Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

; I , j .1 ! ~ h '1 ; " I t ! I ;,; i 'J ~. ~ .. I . '.. J I , .. I' I I f. ! ; i j I '. I ! I i I I ()"" ........:............. {~l:_~.-.:~ C. ., '.... ~.,' ) '. ',' May 10, 20081 Volume 21 No.9 C"\ After Megin failed to comply with a directive to remove "unreg- istered. and/or unroadable motor vehicles" stored on the Property, the town issued a cease and desist order against Megin. That order informed Megin that his use of the Property as a junkyard was not permitted by the town's zoning regulations. Megin was ordered to re- move the "junk vehicles, trailers and other debris'; from the Property. Megin appealed the cease and desist order to the town's zoning board of appeals (the board). In preparation for the hearing on that appeal, the town's land use inspector, Sarah Acheson, prepared a memorandum for the board. In that memorandum, Acheson stated that there were dozens of unreg- istered vehicles and trailers, as well as a variety of construction ma- terials and debris on the Property. Acheson said the Property was a junkyard, in clear violation of the town's zoning regulations. At the hearing on the appeal, Megin claimed that his junkyard was a preexisting, nonconforming use. In response, Acheson stated there was no record of such a preexisting nonconforming use. She also stat- ed that she had no knowledge of the Property being used as a farm. After the public hearing was over, the board held an executive ses- sion "business meeting." Acheson attended the meeting, at which she made four remarks: (1) that Megin was saying the Property was a junkyard that was preexisting; (2) that there were dozens of vehicles on the property; (3) that the issue of preexisting use first came up at the hearing; and (4) that the Property was not a farm. The board upheld the cease and desist order against Megin. Megin appealed to the superior court~ The court dismissed his appeal. Megin appealed to the appellate court, arguing that Acheson's participation .' in the business meeting violated his right to f~damental fairness. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that AchesoJi's participation in the board's business meeting following the close ot public hearing did not violate Megin's right to fundamental fairness. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that while proceedings before zoning and planning boards and comtnissions were informal and were conducted without regard to strict rules on submission of evidence, they must be 'conducted in a way that was fundamentally fair. Specifically, the court said that zoning boards and' commissions could receive in executive session technical and professional assis- tance in matters beyond their expertise, but that parties to the con- troversy must have the opportunity to know of and offer rebuttal evi- dence to all information so obtained. r ....'..::: . .,; ~ ~._..." ti '. .~- . ,:..' :'';' -,,;, 3 '., 83