0:00The meeting delved into the complexities introduced by Massachusetts law, which mandates that all participating board members must attend every session of a multi-session public hearing to retain their voting rights. Attorney Costa clarified that with some members absent during previous sessions, achieving the necessary unanimous vote was deemed impossible. This legal stipulation posed a significant obstacle, leading to the suggestion that the applicant withdraw the application and reapply later when the board’s composition is stable.

Attorney Costa further explained that the applicant’s request to withdraw without prejudice was strategic, allowing them to reapply in the future without incurring a two-year wait that accompanies a withdrawal with prejudice. This suggestion was supported by a letter from another attorney requesting the same. The conversation highlighted an additional challenge: the ambiguity surrounding the requested particulate study. Neil Jackson, one of the owners of LJ Development, expressed frustration over the lack of clarity in defining the scope of services for the study. Despite efforts, the applicant struggled to find consultants who understood the board’s specific requirements.

Attorney Costa attempted to clarify that the study’s purpose was to assess potential air pollution from the gravel operation and its impact on nearby residential areas. The dialogue revealed a tension between the applicant’s need for clear guidance and the board’s expectation that the applicant take initiative in securing qualified consultants. Costa emphasized that connecting with engineering firms was the applicant’s responsibility, not the board’s.

15:12The discussion transitioned to the procedural aspects of the gravel operation proposal. Concerns were raised about the timing and communication surrounding the application process, with calls for improved clarity in the future. Participants noted the importance of setting clear expectations regarding the scope of studies required by the board, acknowledging that while the board could outline concerns, it should refrain from dictating the specifics of what an environmental engineer would study.

0:00Adding to the complexity were the procedural hurdles related to board member attendance and the continuity of the permitting process. The legal requirement for unanimous votes from eligible members was reiterated, with discussions on the implications of board member absences on the process. Attorney Costa explained that if a member were to miss multiple meetings, the board would need to reconstitute itself, which could potentially restart the process.

29:38Voices of concern were heard, particularly from Attorney John Mlan, representing neighboring residents. Mlan criticized the applicant for not coming prepared with necessary studies and evidence before seeking permits. He argued that a withdrawal with prejudice would be justified, holding the applicant accountable for their lack of preparedness. However, Attorney Costa advised against such a move, noting that a denial with prejudice could ultimately limit the board’s discretion and risk the matter being decided by a judge unfamiliar with the local context.