[Music] all right it is I will now call the select board meeting to order on February 27th for
532 if you can please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance a pledge of allegiance FL of the United States of America IND with Liberty Justice thank you so a continued public hearing will
be held on Thursday February 27th 2025 at 10 West State Street Grammy Mass to consider a gravel permit application by LJ Development LLC applicant and owners James and Kathy a slate et44 Mercier Drive belter toown Mass to
remove earth materials from property located on Trum Avenue as per the zoning bylaw section five special use regulations and performance standards 5.8 Earth removal of the town of grany so we will start first if uh the
applicant can come up and address you could you address your attorney first my attorney couldn't be here okay yeah absolutely they've been talking and so he he he put in a request and I'm not exact I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what's going on no I totally understand
that um but I am going to ask because G Cam's having a hard time hearing at home if when you do um speak you can come up to the front thank you so attorney Costa if you can um just let us all know um what the letter said um sure so uh as you had announced
tonight was intended to be a continuation of the public hearing on this application for a gravel permit U gravel special permit um we've had a number of meetings thus far um special permits require public
hearings as a matter of state law this is not something that's unique to Grand be uh a public hearing for a simple project can be open and closed and maybe even voted upon in a single evening but other projects more complex projects uh
often require public hearings that are continued from time to time over series of public hearings and that's what has occurred here I think you've had five or six of them I don't know the exact number because they actually predate my involvement in the matter um something
that uh I became aware of only maybe three or four weeks ago was that uh prior to me being engaged as special counsel for the board and in fact I believed even prior to attorney berthume being engaged to represent the interests
of the applicant there were a couple of initial meetings uh initial sessions of the public hearing convened and conducted by the board um without the same membership on the board as exist today uh one of your members
was not a member at the time for two or three sessions of the public hearing that's problematic because the law requires and is long required that uh to be eligible to vote you attend every session of a multi- session public
hearing now a number of years ago there was a stat amendment made that allows if your community has adopted the amendment and gry has that allows members of an adjudicatory body to miss one session of
a multi- session public hearing and to review the video or to review a transcript of that session and to sign a certification and file it in in the in the record um and then preserve his or her qualification to vote the problem is
that statute is limited to one session as soon as a member misses a second session that members renders him or herself ineligible to vote on the application now sometimes that's a non-issue this this problem arises with some frequency uh with respect to
projects that are reviewed over an extended period of time um not much of a problem with a five or seven member board even if the the application requires a super majority vote um if a member becomes ineligible there may still be AIC ient number of remaining
members to vote on the application well the problem here is this is a special permit and the law says for a special permit the three- member board can only approve that special permit by way of a unanimous vote so all three of you would need to vote in favor of the special
permit for the permit to be granted There's no practical way that that can occur because not all three of you are eligible to to vote on the application so I made attorney berum aware of this issue um I told him that in my experience
there are a few different ways and I shouldn't say I told him I suspect he knew it because uh this is not his first rodeo either um but there are a few different ways to get around or to resolve this issue of ineligibility to vote the most common way is to
reconstitute the board and that's a that's terminology that we use you won't find it in any statute but essentially what it means is You Ren notice the public hearing as if it were starting from scratch because of course those who were attending in your audience today they haven't been getting mailed notice
of every session of the hearing they got a mailed notice of the first session and then you've announced your continuances well by reconstituting the board and ren noticing the public hearing you're essentially starting from scratch and therefore you're rendering all members
at the First new session uh as eligible to vote on the application um that might make some sense if the applicant were ready today or or anticipated being ready in a couple of weeks to proceed with the application um it might also be
appropriate if there was a belief that the current membership of your board was going to be stable over the course of the next three to six months or however long it might take there be a couple or three more sessions of a public hearing um I don't think either of those things
are true we have received a reports that uh or all of the reports that the board had requested a number of months ago which we had anticip ated receiving in advance of tonight's meeting um I also understand that you have a seat that will be up for um up for grabs in the
annual election in May um and that um the incumbent may not be running for re-election I don't know if that's the case or not but there's no certainty there so um as a consequence of all of that um what I suggested to attorney beru was the appropriate thing to do
would be to withdraw the application and to to reapply at such time as number one his client is ready with the relevant information documentation reports to actually prosecute the application to advance it before the board and number
two at a time when he believes the membership of the board is going to be stable for a period of a few months to allow those reports to be reviewed peer-reviewed and ultimately for the board to vote on the application so as a consequence of those discussions which
have occurred over the course of the past week or so we received a letter letter yesterday from attorney burum asking for a withdrawal without prejudice um that last phrase without prejudice uh simply means that um and it's a it's a bit it's a bit odd in
circumstances like these it's a terminology that the courts use um all it means is that there is no Prejudice to U preventing you from making application again in the future um the law says that applicants are entitled to request withdrawals without prejudice
from special permit granting authorities like your board in this instance but that once the public hearing has been noticed and in this case gotten under way it's been under way for quite some time uh that withdrawal can't be done unilaterally by the applicant it
requires a vote of the so that's that's where we are okay I'm I'm confused question there's without fud this and then there's also another
option there is um another option right there is so the the the obvious um sort of corollary to without prejudice is with prejudice uh with prejudice would have the effect of preventing in
the zoning context any way it would have the effect of preventing a reapplication within a period of two years because essentially a withdrawal with prejudice has the same force and effect as a denial of the um so that would be the the alternative
option I will say because I think it's important I I don't generally see withdrawals in fact I can't remember having ever seen and I've been doing this for 19 years having ever seen a withdrawal with PRS because if an applicant got the sense and in fact attorney Beres letter says it if an
applicant got the sense that a board is going to withdraw only with preators they would resend their request to withdraw and they would either opt to proceed and take their chances with the denial merits which they would then appeal if they were dissatisfied with it
um or um or or or they would simply um uh prosecute with the intent of of obtaining ultimately obtaining the permit or I suppose they could challenge the withdrawal with prejudice as an effective denial which in my experience would simply result in the court
remanding it to the board to gather additional information so I don't know that a withdrawal with prejudice um make sense in this case and again if you look at the letter that was submitted by attorney berthume he explicitly states that he's asking for a withdrawal without prejudice and if the board is
not inclined to grant that then he asks for a further continuance to reconstitute the board but um he's only going to reconstitute the board to allow him to appear before the board again in four to six weeks I would say only for him to continue the process to maybe
have to reconstitute the board again after the annual Town election um which didn't to make more sense no okay um Mr Jackson do you want to come up did you have anything you wanted to add to that just yeah
one I'm Neil excuse me I'm Neil Jackson one of the owners of LJ development um I think one of one of the one of the request by the board is a particulate study
and we've we've tried unsuccessfully to get anybody to even um give us a scope of services because they don't know what the board's requesting I reached out to um the Town
Administrator Chris Martin uh before he left and he gave me a couple names of Engineers and I contacted both they don't do it um so I sent a a letter requesting um any Engineers that that
Kathy Leonard was aware of and which she um forwarded the the requests to um your attorney and you know it's common practice I think he was upset that we were asking um for any Rec and it's not
really a recommendation we were just asking for a list of of many professionals that that do that type of work and that's very common um I'm an engineer and and I
request um lists of Professionals in conservation meetings and Board of Health meetings of people that do work that I don't do so I was doing a job for an engineer from tyan bond that I asked him and they I think they have 800
employees now so they're probably the biggest engineering firm in the state and they basically said they cannot provide a scope of services cuz they have no idea what the board's asking for so they need clarification
too so I don't know who they would talk to if they talk to the select board or the attorney for clarification but they don't know what what the board's asking for so from my understanding the particulate matter in the air is when um
the Gravel Pit is being used what debris is going to be in the air and how far is it going to travel so that to me is the scope and attorney Costa if you want to clarify because you've been part of this before with particular
matter so so so that was my understanding I mean this was terminology that the board adopted in referring to particular matter but I think ultimately and again I don't want to speak for your board but I think ultimately what it was that the board was seeking was essentially some
confirmation through a qualified consultant that the air pollution generated by this particular project would not have adverse impacts on uh the health or quality of life of nearby residential homework they weren't going
to see consistent dust in the air that they would be breathing in and choking when they're in their backyards having you know Barbecues in the summertime um so I don't know you know again the terminology the board chose was particulate matter um I don't know that
if you go to Ty and ju's website for example you're going to find a link to a particulate matter study but certainly Ty Bon being one of the largest engineering firms in the state um can perform air pollution studies they they do site assessments they recommend remediation I've had them involved in
projects in which I've been involved um I wasn't upset I I did see that email exchange and I think I responded either to Kathy or to Chris and I I sometimes email doesn't convey tone so I certainly hope it wasn't perceived as me being upset that there was a request that was
made I think what I said was something to the effect of you know I already recommended to the board peer review Consultants on these various topics and for the applicant to now ask for the town whether it be through Town Council or the board or staff to recommend who the applicant should be using um that's
really on the app the applicant's been asked for a study the applicant should should connect with engineering firms I understand maybe there was something commun with this techology hope hopefully if some of these same engineering firms that maybe um the applicant has previously
contacted um are contacted again with this additional specificity using terminology like air pollution um dust um risks to the the public health maybe they'll better understand what it is I don't think it's a terribly complicated
study it's simply going to evaluate the extent to which um this operation is going to create dust in the air how that dust will travel and then what possible mitigation measures occur I see this all the time with routine projects that aren't gravel removal operations
obviously to a much lesser extent but this is a concern during the construction phase of most every project subdivisions multif family housing projects shopping plazas where if you've got a site that is Dusty um it has real effects on neighbors so there are ways
where they can use watering trucks they can keep the dust down um and typically Engineers can make those recommendations as part of the remediation that they propos in their reports right well their their response was they've never never seen a request for a particular study
during the permitting process it's always requested during once the permit is granted to make sure when the operation is is actually in effect what the what the air quality is at that time because the only way they
could do it before we have a permit is do to do modeling and modeling is really you can make modeling do whatever you want it to do unfortunately so you know a real particulate study would have
to be done during the operation of the gravel pad and there and there you know that's what they told me so well it to be honest with you it makes sense because right now you're asking for a permit to use the pit you can't use the pit until
you get the permit right so how can you know how far the particulate matter is going to travel right if you're not using the pen right mean so when you model it you would have to go in and dig right and well they would actually do modeling but you need you know you need the findes and the soil you you know you
need cont the the the moisture content you know there's a lot of variables that you can keep Chang your numbers in a computer to get it to spit out what you want it to do and and actual it you know you really want to do it during the operation so you have a
realistic number and uh attorney Costa have you um is the ones that you've been a part of has it been modeling that you've seen before they've started the construction or the building
phases it it has I mean the challenge with the with the suggestion that it would be done later is that there's nothing before you later you've issued the perit and once you issued the permit you've lost control now there are mechanisms and there are instances where
conditions of approval could be crafted if you saw fit to Grant the special permit that would require uh subsequent studies to ensure that U appropriate standards are being satisfied I've seen this done before there are uncertainties
and aort will require certain testing be done noise is a good example so maybe noise modeling will be done and this is not something you've asked for in the context of this project I'm just giving it as an example but if noise were a concern um many boards will require an applicant to prepare an acoustic study
now that you know you can make the same argument how could we possibly know what the noise is going to be nothing's been built yet well because there are resources that can be used and there there's modeling uh that can be done to approximate what the noise will be there's on-site ambient readings that can be taken and then what many boards
will do is they will um rely upon representations by an app that here's the modeling we've done we are are told by our Consultants that there's no reason why the decal level will exceed 45 DB above ambient and then you'll
include that as a condition of approval and you will require that six months following completion of construction there are further is a further noise study done to verify that in fact as was modeled and as was promised to you the readings do not exceed 45 DB of our
ambient well the same thing goes go for something like articulate matter or or or dust or or or air pollution um you know I I I appreciate this argument that the the numbers can always be adjusted to spit out you know through the
modeling process whatever an applicant is paying for well that's why you peerreview these studies right I mean you can say the same thing about studies that are done every day on projects residential non-residential projects traffic studies traffic studies are are required in more than 50% of the project
s in which I assist local boards well how can you possibly do a traffic study if the project isn't built yet you don't know how many cars are coming or going well because there are third-party resources that can be relied upon there are manuals that can be be cited to and modeling that can be done to approximate
the number of cars that are generated by certain types of operations based on databases that exist um that are to which these these Engineers have access so um again I don't know the to which the study is going to get into great
detail um but I suspect that there is some modeling that can be done there's there is some some soil study that can be done to determine the moisture content of the soil and how that relates to what is expected in terms of dirt and dust being thrown into the air as part of this operation um but I think that's
what the board wanted again this isn't this isn't my request this is the board's request if if you're convinced that this can't be done or shouldn't be done or it's premature you have the the authority discretion to resend that request or to require that study be done at a later date but if it's going to be
done at a later date there needs to be some Benchmark that needs to be satisfied because I've had boards request conditions and say do a study in six months and then then there's a period that's the end of the condition okay so they do a study in six months and the study reveals that it's an
absolute disaster and there's dust in the air seven seven days a week well you don't have anything before you at that point you've granted the special permit you can't you can't do anything about it so you need a benchmark and you need some recourse in the event that that
study gets done in the future and uh things don't pan out the way that they're expected right and and we would certainly be open to a benchmark of of what you know what what particular
matter is acceptable and what's not you know and they could probably provide that um what's an accept acceptable particulate matter in the air you know during a a gravel pit operation and then monitor it during the operation and you certainly can put in there if we exceed
it you pull our permit you know the problem with us using TI and bond and again I've developed land my whole life we never use tyan Bond because almost every town in western Mass uses tyan bond for peer review so it's kind of hard to use them when the town uses
them but I think they're the only ones they're the only ones that do it so I know attorney Costa had mentioned that um there's going to be a change in board members and there is I am stepping down from the select board um I'm not going to run for another term
that's too bad so I think um I I think it would be a waste of time and this is just me speaking I think it would a waste of time for not only you guys but the taxpayers and the select board to reconstitute it now that because Dave had missed two or three of
the meetings prior and then to reconstitute it again later I do think that's a waste of everybody's time so um my opinion is to uh grant them the withdrawal without prejudice that would be my recommendation
because but as attorney Costa said I really feel that when you guys are ready to come back that you need to come back with all those studies and I know the particulate matter in the air was um confusing with the wording that was there but I think that the modeling I
would urge you and again I'm not going to be on the board so the three members that are up here might have a different uh recommendation but I would urge you to do that study um with the modeling and have it peer reviewed so there's a starting point and then like you said we can have a benchmark to set from there
um and then I know traffic analysis still needed to be done um there was I think an i ideology one that was submitted at one point but we still haven't had that peer reviewed and it wasn't quite a full analysis um and then there was the
hydrologic study too so I mean I'll let the other two board members speak what they believe that would be my recommendation myself being the one that had missed the meetings I think it would only be fair to also withdraw without
prejudice to allow you to put things together and move forward down the road if you can yeah I I would agree with both you this is something I brought up over a month ago in one of our meetings actually this exact point talking about
it that it could become a a concern and chair would you take uh statement before you have a formal vote in regard to the withdraw um in a moment did you have anything else you wanted to say um yeah could could Ty and bond talk
to a board member or your attorney just to get um so they could they could actually provide us with a scope of Services of exactly what you're looking for be careful that shifts the burden of responsibility to you for defining that study so attorney Costa have you ever
had that happen before so um so I'll say this the the board is requesting a study and it is fair for an applicant to want to know the parameters of what that study ought to be what it is that the board is requesting um I I I don't think it's appropriate for the
board to attempt or for me to attempt quite candidly to uh to play the role of of environmental engineer I I heard the board Express concerns about things like um dirt and dust and air pollution and
the terminology that it chose to capture all of that was particulate matter um that's about the extent of what I'm going to be able to say to whether it be Ty and bond or any of the other uh environmental firms in Massachusetts and there are many of them um that would
potentially perform a peer review so I don't know what more I'm going to be able to offer um it's going to be a different board when a reapplication is made although it sounds like two of the board members will be the same if either of those two board members are willing
to have a conversation with an engineering firm speaking for themselves only and saying what their concerns are I mean I think I think it's hard got the record um but it's really not it's it's for the board to say what it's concerned about and what it wants studied and how
that gets studied and what gets presented to the board we're not going to define the scope of services for the engineering fir okay okay yeah Jen do you want I would like to okay okay thank
you hello hi Jim try 290 Taylor Street co- applicant uh representing my family um I've got some concerns here this is almost 10 months the board should have notified us
10 months ago that we should have reapplied or or what our options were well the same thing that attorney Costa said your attorney didn't know he didn't know because they both came in later and we didn't know because we're a part-time board so once it became but where where
is I understand that we're all at the part-time board I'm a part-time board as as I chair the the the planning board it's our responsibility to know to know this and we should have been notified 10
months ago nine months ago whenever it was and then we could have started the process then rather than rather than finding out about it today but we still don't have the studies regardless so we still waiting six months yeah well that's your
that's that's a that's a mood point because whether we provide the studies or not we can say we're done with our application okay and as far as the the um air quality and attorney uh Costa mentioned
uh subdivisions so what's what subdivisions do when when they're being um approved is they put conditions that if and if you look at the bylaws it'll state that so and I'll just I'll just do this
in in lay in terms that if if it's not allowed for for any um parent to to breach your property and by doing so in other words if if there's 10 acres of of area that's
going to be disturbed for the subdivision you're not allowed to disturb it all you need to keep top soil on it if you're if you're stockpiling materials it needs to be seated or it needs to have top soil on it so that over a period of time
subdivision may go on for 10 years and if you've stockpiled materials that that become airborne you have to you have to put either seed it pop soil hay or something you have to manage them that's all part
of the the conditions so to say we want studies a study doesn't mean anything you can say what could happen the thing is you put you put mechanism mechanisms in place ahead of time so if it is happening
whether the study took took effect uh two years earlier there's mechanisms that you're that you have to uh use to mitigate it but that's assuming that the applicant knows how to mitigate it right
so if you've never had a gravel pit it's assuming that you know how to mitigate something that you've never had before no no like attorney Costa said there's you know it it applies to subdivisions it's it's common practice
you don't disturb soils you know uh a year in advance you only you only pull the top soil off for what you're using in that particular time so that you're not creating more Airborne or a subdivision you're not
creating a pile of of material that's that's becoming Airborne you cover it whether it's top soil hay seating it what whatever the the the uh the process may be at that at that
particular site um I can't I can't imagine or I have never heard of anybody asking for that type of a study before on this type of operation well attorney pasta has dealt with lots of
different projects and he has so I'm going to take him at his work maybe so but but I'm telling you I haven't we haven't done that in this town before subdivisions other gravel pits other operations going on in this town it's never been asked before so you did
mention that this the um studies that were asking are a mute point so are you saying that you're not going to come with the studies I didn't say that I'm just saying that it hasn't been requested before okay and to me there's no need to do it there's there's
a process and a and a um a work process that that's common conditions for operating a site whether it's a subdivision or a gravel pit but the board did ask you for them in order to Grant the special permit so
correct and as as Neil said Mr Jackson said there's been some confusion on exactly what they're looking for because it's not common even with the engineers they're like what what ex What specifically are you asking for and when you go into that kind of detail usually there's a scope of services looking
for and we don't know what the scope is cu it's not common practice and and Mr Jackson asked what specifically would you would you be looking for which is the dust the dirt and the air pollution okay
y but again back to what I originally started why are why why did it take 10 months to for us to find out that you weren't it's like kicking the can down the street you could do it again you could do it with you could do it with the next board ask for all these
different things and then and then a couple board members let's say let's say all three of you are here next year and and three one of you decides that you're not going to make three meetings where's the onus on the town to
live up to their obligation for an applicant so when you look at the board members I think there's only one person on this board that's ever missed a board meeting since I've been on here for the last three years I've never missed one no no I'm not I'm not I'm just saying what happens we get a new board
next year we we reapply it's your responsibility and one board member determines they're not going to show up for three meetings three hearings or two hearings what's the minimum you're
allowed one you're allowed to miss one so you miss two whether it's whether it's on purpose or accidental just couldn't do it so I can't so then so then the the process starts all over again that I think that's probably a
question for for the attorney but well we know there's got to be some liability on the town that you have an obligation for the applicant if you had the studies we could reconstitute reconstitute the board one meeting as
attorney costen in which you would run us through everything as if you're starting a new and then we could move on with it and there could be a vote before I even left my select Board office but I don't have the studies so we can't reconstitute the
board so I hear what you're saying but we also have been waiting for over six months for those studies so yeah but just remember there's that as well we we need we also need to remember who kicked the can down the street first the the the the the continuation
hey hey hey folks please please please thank you the first continuations were by the town and we continueed them to hear the public out that's right because each time we came back we were asking for
something a little different so that that's all I had to say okay thank you thank you thank you um attorney Costa so to answer um Mr try's Question if a member on the next
board does Miss two meetings or more than one meeting they would have to spend one meeting reconstituting the board again right because that's the law but then they could continue with the hearing correct I mean this is just a
reality of municipal government and it is particularly difficult in communities with three member and three boards sometimes it's a select board sometimes it's a zoning board of appeals uh where a unanimous vote of all three members is
requ a special particular but also a VAR for that matter or to issue an administrative appeal of reversing a building commission of determination all three of those forms of relief require unanimous votes of three member boards and so uh I appreciate an applicant's
frustration I I don't know that I appreciate Mr ky's frustration here because I think these circumstances are egregious and the the board has been asking for something repeatedly from the that hasn't been produced so I'm not sure here that the the party in the wrong is the board it's Al it's also
should be noted that the the the reason why a member of your board is ineligible ineligible to vote is not because that member chose to not come to meetings voluntarily but because he wasn't elected to the board until this process was already underway yeah and so um it
is what it is it's unfortunate when this occurs could it happen again it could certainly happen again when all three members are needed if any one member misses two meetings whether that's because they're just not showing up at the meetings or they get ill or something unexpected occurs what can you
what can you do in those circumstances you reconstitute the board in the manner that I described or it's it's a costly exercise because when you reconstitute you have to republish and re notice to a buer so there's a cost associated with that um but in terms of um timing it
doesn't typically cause much of a delay in the process because you simply re advertis and re notice between meetings when you'd be when you'd be continuing the matter from meeting to meeting anyway so that's what you would need to do in the future if this occurs again
okay thank you yes you can come up next week good evening uh I'm Attorney John mlan from Green mous Lipton representing multiple neighbors um I would wish you would at least consider that this withdrawal be with prejudice um as you
heard brother Council Costa say he said well in six months and three hearings this could be done we had I was here we had three hearings we had six months the applicant came here with nothing I mean the applicant should have come with all
these reports in hand I you talk about modeling I had to do modeling for a dog kennel did you know Sonic modeling for a tiny dog Kett and came to it at the board and the board didn't have to tell me to do it and they say they have trouble getting
experts I have a case in land court with one of the major utility companies I couldn't find a structural engineer I had to go to Hartford sometimes if an applicant is serious and this is different because this the scope of this project is much larger than all than all the others so this applicant had half a
year three hearings he could have had four or five if he wanted it but he didn't have everything ready he applied with nothing it's outrageous to blame this board I mean the applicant had half a year he had from December of 23 to May
of 24 we had three hearings excuse me he didn't have any anything is they made statements we've met the criteria saying that because they say they've met the criteria they met the criteria they had no evidence for it again and again and
again it's not your fault it's the applicant's fault and to say that it should be with prejudice would be perfectly reasonable in this situation they had half a year with the prior member they had half a year they had three hearings I was here
each time and they didn't have anything they didn't they came to you basically expecting you to give them the grant of the zoning relief without evidence simply because they say everything's going to be okay that was the substance of those first three hearings you were here I kept saying this is outrageous you should have sound studies you should
have particular study you should you can't just come here and say give me the permit because I want it and um I can get a permit in this District so give me the permit that was essentially their stance if anyone deserves to get a withdrawal with prejudice it's this
applicant that's all I want to say thank you so with that said the Board needs to make a vote on what's going to occur so keep in mind the so again Mr uh attorney Cas I just
want to make sure if we do a withdrawal with prejudice they're going to resend their withdrawal reconstitute the board reconstitute reconstitute the board again when the new members come in and it's just a bunch of waste of time in the meantime and money because we are
paying Town Council every single time this occurs right so so I'm looking at the email that was submitted by attorney argument I'm just going to read the sentence toward the end of the email that addresses um the alternative request so it it asks for a withdrawal
without prejudice and then it says in the event that the board is not so inclined grant our request then I would ask him the alternative that the hearing be further continued in order to allow the board to be reconstituted by Ren noticing and publicizing the public
Hearing in order that a quorum may be reached and he means a voting Quorum okay so um do you have the option of withdrawing with prejudice I suppose you do you have the discretion with respect to this application and so you could
have closed the hearing months ago and voted to deny the project um my recommendation as your council is if you're going to do that if you're going to deny the project and I don't know that you are but if you're going to deny the project and you want that denial to withstand a
challenge you want want to be best position to have a basis for that denial and so I think that denying with prejudice at this stage in the process it has the same effect as a as a um excuse me allowing for withdrawal with
prejudice has the same effect as a deny and so if that then gets appealed to court now the matter is out of your hands and it's in the hands of a judge and it's in the hands of a judge without the benefit of you receiving the reports you requested and having those reports be reviewed if you want to deny it once to do all that because your peod du
consultant say noise is going to be a problem articulate matter is going to be a problem um environmental issues are going to be problems well then you've got the grounds for denial or maybe conversely the the peer reviewer were say that those things aren't going to be problems
or that they can be adequately mitigated and maybe then that's the support for you approving the project but um I I appreciate attorney mcgloin's argument advocating for for his clients for some of the neighbors and saying will draw with prejudice I I don't actually think
that puts those who might want this project defeated in as good of a position as they think it it will just takes the it takes the jurisdiction and discretion away from this board and puts it in the hands of the judge in in in Boston for all we know because it could
go to lanport which is you know 100 miles away and um somebody who doesn't know the end and outs and the particular concerns of the town of ring so um that that's what I withdraw um with prejudice
those thank you yes great with that said I will make a motion to withdraw without prejudice to accept to accept sorry yeah to accept withdrawal without prejudice I'll second the motion any
further discussion no discussion all in favor I all right so that's all we had on the agenda today thank you so much attorney Casta for everything thank you thank you thank
you now I will take a motion to adjourn the meeting or the while the hearing do we have yeah we have to we close it now right or no that should question for it's yeah with okay to motion to
adjourn second motion all in favor