Laserfiche WebLink
30 April 1998 <br /> Page 10. <br /> Commission and their cooperation with it to continue the matter pending <br /> receipt of Town Counsel. For two months they have agreed to wait until <br /> Town Counsel rendered an opinion. Mr. Sherman stated Town Counsel <br /> threw it Haack to the Commission. She was aware ofthat and they are <br /> preparing, as requested, the issues associated with zon}.ng, the issues <br /> associated with common ownership and her clients are incurring a lot o <br /> expense and they have not focused on the science for the wildlife conclusion. <br /> It is not fair to make an opinion when both sides have not been heard. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated the wildlife matter has nothing to do with zoning and if <br /> she is going before the Board of Appeals on a zog question, the question of <br /> wildlife, which is an environmental matter, has nothing to do with their <br /> decision on the zoning. <br /> Atty. Gildea stated the Commission is Being asked tonight to render an <br /> opinion on that and have not heard their side. It is going to k l these lots, <br /> Mr. Sherman stated not if they decide the zoning does not apply. Atty. <br /> Gildea stated that is an up h .l tattle that is not fair. He stated the burden of <br /> proof is on the applicant. She stated under the Commission's regulations, the <br /> applicant should have the opportunity to be heard and when the <br /> determl*nation is made that land is significant to wildlife habitat, it is done <br /> without their {being heard and her point if, if the Commission does this, it is <br /> not right. Mr. Sherman asked how this would abrogate their rights if they <br /> have the chance to rebut it` He felt she was malesg the point that the <br /> Commission cannot make any particular statement at all without running it <br /> y her first. She disagreed. All of this can go away and not be a problem for <br /> anybody if they have the opportunity to sit down with the Commission, loop <br /> t these lots and find out what would be perxuissille. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated the Commission cannot tell her ghat would be <br /> perp issi l.e until it knows what the zoning is. Atty. Gildea stated that is <br /> true. In Mr. ,osenerg's opinion, her issue is strictly a zoning issue before <br /> the Board of Appeals, whether they have asked for information from the <br /> Commission or not and whether they have this information, her argument <br /> that it is immaterial under the law whether this land is si"cant to <br /> wildlife. For the Board of Appeals to make a decision on the zo .ng using <br /> what the Agent has given them would be completely improper. she agreed. <br /> Norman Hayes, consultant for the applicant, stated there is one ging he <br /> hoped the Commission would remember, during the Notice of Intent process, <br /> there is a block dealing with Natural Heritage and Endangered Species <br />