The Chichester Planning Board members took what action they could against a local company that expanded onto a neighbor’s property and filled in wetlands by revoking its site plan Thursday night.
The 6-1 vote to take action against CM Truck and Trailer Sales, located at 46 Dover Road, ended the first chapter in this long process. An appeal is expected, planning board members said, and that will drag proceedings out even more.
Officials say they found enough violations – improper storage, unplanned structures, damage to wetlands, equipment on the abutting property – to act.
Meanwhile, board members were unsure what their revocation actually meant for business owner Calgary Mackenzie, who apologized last month and said he would try to fix his violations. They said imposing a fine was out of their jurisdiction.
Board members emphasized that they were going by the book, with no intent to close Mackenzie’s business.
“We’re not going after someone, but we have to do these procedures,” said Richard Bouchard, who serves as ex-officio for the planning board. “I don’t think he’s going to lose a day of business.”
The point may be moot, since the board is expecting a new plan from Mackenzie soon and hopes the problems will be gone.
But the question remained about the teeth that a revocation like this carries.
“What’s our purpose?” asked board member Mike Williams. “What are we going to do? Are we trying to stop this business from operating in town, or are we trying to bring it into compliance?”
Added planning board member Dan Humphrey, “We were put in a position … and I don’t see a way to vote in any other direction. I hope it doesn’t affect his business.”
Official complaints that Mackenzie wasn’t playing by the rules began last summer.
The Department of Environmental Services checked on the Dover Road business and found numerous violations, later used as the foundation for the complaints documented at Thursday’s meeting.
Among the violations: trailers stored in unauthorized areas; stone retaining walls, which were not in the site plan, were built; the wetland and buffers at the northwest side of the site were filled in with parking areas or erosion stone, a large earth berm and a detention basin spilling over the lot line onto a residential neighbor’s property.
“We’ve got all the evidence we need,” Williams said. “We even have opposing counsel stating that there’s enough ground to revoke this site plan.”
Mackenzie did not attend. He was represented by attorney Pat Panciocco, who clashed with the town over the delays and questioned the board’s real goal here.
“What is accomplished by this?” Panciocco said. “Is it just to set an example?”