Present: David Cooper, Ann Pearce, Pat Liddle, John Stelling, Bill Wallace

TRANSCRIBED FROM A TAPE RECORDING:

Chairman Cooper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with two people in the audience, one of whom was Sandy Haakonsen, new alternate member of the board. The purpose of the meeting is to take a closer look at the zoning and review a few things that Ann and David discussed re working with an alternate.

Motion by Pat Liddle with 2nd by Ann Pearce to approve the minutes of the special May 12, 2009 meeting as amended and rewritten. All in favor.

Discussion of how the board will apply the alternate position. Ann and David discussed the matter previously. Once we enact the alternate on a specific case, the alternate would follow it through to its logical end, so that we are not flip-flopping. But it may mean, at a specific meeting the alternate would participate in accepting the file and the public hearing process but after the public hearing, the regular member may come back up for deliberation. We can work through any awkwardness. There is a logic to that, once someone’s on a case, they have some time invested in it and are going to be more familiar. It gives more of a purpose to having an alternate. Ann feels it sounds like it would be OK. If a member knows in advance they are going to miss a particular meeting, they can alert the board chair. Appellants need consistency, which goes to having the alternate follow through with accepting the file and the public hearing on a specific file. John’s only problem is, the only time the alternate is supposed to come into play is when there’s a conflict of interest. David thinks the town board expanded it to include an absence. John’s reference is a 1994 book received at a seminar. David read the local law. It addresses specifically maintaining a quorum. Its scope is broader than simply a conflict of interest. David discussed it with town attorney Andy Howard, saying they’d like the alternate member to follow a case specifically when they are used so there is consistency, and Mr. Howard concurred. The alternate term is two years. Pat says we can see how it has gone after a year with operating methods changed as appropriate. Discussion of Sandy’s role. She will have to shadow the meetings until there is an opportunity for her to participate. She will have to have the training. When we go over the new zoning law tonight, that will be considered an hour’s training of the required four. David will look for a zoning board of appeals course from the state that would be a good refresher for the seasoned members and a real help to the new members. Pat asks if there will be six members with five up on the dais. What if a regular member has been with a case and it comes time to vote and for some reason the regular member can’t be there, can the alternate step in if they were there for accepting the file and the hearing? David says, when members have been absent, he depends on the member who was absent to educate themselves via the minutes, notes of other members, etc. If not, the alternate can be used if they have attended the meetings when the cases were reviewed, as long as the alternate feels confident to vote on the matter. John envisioned that the alternate would be up at the table with us and participating in the discussion. We have all been doing this for a fair amount of time one way or another. Someone sitting in the audience not participating on a case-by-case basis may not learn as much as sitting up with the board looking at the maps, reading the files, etc. Discussion of the point. David doesn’t think the alternate can participate to the extent that they start to pose questions. The appellants expect to deal with five board members, not six. The alternate could be on the dais as long as everyone knows they’re the alternate. We can do a roll call before we start the meeting with the alternate identified as such. The alternate wouldn’t make motions or 2nd them unless designated as taking the place of a particular member. We will try it but don’t want to end up with a six-person vote. The alternate will be up on the dais. It would be more seamless than being in the audience. The only reason to go into executive session would be to protect a trade secret or a personal matter that shouldn’t be publicly aired. Otherwise, it’s appropriate to be open.

Brief discussion of summer education opportunity, planning board minutes mention of site plan of shed business at state line, who is working on a ZBA application. At the old motel area on [Route 102], right at the state line.

The zoning law package needs some fine tuning. The table of contents doesn’t perfectly match the page numbers just yet. It should be corrected. Discussion of discrepancies. The planning board has the responsibility of updating the zoning laws from time to time. The board reviewed the definitions. John has an issue in that the old law said if a business was in operation with a use prior to the enactment of the zoning law and hence without a site plan, and then they changed that use, they didn’t have to revise a site plan because they didn’t have one to revise. When the committee was going over the law for this iteration, they wanted to remedy that so that an “old” business would have to produce a site plan if they changed a use. John hasn’t seen that in the new law and would like the board at some point to determine if it’s in there. The board continued review of the definitions. They stopped at Page 11, Parking Lot, Commercial.

Motion by Pat Liddle with 2nd by Bill Wallace to adjourn. All in favor. Adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

For the board,


Julie Alexander, Clerk

Back to index of Meeting Minutes