of the Code Enforcement Officer, the Planning Board, or any other board committee, or member of town staff, whose decision is appealable by the ordinance, by ordinance, to the Board of Appeals, and you are not the owner of the property and question, then you must complete the evidence of standing statement.

129
00:12:03,580 --> 00:12:13,000
And the evidence of standing a statement requires that you describe how your actual number

130
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:19,020
one, your actual use or enjoyment of your property will be adversely affected by the proposed

131
00:12:19,020 --> 00:12:27,480
project or to show some other personal interest which will be affected directly affected

132
00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:31,340
which is different from that suffered by the general public.

133
00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:49,700
And I would make the comment as well that the applicant, as far as the definitions of the ordinance, is not a direct of butter to this property.

134
00:12:54,040 --> 00:13:05,200
So, in order to allow this to go forward, I would probably ask the appellant to explain or

135
00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:07,360
to reply to that, to that request.

136
00:13:08,480 --> 00:13:08,640
Yeah.

137
00:13:08,640 --> 00:13:24,560
So the form I did sign and authorize the top form and attach the body of the evidence of standing using this form, which is the cover sheet if you're not familiar with it.

138
00:13:24,560 --> 00:13:37,180
It's the cover sheet that would have been you got the attachment you didn't get the cover sheet, but everything that this cover sheet asked for is in the packet and I signed the packet.

139
00:13:37,180 --> 00:13:53,000
So, yes, this should have gone with it, however, my signature in testing to any of the information is on it in signed in front of Liz Cooper, along with the evidence of standing.

140
00:13:53,220 --> 00:14:00,740
Is the best, is the best I could describe it and trying to, well, could you then read that for the board?

141
00:14:00,740 --> 00:14:06,600
This would be how your actual use and enjoyment of your property will be

142
00:14:06,600 --> 00:14:09,760
have literally affected by the proposed project.

143
00:14:10,080 --> 00:14:16,180
Sure, it's included in your documents under evidence of standing in all of the points that I make fundamentally.

144
00:14:17,340 --> 00:14:22,320
And it's a composite of those four fundamental pillars of the appeal.

145
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:24,440
First, a bit to the above.

146
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:33,560
there. I have always been in a butter to wiggly bridge matters. This is the first time and

147
00:14:33,560 --> 00:14:39,220
I honestly thought it was a mistake because the first meeting prior to the May 7 meeting,

148
00:14:39,840 --> 00:14:46,460
the butter notices had been forgotten and we're not sent out to anyone. So the planning board,

149
00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:52,580
I'm sure you must know this, the planning board had to cancel that meeting or postpone the

150
00:14:52,580 --> 00:14:59,980
bridge piece to May 7th. That's how I got on May 7th. I assumed I was in the batch that no one.

151
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:08,640
We've got in a butter notice, and it wasn't until I went to the hearing. I just dismissed it as maybe the mail or so.

152
00:15:08,740 --> 00:15:13,780
We're not debating that. So if we could get back to the chair.

153
00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:23,340
So in this throughout this document, I described within 214, view, in fact, I'm closer to some of the abutters.

154
00:15:23,340 --> 00:15:32,020
in the effects of ethanol, which is a primary piece of one of the pieces of this appeal.

155
00:15:33,140 --> 00:15:39,360
There's been no ability to measure or determine how much ethanol is crossing property lines,

156
00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:47,580
but I don't think anyone would dispute sitting at this table or otherwise that ethanol is crossing all property lines,

157
00:15:47,580 --> 00:15:53,600
including mine. My butter is at the end of my driveway, and I dare say it probably is a half mile.

158
00:15:54,520 --> 00:15:57,820
When you talk about ethanol, which is the causative factor of whisky fungus.

159
00:15:59,600 --> 00:16:05,440
And I don't think anyone would argue the fact that ethanol is escaping in violation of 6.4.

160
00:16:05,720 --> 00:16:13,400
It hasn't been proven because you talk about a colorless and odorless carbon-based.

161
00:16:13,400 --> 00:16:20,400
It's twice the weight of air in its basically sugar whisky fungus happens to feed on it.

162
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:27,760
And in this case, I clearly see potential along with everybody else, and you talk

163
00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:35,320
it probably about a hundred plus homes, that would be eligible to consider damages in this

164
00:16:35,320 --> 00:16:37,440
when I say damages, I mean to our home.

165
00:16:37,760 --> 00:16:42,920
So that's my stance, and it follows and everything, the fire hazard issues, I could explain

166
00:16:42,920 --> 00:16:49,760
that more fully as well. If you want to do that later. But I sincerely believe any damage

167
00:16:49,760 --> 00:16:57,560
to somebody across the street in this case is damaged to me and to anyone else in that

168
00:16:57,560 --> 00:17:02,840
neighborhood. So the Michigan but I noticed that it's a mystery to me. I did work with

169
00:17:02,840 --> 00:17:08,080
Jill and Brandon. They tried to help me on that issue. They were very helpful cooperative.

170
00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:19,120
I don't have any answer of my, but I definitely, I don't distinguish between me and the other neighborhood people.

171
00:17:19,680 --> 00:17:22,100
It isn't just ending 200 feet away.

172
00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:24,820
My opinion, my opinion.

173
00:17:26,420 --> 00:17:28,740
That's where I'm coming from with that evidence of standing.

174
00:17:29,220 --> 00:17:33,040
Do I have whiskey fungus on my house? I don't think so.

175
00:17:33,040 --> 00:17:37,420
I don't think so, but what you're talking about here is doubling the amount of ethanol,

176
00:17:37,900 --> 00:17:41,360
at least, at least, if this stands.

177
00:17:41,540 --> 00:17:45,080
You're talking about doubling the amount of ethanol, if not more.

178
00:17:46,720 --> 00:17:53,820
Right now, I think it's an equilibrium, but we're looking at some pretty serious exponential

179
00:17:53,820 --> 00:17:55,160
increases in ethanol.

180
00:17:55,660 --> 00:17:59,720
And no one has a test for that, there's other issues related to that.

181
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:05,440
damage is equal to me as it is to anybody who have quarter mile behind me. That's my point.

182
00:18:06,220 --> 00:18:09,380
Whether that's clear or not, would have to be up to you.

183
00:18:09,980 --> 00:18:12,920
Okay. All right. Thank you.

184
00:18:15,500 --> 00:18:22,600
So, so that we do this in a kind of straightforward way.

185
00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:34,140
I'd like the board to vote on whether or not this application has standing, so I'm going to ask.

186
00:18:34,140 --> 00:18:35,600
Let me before you do.

187
00:18:35,860 --> 00:18:38,820
I'd just kind of a question about the definition of a butter here.

188
00:18:39,520 --> 00:18:39,560
Yes.

189
00:18:39,800 --> 00:18:46,380
So our definition of a butter in the ordinance for purposes of notification is 200 feet.

190
00:18:46,400 --> 00:18:48,720
For purposes of testimony, it seems to be a different thing.

191
00:18:48,720 --> 00:18:55,940
much more permissive. Anyone who can show that they might possibly be affected by the application

192
00:18:55,940 --> 00:19:00,820
is in a butter. I just wanted to point that out as another criterion. Thank you.

193
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:04,380
Can we, I respond to the Appellant Chair, Mr. Chair?

194
00:19:04,620 --> 00:19:07,300
I'm sorry. May I respond to the Appellant, Mr. Chair?

195
00:19:07,460 --> 00:19:15,700
Sure. On Stanley's Glad. Okay. The butter issue aside, that's irrelevant. He failed to fill out the

196
00:19:15,700 --> 00:19:21,960
form. The form is clear, you must complete an evidence of standing statement, which includes

197
00:19:21,960 --> 00:19:29,220
direct certification language at the bottom. You can't avoid that. And main case law may

198
00:19:29,220 --> 00:19:35,740
law is very clear that if an appellant doesn't fill out a form required by immunosuppality,

199
00:19:36,520 --> 00:19:41,920
he does not have standing, the board doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. I'd

200
00:19:41,920 --> 00:19:48,900
to say that even if he is considered to be in a butter, he's shown no injury to his property.

201
00:19:49,520 --> 00:19:56,200
He just admitted that there's no whiskey fungus on his property, and he said that there's

202
00:19:56,200 --> 00:20:03,100
a general concern about the capacity of storing barrels increase, which is not a particular

203
00:20:03,100 --> 00:20:03,640
ice injury.

204
00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:06,360
That is an injury that would be shared by the general public.

205
00:20:06,360 --> 00:20:14,080
So, he's failed on multiple grounds, regardless of a butter status, to demonstrate standing to this board.

206
00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:20,780
If I could respond, I would do the evidence of standing as a member of the general public, not as an abutter.

207
00:20:22,240 --> 00:20:26,400
I was told that you could do what the gentleman just said.

208
00:20:26,740 --> 00:20:34,560
If I was able to produce information that I would be equally affected or impacted, these decisions are prospective.

209
00:20:34,560 --> 00:20:41,660
If this isn't, we're not looking back at somebody changing a light on the planning board or changing the color on it on a building.

210
00:20:42,520 --> 00:20:49,460
These are prospective decisions that require planning board and I totally agree.

211
00:20:49,740 --> 00:20:53,680
It's very difficult for people to do this and volunteers giving time.

212
00:20:54,340 --> 00:20:55,260
But these are prospective.

213
00:20:55,960 --> 00:20:59,960
So any harm to me, if we're saying I have no harm or no evidence of harm,

214
00:20:59,960 --> 00:21:17,900
You're ruling out everybody in that neighborhood other than the people who are smack dead next next to their property, and I don't think if you look at any kind of national studies on whiskey fungus, you're going to find that that's a safe position to be in my point, my opinion.

215
00:21:17,900 --> 00:21:25,240
very very brief response reply. As the chair of the board read to the other board members,

216
00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:32,820
the town of York requires that you describe how your actual user enjoyment of your property

217
00:21:32,820 --> 00:21:41,160
will be adversely affected by the proposed project. He said no whiskey fungus or some other

218
00:21:41,160 --> 00:21:47,880
personal interest which will be directly affected which is different from that suffered by the

219
00:21:47,880 --> 00:21:51,640
as on behalf of the General Public, as a member of the General Public.

220
00:21:52,360 --> 00:21:58,300
Any violations of 6.3.4 any future findings of

221
00:21:58,300 --> 00:22:03,200
Soyling caused by the emission of vapors from wiggly bridge property?

222
00:22:03,440 --> 00:22:08,120
That is handled by code that is not handled by the planning board or the Board of Appeals.

223
00:22:09,220 --> 00:22:10,860
Yeah, I think it's just respond.

224
00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:14,520
Will is the prospective tense I'm talking about.

225
00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:24,120
So, I would just comment as well to the Council's comments about the use of the form.

226
00:22:24,540 --> 00:22:29,960
This, excuse me, this board has accepted other.

227
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:38,520
Or occasionally, other forms of evidence of standing for appeals.

228
00:22:41,940 --> 00:22:45,480
Rightly or wrongly, we have. I just

229
00:22:45,480 --> 00:22:53,480
would make that clear. You state that it has not stood up in Superior Court.

230
00:22:56,390 --> 00:22:56,970
I think, in

231
00:22:56,970 --> 00:23:14,740
In this case, to give the issue of the benefit of the doubt, I would like to pull the board

232
00:23:14,740 --> 00:23:21,580
for their position on this issue right now so that we can decide to go forward or not.

233
00:23:21,880 --> 00:23:29,240
Just to point the board to the footnote at page 5 of my appeal papers, which sites no fewer

234
00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:34,580
in two cases, including one out of York County Superior Court that says that in appeal to

235
00:23:34,580 --> 00:23:38,180
the board of appeals is not timely, it is not filed in accordance with the times,

236
00:23:38,180 --> 00:23:43,200
the towns required procedures, including the completion of whatever appeal application form

237
00:23:43,200 --> 00:23:45,120
is required by the town.

238
00:23:45,460 --> 00:23:47,600
That's a York County decision at a Superior Court.

239
00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:48,720
I'm sorry, where is that?

240
00:23:48,720 --> 00:23:50,180
It's in the bottom of the

241
00:24:09,120 --> 00:24:11,960
meeting packet.

242
00:24:12,340 --> 00:24:14,180
It's in the bottom of the meeting packet.

243
00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:14,940
It's in the bottom of the meeting packet.

244
00:24:16,240 --> 00:24:19,120
It's in the bottom of the meeting packet.

245
00:24:37,200 --> 00:24:43,120
And if I could just reply to the Executive of this comment.

246
00:24:45,560 --> 00:24:46,780
Sure, absolutely.

247
00:24:47,780 --> 00:24:47,860
Yeah.

248
00:24:48,260 --> 00:24:48,780
Get to that.

249
00:24:55,010 --> 00:24:58,090
So you're talking about this footnote number two on the bottom.

250
00:24:58,090 --> 00:25:02,290
But it's talking about timeliness, and I've got to read it again.

251
00:25:13,340 --> 00:25:13,880
Oh, I understand.

252
00:25:18,200 --> 00:25:23,520
So that the point they're making is that the applications

253
00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:29,000
incomplete for acceptance, if it's not filed

254
00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:33,160
at the time of the, I'm sorry, it's incomplete

255
00:25:33,980 --> 00:25:35,020
and not timely.

256
00:25:35,780 --> 00:25:38,300
That's if it's appealed to Superior Court not here.

257
00:25:38,300 --> 00:25:43,500
And I think Scalberth would understand that you're

258
00:25:43,500 --> 00:25:45,280
Latitude is different in Superior Court,

259
00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:47,000
Superior Court may well refuse that.

260
00:25:47,140 --> 00:25:50,980
But that doesn't mean this is a case in Superior Court,

261
00:25:51,200 --> 00:25:54,460
which would mean if I disagreed with your ruling and

262
00:25:54,460 --> 00:25:57,640
took it forward or they disagreed with that ruling,

263
00:26:01,580 --> 00:26:02,820
there's another step.

264
00:26:02,860 --> 00:26:04,840
Doesn't mean anyone's taking that step.

265
00:26:04,840 --> 00:26:12,300
The case law in the state of Maine is law and this board is found by its by laws to follow

266
00:26:12,300 --> 00:26:16,840
Maine law, Maine statute, town ordinances, town regulations.

267
00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:26,260
It doesn't think this state law is safe that how the account actually details that process

268
00:26:26,260 --> 00:26:27,440
is left to the town.

269
00:26:28,580 --> 00:26:33,940
I don't think if there's anything specific in state law, we have a form that I won't testify

270
00:26:33,940 --> 00:26:40,040
that for about 20 years that form has been used, generally only in questions where standing

271
00:26:40,820 --> 00:26:48,100
was up for grabs because party was in the potter or something like that, but generally speaking,

272
00:26:48,400 --> 00:26:51,800
I think the testimony establishes whether a person has standing up.

273
00:26:52,280 --> 00:26:57,940
I think you know, I think you really are getting to the particular right of injury and a test, right?

274
00:26:58,880 --> 00:26:59,340
Yes.

275
00:26:59,940 --> 00:27:04,480
I do not disagree that this is the form that the Appellan should have filled out.

276
00:27:04,620 --> 00:27:06,920
He did not fill it out. That's my point.

277
00:27:07,440 --> 00:27:10,460
And there is no particular is injury or correct on that.

278
00:27:10,620 --> 00:27:17,720
But in substitution for that, he did in his narrative provide quite a lot of detail of how he believed he was injured.

279
00:27:19,180 --> 00:27:27,740
He failed to certify the information on the sheet and the instruction is clear that you must complete this statement.

280
00:27:28,620 --> 00:27:29,640
That's not for this.

281
00:27:30,360 --> 00:27:31,640
You did certify those.

282
00:27:31,780 --> 00:27:32,480
Yeah, I did.

283
00:27:32,800 --> 00:27:34,480
That's my signature twice.

284
00:28:25,840 --> 00:28:27,240
Should we have a forward discussion?

285
00:28:27,640 --> 00:28:28,800
Our board comments?

286
00:28:29,620 --> 00:28:30,860
Well, I'd like to have that.

287
00:28:31,440 --> 00:28:38,120
So I'd like to have each of board members give me their view of what we have here.

288
00:28:40,940 --> 00:28:42,340
For me, it's just what's legal.

289
00:28:42,560 --> 00:28:43,480
It isn't legal.

290
00:28:43,480 --> 00:28:59,620
Whether we can do it through the town, I don't see it hasn't a butter in my view, but if the law says if there's a

291
00:28:59,620 --> 00:29:03,020
some type of law that says that he is, right?

292
00:29:03,020 --> 00:29:15,920
I have no problem with him moving forward with his being on a butter and given us what impact

293
00:29:15,920 --> 00:29:18,800
he has on what the situation is.

294
00:29:18,940 --> 00:29:26,240
But I'd like to hear it from the lawyers of what is right and what is wrong on this application

295
00:29:26,240 --> 00:29:27,620
in what is legal.

296
00:29:35,950 --> 00:29:36,710
Okay.

297
00:29:36,710 --> 00:29:42,970
in jeopardy by the town in jeopardy. I think that's what we have lawyers for and I think

298
00:29:42,970 --> 00:29:53,950
they have to help us on making a decision to make sure that, I mean that's what we have

299
00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:50,100
And I accept Michelle's explanation as sufficient, I think, for this board to consider that the applicant has standing.

300
00:37:51,500 --> 00:37:56,380
I don't know that we need to vote on that, but I need a good idea.

301
00:37:57,280 --> 00:38:05,180
Why don't we, then, okay, if that's a vote, then can I have a, I'll just pull the board,

302
00:38:05,460 --> 00:38:09,960
yes or no, does the application have standing, can?

303
00:38:11,360 --> 00:38:11,480
Robert.

304
00:38:13,180 --> 00:38:13,360
Matt?

305
00:38:14,980 --> 00:38:15,160
Michelle?

306
00:38:16,780 --> 00:38:18,120
And Chair votes.

307
00:38:18,780 --> 00:38:31,090
So, that's a four to one poll, and we'll move on to the considering that the application has standing over the appeal.

308
00:38:33,050 --> 00:38:45,910
So, moving on to the appeal itself, I would ask the applicant to review each item that they have on their application.

309
00:38:45,910 --> 00:39:02,160
But I would also caution that the discussion should include only what, let's say, is repeating

310
00:39:02,160 --> 00:39:08,140
what's in the planning board record for these meetings that took place.

311
00:39:08,140 --> 00:39:15,960
You want me to start, is it a separate vote on each one or do you vote at the end on the entire

312
00:39:15,960 --> 00:39:20,620
body of work or is it a procedure leave?

313
00:39:21,020 --> 00:39:24,920
Well, that, I mean, that goes one way or another.

314
00:39:26,040 --> 00:39:27,300
Here it all first, maybe.

315
00:39:28,460 --> 00:39:30,120
Well, maybe that's a good question.

316
00:39:30,980 --> 00:39:37,080
I would ask, maybe the board, what are your thoughts as far as how would you handle this?

317
00:39:37,080 --> 00:39:37,680
Don't

318
00:39:41,520 --> 00:39:42,760
all speak it once.

319
00:39:43,480 --> 00:39:44,220
All at once.

320
00:39:44,740 --> 00:39:45,640
Not separated.

321
00:39:47,020 --> 00:39:47,560
All once.

322
00:39:48,700 --> 00:39:49,820
What do you think, Robin?

323
00:39:51,380 --> 00:39:56,920
Well, the thing about unlike all of previous appeals,

324
00:39:57,600 --> 00:39:59,860
that we may have heard as a board.

325
00:40:00,380 --> 00:40:03,020
This is the first appeal that for this board,

326
00:40:03,360 --> 00:40:05,980
that we're dealing it on a pallet basis.

327
00:40:05,980 --> 00:40:14,880
Okay, all previous appeals that we have heard were denobled, which means that we hear all of the facts,

328
00:40:15,580 --> 00:40:24,880
and we can seize on what we believe is the truth of the situation and we can make decisions accordingly from there.

329
00:40:25,520 --> 00:40:29,220
The purpose of this hearing, however, is not that.

330
00:40:29,220 --> 00:40:37,280
purpose of this hearing and this board is limited to not not going out in intentionally

331
00:40:37,280 --> 00:40:46,060
sifting through evidence and so forth, but rather to look for error and then determine

332
00:40:46,060 --> 00:40:51,080
the appropriate correction if there is in fact error. But that error could be procedural.

333
00:40:53,380 --> 00:41:09,420
So administrative error or a lack of compliance with the ordinance, so it can be something that's in situation that it is there, or something that should be there.

334
00:41:09,420 --> 00:41:23,380
But your task is really to convince us that there is some error in the planning boards approval of this.

335
00:41:23,700 --> 00:41:25,500
Not simply a difference of a pin.

336
00:41:25,940 --> 00:41:29,200
That's not what we're interested in.

337
00:41:29,200 --> 00:41:32,480
What we're interested in is is there error?

338
00:41:36,260 --> 00:41:44,360
Yes, I'm sorry. I have a tendency to talk very softly. So I'll thank you for reminding me. I'll try to speak out.

339
00:41:44,360 --> 00:41:47,980
I'll try to give you the signal. Thank you.

340
00:41:50,620 --> 00:41:53,860
So did the audience hear what he said?

341
00:41:56,600 --> 00:42:18,820
So what I said is that your task, Mr. McCollot, in this appeal, is to point out the board and convince the board that there was error in the procedure or something that was done in the planning board's determination to amend this plan.

342
00:42:18,820 --> 00:42:30,480
Okay, not to, you know, sit through the facts or any of those things, because that's, that's, that's not the purposes of a pellet review.

343
00:42:30,760 --> 00:42:39,680
The pellet review is, is only to determine that there was evidence for which the planning board could conclude, however they concluded.

344
00:42:41,340 --> 00:42:46,520
And if that's there, then that's not an error that conclusion is fine.

345
00:42:46,520 --> 00:42:57,960
But, but you know, so it's a little bit different than in anything you may have seen us decide previously, because this is an impeller, because this is what the courts do later on.

346
00:42:59,360 --> 00:43:11,080
If I might just really quickly on in the interest of having a clear record and this is your first time doing this, I just want to read from the ordinance under a pellet review.

347
00:43:11,080 --> 00:43:30,040
So the this board can reverse the decision of the planning board only upon finding that the decision was contrary to specific provisions of the ordinance or contrary to the facts presented to the planning board.

348
00:43:30,440 --> 00:43:32,700
So just those are the two things.

349
00:43:33,500 --> 00:43:39,840
So not just any error, it's actually contrary to specific ordinance provisions or contrary to the facts.

350
00:43:39,840 --> 00:43:42,020
All right, thank you for clarifying that.

351
00:43:42,640 --> 00:43:44,380
How about contrary to procedure?

352
00:43:45,040 --> 00:43:47,920
It's contrary to specific provisions of the ordinance.

353
00:43:48,580 --> 00:43:52,260
So there's a specific provision in the ordinance regarding procedure

354
00:43:52,840 --> 00:43:54,560
than that would fall into your purview.

355
00:43:54,960 --> 00:44:00,260
And my understanding is that there's an allegation of some bias.

356
00:44:00,460 --> 00:44:01,860
That's typically as you just review.

357
00:44:02,040 --> 00:44:04,960
It can be raised here, but the board should, you know,

358
00:44:05,440 --> 00:44:06,680
from the planning board perspective,

359
00:44:07,320 --> 00:44:08,800
we don't think this board should be spending

360
00:44:08,800 --> 00:44:14,800
a lot of time talking about bias. It can be raised. So if there's a next level of appeal,

361
00:44:14,840 --> 00:44:18,120
they can talk about it there, but it's not really under this before it's per view,

362
00:44:18,480 --> 00:44:26,360
because it's not an ordinance provision. Mary, what about town policy that's outside of the ordinance?

363
00:44:26,580 --> 00:44:29,300
No, it's just ordinance provision. Okay.

364
00:44:31,480 --> 00:44:32,620
And I should add the ordinance,

365
00:44:32,780 --> 00:44:39,660
a question of 6.3.4, which encompasses all of this appeal. And I'm sure you're familiar with that.

366
00:44:39,660 --> 00:44:49,960
included in the packet and are my stance. I represent only my family, but I would also say

367
00:44:49,960 --> 00:44:57,260
I think it's the general tenor of the people that I know live in this area. 6.3.4 has

368
00:44:57,260 --> 00:44:59,800
and the major concern throughout.

369
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:17,540
The history of this application series and the history is there. I will not repeat that, but included in that history is finding of Baudonia, the whiskey fungus,

370
00:45:19,580 --> 00:45:24,420
and that was always part and parcel of any early discussion going back to 2223.

371
00:45:24,420 --> 00:45:30,660
Can I just bring you back to reviewing the items of your appeal?

372
00:45:31,400 --> 00:45:36,140
So I think the first item is failure to follow time on the object of interest call.

373
00:45:36,440 --> 00:45:38,020
Yeah, and I'll be specific about that.

374
00:45:38,260 --> 00:45:41,380
And I prefer not to use names of anyone else.

375
00:45:42,320 --> 00:45:43,740
You have the names.

376
00:45:44,360 --> 00:45:46,900
That's up to you if you want to define that but I prefer to.

377
00:45:48,880 --> 00:45:52,420
The circumstance on the night of May 7th.

378
00:45:52,420 --> 00:45:55,600
I believe there should have been three recusals.

379
00:45:57,560 --> 00:46:02,720
First, the chair has been historically recused, properly.

380
00:46:03,820 --> 00:46:08,460
The second person who recused themselves did so,

381
00:46:08,840 --> 00:46:12,040
and I believe there should have been a third of one of the alternates

382
00:46:12,040 --> 00:46:15,280
who had made what I would call.

383
00:46:15,920 --> 00:46:18,540
And this person, by the way, has every right to do that

384
00:46:18,540 --> 00:46:27,540
outside of the impartiality called for in conflict of interest policies in the state of Maine and the town.

385
00:46:29,280 --> 00:46:37,020
Made supportive statements of Waley Bridge and prior rounds encouraging.

386
00:46:37,060 --> 00:46:38,780
You have the comments that were made.

387
00:46:38,780 --> 00:46:49,740
We viewed that as bias, conflicts, those she has a right to those views, her impartiality,

388
00:46:51,160 --> 00:46:58,160
the disclosure of the, and this is really the argument, there was no disclosure of those

389
00:46:58,160 --> 00:46:58,680
comments.

390
00:46:58,700 --> 00:47:06,500
So we were aware of them, we had sent them to the planning board and the chair, the co-chair,

391
00:47:06,500 --> 00:47:10,440
Vice Chair of the meeting did not ask for disclosure.

392
00:47:11,560 --> 00:47:13,480
And what we were thinking would have been a public vote

393
00:47:13,480 --> 00:47:16,040
like you did this evening on conflict of interest

394
00:47:16,040 --> 00:47:18,700
that it would have been an agenda item,

395
00:47:19,480 --> 00:47:22,580
knowing that documents have been forwarded to the planning board.

396
00:47:23,280 --> 00:47:26,560
And it was not the case.

397
00:47:27,520 --> 00:47:33,060
And we think the decision in my view,

398
00:47:33,060 --> 00:47:42,620
The person voting is very consequential because that becomes a three-two very controversial vote that evening and the person made the motion.

399
00:47:44,240 --> 00:47:53,460
It's one thing to make comments in support of, but I think you have to declare that give the other board members the opportunity to weigh in and decide.

400
00:47:53,460 --> 00:48:04,500
I have a municipal and public governance background in conflict of interest policies rarely come up, but they're important when they do.

401
00:48:05,280 --> 00:48:15,120
It's of my opinion this person should have disclosed the chair should have called for a review in a vote that they may have been eligible.

402
00:48:15,120 --> 00:48:33,460
The person may very well have been eligible to vote, but the comment made to the person was, you were involved in this previously many years ago, is the quote, it's in your evidence of standing,

403
00:48:35,780 --> 00:48:44,160
and the person said that was perceived by us, which then should have been followed with here are my comments, that did not happen,

404
00:48:44,160 --> 00:48:51,080
and the issue moved forward with a person who I thought should have been

405
00:48:51,080 --> 00:48:53,260
recused on a transparent manner.

406
00:48:55,900 --> 00:48:58,240
You have the comments and the circumstances of

407
00:48:58,240 --> 00:49:04,240
that meeting turn out to be very very important in a result in a three-two vote

408
00:49:04,240 --> 00:49:07,820
going forward the person makes the motion. Which you had a right to do as an

409
00:49:07,820 --> 00:49:18,500
alternate. My question is disclose vote and be transparent. I'll be glad to answer anything else.

410
00:49:19,540 --> 00:49:23,280
But I don't feel it was a transparent decision.

411
00:49:26,090 --> 00:49:30,490
Okay. You can, you can just keep going.

412
00:49:30,870 --> 00:49:33,390
You can see your points and then we'll move on to the plan.

413
00:49:33,390 --> 00:49:34,390
Are

414
00:49:39,450 --> 00:49:41,270
we going to come back to us for questions?

415
00:49:42,470 --> 00:49:43,570
If we have questions?

416
00:49:44,270 --> 00:49:45,090
Oh, is that understood?

417
00:49:45,090 --> 00:49:45,270
Sure.

418
00:49:45,590 --> 00:49:46,950
I'm happy to take questions.

419
00:49:47,810 --> 00:49:49,830
But whatever you would like, try to do.

420
00:49:50,770 --> 00:49:51,210
Okay.

421
00:49:51,870 --> 00:49:55,050
Are there any questions for failure to follow?

422
00:49:55,710 --> 00:49:57,790
Town conflict of interest policy?

423
00:49:58,410 --> 00:49:58,530
Yeah.

424
00:49:59,970 --> 00:50:05,130
Mary, we talked about ordinances and not town policy, for example.

425
00:50:05,130 --> 00:50:10,350
How about state law regarding conflict and interests of the board?

426
00:50:10,910 --> 00:50:12,390
It's your it's the ordinances.

427
00:50:12,450 --> 00:50:17,970
It's has to be a violation of the it's has to be found contrary to an ordinance provision.

428
00:50:22,820 --> 00:50:26,040
So I'm interpreting that as you can't consider this at all.

429
00:50:26,520 --> 00:50:33,220
This is something that there are there are a handful of issues where you raise it here before this board.

430
00:50:33,220 --> 00:50:39,700
But it's really a matter that's more appropriate for judicial review, should it go beyond

431
00:50:39,700 --> 00:50:40,520
this board?

432
00:50:41,060 --> 00:50:48,340
It is an issue that a court would review, denovo, meaning they don't, they don't, it just

433
00:50:48,340 --> 00:50:50,340
board doesn't have to have an opinion on it.

434
00:50:51,080 --> 00:50:55,840
The court will look at the issue of bias denovo.

435
00:50:57,160 --> 00:51:08,340
So, these cyclans, rags, or neither the cyclans rags, nor the zoning ordinance address conflict of interest, procedures.

436
00:51:08,960 --> 00:51:11,260
So, no, they don't. They chartered us.

437
00:51:11,300 --> 00:51:12,340
Yeah, the chartered us.

438
00:51:12,520 --> 00:51:24,880
And some bylaws, they bylaws of the planning board don't really cover it, though the, well, our board of appeals bylaws do.

439
00:51:24,880 --> 00:51:31,880
If I made that the wedding board also covers it, but I think we're which would distinguish between bias and conflict.

440
00:51:32,540 --> 00:51:36,180
So I think what Mr. McCalliff is alleging is more on the bias.

441
00:51:37,160 --> 00:51:42,040
And that is not addressed by these documents here.

442
00:51:42,700 --> 00:51:49,240
When I read this, it's more like a statement or an opinion that she had.

443
00:51:49,700 --> 00:51:52,600
So I don't know how you'd pull it into conflict of interest.

444
00:51:52,600 --> 00:51:56,700
But are we talking about a specific conflict?

445
00:51:58,780 --> 00:52:05,640
I think what's been alleged is she made statements in the past favorable to Wigley Bridge,

446
00:52:06,360 --> 00:52:12,660
which could be evidence of bias that she would like them to do well or whatever,

447
00:52:13,200 --> 00:52:18,820
as opposed to conflict of interest that she had some direct monetary or other interests.

448
00:52:18,820 --> 00:52:29,640
So my approach to this, having read, read the, seeing the record and looked at.

449
00:52:30,000 --> 00:52:50,540
Main information and knowing what bylaws and procedure is was that we were, I was limiting myself to whether procedure regarding conflict of interest was followed, not whether I wasn't making a judgment about whether someone did or did not have a conflict.

450
00:52:50,540 --> 00:53:14,160
So I was looking at whether the board followed the procedures for a conflict of interest and then Mary has clarified that the only procedure that we can rely on is either in the site plan for the zoning ordinance.

451
00:53:15,300 --> 00:53:17,620
That's a fair restatement.

452
00:53:17,620 --> 00:53:22,740
That is what the, I'm just, I'm reciting what the

453
00:53:24,240 --> 00:53:29,200
appellate review standard says that you can only reverse the decision of the planning board.

454
00:53:29,380 --> 00:53:35,840
If you find that their decision was contrary to specific ordinance provisions or contrary to the facts

455
00:53:35,840 --> 00:53:40,240
that were presented to the board. So that's, that is your purview.

456
00:53:41,540 --> 00:53:45,460
I would just add your unhitching any accountability at the local level.

457
00:53:46,060 --> 00:53:51,300
If there's no review at this level, and we have to go to judicial denove, I don't see what's

458
00:53:51,300 --> 00:53:54,200
why do we have a conflict of interest policy in the town.

459
00:53:54,540 --> 00:53:59,140
I'm on a town committee as well, and I'm upheld to how you conducted this meeting earlier.

460
00:54:00,980 --> 00:54:08,720
If this is true, there's no accountability or responsibility to be conflict pre or to disclose.

461
00:54:08,780 --> 00:54:10,140
I'm referring to disclosure.

462
00:54:10,140 --> 00:54:17,420
she very well could have voted if they voted for her to vote and that had the review of everyone sitting at that table.

463
00:54:18,160 --> 00:54:20,920
Absolutely no argument on my end if it was done properly.

464
00:54:21,660 --> 00:54:25,800
So what we're talking about here is there's no longer than if we follow this.

465
00:54:26,140 --> 00:54:34,880
If it's only the ordinance you have to be up a canyon to find some crooked way in there to bring up a point that has absolute merit in my view.

466
00:54:35,080 --> 00:54:38,920
That's my last comment on that and I understand if you feel differently.

467
00:54:38,920 --> 00:54:48,480
Just very briefly, Mr. Chair, even if this board were to consider this issue, the only portions

468
00:54:48,480 --> 00:54:54,380
of your bylaws and conflict-adventurist policy as a couple of board members have always raised

469
00:54:54,380 --> 00:54:56,020
address conflict-adventurist.

470
00:54:56,860 --> 00:55:01,480
And the vote that is required when there is a pecuniary conflict-adventurist that was

471
00:55:01,480 --> 00:55:07,660
never alleged here, I would argue that bias wasn't properly alleged in the appeal papers,

472
00:55:07,660 --> 00:55:13,680
but even if we are talking about bias, all of those social media posts were part of the record

473
00:55:13,680 --> 00:55:19,840
before the planning board. The planning board did address bias in its meeting and it was

474
00:55:19,840 --> 00:55:28,620
not required to ever take a vote. It is permitted to take the judgment of that planning board

475
00:55:28,620 --> 00:55:32,560
Remember that they can be impartial regardless of past statements?

476
00:55:34,820 --> 00:55:44,440
Somebody could declare the record shows that a person who had the perceived bias,

477
00:55:47,270 --> 00:55:51,590
they declared that in the record as a potential conflict of interest.

478
00:55:52,390 --> 00:55:55,350
Regardless, I mean, that is the discussion that happened.

479
00:55:55,350 --> 00:56:04,990
it was moving from should does she have a conflict based on her bias and that's why I was focused

480
00:56:04,990 --> 00:56:15,210
on the procedure for managing that question, not whether you know if what you're saying is true

481
00:56:15,210 --> 00:56:22,170
that could have come out during deliberation right because there's a discussion okay someone's

482
00:56:22,170 --> 00:56:26,530
or someone else has alleged, like you did, right?

483
00:56:26,810 --> 00:56:29,310
You brought up later in the record,

484
00:56:30,690 --> 00:56:32,350
a potential conflict.

485
00:56:33,470 --> 00:56:37,230
And that those should have been discussed,

486
00:56:38,210 --> 00:56:41,930
if bias is in a conflict, then the proceeding could have said,

487
00:56:41,930 --> 00:56:43,510
nope, bias is in a conflict.

488
00:56:43,870 --> 00:56:45,070
She doesn't have a conflict.

489
00:56:47,970 --> 00:56:51,670
So it's not whether there was or was on bias.

490
00:56:51,670 --> 00:57:01,430
week we can't we're not going to have our own sub procedure about who didn't didn't have a conflict.

491
00:57:03,490 --> 00:57:13,330
But we do not have any zoning ordinance or site plan ordinance that to lean on to make the

492
00:57:13,330 --> 00:57:18,650
determination whether they fail to follow the policy because your work does not

493
00:57:18,650 --> 00:57:31,090
state, the policy, and it's forgiveness to kind of put a cap on this discussion.

494
00:57:33,250 --> 00:57:34,670
I accept what

495
00:57:34,670 --> 00:57:45,430
Attorney Hillbreath's points out. I wasn't aware that in prior meetings that those social

496
00:57:45,430 --> 00:57:55,030
to post where discussed, I'll accept that they were, they were part of the record, part of the

497
00:57:55,030 --> 00:58:05,610
record, I stand corrected, and to Mary's point where this board should be going as far

498
00:58:06,610 --> 00:58:13,310
as this, as far as conflict of interest and how we should treat it and as to what it's not

499
00:58:13,310 --> 00:58:23,970
the ordinance, and it's not in the planning board document, the site, whatever, the planning

500
00:58:23,970 --> 00:58:25,530
board, the guiding document.

501
00:58:26,610 --> 00:58:40,230
But I would say just on to complete this, the way in which the subject was addressed in

502
00:58:40,230 --> 00:58:50,590
of the public was unusual and I feel that it could have been handled in a much more

503
00:58:50,590 --> 00:59:03,050
clear and stepwise fashion, the vice chair, question the person, oh about those things and it

504
00:59:03,050 --> 00:59:09,110
kind of a back and forth. And if that was going to be part of discussion,

505
00:59:13,050 --> 00:59:14,410
then there should have

506
00:59:14,410 --> 00:59:19,850
been a clear polling of the other members of the board that they were in acceptance with

507
00:59:19,850 --> 00:59:27,870
that being not a problem, the bias not being a problem for the board. So that's enough for me to

508
00:59:27,870 --> 00:59:31,470
on the subject and we can move on to the next item.

509
00:59:33,370 --> 00:59:36,930
I appreciate that time and discussion and appeal topic too.

510
00:59:36,950 --> 00:59:40,610
Failure to apply what I would call a neutral evidentiary standard.

511
00:59:41,730 --> 00:59:49,150
So here in is the Battle of Studies to scientific studies both one commission by the town.

512
00:59:49,470 --> 00:59:54,670
The standing study that the town approved is the University of Maine.

513
00:59:54,670 --> 00:59:59,970
Dr. Torra Johnson study that found evidence considerable evidence.

514
01:07:30,000 --> 01:07:34,120
Moving the appeal. Okay, just a still learning period here is one that's doing that.

515
01:07:34,400 --> 01:07:39,840
Let me just read from your ordinance, because it is, there is a specific language about

516
01:07:39,840 --> 01:07:45,080
remand within the context. That's not what you're doing tonight where you're doing tonight

517
01:07:45,080 --> 01:07:52,060
is looking at the facts in the record, and that was before the planning board and determining

518
01:07:52,980 --> 01:07:57,540
whether that decision was completely contrary to the facts in the record.

519
01:07:58,400 --> 01:08:03,860
You could have made a different decision as an individual looking at that, but that doesn't matter.

520
01:08:04,120 --> 01:08:07,880
What matters is, is there something in there that could have supported their decision?

521
01:08:09,000 --> 01:08:11,640
So this report does that support their decision.

522
01:08:11,920 --> 01:08:13,620
So that's what you're looking at.

523
01:08:13,720 --> 01:08:17,480
With regard to a reman, the language says,

524
01:08:18,160 --> 01:08:23,460
If the board determines that the record of the planning board proceedings are inadequate,

525
01:08:23,460 --> 01:08:28,640
the board of appeals may remand the matter to the planning board for additional fact finding.

526
01:08:30,180 --> 01:08:32,300
So that's your purview for remand.

527
01:08:33,060 --> 01:08:36,020
All right, you're quoting from the Zones only ordinance?

528
01:08:36,240 --> 01:08:43,340
Yes, 18.8.2.1, which is where the standard, the pellet standard review is.

529
01:08:46,430 --> 01:08:47,490
Okay, thank you.

530
01:08:47,490 --> 01:08:54,490
Like it for history, say, the Wigby Bridges application for two Rick houses, large Rick

531
01:08:54,490 --> 01:08:59,590
houses, was the 941 on the basis of that first study we did.

532
01:08:59,590 --> 01:09:01,130
I have it, and that's the common record.

533
01:09:01,790 --> 01:09:02,610
That's not relevant.

534
01:09:04,330 --> 01:09:06,050
We could move on to the next.

535
01:09:06,750 --> 01:09:12,130
Was there any other comment from the board as far as, I don't know if I ask you, Paul, if

536
01:09:12,130 --> 01:09:17,470
I ask Mary, but I'm trying to stay focused and not go out of the lines on what we're

537
01:09:17,470 --> 01:09:25,410
supposed to be voting on later, and in my mind, and I think, and I have to ask you, and

538
01:09:25,410 --> 01:09:31,550
I have to ask Mary, are we only supposed to be looking at what is there an impact that

539
01:09:31,550 --> 01:09:42,610
we're missing that the planning board didn't see to overturn this appeal on the avutters?

540
01:09:42,610 --> 01:09:49,510
Is there something that they didn't see that we're seeing as an impact, whether it's the environment,

541
01:09:50,270 --> 01:09:56,570
whether there is significant science stating that there's spores somewhere that...

542
01:09:56,570 --> 01:09:58,710
Yeah, I would ask Mary, just...

543
01:09:59,270 --> 01:10:00,410
So in a...

544
01:10:00,410 --> 01:10:01,070
Yeah, several times.

545
01:10:01,630 --> 01:10:02,150
So the...

546
01:10:02,150 --> 01:10:11,050
The appellate standard review is based on the record that the planning board had in front of them,

547
01:10:11,050 --> 01:10:15,910
was their decision completely contrary to all of that evidence.

548
01:10:15,950 --> 01:10:21,110
In other words, if there is something in there that could have supported

549
01:10:21,710 --> 01:10:25,930
the opinion that they had that, you know, they have a study in front of them

550
01:10:25,930 --> 01:10:30,570
that says there's no problem or if there's something in a record that supports their decision,

551
01:10:32,230 --> 01:10:33,190
do you uphold that decision?

552
01:10:33,250 --> 01:10:37,670
You don't draw your own different conclusions based on the evidence that they had.

553
01:10:37,670 --> 01:10:43,990
You just say, was there something there that supports their decision?

554
01:10:44,910 --> 01:10:48,410
You don't reinterpret it, you don't, if you had a different opinion,

555
01:10:48,570 --> 01:10:51,170
if you were on the planning ward, you would have come to a different conclusion,

556
01:10:51,310 --> 01:10:52,130
that doesn't matter.

557
01:10:52,710 --> 01:10:57,590
What matters is, is there something in that record that supported their decision?

558
01:10:57,590 --> 01:11:02,810
The actual language in the stat, in the ordinance, is if you make a finding

559
01:11:02,810 --> 01:11:07,870
that their decision was contrary to all the facts.

560
01:11:09,610 --> 01:11:10,050
Okay, no.

561
01:11:10,710 --> 01:11:15,190
If I could just add, this was not a unanimous decision.

562
01:11:15,370 --> 01:11:17,750
You're talking about a very divided board, three, two,

563
01:11:18,030 --> 01:11:19,430
on all of what Mary just said.

564
01:11:19,950 --> 01:11:21,690
This was not a unanimous.

565
01:11:21,690 --> 01:11:22,730
It's really not relevant.

566
01:11:23,350 --> 01:11:24,970
They decided to approve.

567
01:11:25,530 --> 01:11:28,350
That's the three, two, or five, zero, it's approved.

568
01:11:30,350 --> 01:11:32,050
That was the decision.

569
01:11:34,930 --> 01:11:40,470
Okay, so one way move on to the next item.

570
01:11:41,410 --> 01:11:45,830
And this is a very discussion on the X item,

571
01:11:46,090 --> 01:11:47,230
so we're going to go to register.

572
01:11:48,390 --> 01:11:51,630
Well, you have any comments on this item?

573
01:11:53,470 --> 01:11:53,690
Yeah,

574
01:11:56,490 --> 01:12:00,230
this entrance of the scientific evidence.

575
01:12:02,990 --> 01:12:08,560
I'm looking at, I gotta go back to the findings.

576
01:12:16,300 --> 01:12:23,840
So, I'm looking at the findings of fact, of the most recent meeting, May 6th?

577
01:12:24,580 --> 01:12:24,780
Yes.

578
01:12:25,080 --> 01:12:25,560
May 7th.

579
01:12:27,000 --> 01:12:28,200
May 7th.

580
01:12:28,340 --> 01:12:37,540
And looking at whether or not this item relates to the

581
01:12:37,540 --> 01:12:44,240
ordinance, right? There is a statement in the finding of fact about the ordinance, specifically

582
01:12:45,180 --> 01:12:46,020
634.

583
01:12:50,240 --> 01:12:58,480
So I'm looking at, I'm reading, I'm looking at the findings of fact section on conformity

584
01:12:58,480 --> 01:13:07,520
with the local ordinance and plans written on the May 7th, 2020, 6 meeting. And so the

585
01:13:07,520 --> 01:13:17,040
conformity, the conformance statement is that the storage of aging whiskey barrels occurs

586
01:13:17,040 --> 01:13:24,800
on the property where previously permitted, and the UNH study sequencing demonstrates that

587
01:13:24,800 --> 01:13:34,880
there is no Bidonia present on or near the Wigley Bridge. But it is not, we're not looking

588
01:13:34,880 --> 01:13:43,740
at whether or not the existing building is producing badonia, it's this crystal ball risk of producing

589
01:13:43,740 --> 01:13:52,060
badonia in the future. If you're not going to produce it before you have those barrels going

590
01:13:52,060 --> 01:13:59,380
in there, whether it's a thousand or five thousand or twenty thousand, we don't know what's going

591
01:13:59,380 --> 01:14:09,900
happen because they're not there yet, and if it did happen, it would revert to code enforcement.

592
01:14:10,740 --> 01:14:11,160
Right.

593
01:14:12,160 --> 01:14:12,300
Right.

594
01:14:12,800 --> 01:14:21,820
And so I'm just wondering whether or not that clarification should be made in the findings

595
01:14:21,820 --> 01:14:31,900
of fact, that you're finding something in right, that in fact, if this, if this condition

596
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:22,300
I remember I've reviewed the records and it's mentioned several times that it reverts to the ordinance. Pure and simple. If there's a violation, the enforcement is by code enforcement and they make an inspection and I do what I was necessary to check it out.

597
01:15:22,300 --> 01:15:24,260
Okay, good enough that it's in the record.

598
01:15:24,520 --> 01:15:25,520
Yeah, I would agree.

599
01:15:28,040 --> 01:15:30,480
Okay, so let's move on to that next item,

600
01:15:31,360 --> 01:15:33,680
failure to verify material fact before.

601
01:15:34,460 --> 01:15:38,940
Okay, number three, this has to do with a prior meeting

602
01:15:38,940 --> 01:15:41,460
that impacted the May 7 vote.

603
01:15:42,320 --> 01:15:43,900
There had been in a QR code.

604
01:15:43,980 --> 01:15:47,240
I don't know if you have a chance to pull the QR code up.

605
01:15:47,320 --> 01:15:50,160
That's in the appeal topic three,

606
01:15:50,160 --> 01:16:02,460
But that's from a meeting when something called an atmosphere dispersion model is a way to determine the amount of ethanol.

607
01:16:02,800 --> 01:16:05,420
I'm going to object that this is evidence outside of the record.

608
01:16:05,720 --> 01:16:13,460
This is a hearing that happened or a meeting that happened well before the 2024 site plan decision and absolutely before the 2026.

609
01:16:13,460 --> 01:16:20,680
This was discussed May 7th, you know, that was discussed May 7th, this topic was discussed in the meeting May 7th.

610
01:16:21,440 --> 01:16:29,520
What was discussed was whether that anyone believed that that was required and the opinion of the board was not required.

611
01:16:29,580 --> 01:16:35,080
And you're trying to tell them that it was required based on fire statements in 2023.

612
01:16:36,120 --> 01:16:37,720
That's not before this story.

613
01:16:38,100 --> 01:16:42,880
As I said, the board considered dispersion modeling and made clear, and it's finding

614
01:16:42,880 --> 01:16:44,940
the fact that it considered it.

615
01:16:45,140 --> 01:16:49,700
It's stated right there, Dr. Frais spoke on the possibility of dispersion modeling, the spread

616
01:16:49,700 --> 01:16:54,080
of Boudonia, and stated that this modeling would be based on predictions and not empirical

617
01:16:54,080 --> 01:16:54,720
data.

618
01:16:55,020 --> 01:17:01,200
The planning board then weighed that, to which this board is, to which there entitled

619
01:17:01,200 --> 01:17:08,280
reference from this board and decided that empirical DNA evidence far outweighs any need for

620
01:17:08,280 --> 01:17:09,220
dispersion modeling.

621
01:17:09,900 --> 01:17:13,320
If I could just finish my thought, I know I'm being cut off here a few times.

622
01:17:14,160 --> 01:17:16,180
Yeah, and I'm not allowed to continue.

623
01:17:16,480 --> 01:17:20,140
But I want to just say, the biggest issue here is ethanol.

624
01:17:21,340 --> 01:17:28,920
And we're minimally, my opinion only doubling the amount of ethanol crossing 636.3.4.

625
01:17:28,920 --> 01:17:37,980
There's no refuting that by anyone, and there's no conditions set to protect the neighborhood.

626
01:17:38,700 --> 01:17:38,800
None.

627
01:17:39,060 --> 01:17:42,020
There's no testing set up to check on that.

628
01:17:42,120 --> 01:17:47,820
The dispersion model was simply to test how ethanol was emanating for the property.

629
01:17:49,200 --> 01:17:55,680
This was not, this would have been, hopefully, helpful to wiggly bridge, not harmful to that.

630
01:17:56,480 --> 01:18:03,820
But this piece I think is an important missing piece and all of this ethanol is the causative factor.

631
01:18:04,480 --> 01:18:06,660
But more importantly, it's a high VOC.

632
01:18:07,640 --> 01:18:12,520
It has its own properties that are not helpful to the environment.

633
01:18:13,140 --> 01:18:24,960
And we're setting this up in the view of me, my family, to let this run at double the length without any conditions to even measure it or stop it.

634
01:18:24,960 --> 01:18:32,000
or we have to wait till there's a whiskey fungus to stop it and I think there are other ways to do it

635
01:18:32,000 --> 01:18:37,680
that would be helpful to both sides. I don't see that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

636
01:18:38,100 --> 01:18:46,800
I would have. This is a quick question for the both lawyers. So yeah, this was the question is not

637
01:18:46,800 --> 01:18:54,940
whether that study would be good or not. Useful enough. The question is whether it had been

638
01:18:54,940 --> 01:19:00,480
that the attorney you represented hearing you said I can represent that it was not required.

639
01:19:00,760 --> 01:19:06,120
It was discussed several times in prior meetings, in prior meetings. There was no record

640
01:19:06,120 --> 01:19:14,240
of the award ever making it a condition. And those prior meetings were about a site plan application

641
01:19:14,240 --> 01:19:20,860
that was denied. Yeah, I completely irrelevant. I just had promised, let's say promised and I'll

642
01:19:20,860 --> 01:19:21,960
to stop with that.

643
01:19:22,100 --> 01:19:23,220
That's a word that was used.

644
01:19:23,420 --> 01:19:24,780
Quickly respond.

645
01:19:25,980 --> 01:19:30,300
The Appellan's opinion that there is a doubling of ethanol crossing the property line

646
01:19:30,300 --> 01:19:31,140
in his opinion.

647
01:19:31,420 --> 01:19:35,040
There is no evidence in record stating as much.

648
01:19:36,480 --> 01:19:43,320
There is no requirement for the planning board to conduct additional studies or third parties.

649
01:19:43,540 --> 01:19:45,000
It weighs the evidence before it.

650
01:19:45,380 --> 01:19:50,280
And a statement that this is a high VOC chemical, there is in the record a letter from DEP stating

651
01:19:50,280 --> 01:19:55,340
that it came and inspected the property and there are no emissions that would fire DEP

652
01:19:55,340 --> 01:19:55,900
permitting.

653
01:19:56,360 --> 01:19:58,780
I, I, I, I didn't see that letter in the package, Paul.

654
01:19:58,800 --> 01:20:00,140
It, it, it does exist.

655
01:20:00,420 --> 01:20:06,160
That's, that's in the 2024 application, so that was, that was not part of what was presented

656
01:20:06,160 --> 01:20:08,680
to, to the, to the board this May.

657
01:20:08,840 --> 01:20:13,580
It was, if they're considering the 2024 decision, which was, to be amended.

658
01:20:15,620 --> 01:20:25,760
And so there was a question about the concern of production of ethanol above and beyond with the extra barrels.

659
01:20:26,220 --> 01:20:41,340
I would think that I know this that under NFPA 30, chapter 13, there are requirements that the state fire module should have probably imposed back in that period that showed

660
01:20:44,000 --> 01:20:53,240
measuring devices or measuring meter monitors that was detect higher levels of ethanol.

661
01:20:54,040 --> 01:20:58,400
So it isn't that, I'm assuming that that's in the design too, although I don't know that.

662
01:20:58,700 --> 01:21:03,920
The fire marshals requirements are in the site plan, they were not proposed to be amended

663
01:21:04,380 --> 01:21:07,100
and so they're not an issue before this board.

664
01:21:08,160 --> 01:21:20,240
That's their standards, there's that we're very clearly something in the original design that would have taken care of concerns about ethanol production.

665
01:21:20,820 --> 01:21:21,380
That's what I'm saying.

666
01:21:21,400 --> 01:21:22,540
I agree.

667
01:21:22,800 --> 01:21:25,660
That's why the fire marshal signed off on the original design.

668
01:21:30,540 --> 01:21:31,180
Okay.

669
01:21:31,240 --> 01:21:31,560
Okay.

670
01:21:31,560 --> 01:21:37,680
Right now, within 100 feet of a butters being loaded with about 100,000 liquid gallons of

671
01:21:37,680 --> 01:21:38,320
alcohol.

672
01:21:38,920 --> 01:21:39,560
No.

673
01:21:39,620 --> 01:21:41,500
Has an incorrect number and not effect?

674
01:21:42,000 --> 01:21:46,080
Well, you take 1,800 barrels times 53 gallons.

675
01:21:46,100 --> 01:21:49,580
The board has the sense of this item.

676
01:21:50,460 --> 01:21:52,660
I think we're equipped.

677
01:21:55,860 --> 01:21:57,840
Anything else on that?

678
01:21:58,080 --> 01:22:03,220
So we'll move on to the number four, which I think we will just discuss.

679
01:22:03,220 --> 01:22:13,400
I think it's a good lead and again, I think this is in protection of the neighborhood and our property as well in protection for wiggly bridge.

680
01:22:14,220 --> 01:22:21,400
The work on this piece involved when I heard that they were switching.

681
01:22:22,880 --> 01:22:28,380
This quickly from the approval in October of 24 to from dry storage to alcohol.

682
01:22:30,080 --> 01:22:38,000
I contacted Chief AppGAR and asked, could you give me any of the standards, or what needs to be done

683
01:22:38,000 --> 01:22:44,800
if we're going to put, if this is approved, and the building is loaded with, I'm going to say, 100,000 gallons,

684
01:22:45,880 --> 01:22:49,940
and I'll defer to Attorney Gilbert to put the right number there,

685
01:22:52,160 --> 01:22:56,460
he responded, he was very good about

686
01:22:56,460 --> 01:22:56,780
the conference.

687
01:22:56,960 --> 01:22:59,180
The response is also not in the record.

688
01:22:59,380 --> 01:22:59,620
Yeah.

689
01:23:00,020 --> 01:23:00,740
That is in mind.

690
01:23:01,380 --> 01:23:03,460
There's a letter from him to me, an email.

691
01:23:03,600 --> 01:23:04,700
And his file papers.

692
01:23:04,900 --> 01:23:07,020
His appeal papers cannot contain new evidence.

693
01:23:07,300 --> 01:23:12,500
And so him including a correspondence that was not part of the other record is new evidence.

694
01:23:12,720 --> 01:23:23,340
Well, if I could finish, he told me the only way he could inspect the new change was a voluntary inspection.

695
01:23:23,340 --> 01:23:24,940
That's just a good question.

696
01:23:25,120 --> 01:23:27,900
Did you talk about this at the planning board meeting?

697
01:23:28,860 --> 01:23:31,200
I brought up the fire issue, just I did.

698
01:23:31,240 --> 01:23:34,200
Did you talk about this conversation that you had with him?

699
01:23:35,380 --> 01:23:36,560
I don't know if I mentioned it.

700
01:23:36,600 --> 01:23:37,440
We had three minutes.

701
01:23:37,980 --> 01:23:38,320
Oh, I know.

702
01:23:38,640 --> 01:23:41,640
I'm only saying I'm only saying that because I just want to make it clear.

703
01:23:41,980 --> 01:23:44,660
This board has an appellate review standard.

704
01:23:45,240 --> 01:23:48,840
So they can't consider anything that you did not provide.

705
01:23:49,140 --> 01:23:51,220
I said it at the meeting.

706
01:23:51,220 --> 01:23:55,380
and whatever turns, but I think it's relevant here.

707
01:23:55,680 --> 01:23:58,800
It's only relevant if it's something that you said to the planning board.

708
01:23:59,000 --> 01:24:03,740
So if you could just kind of summarize what you said to the planning board on this issue,

709
01:24:03,920 --> 01:24:04,660
and not a conversation.

710
01:24:05,180 --> 01:24:05,560
Sure.

711
01:24:06,880 --> 01:24:07,480
Okay.

712
01:24:08,120 --> 01:24:09,280
I appreciate to help.

713
01:24:11,020 --> 01:24:18,580
David Appgar said I could only inspect based on the approval of any further sent me correspondence

714
01:24:18,580 --> 01:24:25,120
from the State Fire and Marshall saying that because they had approved two buildings in 23 which

715
01:24:25,120 --> 01:24:28,080
never were built, never were built.

716
01:24:30,720 --> 01:24:33,620
We do not have the right to re-inspect the buildings without

717
01:24:33,620 --> 01:24:38,740
a voluntary inspection. I don't know if that inspection was ever held. I would suspect I would hope

718
01:24:39,180 --> 01:24:45,260
and maybe the attorney can answer if it was. But I think there should, my opinion, as a citizen,

719
01:24:45,260 --> 01:24:52,300
I think when you put that much alcohol closer to people, think about your own house and how

720
01:24:52,300 --> 01:24:55,300
comfortable you would be without there being highest standards.

721
01:24:55,620 --> 01:24:59,880
Now I'm not suggesting there aren't standards or there aren't sufficient.

722
01:25:00,740 --> 01:25:06,200
It's we do not know and I think there should be a full voluntary inspection bring it up

723
01:25:06,200 --> 01:25:10,460
to the highest level for the protection of the people in that community.

724
01:25:13,000 --> 01:25:14,100
I'm sorry.

725
01:25:14,160 --> 01:25:15,120
Yeah, I make a brief first.

726
01:25:15,120 --> 01:25:16,220
Yes, please.

727
01:25:17,900 --> 01:25:23,160
By his own admission, this is not something that this plan appeals board can decide.

728
01:25:23,420 --> 01:25:25,860
There's no ordinance requirement for this.

729
01:25:26,000 --> 01:25:27,900
The evidence is outside the record.

730
01:25:28,160 --> 01:25:35,520
I would like to point the board to page 3 of 6 of the planning boards may 7 findings of

731
01:25:35,520 --> 01:25:46,220
and conclusions of law, which summarizes Mr. McCollot's testimony and also to my letter

732
01:25:46,220 --> 01:25:53,300
to the board at page 11 of Footnote 3, which describes the comments of Fire Chief

733
01:25:53,300 --> 01:25:59,460
Uppard that planning director Smith read into the record, as well as all correspondence

734
01:25:59,460 --> 01:26:04,700
between Chief Appar and Woodley Bridges, engineers,

735
01:26:05,080 --> 01:26:09,640
Boston O'Neill, approving the site plan.

736
01:26:13,960 --> 01:26:18,040
Are you referring to the Footnote 3 on that page?

737
01:26:18,240 --> 01:26:19,420
Yes, sir.

738
01:26:19,500 --> 01:26:21,740
Planning the department's director's miss,

739
01:26:21,880 --> 01:26:23,560
is that what starts with that?

740
01:26:23,980 --> 01:26:24,320
Yes, sir.

741
01:26:24,600 --> 01:26:26,820
What was right into the record on May 7th?

742
01:26:27,840 --> 01:26:30,400
That was a response to my question to Chief Appar,

743
01:26:38,320 --> 01:26:42,480
I'm sorry, you said that was read into the record at the meeting.

744
01:26:43,700 --> 01:26:44,060
I'm sorry.

745
01:26:44,920 --> 01:26:49,660
Is that, you know, it was very much of the record.

746
01:26:50,640 --> 01:26:50,840
Okay.

747
01:26:51,980 --> 01:26:55,740
I thought that was the case, but I'm going to get a little confused.

748
01:26:57,520 --> 01:26:57,700
Okay.

749
01:27:01,220 --> 01:27:07,080
So that was the, all the items that you have covered.

750
01:27:07,620 --> 01:27:12,680
Yeah, so the only other issue here is built containment in a containment area, unknown.

751
01:27:14,260 --> 01:27:16,960
How it meets the standard, but perhaps it does.

752
01:27:17,620 --> 01:27:24,180
But it's now a building changing completely in character and loaded with a lot of your,

753
01:27:24,180 --> 01:27:28,180
Yes, it's in here, it's in here, yeah, it's here.

754
01:27:30,160 --> 01:27:32,920
But again, if irrelevant to the sports for you,

755
01:27:33,140 --> 01:27:35,640
it's whether there are facts in the record

756
01:27:35,640 --> 01:27:37,420
that support the funding for this decision.

757
01:27:38,480 --> 01:27:41,400
Not, not, you know, standards that may or may not exist

758
01:27:41,400 --> 01:27:43,820
and that appellant cannot point to.

759
01:27:45,700 --> 01:27:45,820
Okay.

760
01:27:49,600 --> 01:27:50,120
So,

761
01:27:53,650 --> 01:27:55,230
I think, uh...

762
01:27:57,250 --> 01:27:59,990
So, can I just make one comment here about this conversation,

763
01:28:00,110 --> 01:28:02,610
which is, there's a

764
01:28:02,610 --> 01:28:11,810
a lot happened before May 7th and what happened on May 7th was very small and it was an

765
01:28:11,810 --> 01:28:17,350
amendment to remove a condition from the site land. So there was a lot of discussion about

766
01:28:17,350 --> 01:28:24,430
all sorts of standards during the site plan review, but that's not the appeal that's here.

767
01:28:24,430 --> 01:28:32,430
Now, the appeal that's here now is whether the board appropriately decided to remove that

768
01:28:32,430 --> 01:28:37,310
condition, regarding what can and cannot be stored in the building.

769
01:28:37,870 --> 01:28:43,650
So just kind of bringing back to that standards, just removing that condition.

770
01:28:45,860 --> 01:28:50,660
It's being very limited with the information that we have allowed to comment over

771
01:28:50,660 --> 01:29:03,640
I'm assuming, and this is bad to say, the situation like this, but I'm assuming that the storage facility was really built as a RECO.

772
01:29:04,240 --> 01:29:11,420
Instructure, design, and fire protection, DEP review for spill containment.

773
01:29:12,020 --> 01:29:15,100
I'm assuming that. So it was ready to go.

774
01:29:17,180 --> 01:29:20,100
So, I hope you never will find any of that in the stuff.

775
01:29:20,620 --> 01:29:22,500
Yeah, right now.

776
01:29:23,480 --> 01:29:27,280
No, it's just other than the definition that it is a rick us.

777
01:29:27,640 --> 01:29:30,160
No, it doesn't even talk it to it as a rick us.

778
01:29:31,300 --> 01:29:37,960
So, well, in the coast is planning for meetings, we can't look at that though.

779
01:29:38,380 --> 01:29:40,900
Well, in the context of what I just said,

780
01:29:43,140 --> 01:29:53,420
Everything that was presented, you know, that was the site plan approval, was approved as presented.

781
01:29:53,800 --> 01:29:59,980
It was designed for a certain purpose and prior to what we're talking about now.

782
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:24,600
All the planning board says, well, you can build it like that. But we're just not going to let you store anything in there. So there's no difference on how it was proposed and built. The only difference is what can and cannot be stored there. There was no representation that it was built any differently because of that standard. It was built as proposed.

783
01:30:24,600 --> 01:30:27,100
I would have hoped and assume that, but we didn't have that.

784
01:30:27,800 --> 01:30:31,280
That approval came in a meeting in 2024.

785
01:30:31,700 --> 01:30:32,660
October 2020.

786
01:30:32,660 --> 01:30:34,100
I want to look at this thing.

787
01:30:34,400 --> 01:30:37,160
So my point is the condition didn't change on the building.

788
01:30:37,360 --> 01:30:37,520
Okay.

789
01:30:38,180 --> 01:30:39,780
Thank you.

790
01:30:40,740 --> 01:30:47,620
So just coming back to our decision here, and I'll read it once more.

791
01:30:47,820 --> 01:30:51,620
I've heard it a few times already, but just to make sure everybody understands.

792
01:30:51,620 --> 01:30:54,420
So, let

793
01:30:58,580 --> 01:31:07,700
me get to the right place, excuse me for a second while I, so, okay, so I'm just going to begin.

794
01:31:08,160 --> 01:31:22,560
This is in 1881, the B, which pertains to a pellet hearing, and I'll just start that this board may reverse the decision of the planning board.

795
01:31:22,560 --> 01:31:30,740
only upon finding that the decision was contrary to specific provisions of the ordinance or contrary

796
01:31:30,740 --> 01:31:38,080
to the facts presented to the planning board. The Board of Appeals may only review the

797
01:31:38,080 --> 01:31:45,600
record of the proceedings before the planning board. I didn't read the complete statement, but that's

798
01:31:45,600 --> 01:31:48,560
state, but that pertains to us.

799
01:31:52,420 --> 01:31:55,160
So this

800
01:31:58,940 --> 01:32:05,140
is, which you read the article number again.

801
01:32:06,340 --> 01:32:06,900
188.

802
01:32:08,600 --> 01:32:09,720
188.

803
01:32:09,720 --> 01:32:10,060
188.

804
01:32:10,060 --> 01:32:10,420
188.

805
01:32:10,640 --> 01:32:10,980
188.

806
01:32:11,680 --> 01:32:12,800
188.

807
01:32:12,840 --> 01:32:13,960
188.

808
01:32:22,580 --> 01:32:28,920
So this board has to decide to approve or

809
01:32:28,920 --> 01:32:31,360
to deny this appeal application,

810
01:32:35,360 --> 01:32:38,660
I would, I think we've discussed it sufficiently, anybody

811
01:32:38,660 --> 01:32:44,980
won't have any other comment on what I just read or what we've heard tonight.

812
01:32:48,750 --> 01:33:01,030
So then I would, I would entertain a motion on whether or not we accept or deny this application.

813
01:33:15,340 --> 01:33:26,860
I am prepared to do a motion, and I would like the 18-821.

814
01:33:27,540 --> 01:33:35,780
Yeah, that's, as opposed to going each one, each one of these.

815
01:33:35,880 --> 01:33:40,220
Yeah, do a combined motion for the applications.

816
01:33:43,880 --> 01:33:44,880
I just want to.

817
01:33:45,080 --> 01:33:48,140
18-8.2.1 B.

818
01:33:48,340 --> 01:33:48,580
Right.

819
01:33:54,480 --> 01:34:04,420
And do we cite it or do we go into and read the language into the motion?

820
01:34:04,420 --> 01:34:10,220
I think you just cite it because that's the language is there.

821
01:34:10,500 --> 01:34:10,560
Okay.

822
01:34:15,040 --> 01:34:15,960
Okay,

823
01:34:21,960 --> 01:34:30,360
I make a motion in the application of Kenneth J. McCollough at

824
01:34:32,440 --> 01:34:36,560
445 U.S. Route 1,

825
01:34:37,660 --> 01:34:41,920
map 54, lot 10C.

826
01:34:49,850 --> 01:34:57,730
Okay, okay. In the matter concerning the weekly bridge distillery,

827
01:34:59,050 --> 01:35:19,470
amendment to an approved plan that 54 slots in B and 10 C owned by Wigley Bridge Distillaries LLC and approved at the planning board meeting held on May 7, 2020.

828
01:35:23,380 --> 01:35:30,120
Board has reviewed the existing planning board record

829
01:35:32,490 --> 01:35:33,490
and

830
01:35:33,490 --> 01:35:42,230
And as defined in the town of York, zoning ordinance,

831
01:35:43,470 --> 01:35:56,210
section 18.8, 0.2, 0.1, the board denies the application, denies the application.

832
01:35:58,260 --> 01:36:00,290
The application of the appeal.

833
01:36:00,800 --> 01:36:02,280
It denies the appeal.

834
01:36:05,980 --> 01:36:06,620
Any discussion?

835
01:36:11,170 --> 01:36:12,110
Can I have a second?

836
01:36:12,290 --> 01:36:13,030
Second.

837
01:36:13,970 --> 01:36:17,270
Seconds that I'll have a vote then.

838
01:36:18,350 --> 01:36:19,390
My votes are no.

839
01:36:19,750 --> 01:36:21,210
Denial of the appeal.

840
01:36:21,630 --> 01:36:22,030
So yes.

841
01:36:23,310 --> 01:36:23,510
Robert.

842
01:36:24,030 --> 01:36:24,990
I agree.

843
01:36:26,270 --> 01:36:26,430
That.

844
01:36:28,050 --> 01:36:28,530
Yes.

845
01:36:29,430 --> 01:36:30,310
Chair votes. Yes.

846
01:36:30,370 --> 01:36:31,070
Five zero.

847
01:36:31,730 --> 01:36:32,990
The appeal is denied.

848
01:36:32,990 --> 01:36:33,590
Thank

849
01:36:46,900 --> 01:36:53,700
you for your time tonight. I also want to just recognize Liz Cooper from Code

850
01:36:53,700 --> 01:37:02,460
very helpful. Representative the town great so did both Brendan and Dylan very helpful

851
01:37:02,460 --> 01:37:10,300
met with us responded quickly. Give us access and if I could just close with this thought

852
01:37:10,300 --> 01:37:19,000
I think our town is a need of an idea that would manage and help support progressive growth

853
01:37:19,000 --> 01:37:27,600
at a way that is fair, impartial, yet beneficial to the entire community for future generations.

854
01:37:28,340 --> 01:37:29,960
Right now, I think the planning staff is...

855
01:37:30,000 --> 01:37:35,240
It's overloaded. They're trying to manage. Again, look out if you get some kind of disruptive

856
01:37:35,240 --> 01:37:41,700
technology wanting to come here. These arguments exponentially get bigger. And I think an

857
01:37:41,700 --> 01:37:46,760
idea and this is nothing to do with your purview. But me as a citizen, I think an idea would

858
01:37:46,760 --> 01:37:53,160
be a positive working very closely with planning, the planning department and helping to grow

859
01:37:53,160 --> 01:38:00,360
community in a way and I appreciate again everyone's time this evening and thank you.

860
01:38:44,540 --> 01:38:48,060
I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

861
01:38:49,500 --> 01:38:50,820
All in favor?

862
01:38:51,520 --> 01:38:52,320
Okay.

863
01:38:52,780 --> 01:38:53,180
Thank you.

864
01:38:53,620 --> 01:38:54,020
adjourn.