The primary focus of the meeting was the appeal against the land court judge’s decision, which had mandated the Hampden Planning Board to conduct a lawful public proceeding regarding a special permit for U Garvey Self Storage LLC. The judge had remanded the case, requiring the board to consider imposing 21 previously approved conditions. The board discussed the intricacies of the appeal process, the financial implications, and the legal responsibilities tied to the judge’s order.

The town attorney highlighted that if the board proceeded with the appeal, the plaintiff’s attorney might seek to recover legal fees, potentially raising the total cost to around $50,000. This figure represented not only the legal expenses but also the risk of additional financial liability if the board lost the appeal. The complex nature of the situation was further compounded by the fact that two members of the current board had not previously reviewed any evidence related to the case, raising questions about their ability to participate meaningfully in the process.

Board members expressed concerns about the appeal process, especially regarding how it would align with the judge’s order. There was uncertainty about whether the new board members could legally impose additional conditions on the permit without having heard the original evidence. It was noted that while it was possible to appeal while seeking clarification from the judge on procedural matters, doing so could jeopardize the appeal window.

The debate centered on the implications of moving forward with an appeal and the necessity of preserving their right to do so given the tight timeline. Questions arose about the legitimacy of the new board’s ability to make decisions based on evidence they had not reviewed, particularly in light of the Mullen rule, which stipulates that members must have been present to vote on a case. The board discussed whether the judge’s order implied that the special permit should be granted regardless of board composition and considered the possibility of new members wanting to add conditions.

Concerns were voiced about the potential for future litigation if additional conditions were proposed that the plaintiff opposed. One member articulated a sense of obligation to the residents, stating, “I think we owe it to the residents to appeal based on the community input at hearings and in public comment,” underscoring the community’s emotional investment in the project despite its challenges.

Financial considerations were a part of the discussion. The town could face costs ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 if the appeal was deemed frivolous and the town lost. One member recalled a previous case where a similar legal strategy resulted in a financial loss, stating, “after $100,000 it didn’t work out.” The potential for the applicant to return with increased damages if the appeal was lost was also considered a serious risk.

The conversation turned to the nature of the original project and its context within the community. Some members remarked on the background of the land, which had transitioned from farmland to commercial use, and speculated on whether the town had properly addressed community concerns around zoning and land use. There was a suggestion that if the community had been more proactive in amending the zoning bylaws, the current situation might have been avoided.

Members debated the necessity of filing an appeal versus seeking clarification from the presiding judge. One member raised a pertinent question about the advantages of filing the appeal if there were no intentions to follow through with it, while another pointed out that the appeal was intended to overturn the judge’s decision, albeit with a low probability of success. The option of asking the judge for further clarification was seen as a preferable route to gain a better understanding of the ruling and its implications for the planning board’s actions.

The timeline for making a decision regarding the appeal was critical, as the board needed to act before the expiration of the 30-day period. Members discussed the possibility of postponing the decision until they could receive clarification from the judge, with one suggesting that they could reconvene on the 7th of the following month to revisit the issue. This approach was seen as a way to gather more information and avoid a hasty decision that could have severe financial consequences for the town.

Additionally, the board addressed logistical matters related to the scheduling of the upcoming town meeting. They discussed the availability of the moderator and the potential need to reschedule the meeting due to conflicts. It was noted that the next town meeting would cover issues, including proposals for a Senior Center and potential changes to elected positions, which could stimulate controversy. The complexities of preparing for the meeting in light of ongoing financial considerations, particularly regarding a water project budget, were also emphasized.

Ultimately, the board reached a consensus to schedule the fall town meeting for October 29th, with the understanding that they would need to finalize details and ensure all necessary preparations were in place before that date. This involved closing the warrant for the meeting and addressing any other business that required attention, including signing the warrant for the upcoming primary election.