Monday, March 31, 2008
Next Planning Board meeting
The Planning Board will meet April 21st at 6:30pm at the town hall auditorium on the main floor and continue with the discussion of this project. Unless a motion is made to open the public hearing, they will make a decision to approve or uphold their denial of the application. Let's all hope they use some common sense in their decision making and realize what a mistake it would be to approve this project with so many questions left unanswered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The meeting on 4-07-08 will begin with the public hearing on the Van Dyke proposal and will also address two other applications that night. Word has it that several BLA's ( boundary line adjustments )and subdivision applications have been received recently. If our town sewage plant is in such disrepair and is the main cause of lack of industry in this town, why does the Planning Board and our Selectmen keep granting access to the aging system for these mini subdivisions in town? Would it not be wise to put an end to the added strain on this failing system and issue a moratorium on anything but single family homes within the town's boundaries? This would eliminate any future problems that an overloaded system may cause, until such time as the system is upgraded and can handle the additional load. Doesn't seem like anyone is on the same page or using any common sense now does it?
On Saturday, April 6th, several members of the Planning Board, Margaret Sharra,Ken Berthiaume,Jim Amman and Princess Blodgett, Mr Van Dyke and several abutters met in the Shamrock Realty parking lot to tour the site and observe any and all violations of the PRD regulations. They were joined by Carl Hagstrom, Mr Van Dyke's soil scientist and several other interested community citizens.
Margaret Sharra told the group that there would be no discussions on anything observed and Mr. Van Dyke stated he would answer no questions based on advice of his attorney. The first violation observed was all of the water and mud running down the driveway onto route #10 and blocking the drainage channel along the highway and access to the drain and a large pool of standing water. As the group walked up onto the property, there were signs of excavation; yet Mr. Van Dyke has no permit to dig. Mr Van Dyke and Margaret Sharra broke off from the main group as they were observing the existing well that Mr. Cope Homan has deeded water rights to and the seasonal brook which runs beside it. Princess Blodgett was concerned that this area showed signs of disturbance and that the area wasn't being protected as required, another clear violation. Margaret Sharra and Mr Van Dyke waived this observation off and said that the brook was nothing more than drainage from snow melt. There were signs of heavy digging and grading; yet no piles of the soil were on the property. It was removed, trucked out to another property owned by Mr. Van Dyke, another violation.
As the group moved along up the road that Mr Van Dyke had bulldozed through the property they came to the first seasonal brook that had been covered over; but now was running across the road, another clear violation of the wetlands dreg and fill rule. Mr Van Dyke said a culvert pipe would be installed later. Further along the "temporary road" several more seasonal brooks, flagged wetlands, were observed which had been filled in when the road was put in; but were now running across the road and back down the hillside in their channels, more violations. The group also observed the well which had been dug as part of the testing for water, located inside the wetland buffer area and in the middle of two of the seasonal brooks, another violation. As the group observed all of these infractions, Margaret Sharra and Mr Van Dyke continued talking privately amongst themselves and he refused to answer any questions directed at him. The group then observed the flagging of the buffer zones, performed unprofessionally by Mr Van Dyke's employees; not a certified surveyor,when asked, Mr. van Dyke could not point out any of his boundary markers, nor did he know where his property began or ended yet Margaret Sharra accepted this as a requirement of the board. Further along it was pointed out that Mr van Dyke had cut trees on the property owned by Shamrock Realty and that his plans and the actual property boundary did not match. It was also pointed out looking at his plans, that the location for the Northwest retention basin seemed to be partly on Shamrock property. At first he claimed it was his property, then said he had permission from the Realty company to put it on theirs. Which is it Mr van Dyke? It was clear by the private conversations observed between Sharra and Van Dyke that he was being given special treatment. Many times questions were asked by both the public and members of the board only to be rebuffed by both of them. Upon conclusion of the site tour, Margaret Sharra stated she saw no violations or concerns and if anyone had anything to say they would have their turn at Monday night's meeting. It is quite obvious at what is going on here and in my opinion Margaret Sharra needs to be removed from the Planning Board immediately before her conduct results in a lawsuit against the town for her pandering and preferential treatment of this applicant.
Monday's meeting was a travesty; once again the preferential treatment of this applicant was on display for all to see. Margaret Sharra left no doubt as to her preference for the approval of this project; despite continued questions, the applicant not having approval from several agencies and a discrepancy with boundary and buffer zone markers. Yet time and time again, she came to his defense and pushed for approval; despite being told by town council at the last public meeting not to grant even so much as a conditional approval if Van Dyke did not have everything required. She even argued with board member Larry Hill over a condition Hill had asked Van Dyke to meet, which he did not, to wit she quoted from one of her "edited" versions of the minutes from that meeting. It was evident from the sometimes heated exchange between Sharra and members of the board and their questions directed at Van Dyke and his engineers that this board has some doubts and are unsure if this project should be approved. But despite all of this, Sharra continued to push for an approval, arguing on behalf of Van Dyke every step of the way. When she could not get her way, the public meeting was closed and a vote was taken to decide the matter on Monday, April 21st at 6:30pm.
This whole process has become a farce, why bother having rules when the Chairperson ignores them and uses her influence and position to get the results she wants. Let me stress that not all the members on the board are siding with her, several question her motives and have serious doubts regarding this project. Here's hoping they do the right thing and uphold their denial; if not, the town will be forced to defend itself in court and have some very hard questions to answer as to why this applicant was given so much preferential treatment.
Post a Comment