1/20/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Executive Session

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission Executive Session - Imminent litigation re Lend./Jermyn and' Leaf January 20, 1994 Len /Jermyn: Mr. Sherman advised he sent Paul. Lelito another letter because he did not get back to us when he met w1.th us in November and he didn't, He has learned through the grapevine what he has confirmed, that the Cranberry Growers Association became involved and they do not wish to file F anything because they ` do not wish to acct that they are subject to the Act, or our bylaw, evidentally, Paul indicated to him the-Y may be willing to do what we ask if he doesn't have to file. we have that options we do not have to make a person file, The advantage of filing is to control it with an Order of Conditions. The disadvantage of filiLng in a violation case we discovered in Cardillos; we had an agreement and then they appealed. It can go on forever. This may enol up in court. He is awaiting a response from Lelito. He gave him a time lit often days and- at that point he thought we should ask ,Town Counsel to file- an' injunction, t lip Edgar Leaf: we had seat a enforcement orderelling him to take •i out, he never appealed our enforcement order, so he feels we have a strong case. He was initially told by Town Counsel. `that "they- think we havea strong, case. ,He has •ignored our letters; he was supposed to reply by January 1st*and we did not 'ev n ask him to file again. we had asked that he provide us with a letter with a protocol for removing it. He told me his attorney-had advised him to ignore us. He is overdue with no. response. He provided ;a sheaf of material to 'Town .Cou' nse . He got a. call back -from Town Counsel who wasn't really insistent a;d didnit say they felt that strongly but they suggested we might want to wait until it goes through adjudication, He does not believe that is in our best interest, that could be four or five years. They appealed the DEP Superseding order. Mrs. Ferriday stated, with the people who live text to him and all the problems that they had, we should go after this guy. Mr. Sherman stated his suggestion would be to do this, take a vote that our desire is to to pursue it legally, but before actually doing it, he have one more talk with the upper echelon of Kopelman & Paige. The young -lady that has worked with us is fine but there is a more experienced senior partner in legal enforcement issues he would like to talk to. His advice is to vote that we feel that it is very important to not wait for adjudication but that he contact Elizabeth Lane and talk to her. Mrs. Ferriday asked, and give them until the 30th of the month. Mr. Sherman stated he would talk to there first before setting another deadline. He had asked her to and she had first agreed, Kathleen Connolly, the junion part- ner who does the enforcement, to put a call into Mr. Leaf's attorney, Mr. Silverman, and. say, "look, we've got a. case and we're going to follow it through but if you do everything without us taking you to court, we'll just do what's right'. - At first we thought she would do that but then she came back and asked if we were sure we didn't want to wait for adjudication? He did not think we do; he thought that would be setting an awfully bad precedent. You might s well throw away the bylaw. VOTE: Motion made and seconded that the Agent talk with Elizabeth Lane. Unanimous vote. Mr. Sherman stated unless he hears some compelling legal reason from her why we shouldn't that we have a weak case, He'll tell her we wish to go ahead. Agreed. A vote was taken to go out of Executive Session. Aye: John Johansen, Gertrude Ferriday, Sherryl Si