Planning Board Chair out of control

This past Monday night, June 15th, during the continued hearings on the Van Dyke application, Planning Board Chairperson Margaret Sharra completely lost her composure and rudely interrupted the testimony of one of the abutters to the project who was attempting to ask a question. Given permission to step to the microphone and give testimony, he had only begun to speak when Sharra started screaming his name and after several minutes screamed at him "Do you have a question?" The abutter, Mr. Towne responded, I am trying to ask one and you are rudely interrupting me and preventing me from doing so. Mr Towne then attempted once again to ask the board why they were discussing the issue of a bond; one of the conditions they had set forth for Van Dyke, when he hadn't even gotten state approval for his water or septic designs ( requirement #1 ) gotten a signed Joint Use Agreement from PSNH ( required BEFORE he can begin construction ) notified DES of changes to plans submitted as required and gotten a new Alteration of Site permit as required by state law, gotten a new driveway permit, applied for a DES wetlands dredge and fill permit as required and to also provide evidence that they had been given false evidence regarding wetlands delineations on Van Dyke's site. He was continuously interrupted by Ms Sharra who continued to talk over him. He finally asked one last question in regards to the time the meeting finally started which was well after the 7:00pm time it had been scheduled for at the last PB meeting. Ms. Sharra had changed the agenda and times and yet never notified the abutters; yet it was apparent by Mr. Van Dyke's late arrival he was made aware of the time change; once again showing just how unfair these proceedings have become. As Mr. Towne stepped away from the microphone, Van Dyke, who had never been seated and who had remained standing off to the side of the microphone, uttered a rude comment to him and Mr. Towne turned to him and asked him to repeat his comments into the microphone for all to hear It was at that point that Ms Sharra once again started another tirade and attacked him screaming his name and making a complete fool of herself.

This woman is out of control, she's clearly biased and needs to be removed from her position as a board chairperson and member. She is NOT neutral and her conduct and actions clearly show this. We wonder why a person named in a lawsuit against the town has been allowed to continue sitting in at hearings and ethically tainting these proceedings. I guess this is a question for our Board of Selectmen.

Complaints have been filed with the State Board of Ethics and the Legal Government Center in Concord. A Citizens Complaint will also be filed with the town's Selectmen.
Though we have our doubts, we can only hope this matter is taken seriously by the board and they act in the appropriate manner. Preventing someone from giving testimony at a public hearing is a serious offense, not to be taken lightly.

Planning Board lawsuit in the hands of the judge

A final hearing was conducted at Cheshire Superior Court on May 29th, on the lawsuit against the town's Planning Board in the manner in which they have handled Robert Van Dyke's application for a Planned Residential Community consisting of 32 condominiums on Franklin Mountain next to Shamrock Realty. The Plaintiffs ( abutters ) have charged that the board has over stepped it's authority granting waivers and intrusions into the protected buffer zone stipulated by ZBA ordinances, voted into law by the town's citizens, has allowed van Dyke to destroy wetlands and that the board's chairperson has acted improperly throughout the proceedings, acting more as an agent for the applicant than a member of the board in protecting the town and the rights of it's citizens. On June 12th the abutters, following orders they had received from the court; submitted an amendment to their final arguments which included an affidavit from a member of the board, given of their own free will. We expect that both the attorneys for Van Dyke and the town will once again strongly object to this and other evidence presented and another hearing may be required to resolve their complaints. One can only wonder how much this has cost the citizens of Winchester in legal fees.