Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Quarry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quarry matter remains on status report after residents press for answers; solicitor says hearing cannot proceed without applicant present
Summary
Public commentators asked the council to keep quarry-related updates on the agenda and press the applicant for outstanding information. Council members agreed to place the item on the status/progress report for regular updates, but the town solicitor advised the council that substantive public-hearing discussion and Q&A require the applicant to be
Several residents and speakers raised concerns about quarry operations and asked the council to keep the quarry matter actively on the agenda rather than allowing it to lapse. Farrell McMillan (VFW Post 6342) and Richard Grubb (resident) spoke during public comment and later in the open-forum portion, urging the council to seek answers about grandfathered acreage, a road-use permit and other outstanding questions from the quarry applicant.
Richard Grubb said he had expected the quarry to provide specific answers (for example, tax contributions) and expressed frustration that questions previously asked had not been answered.
Council discussion focused on how to keep the public informed without unintentionally running afoul of hearing procedures. One councilor recommended placing the quarry matter on the council's status/progress report with regular updates to "release that pressure valve" for residents. The council president said a newsletter item explained the town was still seeking experts to assist in technical review.
Town Solicitor cautioned the council that, under applicable hearing procedures, the town cannot conduct a public hearing on the merits of an application without the applicant present and given the opportunity to respond. Solicitor guidance limited what the council could do during an agenda-status update: the council can provide administrative updates (for example, whether experts have been engaged) but cannot take evidence or field substantive cross-examination or public questions about the application unless the applicant is present.
Council outcome: the council agreed to keep the quarry matter on the status/progress report and to provide procedural updates on expert recruitment and timelines. The council also directed administration to request outstanding factual items from the applicant in writing so staff can report back; it did not reopen the public hearing or take any formal substantive votes on the application at the May 19 meeting.
Ending: Residents were invited to submit specific questions in writing; staff will compile those questions and attempt to obtain responses from the applicant and will report progress in future status updates.
