The sequence of a Site Plan Approval in the context of the Special Permit procedure is:
Robertson's sequence was, (first he forgot to write an agenda after CannaMountain paid to have the public hearing notice published in the news papers, and notified all the abutters), so the public hearing could legally take place (I had to write it in the last hour as Robertson also failed to answer phone calls by the town clerk). OK, here his sequence:
The video to the last meeting of January 24, 2024, is worth watching! Especially towards the end where the meeting becomes very "efficient," as at least three people talk at the same time for at least 15 minutes. I left the meeting of January 24, 2024 after the first 25 minutes as I knew that the meeting, which lasted for one hour and 56 minutes, would not go anywhere ...
Once I attended a meeting by the Planning Board of Sturbridge. The atmosphere is very professional and reminded me to the Supreme Court; only one person speaks, everybody is respectful and no one talks over anyone. Such proceedings are most efficient. Planning Board meetings in our Town, especially since Robertson is the chair, are reminiscent of a boisterous bar scene or Jerry Springer TV show.
Robertson stated during the last meeting at 59:28, "Think of it this way, if any of you folks ever wanna run for a Planning Board position this is what you're gonna end-up with. You come here with a lot of good intentions and you find out that the amount of content and knowledge you have to have is insane. So what you have to do is you have to rely a lot on your personal time to get knowledge on your own, talk to others that claim to be experts, and at the same time we as a community we are trying to find resources that we can have with us so we can have these questions answered."
Needless to say that I disagree. With my help, anyone with half a brain gets it.
Here again a link to my explanation of the process. Admittedly, there is a steep learning curve to serve on the Planning Board. Statutes of the Zoning Act of MGL are copious and convoluted; even the Town's Zoning Bylaws are 120 pages. My explanation is putting bicycle training wheels on MGL and the Town's bylaws.
After all, it was not my idea to take a vote during the meeting of December 12, 2023, it was the chair's idea! The written decision only entails findings which were necessary for board members to be able to vote in the affirmative. Also, it was not my idea to sign it that evening, we had ample time to sign it (till January 22, 2024).
After all members made the changes they requested and had signed it did I suggest to go home and print the correct document. I did not want to have a hand corrected document eventually filed at the Registry of Deeds. To me, that would be unprofessional. Filing the decision at the Registry of Deeds is a legal requirement.
The combination of having a broken record as the chair - who is full of himself and ignorant about the law - an individual who takes on to himself to tell others what to do, even if it is outside the law; this combination represents the culmination of dysfunction and creates an apex of chaos.
The only member on the Board with managerial skills is Kyle Merolla. But even Kyle can only do his magic if Robertson does shut-up on rare occasions ...
LaMountain corrected Robertson and told him that Site Plan approval follows the Special Permit process as written in the town's bylaws. Instead of listening once, and maybe finally read the pertinent paragraph in the bylaws just once, Article 8.2 SITE PLAN APPROVAL, more precisely, Article 8.2.4(f), Robertson did not want to have it ... "No!" was his answer, at 1:24:00.
Robertson also stated at 1:21:19, "that's not in our bylaws [Chapter 8.2 SITE PLAN APPROVAL]", and, that the Special Permit process has "nothing to do with what we do here [Site Plan Review]." LaMountain tried again to explain Robertson the law at 1:25:45, again Robertson did not listen. Robertson's hangup is his lack of knowing that Site Plan Review uses the Special Permit process as MGL has no statutory scheme for Site Plan Reviews. If he would listen just once, or if he would have read once, just once chapter 8.2 of the Town's bylaws it would be impossible not to get it ..... but he can't ... sad ... he is wasting everybody's time, creating chaos and mischief ...
I found an article written by legal scholar Mark A. Kablack with the title "The snags of Site Plan Review." The reader my read Kablack's article to get clarity about the issue Robertson does not get. Once you read it, Richardson's claims will be ludicrous. To read the article, click here!
At 1:26:10, Robertson accused me of misrepresenting the decision, further strengthening my belief that he can not read as he read the decision. If he signs something he does not understand or can't read, I can not make that my problem.
But even more disconcerting are member Robert Parron's comments he uttered during the last meeting. The reader needs to keep in mind that the decision does not entail anything every member voted in favor of. Every member voted on his own volution. It was an absolute imperative not to show the written decision to any member as the decision was written under the presumption that every member would vote in favor. I did not want to be accused of being biased or presumptuous. I wrote the decision as I know the law and know what needs to be done, no other reason. As a member of the Board, unlike Robertson, I do know what I do and I do my homework.
To show his appreciation for me doing the work, Robert Parron made the following comments:
"I just about had it with Peter ..." at !:45:40;
he talks about "ram the fucking document down our throats" and "collusion" and "conflict of interest," at 1:46:40;
he claims that I "shoved it [the decision] down his throat";
at 1:26:35, "you don't fucking do this, take a vote and then rip that document out ram it down our throats .... this is Peter playing bullshit Peter games again ..." some more "bullshit" and "fucking" sentences follow. The reader gets the picture.
Parron finally stated, "I just about had it with Peter ..." at !:45:40.
At 1:28:15, he accused me of doing something nefarious.
I tried hard to find the logic behind the notion that I should be in conflict of interest with LaMountain by putting the decision of which Parron was a part of in writing ... nothing more or less ... Why would my Yea vote be a conflict of interest and his own Yea vote not?
Bob, I promise to you that from now on you can write ALL decisions, I do not even want to see them before we vote. As long as you let me read it, and you make the changes I request before I sign it — as I did — I will be happy not having to spend my precious time (at least a day to get everything right) Thank you Bob! I truly appreciate it! Really I do!
While Robertson is unable to get out of his own way and is just Bill, I'm disappointed about Robert Parron's disparaging accusatory comments, I never would have expected this from Bob. I thank Kyle Merolla for his professionalism and leadership and his ability not to loose sight of the big picture.
Here is the link to the meeting video of the meeting of January 24, 2024, click here, to stream the video!