Despite Mr. Van Dyke not having all of his permits..
a required condition brought up at the last meeting.
Despite the town's attorney advising against it ..
" Do not give an approval without all permits in place".
Despite knowing the buffer zones aren't properly marked ..
Van Dyke's employees erroneously marked the zones.
Despite knowing someone ( employees? ) removed wetlands markers ..
Put in place by ACOE certified Soil Scientist working for PSNH who marked them for protection.
Despite several of the abutters having water rights issues with him ..
The Townes, Homans and Websters all hold deeded water rights to the property.
Despite his numerous violations of both state and town codes ..
Wetland violations, no erosion controls, excavated without permit, removed truckloads of soil from the site, intruded on buffer zones .. logged and clearcut without a permit.
The board voted to give him conditional approval to go ahead.
A formal complaint has been sent to the State Ethics Commission in regards to Margaret Sharra's conduct throughout the proceedings and a complaint will be filed with the town's selectman this week regarding her pandering and preferential treatment of this applicant.
The abutter's will be filing an appeal and suit against the town of Winchester over this decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Relationship, money and influence are what it is all about. The planning board is strongly under the influence of the “Queen Bee” Margaret Sharra bold open behavior favoring Mr. Van Dyke’s project clearly has tainted the planning board’s character as an unbiased elected committee and not working for the best interest of the town’s people. We don’t know as of yet the personal connection with Mr. Van Dyke but as time goes on we will discover the connection as we have with other projected Margaret Sharra has endorsed like the Winchester Speed Park built in the wet lands or the Mack Truck junkyard on Rte 10. Time will tell us why she has shepherded the Van Dyke project through the process, but it isn’t hard to figure out. Relationship, money and influence, and the town’s people will not tolerate it. They have shown by getting rid of one louse and we will continue to clean out the problems in the town hall one by one. Margaret Sharra has to go.
A letter to the board will be hand delivered to Margaret Sharra in her office at the town hall. The letter outlines four very important topics and requests that the board reconsider their conditional approval of this project based on the facts presented in the letter. If this board is fair and just as has been the claim throughout these proceedings, then they have no choice but to comply. However, as we have all seen, Margaret Sharra's pandering influence has swayed this board on more than one occasion, leaving us with no other options than to pursue relief through the courts. We're hoping, that given a final chance to do the right thing, the board will grant our request and issue a stay or overturn their previous decision.
At the May 5th meeting, a petition was presented to the board outlining four important points in regards to misinformation that was presented to the board on behalf of this applicant and asking them to reconsider their conditional approval. In what has become almost standard procedure for this board in matters regarding Mr. Van Dyke's application, they disallowed the reading of the petition in open forum, despite giving Mr. Towne the floor and delayed their decision on the petition two weeks ( May 19th at 7:00pm ) so that they could, in their words, digest the information and make an informed decision. As it was only 8:00pm and no other business was to be discussed, one can only wonder why they didn't have time to read and act on 3 paragraphs of information with supporting evidence? We can only imagine what their reasons for delaying really were.
At the May 19th Planning Board meeting the request for a reconsideration was denied.
Margaret Sharra cited that no new information was presented to board to support the request for reconsideration. She would not allow new information to be presented to the board, stating the public meeting was not open to the public (sic) but continuously conferred with others present representing Mr.Van Dyke.
She also stated, "reconsideration should not be taken lightly, that reconsideration is similar to a rehearing. There must be new compelling evidence, or error of law to grant reconsideration.."
Exactly what was the new compelling evidence she offered at the Oct. 15th meeting when she introduced the topic of reconsideration on behalf of Mr. Van Dyke? They quoted no errors of law as a reason for their actions either, simply stating they "may have acted too quickly"
Once again she has shown her preference for this project and continues pandering to this applicant.
An appeal has been filed in Superior Court on behalf of the abutters who feel that because of pandering and preferential treatment by Margaret Sharra, this process was tainted from the very start and that they were denied their rights under due process to a fair and lawful hearing.
Post a Comment