Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Findings And Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belgrade planning board votes to have member George Seal draft written findings of fact
Summary
At an emergency Jan. 14 meeting the Belgrade Planning Board unanimously voted to charge member George Seal with drafting written findings of fact and conclusions of law that explain the board’s reasoning on its prior votes; the draft will go to the town attorney for review and possible circulation to the parties.
The Belgrade Planning Board voted unanimously Jan. 14 to charge planning board member George Seal with drafting written findings of fact and conclusions of law that will explain the reasoning behind the board’s recent votes and to forward the draft to the town attorney for review.
The matter arose after the town attorney reviewed the application and recommended the board include written explanations for each voting item. Chair Sarah Langette said the attorney’s immediate feedback was "to put an explanation to every voting item," and that the proposed document would not change past votes but would set out the reasoning behind them.
Members said the draft should reflect the public record and the basis for the majority vote. Seal described factors that informed his decision on the contested application, including the board’s obligation to follow Chapter 1000 and the town shoreline ordinance, a comparison of two structures in the application, and an assertion that the site’s septic system "can hold basically 50 people in the law at the time one day." Other members said the findings should record testimony and material on the record rather than relitigate legal conclusions.
Langette moved to assign the drafting task to George Seal, and Craig Alexander seconded. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote; the minutes record the yes votes of Nick Sakaro, Peter Surgeon, George Seal, Craig Alexander and Richard Baker. The board’s action directs Seal to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law that explain the reasons for each vote and to submit the draft to the town attorney for review and editing.
Board members discussed whether the draft should be circulated to the parties who previously participated in the hearings. Langette said the drafter would send the document to the town attorney, who "will decide whether he’s going to send directly to both lawyers." Members also agreed the final document would be included in the next meeting packet for review and possible approval.
The board adjourned after completing the assignment. Seal’s draft and the town attorney’s recommendations will determine whether additional edits or distribution to interested parties are required before the board considers the findings at a future meeting.
