PERRY – LNG issues continue to split this small town of about 900 people, and now a serious rift has developed between some members of the Board of Selectmen and planning board.

The fracture has led to claims of secret meetings and a call by at least one member of the planning board for the resignation of fellow members involved in what he called the Comprehensive Planning Grant Application “coup d’etat.”

“I support the removal of the planning board members that participated in this coup d’etat,” Perry planning board member Bob Costa said in a letter to Board of Selectman Chairman David Turner, “or at the least the removal of the ring leaders of any illegal activities.”

Last year, Oklahoma-based Quoddy Bay LLC entered into an agreement with the Passamaquoddy Tribe to build a multimillion-dollar liquefied natural gas facility at Split Rock on reservation land.

The company also wanted to build three storage tanks in Perry. An underground pipe would connect the terminal with the tank farm.

Enter the comprehensive planning grant application.

At the March 28 annual town meeting, voters agreed to apply for state money and spend $7,500 in matching funds to revise and update the town’s 1993 comprehensive plan.

Planning board Chairman Nancy Asante, working with the Washington County Council of Governments, put together an application. It had to be submitted by April 14.

At the 11th hour, some members of the planning board asked the newly elected select chairman to sign an application for the grant.

Turner turned them down, saying the application had language that troubled him.

Selectman Jeanne Guisinger, along with five members of the planning board, signed the application, and it was submitted to the State Planning Office on Friday, April 14. They said they were under the gun to get the application in before the deadline or the town would have to wait until next year.

Criticized by Costa, Asante in a letter to Costa dated Monday, April 17, denied that the planning board had acted inappropriately. She also denied that those members of the planning board wanted to prevent any “type of industrial activity in the town of Perry.”

Asante said it was important to use language that would convince the state the town needed the money in order to get the grant. Asante did not return calls made to her Wednesday.

In a letter to the Maine State Planning Office dated April 24, Turner wrote that two of the three selectmen declared that the application submitted on April 14 had not been “properly certified.”

“The Maine Municipal Association has advised that the application was not validly submitted,” he said. As you know from our discussion, the majority of the Board of Selectmen declined to sign the application due to concerns about false statements and erroneous information contained in the document.”

Turner also said he believed it was inappropriate to exclude the selectmen and certain planning board members from the process.

“These actions certainly give the appearance of being an intentional effort to deprive the selectmen and the planning board of an opportunity to fully review the application,” Turner wrote.

Among Turner’s objections:

. The failure to give the selectmen and the full planning board an opportunity to review the application.

. The factual inaccuracies in the application, including an erroneous assertion that Perry’s school enrollment had declined when, in fact, it had increased.

. The claim repeated twice, that the town’s 1993 comprehensive plan had not envisioned industrial development when it called for an industrial attraction plan.

. The general anti-development tone of the application.

. Unwarranted criticism of Perry’s former selectmen for not “minding the store.”

Turner said it was unfortunate that the mishandling of this matter had resulted in an “unauthorized and invalid application.”

And the Maine Municipal Association agreed.

“The town meeting vote of March 28 did not provide an express delegation to anyone of the authority to submit the application. In the absence of language in the town meeting vote authorizing the planning board to submit the application, it had no authority to do so,” MMA’s staff attorney Krista Collins wrote.

It was also apparent, the attorney wrote, that because the Board of Selectmen was the municipal body charged with the responsibility of entering into contracts, the town meeting vote intended the selectmen to be the ones to submit the application.

But the staff attorney said the matter could be fixed.

“The selectmen could vote to send a letter to the State Planning Office explaining the situation and offering to submit a revised version of the application that meets the majority’s desire,” the staff attorney said. “The ultimate decision of whether to accept the original application or any revisions will, of course, be up to the State Planning Office.”

Collins said that if the SPO approved the application, she recommended that another town meeting vote be held to authorize the expenditure of money.

“If the town meeting authorizes the expenditure, a court would likely find that that vote cures any deficiencies in the application itself,” the staff attorney said. “Perhaps this would be a best of both worlds scenario as the grant would ultimately be received, but the dissenting selectmen would not have to sign onto statements in the application with which they disagree.”

However, she wrote, if the SPO rejects the application, the only recourse for the town was to apply next year.