[0:00] 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,

[0:15] at that meeting we had a variance application and a special exception that we approved.

[0:28] So the first board members you received the minutes for this for that meeting.

[0:35] Are there any edits or anything that needs to change?

[0:41] Seeing nothing.

[0:41] No. No. Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes for the June 24th,

[0:51] the 26th meeting. You're going to clarify it probably was a couple of us that were there

[0:57] that I'm voting today that we need to vote on this. So you want the state who's going to vote for

[1:02] the acceptance of the minutes. Because they weren't there. Can't vote. Okay. Well then let's see who

[1:09] This present can Mitch wait a minute, who is voting, sorry, let me make sure I have the right people voting,

[1:21] it's a little finding,

[1:27] 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.

[1:45] Motion to accept.

[1:48] Second, Michelle.

[1:50] Makes a second.

[1:52] All in favor.

[1:53] Just give me a hand vote, please.

[1:55] Okay.

[1:55] Five.

[1:56] Okay.

[1:58] So the first.

[2:01] The special exception that we heard that night.

[2:06] Andrew Beal.

[2:07] Two Blackbird Lane.

[2:08] Request the special exception.

[2:11] Accessory residential unit.

[2:13] You have, in your, well, I, you had received, so then the findings of fact, for that matter,

[2:27] the official record that, for that, for the, for the issuance of that special exception,

[2:34] and the certification of the Board of Appeals,

[2:40] which will be recorded at the registry of deeds.

[2:45] Because there's six of these different documents,

[2:48] I'm just going to take the documents for Andrew Beal all together,

[2:53] where there are any changes, exceptions, for those documents.

[2:59] None that I noticed.

[3:01] Okay, then for the special exception, Andrew Beal, two black bird lane,

[3:11] a magnetic command map, the 95, a lot, 30, I would entertain motion to accept the package.

[3:21] Make a motion to accept the package as written.

[3:25] Okay.

[3:27] Second.

[3:27] Okay, John.

[3:28] second that, give me a hand vote, please, all in favor?

[3:33] Five, zero.

[3:36] And then the other, the other matter was a general variance

[3:43] for Brendan Morris, 148, Beach Ridge Road.

[3:48] Request a general variance, vertical expansion.

[3:51] The property in question is 148, Beach Ridge Road,

[3:54] York, Maine, map 86, lot of 24.

[3:59] Again, same three documents, this required findings

[4:05] of fact, a official record and a certification for recording

[4:12] at the Board of Appeals, sorry, registry of deeds.

[4:19] So in the same way, there's any changes required

[4:22] on those documents?

[4:24] Mm-hmm.

[4:26] OK.

[4:27] I'd entertain a motion, then, to accept the general variance

[4:30] for Brendan Morris, 148-B.

[4:32] DRAD mode.

[4:33] Motion to accept.

[4:36] Second.

[4:37] Second.

[4:37] Here.

[4:37] Second seconds that.

[4:39] Then I'd have a vote.

[4:41] Hand vote.

[4:42] In favor.

[4:43] Five.

[4:45] Okay.

[4:51] So then.

[4:53] Also on tonight's agenda.

[4:57] The.

[4:57] The only matter we have tonight.

[5:01] Kenneth McCullough, a four woodcock land request and a minister.

[5:05] rate of appeal, failure to follow town conflict of interest policy, insufficient analysis of scientific

[5:13] evidence, failure to verify material facts before approval, and insufficient finance, fire, safety,

[5:21] and mitigation standards.

[5:23] The property in question is 445 U.S. Route 1, York, Maine, map 54, lot 10C.

[5:40] So on that, for that matter, I would ask the five board members here, President tonight,

[5:47] just does anyone have a conflict of interest on this matter?

[5:55] No.

[5:55] can know. No. No. No. No. No. From that.

[6:01] Okay. As moving on, then I'll just make a couple of comments about the

[6:07] how we'll handle this tonight.

[6:11] This hearing tonight is in a pellet review. The town zoning ordinance

[6:16] dictates in cases of administrative appeal of planning boards of a planning board decision. The Board of Appeals

[6:24] will act in an appellant capacity.

[6:28] Is everybody hearing me?

[6:29] Okay, is this mic for working?

[6:32] In this capacity of board,

[6:33] only reviews the existing record,

[6:36] no new evidence is allowed.

[6:39] The board, this board has reviewed only existing planning,

[6:45] only the existing planning board record,

[6:48] concerning wiggly-bridge distillery,

[6:51] amendment to an approved plan,

[6:53] 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.

[7:10] So tonight there will be no new public comment allowed.

[7:15] The board will hear argument strictly from the parties, the appellant, the planning board,

[7:22] and or their legal counsel, and the property owner.

[7:27] But in this case, I think it's the property owner's representative.

[7:34] So, for the moving on to our next step as a board for this appeal is the question of timeliness.

[7:49] I'll just make a point here. The council for the Wigley Bridge.

[7:55] Distillery has raised the point that the timeliness definition for the site plan and subdivision regulations,

[8:02] 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.

[8:13] The 30 days, excuse me. The 30 days of vote of the decision.

[8:22] I'm sorry, excuse me, I'm getting out of the out of order.

[8:28] 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.

[8:40] While the zoning ordinance section 18831 states 30 days after written notification of the decision.

[8:51] So, in this case, the zoning ordinance, 18-1-4-2, which concerns permits issued by the planning board states the following.

[9:06] If the design and or performance standards of the zoning ordinance are in conflict with those of the site plan and subdivision regulations,

[9:16] the standards of the zoning ordinance will apply.

[9:25] So, in this case,

[9:31] this application was, sorry, the application for the appeal was received on July 6th.

[9:41] I'm sorry, let's back up.

[9:45] The decision was made on or written decision was made on June 11, 2026.

[9:57] The appeal application was received on July 6, 2026.

[10:03] 30 days from that would fall on July 11th, a Saturday, and for me the deadline would

[10:11] July 13th, which, in this case, the application was submitted on the 6th, so it's considered

[10:22] timely.

[10:25] Any comment from the board about that?

[10:32] Okay,

[10:35] the next criteria to be covered before we discuss this matter would be the standing

[10:44] of the appellant.

[10:48] 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.

[11:14] And in this case,

[11:20] the evidence of standing for administrative repeal hasn't been properly described

[11:29] in the application, so I just would read just for the public from the form.

[11:40] 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.

[12:03] And the evidence of standing a statement requires that you describe how your actual number

[12:13] one, your actual use or enjoyment of your property will be adversely affected by the proposed

[12:19] project or to show some other personal interest which will be affected directly affected

[12:27] which is different from that suffered by the general public.

[12:32] 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.

[12:54] So, in order to allow this to go forward, I would probably ask the appellant to explain or

[13:05] to reply to that, to that request.

[13:08] Yeah.

[13:08] 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.

[13:24] 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.

[13:37] 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.

[13:53] Is the best, is the best I could describe it and trying to, well, could you then read that for the board?

[14:00] This would be how your actual use and enjoyment of your property will be

[14:06] have literally affected by the proposed project.

[14:10] Sure, it's included in your documents under evidence of standing in all of the points that I make fundamentally.

[14:17] And it's a composite of those four fundamental pillars of the appeal.

[14:23] First, a bit to the above.

[14:24] there. I have always been in a butter to wiggly bridge matters. This is the first time and

[14:33] I honestly thought it was a mistake because the first meeting prior to the May 7 meeting,

[14:39] the butter notices had been forgotten and we're not sent out to anyone. So the planning board,

[14:46] I'm sure you must know this, the planning board had to cancel that meeting or postpone the

[14:52] bridge piece to May 7th. That's how I got on May 7th. I assumed I was in the batch that no one.

[15:00] 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.

[15:08] We're not debating that. So if we could get back to the chair.

[15:14] So in this throughout this document, I described within 214, view, in fact, I'm closer to some of the abutters.

[15:23] in the effects of ethanol, which is a primary piece of one of the pieces of this appeal.

[15:33] There's been no ability to measure or determine how much ethanol is crossing property lines,

[15:40] but I don't think anyone would dispute sitting at this table or otherwise that ethanol is crossing all property lines,

[15:47] including mine. My butter is at the end of my driveway, and I dare say it probably is a half mile.

[15:54] When you talk about ethanol, which is the causative factor of whisky fungus.

[15:59] And I don't think anyone would argue the fact that ethanol is escaping in violation of 6.4.

[16:05] It hasn't been proven because you talk about a colorless and odorless carbon-based.

[16:13] It's twice the weight of air in its basically sugar whisky fungus happens to feed on it.

[16:21] And in this case, I clearly see potential along with everybody else, and you talk

[16:27] it probably about a hundred plus homes, that would be eligible to consider damages in this

[16:35] when I say damages, I mean to our home.

[16:37] So that's my stance, and it follows and everything, the fire hazard issues, I could explain

[16:42] that more fully as well. If you want to do that later. But I sincerely believe any damage

[16:49] to somebody across the street in this case is damaged to me and to anyone else in that

[16:57] neighborhood. So the Michigan but I noticed that it's a mystery to me. I did work with

[17:02] Jill and Brandon. They tried to help me on that issue. They were very helpful cooperative.

[17:08] I don't have any answer of my, but I definitely, I don't distinguish between me and the other neighborhood people.

[17:19] It isn't just ending 200 feet away.

[17:23] My opinion, my opinion.

[17:26] That's where I'm coming from with that evidence of standing.

[17:29] Do I have whiskey fungus on my house? I don't think so.

[17:33] I don't think so, but what you're talking about here is doubling the amount of ethanol,

[17:37] at least, at least, if this stands.

[17:41] You're talking about doubling the amount of ethanol, if not more.

[17:46] Right now, I think it's an equilibrium, but we're looking at some pretty serious exponential

[17:53] increases in ethanol.

[17:55] And no one has a test for that, there's other issues related to that.

[17:59] damage is equal to me as it is to anybody who have quarter mile behind me. That's my point.

[18:06] Whether that's clear or not, would have to be up to you.

[18:09] Okay. All right. Thank you.

[18:15] So, so that we do this in a kind of straightforward way.

[18:25] I'd like the board to vote on whether or not this application has standing, so I'm going to ask.

[18:34] Let me before you do.

[18:35] I'd just kind of a question about the definition of a butter here.

[18:39] Yes.

[18:39] So our definition of a butter in the ordinance for purposes of notification is 200 feet.

[18:46] For purposes of testimony, it seems to be a different thing.

[18:48] much more permissive. Anyone who can show that they might possibly be affected by the application

[18:55] is in a butter. I just wanted to point that out as another criterion. Thank you.

[19:01] Can we, I respond to the Appellant Chair, Mr. Chair?

[19:04] I'm sorry. May I respond to the Appellant, Mr. Chair?

[19:07] Sure. On Stanley's Glad. Okay. The butter issue aside, that's irrelevant. He failed to fill out the

[19:15] form. The form is clear, you must complete an evidence of standing statement, which includes

[19:21] direct certification language at the bottom. You can't avoid that. And main case law may

[19:29] law is very clear that if an appellant doesn't fill out a form required by immunosuppality,

[19:36] he does not have standing, the board doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. I'd

[19:41] to say that even if he is considered to be in a butter, he's shown no injury to his property.

[19:49] He just admitted that there's no whiskey fungus on his property, and he said that there's

[19:56] a general concern about the capacity of storing barrels increase, which is not a particular

[20:03] ice injury.

[20:03] That is an injury that would be shared by the general public.

[20:06] So, he's failed on multiple grounds, regardless of a butter status, to demonstrate standing to this board.

[20:14] If I could respond, I would do the evidence of standing as a member of the general public, not as an abutter.

[20:22] I was told that you could do what the gentleman just said.

[20:26] If I was able to produce information that I would be equally affected or impacted, these decisions are prospective.

[20:34] 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.

[20:42] These are prospective decisions that require planning board and I totally agree.

[20:49] It's very difficult for people to do this and volunteers giving time.

[20:54] But these are prospective.

[20:55] So any harm to me, if we're saying I have no harm or no evidence of harm,

[20:59] 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.

[21:17] very very brief response reply. As the chair of the board read to the other board members,

[21:26] the town of York requires that you describe how your actual user enjoyment of your property

[21:32] will be adversely affected by the proposed project. He said no whiskey fungus or some other

[21:41] personal interest which will be directly affected which is different from that suffered by the

[21:47] as on behalf of the General Public, as a member of the General Public.

[21:52] Any violations of 6.3.4 any future findings of

[21:58] Soyling caused by the emission of vapors from wiggly bridge property?

[22:03] That is handled by code that is not handled by the planning board or the Board of Appeals.

[22:09] Yeah, I think it's just respond.

[22:11] Will is the prospective tense I'm talking about.

[22:15] So, I would just comment as well to the Council's comments about the use of the form.

[22:24] This, excuse me, this board has accepted other.

[22:30] Or occasionally, other forms of evidence of standing for appeals.

[22:41] Rightly or wrongly, we have. I just

[22:45] would make that clear. You state that it has not stood up in Superior Court.

[22:56] I think, in

[22:56] In this case, to give the issue of the benefit of the doubt, I would like to pull the board

[23:14] for their position on this issue right now so that we can decide to go forward or not.

[23:21] Just to point the board to the footnote at page 5 of my appeal papers, which sites no fewer

[23:29] in two cases, including one out of York County Superior Court that says that in appeal to

[23:34] the board of appeals is not timely, it is not filed in accordance with the times,

[23:38] the towns required procedures, including the completion of whatever appeal application form

[23:43] is required by the town.

[23:45] That's a York County decision at a Superior Court.

[23:47] I'm sorry, where is that?

[23:48] It's in the bottom of the

[24:09] meeting packet.

[24:12] It's in the bottom of the meeting packet.

[24:14] It's in the bottom of the meeting packet.

[24:16] It's in the bottom of the meeting packet.

[24:37] And if I could just reply to the Executive of this comment.

[24:45] Sure, absolutely.

[24:47] Yeah.

[24:48] Get to that.

[24:55] So you're talking about this footnote number two on the bottom.

[24:58] But it's talking about timeliness, and I've got to read it again.

[25:13] Oh, I understand.

[25:18] So that the point they're making is that the applications

[25:23] incomplete for acceptance, if it's not filed

[25:29] at the time of the, I'm sorry, it's incomplete

[25:33] and not timely.

[25:35] That's if it's appealed to Superior Court not here.

[25:38] And I think Scalberth would understand that you're

[25:43] Latitude is different in Superior Court,

[25:45] Superior Court may well refuse that.

[25:47] But that doesn't mean this is a case in Superior Court,

[25:51] which would mean if I disagreed with your ruling and

[25:54] took it forward or they disagreed with that ruling,

[26:01] there's another step.

[26:02] Doesn't mean anyone's taking that step.

[26:04] The case law in the state of Maine is law and this board is found by its by laws to follow

[26:12] Maine law, Maine statute, town ordinances, town regulations.

[26:17] It doesn't think this state law is safe that how the account actually details that process

[26:26] is left to the town.

[26:28] I don't think if there's anything specific in state law, we have a form that I won't testify

[26:33] that for about 20 years that form has been used, generally only in questions where standing

[26:40] was up for grabs because party was in the potter or something like that, but generally speaking,

[26:48] I think the testimony establishes whether a person has standing up.

[26:52] I think you know, I think you really are getting to the particular right of injury and a test, right?

[26:58] Yes.

[26:59] I do not disagree that this is the form that the Appellan should have filled out.

[27:04] He did not fill it out. That's my point.

[27:07] And there is no particular is injury or correct on that.

[27:10] But in substitution for that, he did in his narrative provide quite a lot of detail of how he believed he was injured.

[27:19] He failed to certify the information on the sheet and the instruction is clear that you must complete this statement.

[27:28] That's not for this.

[27:30] You did certify those.

[27:31] Yeah, I did.

[27:32] That's my signature twice.

[28:25] Should we have a forward discussion?

[28:27] Our board comments?

[28:29] Well, I'd like to have that.

[28:31] So I'd like to have each of board members give me their view of what we have here.

[28:40] For me, it's just what's legal.

[28:42] It isn't legal.

[28:43] 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

[28:59] some type of law that says that he is, right?

[29:03] I have no problem with him moving forward with his being on a butter and given us what impact

[29:15] he has on what the situation is.

[29:18] But I'd like to hear it from the lawyers of what is right and what is wrong on this application

[29:26] in what is legal.

[29:35] Okay.

[29:36] in jeopardy by the town in jeopardy. I think that's what we have lawyers for and I think

[29:42] they have to help us on making a decision to make sure that, I mean that's what we have

[37:30] And I accept Michelle's explanation as sufficient, I think, for this board to consider that the applicant has standing.

[37:51] I don't know that we need to vote on that, but I need a good idea.

[37:57] Why don't we, then, okay, if that's a vote, then can I have a, I'll just pull the board,

[38:05] yes or no, does the application have standing, can?

[38:11] Robert.

[38:13] Matt?

[38:14] Michelle?

[38:16] And Chair votes.

[38:18] So, that's a four to one poll, and we'll move on to the considering that the application has standing over the appeal.

[38:33] So, moving on to the appeal itself, I would ask the applicant to review each item that they have on their application.

[38:45] But I would also caution that the discussion should include only what, let's say, is repeating

[39:02] what's in the planning board record for these meetings that took place.

[39:08] You want me to start, is it a separate vote on each one or do you vote at the end on the entire

[39:15] body of work or is it a procedure leave?

[39:21] Well, that, I mean, that goes one way or another.

[39:26] Here it all first, maybe.

[39:28] Well, maybe that's a good question.

[39:30] I would ask, maybe the board, what are your thoughts as far as how would you handle this?

[39:37] Don't

[39:41] all speak it once.

[39:43] All at once.

[39:44] Not separated.

[39:47] All once.

[39:48] What do you think, Robin?

[39:51] Well, the thing about unlike all of previous appeals,

[39:57] that we may have heard as a board.

[40:00] This is the first appeal that for this board,

[40:03] that we're dealing it on a pallet basis.

[40:05] Okay, all previous appeals that we have heard were denobled, which means that we hear all of the facts,

[40:15] and we can seize on what we believe is the truth of the situation and we can make decisions accordingly from there.

[40:25] The purpose of this hearing, however, is not that.

[40:29] purpose of this hearing and this board is limited to not not going out in intentionally

[40:37] sifting through evidence and so forth, but rather to look for error and then determine

[40:46] the appropriate correction if there is in fact error. But that error could be procedural.

[40:53] 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.

[41:09] But your task is really to convince us that there is some error in the planning boards approval of this.

[41:23] Not simply a difference of a pin.

[41:25] That's not what we're interested in.

[41:29] What we're interested in is is there error?

[41:36] 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.

[41:44] I'll try to give you the signal. Thank you.

[41:50] So did the audience hear what he said?

[41:56] 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.

[42:18] 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.

[42:30] The pellet review is, is only to determine that there was evidence for which the planning board could conclude, however they concluded.

[42:41] And if that's there, then that's not an error that conclusion is fine.

[42:46] 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.

[42:59] 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.

[43:11] 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.

[43:30] So just those are the two things.

[43:33] So not just any error, it's actually contrary to specific ordinance provisions or contrary to the facts.

[43:39] All right, thank you for clarifying that.

[43:42] How about contrary to procedure?

[43:45] It's contrary to specific provisions of the ordinance.

[43:48] So there's a specific provision in the ordinance regarding procedure

[43:52] than that would fall into your purview.

[43:54] And my understanding is that there's an allegation of some bias.

[44:00] That's typically as you just review.

[44:02] It can be raised here, but the board should, you know,

[44:05] from the planning board perspective,

[44:07] we don't think this board should be spending

[44:08] a lot of time talking about bias. It can be raised. So if there's a next level of appeal,

[44:14] they can talk about it there, but it's not really under this before it's per view,

[44:18] because it's not an ordinance provision. Mary, what about town policy that's outside of the ordinance?

[44:26] No, it's just ordinance provision. Okay.

[44:31] And I should add the ordinance,

[44:32] a question of 6.3.4, which encompasses all of this appeal. And I'm sure you're familiar with that.

[44:39] included in the packet and are my stance. I represent only my family, but I would also say

[44:49] I think it's the general tenor of the people that I know live in this area. 6.3.4 has

[44:57] and the major concern throughout.

[45:00] 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,

[45:19] and that was always part and parcel of any early discussion going back to 2223.

[45:24] Can I just bring you back to reviewing the items of your appeal?

[45:31] So I think the first item is failure to follow time on the object of interest call.

[45:36] Yeah, and I'll be specific about that.

[45:38] And I prefer not to use names of anyone else.

[45:42] You have the names.

[45:44] That's up to you if you want to define that but I prefer to.

[45:48] The circumstance on the night of May 7th.

[45:52] I believe there should have been three recusals.

[45:57] First, the chair has been historically recused, properly.

[46:03] The second person who recused themselves did so,

[46:08] and I believe there should have been a third of one of the alternates

[46:12] who had made what I would call.

[46:15] And this person, by the way, has every right to do that

[46:18] outside of the impartiality called for in conflict of interest policies in the state of Maine and the town.

[46:29] Made supportive statements of Waley Bridge and prior rounds encouraging.

[46:37] You have the comments that were made.

[46:38] We viewed that as bias, conflicts, those she has a right to those views, her impartiality,

[46:51] the disclosure of the, and this is really the argument, there was no disclosure of those

[46:58] comments.

[46:58] So we were aware of them, we had sent them to the planning board and the chair, the co-chair,

[47:06] Vice Chair of the meeting did not ask for disclosure.

[47:11] And what we were thinking would have been a public vote

[47:13] like you did this evening on conflict of interest

[47:16] that it would have been an agenda item,

[47:19] knowing that documents have been forwarded to the planning board.

[47:23] And it was not the case.

[47:27] And we think the decision in my view,

[47:33] The person voting is very consequential because that becomes a three-two very controversial vote that evening and the person made the motion.

[47:44] 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.

[47:53] I have a municipal and public governance background in conflict of interest policies rarely come up, but they're important when they do.

[48:05] 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.

[48:15] 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,

[48:35] and the person said that was perceived by us, which then should have been followed with here are my comments, that did not happen,

[48:44] and the issue moved forward with a person who I thought should have been

[48:51] recused on a transparent manner.

[48:55] You have the comments and the circumstances of

[48:58] that meeting turn out to be very very important in a result in a three-two vote

[49:04] going forward the person makes the motion. Which you had a right to do as an

[49:07] alternate. My question is disclose vote and be transparent. I'll be glad to answer anything else.

[49:19] But I don't feel it was a transparent decision.

[49:26] Okay. You can, you can just keep going.

[49:30] You can see your points and then we'll move on to the plan.

[49:33] Are

[49:39] we going to come back to us for questions?

[49:42] If we have questions?

[49:44] Oh, is that understood?

[49:45] Sure.

[49:45] I'm happy to take questions.

[49:47] But whatever you would like, try to do.

[49:50] Okay.

[49:51] Are there any questions for failure to follow?

[49:55] Town conflict of interest policy?

[49:58] Yeah.

[49:59] Mary, we talked about ordinances and not town policy, for example.

[50:05] How about state law regarding conflict and interests of the board?

[50:10] It's your it's the ordinances.

[50:12] It's has to be a violation of the it's has to be found contrary to an ordinance provision.

[50:22] So I'm interpreting that as you can't consider this at all.

[50:26] This is something that there are there are a handful of issues where you raise it here before this board.

[50:33] But it's really a matter that's more appropriate for judicial review, should it go beyond

[50:39] this board?

[50:41] It is an issue that a court would review, denovo, meaning they don't, they don't, it just

[50:48] board doesn't have to have an opinion on it.

[50:51] The court will look at the issue of bias denovo.

[50:57] So, these cyclans, rags, or neither the cyclans rags, nor the zoning ordinance address conflict of interest, procedures.

[51:08] So, no, they don't. They chartered us.

[51:11] Yeah, the chartered us.

[51:12] And some bylaws, they bylaws of the planning board don't really cover it, though the, well, our board of appeals bylaws do.

[51:24] If I made that the wedding board also covers it, but I think we're which would distinguish between bias and conflict.

[51:32] So I think what Mr. McCalliff is alleging is more on the bias.

[51:37] And that is not addressed by these documents here.

[51:42] When I read this, it's more like a statement or an opinion that she had.

[51:49] So I don't know how you'd pull it into conflict of interest.

[51:52] But are we talking about a specific conflict?

[51:58] I think what's been alleged is she made statements in the past favorable to Wigley Bridge,

[52:06] which could be evidence of bias that she would like them to do well or whatever,

[52:13] as opposed to conflict of interest that she had some direct monetary or other interests.

[52:18] So my approach to this, having read, read the, seeing the record and looked at.

[52:30] 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.

[52:50] 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.

[53:15] That's a fair restatement.

[53:17] That is what the, I'm just, I'm reciting what the

[53:24] appellate review standard says that you can only reverse the decision of the planning board.

[53:29] If you find that their decision was contrary to specific ordinance provisions or contrary to the facts

[53:35] that were presented to the board. So that's, that is your purview.

[53:41] I would just add your unhitching any accountability at the local level.

[53:46] If there's no review at this level, and we have to go to judicial denove, I don't see what's

[53:51] why do we have a conflict of interest policy in the town.

[53:54] I'm on a town committee as well, and I'm upheld to how you conducted this meeting earlier.

[54:00] If this is true, there's no accountability or responsibility to be conflict pre or to disclose.

[54:08] I'm referring to disclosure.

[54:10] she very well could have voted if they voted for her to vote and that had the review of everyone sitting at that table.

[54:18] Absolutely no argument on my end if it was done properly.

[54:21] So what we're talking about here is there's no longer than if we follow this.

[54:26] 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.

[54:35] That's my last comment on that and I understand if you feel differently.

[54:38] Just very briefly, Mr. Chair, even if this board were to consider this issue, the only portions

[54:48] of your bylaws and conflict-adventurist policy as a couple of board members have always raised

[54:54] address conflict-adventurist.

[54:56] And the vote that is required when there is a pecuniary conflict-adventurist that was

[55:01] never alleged here, I would argue that bias wasn't properly alleged in the appeal papers,

[55:07] but even if we are talking about bias, all of those social media posts were part of the record

[55:13] before the planning board. The planning board did address bias in its meeting and it was

[55:19] not required to ever take a vote. It is permitted to take the judgment of that planning board

[55:28] Remember that they can be impartial regardless of past statements?

[55:34] Somebody could declare the record shows that a person who had the perceived bias,

[55:47] they declared that in the record as a potential conflict of interest.

[55:52] Regardless, I mean, that is the discussion that happened.

[55:55] it was moving from should does she have a conflict based on her bias and that's why I was focused

[56:04] on the procedure for managing that question, not whether you know if what you're saying is true

[56:15] that could have come out during deliberation right because there's a discussion okay someone's

[56:22] or someone else has alleged, like you did, right?

[56:26] You brought up later in the record,

[56:30] a potential conflict.

[56:33] And that those should have been discussed,

[56:38] if bias is in a conflict, then the proceeding could have said,

[56:41] nope, bias is in a conflict.

[56:43] She doesn't have a conflict.

[56:47] So it's not whether there was or was on bias.

[56:51] week we can't we're not going to have our own sub procedure about who didn't didn't have a conflict.

[57:03] But we do not have any zoning ordinance or site plan ordinance that to lean on to make the

[57:13] determination whether they fail to follow the policy because your work does not

[57:18] state, the policy, and it's forgiveness to kind of put a cap on this discussion.

[57:33] I accept what

[57:34] Attorney Hillbreath's points out. I wasn't aware that in prior meetings that those social

[57:45] to post where discussed, I'll accept that they were, they were part of the record, part of the

[57:55] record, I stand corrected, and to Mary's point where this board should be going as far

[58:06] as this, as far as conflict of interest and how we should treat it and as to what it's not

[58:13] the ordinance, and it's not in the planning board document, the site, whatever, the planning

[58:23] board, the guiding document.

[58:26] But I would say just on to complete this, the way in which the subject was addressed in

[58:40] of the public was unusual and I feel that it could have been handled in a much more

[58:50] clear and stepwise fashion, the vice chair, question the person, oh about those things and it

[59:03] kind of a back and forth. And if that was going to be part of discussion,

[59:13] then there should have

[59:14] been a clear polling of the other members of the board that they were in acceptance with

[59:19] that being not a problem, the bias not being a problem for the board. So that's enough for me to

[59:27] on the subject and we can move on to the next item.

[59:33] I appreciate that time and discussion and appeal topic too.

[59:36] Failure to apply what I would call a neutral evidentiary standard.

[59:41] So here in is the Battle of Studies to scientific studies both one commission by the town.

[59:49] The standing study that the town approved is the University of Maine.

[59:54] Dr. Torra Johnson study that found evidence considerable evidence.

[1:07:30] Moving the appeal. Okay, just a still learning period here is one that's doing that.

[1:07:34] Let me just read from your ordinance, because it is, there is a specific language about

[1:07:39] remand within the context. That's not what you're doing tonight where you're doing tonight

[1:07:45] is looking at the facts in the record, and that was before the planning board and determining

[1:07:52] whether that decision was completely contrary to the facts in the record.

[1:07:58] You could have made a different decision as an individual looking at that, but that doesn't matter.

[1:08:04] What matters is, is there something in there that could have supported their decision?

[1:08:09] So this report does that support their decision.

[1:08:11] So that's what you're looking at.

[1:08:13] With regard to a reman, the language says,

[1:08:18] If the board determines that the record of the planning board proceedings are inadequate,

[1:08:23] the board of appeals may remand the matter to the planning board for additional fact finding.

[1:08:30] So that's your purview for remand.

[1:08:33] All right, you're quoting from the Zones only ordinance?

[1:08:36] Yes, 18.8.2.1, which is where the standard, the pellet standard review is.

[1:08:46] Okay, thank you.

[1:08:47] Like it for history, say, the Wigby Bridges application for two Rick houses, large Rick

[1:08:54] houses, was the 941 on the basis of that first study we did.

[1:08:59] I have it, and that's the common record.

[1:09:01] That's not relevant.

[1:09:04] We could move on to the next.

[1:09:06] Was there any other comment from the board as far as, I don't know if I ask you, Paul, if

[1:09:12] I ask Mary, but I'm trying to stay focused and not go out of the lines on what we're

[1:09:17] supposed to be voting on later, and in my mind, and I think, and I have to ask you, and

[1:09:25] I have to ask Mary, are we only supposed to be looking at what is there an impact that

[1:09:31] we're missing that the planning board didn't see to overturn this appeal on the avutters?

[1:09:42] Is there something that they didn't see that we're seeing as an impact, whether it's the environment,

[1:09:50] whether there is significant science stating that there's spores somewhere that...

[1:09:56] Yeah, I would ask Mary, just...

[1:09:59] So in a...

[1:10:00] Yeah, several times.

[1:10:01] So the...

[1:10:02] The appellate standard review is based on the record that the planning board had in front of them,

[1:10:11] was their decision completely contrary to all of that evidence.

[1:10:15] In other words, if there is something in there that could have supported

[1:10:21] the opinion that they had that, you know, they have a study in front of them

[1:10:25] that says there's no problem or if there's something in a record that supports their decision,

[1:10:32] do you uphold that decision?

[1:10:33] You don't draw your own different conclusions based on the evidence that they had.

[1:10:37] You just say, was there something there that supports their decision?

[1:10:44] You don't reinterpret it, you don't, if you had a different opinion,

[1:10:48] if you were on the planning ward, you would have come to a different conclusion,

[1:10:51] that doesn't matter.

[1:10:52] What matters is, is there something in that record that supported their decision?

[1:10:57] The actual language in the stat, in the ordinance, is if you make a finding

[1:11:02] that their decision was contrary to all the facts.

[1:11:09] Okay, no.

[1:11:10] If I could just add, this was not a unanimous decision.

[1:11:15] You're talking about a very divided board, three, two,

[1:11:18] on all of what Mary just said.

[1:11:19] This was not a unanimous.

[1:11:21] It's really not relevant.

[1:11:23] They decided to approve.

[1:11:25] That's the three, two, or five, zero, it's approved.

[1:11:30] That was the decision.

[1:11:34] Okay, so one way move on to the next item.

[1:11:41] And this is a very discussion on the X item,

[1:11:46] so we're going to go to register.

[1:11:48] Well, you have any comments on this item?

[1:11:53] Yeah,

[1:11:56] this entrance of the scientific evidence.

[1:12:02] I'm looking at, I gotta go back to the findings.

[1:12:16] So, I'm looking at the findings of fact, of the most recent meeting, May 6th?

[1:12:24] Yes.

[1:12:25] May 7th.

[1:12:27] May 7th.

[1:12:28] And looking at whether or not this item relates to the

[1:12:37] ordinance, right? There is a statement in the finding of fact about the ordinance, specifically

[1:12:45] 634.

[1:12:50] So I'm looking at, I'm reading, I'm looking at the findings of fact section on conformity

[1:12:58] with the local ordinance and plans written on the May 7th, 2020, 6 meeting. And so the

[1:13:07] conformity, the conformance statement is that the storage of aging whiskey barrels occurs

[1:13:17] on the property where previously permitted, and the UNH study sequencing demonstrates that

[1:13:24] there is no Bidonia present on or near the Wigley Bridge. But it is not, we're not looking

[1:13:34] at whether or not the existing building is producing badonia, it's this crystal ball risk of producing

[1:13:43] badonia in the future. If you're not going to produce it before you have those barrels going

[1:13:52] in there, whether it's a thousand or five thousand or twenty thousand, we don't know what's going

[1:13:59] happen because they're not there yet, and if it did happen, it would revert to code enforcement.

[1:14:10] Right.

[1:14:12] Right.

[1:14:12] And so I'm just wondering whether or not that clarification should be made in the findings

[1:14:21] of fact, that you're finding something in right, that in fact, if this, if this condition

[1:15:00] 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.

[1:15:22] Okay, good enough that it's in the record.

[1:15:24] Yeah, I would agree.

[1:15:28] Okay, so let's move on to that next item,

[1:15:31] failure to verify material fact before.

[1:15:34] Okay, number three, this has to do with a prior meeting

[1:15:38] that impacted the May 7 vote.

[1:15:42] There had been in a QR code.

[1:15:43] I don't know if you have a chance to pull the QR code up.

[1:15:47] That's in the appeal topic three,

[1:15:50] But that's from a meeting when something called an atmosphere dispersion model is a way to determine the amount of ethanol.

[1:16:02] I'm going to object that this is evidence outside of the record.

[1:16:05] This is a hearing that happened or a meeting that happened well before the 2024 site plan decision and absolutely before the 2026.

[1:16:13] This was discussed May 7th, you know, that was discussed May 7th, this topic was discussed in the meeting May 7th.

[1:16:21] What was discussed was whether that anyone believed that that was required and the opinion of the board was not required.

[1:16:29] And you're trying to tell them that it was required based on fire statements in 2023.

[1:16:36] That's not before this story.

[1:16:38] As I said, the board considered dispersion modeling and made clear, and it's finding

[1:16:42] the fact that it considered it.

[1:16:45] It's stated right there, Dr. Frais spoke on the possibility of dispersion modeling, the spread

[1:16:49] of Boudonia, and stated that this modeling would be based on predictions and not empirical

[1:16:54] data.

[1:16:55] The planning board then weighed that, to which this board is, to which there entitled

[1:17:01] reference from this board and decided that empirical DNA evidence far outweighs any need for

[1:17:08] dispersion modeling.

[1:17:09] If I could just finish my thought, I know I'm being cut off here a few times.

[1:17:14] Yeah, and I'm not allowed to continue.

[1:17:16] But I want to just say, the biggest issue here is ethanol.

[1:17:21] And we're minimally, my opinion only doubling the amount of ethanol crossing 636.3.4.

[1:17:28] There's no refuting that by anyone, and there's no conditions set to protect the neighborhood.

[1:17:38] None.

[1:17:39] There's no testing set up to check on that.

[1:17:42] The dispersion model was simply to test how ethanol was emanating for the property.

[1:17:49] This was not, this would have been, hopefully, helpful to wiggly bridge, not harmful to that.

[1:17:56] But this piece I think is an important missing piece and all of this ethanol is the causative factor.

[1:18:04] But more importantly, it's a high VOC.

[1:18:07] It has its own properties that are not helpful to the environment.

[1:18:13] 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.

[1:18:24] or we have to wait till there's a whiskey fungus to stop it and I think there are other ways to do it

[1:18:32] that would be helpful to both sides. I don't see that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:18:38] I would have. This is a quick question for the both lawyers. So yeah, this was the question is not

[1:18:46] whether that study would be good or not. Useful enough. The question is whether it had been

[1:18:54] that the attorney you represented hearing you said I can represent that it was not required.

[1:19:00] It was discussed several times in prior meetings, in prior meetings. There was no record

[1:19:06] of the award ever making it a condition. And those prior meetings were about a site plan application

[1:19:14] that was denied. Yeah, I completely irrelevant. I just had promised, let's say promised and I'll

[1:19:20] to stop with that.

[1:19:22] That's a word that was used.

[1:19:23] Quickly respond.

[1:19:25] The Appellan's opinion that there is a doubling of ethanol crossing the property line

[1:19:30] in his opinion.

[1:19:31] There is no evidence in record stating as much.

[1:19:36] There is no requirement for the planning board to conduct additional studies or third parties.

[1:19:43] It weighs the evidence before it.

[1:19:45] And a statement that this is a high VOC chemical, there is in the record a letter from DEP stating

[1:19:50] that it came and inspected the property and there are no emissions that would fire DEP

[1:19:55] permitting.

[1:19:56] I, I, I, I didn't see that letter in the package, Paul.

[1:19:58] It, it, it does exist.

[1:20:00] That's, that's in the 2024 application, so that was, that was not part of what was presented

[1:20:06] to, to the, to the board this May.

[1:20:08] It was, if they're considering the 2024 decision, which was, to be amended.

[1:20:15] And so there was a question about the concern of production of ethanol above and beyond with the extra barrels.

[1:20:26] 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

[1:20:44] measuring devices or measuring meter monitors that was detect higher levels of ethanol.

[1:20:54] So it isn't that, I'm assuming that that's in the design too, although I don't know that.

[1:20:58] The fire marshals requirements are in the site plan, they were not proposed to be amended

[1:21:04] and so they're not an issue before this board.

[1:21:08] 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.

[1:21:20] That's what I'm saying.

[1:21:21] I agree.

[1:21:22] That's why the fire marshal signed off on the original design.

[1:21:30] Okay.

[1:21:31] Okay.

[1:21:31] Right now, within 100 feet of a butters being loaded with about 100,000 liquid gallons of

[1:21:37] alcohol.

[1:21:38] No.

[1:21:39] Has an incorrect number and not effect?

[1:21:42] Well, you take 1,800 barrels times 53 gallons.

[1:21:46] The board has the sense of this item.

[1:21:50] I think we're equipped.

[1:21:55] Anything else on that?

[1:21:58] So we'll move on to the number four, which I think we will just discuss.

[1:22:03] 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.

[1:22:14] The work on this piece involved when I heard that they were switching.

[1:22:22] This quickly from the approval in October of 24 to from dry storage to alcohol.

[1:22:30] I contacted Chief AppGAR and asked, could you give me any of the standards, or what needs to be done

[1:22:38] if we're going to put, if this is approved, and the building is loaded with, I'm going to say, 100,000 gallons,

[1:22:45] and I'll defer to Attorney Gilbert to put the right number there,

[1:22:52] he responded, he was very good about

[1:22:56] the conference.

[1:22:56] The response is also not in the record.

[1:22:59] Yeah.

[1:23:00] That is in mind.

[1:23:01] There's a letter from him to me, an email.

[1:23:03] And his file papers.

[1:23:04] His appeal papers cannot contain new evidence.

[1:23:07] And so him including a correspondence that was not part of the other record is new evidence.

[1:23:12] Well, if I could finish, he told me the only way he could inspect the new change was a voluntary inspection.

[1:23:23] That's just a good question.

[1:23:25] Did you talk about this at the planning board meeting?

[1:23:28] I brought up the fire issue, just I did.

[1:23:31] Did you talk about this conversation that you had with him?

[1:23:35] I don't know if I mentioned it.

[1:23:36] We had three minutes.

[1:23:37] Oh, I know.

[1:23:38] I'm only saying I'm only saying that because I just want to make it clear.

[1:23:41] This board has an appellate review standard.

[1:23:45] So they can't consider anything that you did not provide.

[1:23:49] I said it at the meeting.

[1:23:51] and whatever turns, but I think it's relevant here.

[1:23:55] It's only relevant if it's something that you said to the planning board.

[1:23:59] So if you could just kind of summarize what you said to the planning board on this issue,

[1:24:03] and not a conversation.

[1:24:05] Sure.

[1:24:06] Okay.

[1:24:08] I appreciate to help.

[1:24:11] David Appgar said I could only inspect based on the approval of any further sent me correspondence

[1:24:18] from the State Fire and Marshall saying that because they had approved two buildings in 23 which

[1:24:25] never were built, never were built.

[1:24:30] We do not have the right to re-inspect the buildings without

[1:24:33] a voluntary inspection. I don't know if that inspection was ever held. I would suspect I would hope

[1:24:39] and maybe the attorney can answer if it was. But I think there should, my opinion, as a citizen,

[1:24:45] I think when you put that much alcohol closer to people, think about your own house and how

[1:24:52] comfortable you would be without there being highest standards.

[1:24:55] Now I'm not suggesting there aren't standards or there aren't sufficient.

[1:25:00] It's we do not know and I think there should be a full voluntary inspection bring it up

[1:25:06] to the highest level for the protection of the people in that community.

[1:25:13] I'm sorry.

[1:25:14] Yeah, I make a brief first.

[1:25:15] Yes, please.

[1:25:17] By his own admission, this is not something that this plan appeals board can decide.

[1:25:23] There's no ordinance requirement for this.

[1:25:26] The evidence is outside the record.

[1:25:28] I would like to point the board to page 3 of 6 of the planning boards may 7 findings of

[1:25:35] and conclusions of law, which summarizes Mr. McCollot's testimony and also to my letter

[1:25:46] to the board at page 11 of Footnote 3, which describes the comments of Fire Chief

[1:25:53] Uppard that planning director Smith read into the record, as well as all correspondence

[1:25:59] between Chief Appar and Woodley Bridges, engineers,

[1:26:05] Boston O'Neill, approving the site plan.

[1:26:13] Are you referring to the Footnote 3 on that page?

[1:26:18] Yes, sir.

[1:26:19] Planning the department's director's miss,

[1:26:21] is that what starts with that?

[1:26:23] Yes, sir.

[1:26:24] What was right into the record on May 7th?

[1:26:27] That was a response to my question to Chief Appar,

[1:26:38] I'm sorry, you said that was read into the record at the meeting.

[1:26:43] I'm sorry.

[1:26:44] Is that, you know, it was very much of the record.

[1:26:50] Okay.

[1:26:51] I thought that was the case, but I'm going to get a little confused.

[1:26:57] Okay.

[1:27:01] So that was the, all the items that you have covered.

[1:27:07] Yeah, so the only other issue here is built containment in a containment area, unknown.

[1:27:14] How it meets the standard, but perhaps it does.

[1:27:17] But it's now a building changing completely in character and loaded with a lot of your,

[1:27:24] Yes, it's in here, it's in here, yeah, it's here.

[1:27:30] But again, if irrelevant to the sports for you,

[1:27:33] it's whether there are facts in the record

[1:27:35] that support the funding for this decision.

[1:27:38] Not, not, you know, standards that may or may not exist

[1:27:41] and that appellant cannot point to.

[1:27:45] Okay.

[1:27:49] So,

[1:27:53] I think, uh...

[1:27:57] So, can I just make one comment here about this conversation,

[1:28:00] which is, there's a

[1:28:02] a lot happened before May 7th and what happened on May 7th was very small and it was an

[1:28:11] amendment to remove a condition from the site land. So there was a lot of discussion about

[1:28:17] all sorts of standards during the site plan review, but that's not the appeal that's here.

[1:28:24] Now, the appeal that's here now is whether the board appropriately decided to remove that

[1:28:32] condition, regarding what can and cannot be stored in the building.

[1:28:37] So just kind of bringing back to that standards, just removing that condition.

[1:28:45] It's being very limited with the information that we have allowed to comment over

[1:28:50] 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.

[1:29:04] Instructure, design, and fire protection, DEP review for spill containment.

[1:29:12] I'm assuming that. So it was ready to go.

[1:29:17] So, I hope you never will find any of that in the stuff.

[1:29:20] Yeah, right now.

[1:29:23] No, it's just other than the definition that it is a rick us.

[1:29:27] No, it doesn't even talk it to it as a rick us.

[1:29:31] So, well, in the coast is planning for meetings, we can't look at that though.

[1:29:38] Well, in the context of what I just said,

[1:29:43] Everything that was presented, you know, that was the site plan approval, was approved as presented.

[1:29:53] It was designed for a certain purpose and prior to what we're talking about now.

[1:30:00] 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.

[1:30:24] I would have hoped and assume that, but we didn't have that.

[1:30:27] That approval came in a meeting in 2024.

[1:30:31] October 2020.

[1:30:32] I want to look at this thing.

[1:30:34] So my point is the condition didn't change on the building.

[1:30:37] Okay.

[1:30:38] Thank you.

[1:30:40] So just coming back to our decision here, and I'll read it once more.

[1:30:47] I've heard it a few times already, but just to make sure everybody understands.

[1:30:51] So, let

[1:30:58] me get to the right place, excuse me for a second while I, so, okay, so I'm just going to begin.

[1:31:08] 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.

[1:31:22] only upon finding that the decision was contrary to specific provisions of the ordinance or contrary

[1:31:30] to the facts presented to the planning board. The Board of Appeals may only review the

[1:31:38] record of the proceedings before the planning board. I didn't read the complete statement, but that's

[1:31:45] state, but that pertains to us.

[1:31:52] So this

[1:31:58] is, which you read the article number again.

[1:32:06] 188.

[1:32:08] 188.

[1:32:09] 188.

[1:32:10] 188.

[1:32:11] 188.

[1:32:12] 188.

[1:32:22] So this board has to decide to approve or

[1:32:28] to deny this appeal application,

[1:32:35] I would, I think we've discussed it sufficiently, anybody

[1:32:38] won't have any other comment on what I just read or what we've heard tonight.

[1:32:48] So then I would, I would entertain a motion on whether or not we accept or deny this application.

[1:33:15] I am prepared to do a motion, and I would like the 18-821.

[1:33:27] Yeah, that's, as opposed to going each one, each one of these.

[1:33:35] Yeah, do a combined motion for the applications.

[1:33:43] I just want to.

[1:33:45] 18-8.2.1 B.

[1:33:48] Right.

[1:33:54] And do we cite it or do we go into and read the language into the motion?

[1:34:04] I think you just cite it because that's the language is there.

[1:34:10] Okay.

[1:34:15] Okay,

[1:34:21] I make a motion in the application of Kenneth J. McCollough at

[1:34:32] 445 U.S. Route 1,

[1:34:37] map 54, lot 10C.

[1:34:49] Okay, okay. In the matter concerning the weekly bridge distillery,

[1:34:59] 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.

[1:35:23] Board has reviewed the existing planning board record

[1:35:32] and

[1:35:33] And as defined in the town of York, zoning ordinance,

[1:35:43] section 18.8, 0.2, 0.1, the board denies the application, denies the application.

[1:35:58] The application of the appeal.

[1:36:00] It denies the appeal.

[1:36:05] Any discussion?

[1:36:11] Can I have a second?

[1:36:12] Second.

[1:36:13] Seconds that I'll have a vote then.

[1:36:18] My votes are no.

[1:36:19] Denial of the appeal.

[1:36:21] So yes.

[1:36:23] Robert.

[1:36:24] I agree.

[1:36:26] That.

[1:36:28] Yes.

[1:36:29] Chair votes. Yes.

[1:36:30] Five zero.

[1:36:31] The appeal is denied.

[1:36:32] Thank

[1:36:46] you for your time tonight. I also want to just recognize Liz Cooper from Code

[1:36:53] very helpful. Representative the town great so did both Brendan and Dylan very helpful

[1:37:02] met with us responded quickly. Give us access and if I could just close with this thought

[1:37:10] I think our town is a need of an idea that would manage and help support progressive growth

[1:37:19] at a way that is fair, impartial, yet beneficial to the entire community for future generations.

[1:37:28] Right now, I think the planning staff is...

[1:37:30] It's overloaded. They're trying to manage. Again, look out if you get some kind of disruptive

[1:37:35] technology wanting to come here. These arguments exponentially get bigger. And I think an

[1:37:41] idea and this is nothing to do with your purview. But me as a citizen, I think an idea would

[1:37:46] be a positive working very closely with planning, the planning department and helping to grow

[1:37:53] community in a way and I appreciate again everyone's time this evening and thank you.

[1:38:44] I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:38:49] All in favor?

[1:38:51] Okay.

[1:38:52] Thank you.

[1:38:53] adjourn.

Board of Appeals

Transcript