Is this really a laughing matter?

At a recent town Planning Board meeting, the subject of this lawsuit against the town was brought up. Several members of the board including Margaret Sharra and Dean Beamon can be heard laughing as they discuss, what they believe are the merits of the case and can be heard calling the abutters dumb and foolish. When one of the board members brings up the fact, that the so-called law, Margaret Sharra quoted from at their reconsideration meeting, was in fact, not a law and that the abutters could prevail, Margaret Sharra says .. " well you all know what I meant." Mr. Beamon comments "that no matter what, it is a no win situation for the abutters; because if they lose they have to pay their attorney and if they win, they still lose because we will raise their taxes to pay for the suit"
Lots of laughter can be heard coming from the members of the board after this statement, I guess they think it's a funny thing for the people of this town to have to pay for what they do. Are you laughing? Are these the kind of people you want representing you on the board?

( a copy of the tape of this meeting was obtained through the Selectman's office and the above comments were taken directly from the tape )

Proposed Trial date set

Barton Mayer has requested a proposed trial date of February 1, 2009 at Cheshire County Superior Court for the Planning Board Appeal hearing. Silas Little, on behalf of the plaintiffs has agreed as has John Ratigan, attorney for Mr. Van Dyke.

Town's attorney seeks to block discovery

Silas Little, the plaintiff's attorney received word from Barton Mayer, the Winchester Town Attorney, that he will seek to block and quash any efforts to obtain interrogatories and/or depositions from the Planning Board members.

Board members to be questioned

Silas Little, attorney for the plaintiffs intends to propound interrogatories from all the members of the Winchester Planning Board to discover all of the communications that occurred between
Board members on this application from August or so of 2007 until approval that occurred earlier this spring in 2008.

Mr Little had previously filed "A Right To Know" request to discover any and all communications between the board members that was not part of the Town's official records and was stonewalled by Margaret Sharra who did not completely honor his request under the law.

Summary Statement Of Petitioners

The following summary statement was filed in Superior Court on of the abutters by their attorney Silas Little ..

The Petitioners are abutters and aggrieved persons to land owned by Robert Van Dyke which received from the Winchester Planning Board site plan approval for a cluster development.

The Petitioners challenge the participation of Margaret Sharra and Dean Beamon in the deliberation of the Planning Board on the site plan. The Petitioners assert that these two(2) members of the Board were disqualified because of positions taken during the process which showed they were not neutral to the application.

The Petitioners also raise the issue of the interpretation of the cluster zoning ordinance and the permissible intrusions into the buffer zone for this cluster development as well as the granting of several waivers by the Planning Board without proper demonstration under the Planning Board regulation of the necessary facts in order to obtain the requested relief.

This Summary Statement is intended pursuant to notice of the Court and is not deemed an admission or to delimit the appeal to the court.