uncategorized

Beach Use Committee January 6, 2014 RCL Notes

HTML version for the Civic News:  BeachUseCommitteeNotes010614revBfinal

NOTES OF JANUARY 6, 2014 BEACH USE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League

Committee members present (counter clockwise around table): Selectman Craig Musselman, Fire Chief Skip Sullivan (ex officio), Del Record, Police Chief Kevin Walsh (ex officio), Katy Sherman, Tyler McGill, Bill Epperson, Selectman Joe Mills, Committee Chairman Mike LaBrie, Tom Farrelly.

Members of the public present:  Peter Crawford, Steve Hillman (entered and left the room several times), Tom Jackson (left early), and one other person (left early with Mr. Jackson).  Arrived late:  Mae Bradshaw, Alex Herlihy, and Steven Borne plus two other unknown persons.

The meeting was held at the Library, so there is no video.

Summary

  1. Del Record’s motion to have the Committee compile the data and present it to the public fails 1-6.
  2. Tyler McGill suggests a denial clause enumerating specific bases for permit denial as a way to avoid a “fist fight” at the Deliberative Session, but his motion to insert a denial clause  fails 1-6.
  3. Selectmen Mills states that surfing is a popular sport and any Selectman with common sense would need to work with Mr. McGill rather than deny a permit.
  4. Provision granting legacy priority carries unanimously.
  5. Provision making rentals and private lessons subject only to an overall annual permit carries 4-2.
  6. Opportunity for public input is denied and it is determined that this was the last meeting.  

Approval of minutes

The minutes of the prior meeting were unanimously approved without changes.

Draft ordinance, brief discussion

It was noted that the paper copy of the ordinance available to the members was prior to the changes at the last meeting.  Selectman Musselman stated that the ordinance under consideration is as amended by the text on page 13 of the minutes.

Del Record’s motion regarding compilation of data fails 1-6

Chairman LaBrie noted that there had been a motion on the table at the prior meeting.  He asked Del Record whether the motion, as expressed on page 14 of the minutes, was accurate.  Mr. Record confirmed.

Mr. Record, in response to a question from Mr. LaBrie, confirmed that he would like to resubmit his motion.  He moved that the Committee:

“extract the data from the minutes that support the Committee’s study, pointing to empirical data that was referenced, compile the criminal and EMS statistics, assemble the current usage data, amass the relevant e-mail statements of concern, explain why the Committee was charged to assess and not study, evaluate the comparative space usage and comment why the Committee decided to exclude Josh Carroll’s recommendation, and present those results in a Public Session.”

Mr. Record noted that he had made a small change from what appeared in the minutes.  Selectman Mills seconded the motion for discussion.

Selectman Mills asked who would do this work.  Mr. Record explained that Mr. Farrelly could compile his e-mails.  Ms. Sherman had already done her work.  If she has more to contribute in terms of looking at how local towns deal with commercial activity on the beach, that is appropriate.  Mr. McGill has the data in terms of impact and the times that the camps are run.  The Police and Fire Chief may be able to provide EMS information and information on arrests and convictions.  It would be a collaborative effort to pull this together, he said.

Selectman Mills recommended that Mr. Record coordinate this.  Mr. Record agreed to do so.  Selectman Mills stated that he did not believe that they had a copy of Josh Carroll’s report.  Editor’s note:  It is available on the RCL website at https://ryecivicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PCI-present-3-31-101.pdfMr. Record stated that it was not needed as the information is in the minutes.  He stated that Selectman Mills is confusing the study with the purpose of Mr. Carroll’s visit to the Committee.

Mr. Record agreed with Selectman Mills that it would have to be done in the next couple of weeks.  Selectman Musselman stated that the Committee would need to get back together as someone would have to write this and then everyone would have to agree.  He asked how that could be done.

Mr. Record stated that everyone would have a part of this.  Mr. Farrelly acknowledged that he had a lot of material. He and Ms. Sherman agreed that the e-mails to the Town were important.

Selectman Musselman stated that he had never seen anything comparable by a municipal body.  He stated that one of the requests was to explain why the charge was different from the language of the warrant article.  There was no intent that it be different, he said.  This group has “assessed” and “studied,” he asserted.  That has been done since June.

Selectman Musselman asserted that there was not an expectation that it be a written report, particularly since the Committee has no money.  Citizens have gathered information as well as they could.  It is an almost impossible thing to do with two weeks to go and would not be enlightening to someone who would read it.  He cannot imagine it making the points that need to be made.  A lot of people are focusing on the word “study” and suggesting that it means a written report.  “Study” can mean to investigate and consider.

Bill Epperson asked Mr. Record what he hoped to achieve.  Mr. Record responded that it was “some satisfaction to the vocal comments at the public session that we failed to meet our task.”  Mr. Epperson responded that it “that was a couple of people who did that.  I think the vast majority of people would agree that we have…”  Mr. Record interrupted, saying “that’s your take away, Bill, it’s not mine.”  Editor’s note:  See the notes of the October 9, 2013 public hearing.  In fact the opinion was expressed by a large number of people at that meeting.  Mr. Epperson asked whether this was a “delaying tactic.”  Mr. Record responded “absolutely not.  And should have done it square one.”

Mr. McGill stated that he was working within the assumption that there would be a permit.  He stated that, when he wrote the original warrant article, his assumption was that the group would come together and determine whether a permit was necessary.  “It became very clear when we got together that it was a means of how to permit, not whether a permit was necessary, kind of from the beginning.”  That is where the miscommunication that Mr. Record referred to came from, Mr. McGill said.  However, at this point in the process he does not believe that whether there is a document or not will make a significant amount of difference.  Everything they have is pretty much in the minutes.  His information on the surf shops is included.  If Ms. Sherman is comfortable releasing her document, that information is available.  He is not sure that it is the best use of their time at this point.  The BUC has already decided on a permit, subject to the final wording.  When it goes to a vote the people will determine whether a study was done.

A member of the public asked whether the public could speak.  When Chairman LaBrie stated that it was a work session, he and the woman who was with him got up and left.  Editor’s note:  Toward the end of the meeting, it was stated that Tom Jackson was the person who had left.

Selectman Musselman moved the question.  Ms. Sherman stated that it would be a lot of work, and asked whether people sending e-mails would need to be contacted before the e-mails were released.  Selectman Musselman stated that some have requested “ardently” that their e-mails not be public information, and it is.

Mr. McGill looked over at Mr. Record, stated that he was partial to Mr. Record’s view as well, and asked whether his position seemed unfair.  Mr. Record responded “I appreciate that, but I’m ready for the Committee to make a ‘no vote’ on the motion.”  The motion failed, Mr. Record voting in favor, Mr. McGill abstaining, and the rest voting no.

Mr. McGill’s provides his reasons for requesting amendments to the draft ordinance

Mr. McGill explained his thinking.  He looked at the worst case scenario.  If they fail, there will be a citizen’s petition for an all out ban on commercial activities.  He had some legal input that he provided, as it was somewhat insightful, but stated that he would not get into it.  Nobody wants to go to the Deliberative Session and have members say that they were against this the whole time and attempt to amend the article, Mr. McGill said.

Mr. McGill stated that he had come up with a denial clause, a legacy of event priority and a clarification of the rental and semi-private lessons issue.

Discussion of denial clause

With regard to the denial clause, Mr. McGill stated that, after speaking with lawyers and others there is the question of “who gets denied, who gets the permits, why do they get the permits, under what consideration, etc., etc.”  He understands Selectman Musselman’s position that denial clauses are difficult.  Lawyers have told him that an ambiguous provision can make it more difficult to win a court case.

Mr. McGill started to go through the proposed reasons for denial, which included:

(1) detrimental to the ecosystem; and

(2) excessive noise, lighting, staging or equipment

With regard to number (2), Mr. McGill suggested that the noise level could be determined by playing the music to the person granting the permit.  The position of the acceptable volume control level would then be written down and would constitute a limit that the officer could verify when the equipment is being used on the beach.

Selectman Mills stated that Mr. McGill was putting a lot into this.  He provided some history.  He spoke about the skateboard park and neighbors on Random Rd. complaining.  Engineers came up with a decibel level that the neighbors agreed to.  To his knowledge there have not been any violations since.  Police Chief Kevin Walsh confirmed.

Selectman Musselman asked whether Mr. McGill could read the rest of the criteria. Mr. McGill continued with:

(3) fails to meet certifications (liability, CPR and other requirements already delineated);

(4) non-compliance with existing beach ordinances; and

(5) maximum number of participants exceeded (35 for him).

Mr. McGill then stated that, if conditions on the beach change such that a lower number is justified, then they would have the flexibility of reducing the maximum number of participants by amending the ordinance as currently written.  Selectman Mills stated that the Selectmen could amend the ordinance for a year, following which it would need to go before the voters.

Editor’s note:  That is subject to some question.  While N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (“RSA”) 41:11-c permits the Selectmen to “establish regulations relative to businesses obtaining municipal permits,” it appears doubtful that this grants the Selectmen unlimited power to regulate any business, since elsewhere in the RSAs, towns (i.e. the Town Meeting) are granted the power specifically to require licenses or permits for restaurants and tattoo parlors.  RSA 39:1, I.  The provision permitting the Selectmen to regulate prior to the adoption of an ordinance, but subject to confirmation at the next Town Meeting, applies only to open air motion picture theaters, motor vehicle race tracks and coin operated amusement devices.  RSA 39:42. 

Mr. McGill stated that, if the maximum number is set at 10, 15 or 20, he cannot support the ordinance because he has been running his program at 35 for six years, it is functioning well and he does not think that it needs to be limited.  However, if the Board or the Town determines that the number is too high, it can be scaled back.  That avoids the grandfathering ad infinitumEditor’s note:  See the notes of the December 12, 2013 meeting.  This was a particular sticking point at that meeting.

Mr. McGill continued with the criteria, listing:

(6) deemed unsafe by police or lifeguards.

He stated that that is a power that they already have, but it is important in the event of a hurricane or a change in the conditions.  Mr. McGill stated that he was thinking of the above criteria as applying to water-based activities.  These are fairly simple reasons for permit denial.

Zumba is the most inflammatory thing discussed, with generators, amplified music and 100 people on the beach, he said.  The Committee has stated that that is an overreach.  A smaller group of 20 people with a small boom box at Foss Beach might not be a problem.  It would be up to the Selectmen to decide that issue.

Mr. McGill stated that this proposal would avoid problems with his prior proposal and “allow me and other businesses to say that we will support this to avoid, you know, a fist fight at the Deliberative Session.”

Selectman Musselman added that the public’s ability to have lateral access along the beach in the intertidal zone was not on Mr. McGill’s list.  That is constrained at high tide, he said.  It’s not covered by the safety clause, he said, as it’s not a safety issue.  Mr. McGill stated that that would be a reasonable addition.

Selectman Musselman stated that the limited list of denial provisions speaks to the absence of other denial provisions.  Editor’s note:  There is a fundamental legal principle that the expression of the one is the exclusion of the other; in other words, an implication that had denial been intended to be permitted on some other basis not enumerated, it would have been mentioned in the ordinance.  Selectman Musselman continued, stating that this would need to be reviewed by Town Counsel prior to being drafted into an ordinance.  He would look at enforcement from a police perspective, what could and could not be denied, and whether it could be defended.  That is what he meant by the complexity the last time, he said.

Mr. Epperson asked whether Attorney Donovan had seen the ordinance.  Selectman Musselman stated that he had, and felt that it was enforceable.  However, he has not seen the last couple of tweaks that have been made.  This is something Attorney Donovan would have to draft, he said.  Chief Walsh stated that he would also have the prosecuting attorney look at it.

Mr. Epperson asked Mr. McGill whether he was still concerned about being denied a permit.  Mr. McGill stated that he was.  Mr. Epperson asked what the basis for that was, and whether anyone had given him an indication that he would be denied.  Mr. McGill expressed concern that a future board might not be as friendly, or people might be pushing for a moratorium.  Selectman Mills raised his voice and said:

“Tyler, smarten up, will you, okay?  We’ve been here for how many months?  Okay.  You people are very popular, with your surf….  Your surfing association is very popular.  Okay?  You come in to the Town Hall up here.  Look what happened the night we shot down the frog jumping, okay?  They couldn’t even hold a meeting at the Town Hall.  Your surfing people showed up the last Deliberative Session, almost tore it apart.  You’re worried, you’re putting too much worry in being denied.  Any Selectman with any common sense would say it’s a popular sport, we can’t… we’ve got to work with them, we can’t deny it.”

As he said the last sentence, Selectman Mills pointed his finger at Mr. McGill.  Mr. McGill responded, saying that the entire point of putting a permitting process in place is that some people, whether him or another business, would be denied.  “Nobody has ever been denied,” Selectman Mills said, raising his voice at Tyler McGill, who was sitting across the table from him.  Mr. McGill responded “but they’re going to be, and that’s the whole point of this process.”  Selectman Mills added “unless it’s flagrant.”

Selectman Musselman said that if three shops want to have groups of 35 surfers each at Sawyers Beach at high tide, we’re going to have to move them around.  All of us together will have to do that, he said.

Mr. McGill stated that the terms “safe and enjoyable use of the beach” are far too subjective and far too broad.”  Selectman Musselman said to Mr. McGill that, with your list, the argument in court would be that it was not safe.  It does not help you a lot, he said.  By the denial clause, you are “setting up your ability to argue it in court.  That’s all you’re doing,” he said.

Mr. McGill acknowledged that there have some “oversteps in the way commerce has existed on the beach.”  It would help the Committee make this platform understandable to the people.

Mr. Record stated that there are tacit denial points in the proposed ordinance, for example insurance requirements.  He asked about the other types of permits that the Town has.  The other Committee members indicated that there was no list of denial criteria with respect to those.

Selectman Mills stated:

“we just want to know who the hell is down there, okay.  That’s basically the bottom… That’s why I think this came up because of, the, uh.  We got complaints because the surfers… you drove some people off the beach last year.  Okay.  And, so I don’t know where it came, to be truthful I don’t know where the hell it came from.  But it came up.  That’s what drove this whole thing right here.  You’re trying to complicate the whole process right now Tyler.  You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.”

Mr. McGill disagreed that he was making it more complicated.  He said he wants to make it more understandable to the people who are inquiring about who gets the permits and why, and what the reasons for denial are.

Mr. Epperson referred to Chief Walsh having multiple requests for permits at the same time.  Selectman Musselman stated that the Town was not going to run out of beach any time soon.  Chairman LaBrie stated that they were trying to put in place something similar to what exists for Parsons Field and the streets.

Mr. McGill stated that the participants are also part of the public.  He asked what would happen if the public wants 100 people surfing.  He reiterated that the public wanted to know who would get the permits, why, and what the reasons for denial were.

Selectman Mills stated that there could be ten more reasons for denial.  Selectman Musselman added that that was the problem.

Chairman LaBrie stated that the process would evolve through precedent, thus establishing the reasons for denial.

Selectman Musselman asked whether multiple copies of what Mr. McGill had written were available.  These were passed out.

Discussion of priority for “legacy events”

Mr. McGill addressed two additional proposed changes.  The second change referred to provided that “existing or legacy events will have priority over new applications.”  He explained that he had been conducting business for 12 years.  He used the example of road races and asked how someone wanting to do a road race on the same day as Saunders would be handled.  Chief Walsh indicated that Saunders would take precedence, but the Selectmen would use their best efforts to try and make it work, probably by scheduling the competing event on a different day.  Mr. McGill spoke about a new surf shop down the road or Pioneers wanting to increase their activity.  It would then be unfair for Summer Session if these businesses had equal priority, he said.

Ms. Sherman responded, referring to Mr. McGill’s earlier statement, and said that they are the public too.  Selectman Mills referred to “first come, first served.”

Inapplicability of certain permit requirement to rental equipment and private lessons

The third change one is with regard to rental equipment and semi-private lessons, Mr. McGill said.  He proposed that “rental equipment and semi-private lessons are not considered events and do not require individual event permits.”  Selectman Musselman said that that had always been their intent and agreed that the language of the proposed ordinance did not clearly say this.  He stated that numbers two and three are fine.

Mr. McGill also referred to the release of liability.  Selectman Musselman stated that there are two forms:  one for the business and one for the participant.  Mr. McGill stated that Summer Sessions has its own release of liability and asked whether that would suffice for the Town as well.  Selectman Musselman stated that they could look at that for an individual shop, but would not want to do that on a global basis.  They would not want to do this for Cinnamon Rainbows and the shop at Wallis Sands because they do not know what their forms say.

Mr. McGill asked whether the appeal process needed to be specified in the ordinance.  Selectman Musselman said that, if the ordinance is silent, the RSAs would apply.  Mr. Epperson referred to appeals from the Planning Board going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) and from there to court.  Selectman Musselman stated that that would not be the case here because those are land use boards that relate to each other.  Selectman Musselman stated that he would be glad to have Town Counsel explain the appeals process as part of his review of the ordinance.

The motion giving priority to legacy events carries unanimously

Mr. McGill stated that he would propose number two for a motion.  There was discussion about the meaning of “legacy,” which Mr. McGill changed to “recurring.”  Selectman Musselman seconded the motion.  There was discussion as to whether this would apply to water-borne or all activities.  It appeared that the consensus was that it applied to all.  Selectman Musselman clarified that they were saying that Zumba lessons would have priority over other yoga classes if the motion were adopted.  In response to a question from Mr. Epperson, Mr. McGill agreed that applications would need to be in by April 1 for the legacy provision to apply.  This change was made to the motion and the second.

Mr. Farrelly stated that his biggest concerns were being left unanswered, which was how many camps were going to be allowed on the beach at the same time and how many people.  Chairman LaBrie stated that those remained to be decided, but what was being discussed now did not impact that.  Mr. Farrelly stated that he was basically giving them ownership.  He asked whether surf shops would now be “legacy,” such that they owned a certain spot at a certain time.  Chairman LaBrie stated that, if the permit was approved, they would have priority.  However, they are still only getting two years and after that one year.

After Chairman LaBrie called for a vote, it was not initially clear that Mr. Farrelly and Ms. Sherman had voted for it.  Mr. Farrelly confirmed that he was voting for the motion.  Selectman Mills asked Ms. Sherman whether she wanted to take a deep breath and vote yes.  Ms. Sherman expressed doubt, but then indicated that she was voting yes, stating that she just wanted to get it done.  She stated that she believes that Mr. McGill is losing sight of the fact that it is public property.  She said that he keeps coming up with “all of these hurdles.”  Chairman LaBrie stated that the subject of the motion had been discussed two meetings earlier, but had not been picked up.

The motion exempting rentals and private lessons from certain requirements carries 4-2

Mr. McGill then addressed the next motion which related to the third issue of rentals and semi-private lessons:

“Rental equipment and private/semi-private lessons are not considered events and do not require individual event permits.  The Town does not regulate the number and scale of these activities, however all providers in said services must show proof of insurance, instructor certification, Town indemnification, and waivers of liability for all participants.”

Selectman Musselman seconded the motion, but said that the language would not be the final version.  Chief Walsh asked how this would be managed.  Selectman Musselman stated that there would still be a permit, and the paperwork would still be required, but the permit would be for the season.  Chairman LaBrie stated that this was what was intended, but the language had not been done correctly.

Chief Sullivan reminded the Committee that this needed to be in warrant article form by the 14th.  Selectman Musselman agreed that that was the problem.  It would need to be adopted at a Selectmen’s meeting on the 13th.  If anyone wants input on the final language they should come to that meeting, he said.

Tom Farrelly raised the issue of the volume of unscheduled private lessons.  Mr. McGill stated that only phone number, name and age are retained and he does not know how many lessons were provided.  Mr. Farrelly questioned how Mr. McGill could not know, given that Summer Sessions was paid and there must be financial records.  It was agreed that Mr. McGill would provide a rough estimate of the number of lessons in his application.

Mr. Farrelly stated that board rentals to people who do not know how to surf is a source of friction.  He suggested that people be asked where the boards were going to be used, and referred to prior debate on that issue.  Editor’s note:  See the notes of the December 12, 2013 meeting at which a number of members felt that controlling the quantity of rental boards would be inappropriate as the boards could be used outside of Rye.  Chairman LaBrie stated that there still needed to be an annual permit and the numbers would need to be discussed at that time.  Mr. Farrelly stated that Mr. McGill had trouble telling them how many boards he had.  Mr. McGill stated that Hampton and Pioneers cannot be told how many boards they could rent.  Only Summer Sessions could be restricted, but those boards move north and south.  It is unenforceable, unmanageable and is an overreach, he said.

Mr. Record moved the question.

After Chairman LaBrie called for a vote, Ms. Sherman raised her hand to vote no and expressed continued reservations.  Selectman Musselman stated that it did not change anything, it clarified it.  Chairman LaBrie asked Ms. Sherman what her vote was, and whether she was in favor.  Selectman Mills objected, saying that she had already voted no.  “Her and Tom, they’re two peas in a pod,” he said.  Selectman Mills made a motion to restrict reconsideration.  Editor’s note:  While permissible at a Town meeting, such motions appear to have no basis at a meeting of a Town Committee.  See RSA 40:10.   Mr. Epperson stated that he was abstaining as he did not understand what they were voting for.  The vote was thus 4-2 (with Mr. Farrelly and Ms. Sherman voting no), with one abstention.

The motion to insert a denial clause fails, 1-6

Mr. Record stated that, before there was a vote on the denial clause, he wanted to state that the current event permit process does not include a denial clause and having one could be a slippery slope.  He does not know what would be accomplished by a long list.

Mr. McGill argued that it would give credibility to the reasoning of why there were denials and it would be more comprehensible to those voting on the permit issue.

Selectman Musselman suggested a clause indicating that alternate beach locations should be considered before a permit is denied.  Zumba, which is the primary problem, might work at Foss Beach at low tide where there are a lot fewer beach visitors.

Selectman Musselman suggested that lateral beach access and permit compliance history be added to the list of criteria.

Ms. Sherman suggested that public access in general was an issue.  If a 35 or 50 person camp is proposed for July 4, the Town should be able to say no.  Mr. McGill stated that that would fall under the safety provision.  Selectman Musselman disagreed,  stating that it would not be considered unsafe.  Trying to ensure that everyone can use the beach is a subjective thing, but not an issue of safety.  It is one of the reasons why they are doing this, he said

Ms. Sherman stated that this process had begun before people got upset about Zumba.  Mr. McGill stated that Zumba had been going on for five years.  Ms. Sherman stated that people felt that their access was being denied because someone was making money off of the beach.  Mr. McGill reiterated that the people in the surf camps are members of the public as well.  Whether they pay or not, they have rights to the beach, he said.

Selectman Musselman asked that the initial vote be on the issue of whether there should be a denial clause at all.  There were then the additional issues of what Town Counsel would advise and what the language might say, and then what the Board of Selectmen would do.  Only the first should be addressed tonight, he said.

Ms. Sherman asked whether Town Counsel hadn’t already stated that a denial clause should not be included.  Selectman Musselman that Town Counsel’s comment was a general one, stating that it was likely more trouble than it was worth, probably on both sides.  Mr. McGill seemed to be arguing that it might have political benefit, he said.  Selectman Musselman stated that it would be a double edged sword in court.

Mr. Epperson suggested that the Committee be polled on the issue of whether there should be a denial clause or not.

Selectman Mills said that he would vote against it as it would hamper Mr. McGill’s application process.  It would provide reasons to deny, and it would work against him.

Mr. Epperson said “I’m going to vote against it too because I think that it should be the discretion of the Selectmen.”

Mr. McGill stated that he was clearly in favor of it.

Ms. Sherman stated that her vote would be against.

Mr. Record stated that the standard had been set by currently ongoing events, and these include no denial clause.  It might be a slippery slope to go down.  The list could go on and on.  His vote would be no.

Selectman Musselman indicated that his vote would be no.  “It is too complex and not necessary,” he said.

Mr. Farrelly stated that “commercial activity on the beach is a privilege, not a right, and that the Town should be able to deny a permit for whatever reason, so I vote no.”

Chairman LaBrie stated that it would not carry no matter which way he voted and he did not express an opinion.  Mr. McGill stated that he would like to make the motion.  If it is denied, it is denied, he said.  Selectman Mills stated that whatever they came up with could be amended.  Editor’s note:  presumably he was referring to amendment at the Deliberative Session.  Chairman LaBrie said “we don’t go there” and turned away.

Mr. McGill stated that he would like to make the motion.  Mr. Epperson stated that it would die if it did not receive a second.  Mr. Record then seconded the motion for discussion.  Chairman LaBrie then called for a vote.  All were against except Mr. McGill, who was in favor.

Chairman LaBrie then asked whether the changes would be passed to Mr. Donovan and then made available at the Selectmen’s meeting on the 13th and be voted on there.  There was no disagreement with that.

The Committee denies public input and determines that this was the last meeting

The question then arose as to whether there would be another meeting.  Chief Sullivan raised the issue of a public hearing.  Selectman Mills stated that he thought one had been promised.  Chief Sullivan stated that 10 days notice would be required.  Selectman Musselman stated that 25 people might show up for the public hearing, but there would be about 100 at the Deliberative Session.  Chairman LaBrie stated that this would be the final work session.  The consensus appeared to be that there would be no public hearing.

Mr. Record suggested that questions and comments be taken from the public.  Chairman LaBrie stated that he would be happy to take them, but Chief Sullivan noted that they had better not as people had left earlier after being refused an opportunity to speak.  Steve Hillman commented from the audience that he knew that he could not talk unless the Committee permitted him too, but that he had plenty to say.  Chairman LaBrie stated that the person who had left was Tom Jackson.

The motion to adjourn carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:40 p.m.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.