SAY NO TO THE ASPHALT
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
WHY ARE COMPANIES FROM OUT OF STATE
COMING TO WINCHESTER TO LOCATE POLLUTING BUSINESSES ?
A MASSACHUSETTS OWNER WANTS TO LOCATE A
POLLUTING ASPHALT PLANT ON OUR AQUIFER
HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DRINK OUR WATER, SMELL THE ODORS
OR LIVE NEARBY; BUT WE DO !
THERE IS A LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR CITIZEN'S
AND OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH !
PLEASE COME TO THE PUBLIC MEETING:
MONDAY NIGHT @ THE TOWN HALL
DECEMBER 20TH @ 6:30PM
SAVE OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH
PEOPLE WILL BE OUT TODAY AT THE TOWN DUMP AND IN THE
AUBUCHON AREA HANDING OUT FLIERS AND COLLECTING
SIGNATURES, ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT. POLLUTANTS FROM
THIS PLANT COULD TRAVEL UP TO 10 MILES ON THE PREVAILING
WINDS AFFECTING NEARLY ALL OF WINCHESTER AND A VERY
LARGE PORTION OF WEST SWANZEY. HELP US SEND A MESSAGE
TO THE OWNER AND THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING OUR TOWN SIMPLY DOES NOT WANT OR NEED.
17 comments:
Did anyone see the article in the paper on sunday? Margaret couldn't remember? Was that a joke?
Margaret has very selective memory when it comes to issues she's all for. Maybe her medications are getting to her and it's time she steps down for the good of the town and stops doing things that gets the town sued.
Cant make it tonight, hope the Informer will give a full report. Was watching an interview on the news and the comment was made that the only way to keep our public servants honest is the media. So keep up the good work, Informer.
Last night's meeting went as expected; more time was given to the applicant in which they were allowed to give their presentation for the second time taking up most of the allotted meeting time, than was allowed for the public to present evidence and argument. It was determined even before the meeting started that the board would end all discussions promptly at 9pm.
Once again the applicant, through his attorneys, threatened the public opposition by stating they would put the plant closer to the highway in the commercial zone if they continue to oppose the project, which would bring the project closer to their homes. In then in the same breath told us what a great neighbor he would make.
DES employees from the permitting division explained that it is a lengthy process and that they do take comments from the public in their application process and that they would hold a public meeting in Winchester if the board went ahead and gave Mitchel an approval.
The board voted to close the public hearing and take no more testimony from either side and to go over all the information before they make a decision; however it was quite clear from the way Sharra kept interrupting Mary Ryan during her testimony and how she tried to control what the public was allowed to present, that she has already made up her mind and nothing the public had to say made any difference.
It is quite evident that the PB will throw this in the lap of the DES as the ZBA did to them and that neither board will take any responsibility for their actions and will leave it up to the state to make the decision for them.
Please read the article in the sentinel today. It appears that our respresentative Mr. Carr is not in favor of this plant. This plant does not comply with the town's plan of continuing to be a rural residential area. Mr. Carr called this plant heavy industry. Well, let's see if Maggie and Gus understand the problem the same way. Of course, Mr. Carr is respresenting the whole town not just a few who will profit from this.
I have to agree that the PB wants to throw this over the wall to the DES. During last night's meeting it was repeated many times that the PB could do nothing as for the application with the DES. However, the person from the DES stated that the application was only for the site, that they had no jurisdiction over the trucks on the highway or the fumes/odors from the asphalt in the trucks. Doesn't this fall within the "quality of life" that a planning board is supposed to be concerned with? If the planning board has no teeth related to matters that occur within the town, why do we bother having one?
Pardon me blog but to the previous blogger I say this: "If we did not have a planning board how would Maggie and Gus get their "power drive?" On that note please forgive my sarcasm. I still believe that they must recuse themselves and resign from this project. But then who would handle their egos? If they resigned it would save us money and face!
Talk to the Board of Selectman. They are planning to discuss Margaret's role with the Town at their next meeting tomorrow night.
We already know that she wants to be mayor, but do the BOS know this? She has Gus in her pocket! What about the other four?
Zoning Board of Appeals — Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2007—7:00 p.m. — Shelburne Town Hall
A duly posted meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Shelburne Town Hall, 51 Bridge St, Shelburne.
Present: Joseph Palmeri, Theodore Merrill, John Taylor, Lowell Laporte, Catherine Smith
Absent: William Sweeney, Laurie MacLeod
***************
Attorney Michael Pill, as attorney for Pioneer Nutritional Formulas Inc of 304 Shelburne Center Road, asked to address the board. Pill reported that he had filed suit at Land Court against Mitchell Excavating, the Town of Shelburne, and others concerning Mitchell’s application and the wording of our Zoning Bylaws. With the stipulation that Pill only address his concerns about the bylaw and not discuss the Mitchell application Pill was allowed to continue. Pill stated that the commercial section 6.0 of the bylaws appears contradictory as it starts with exclusionary language and then changes to inclusionary language, numbering in sections 6.0 and 7.0 are confusing, and that the bylaws have no special permit criteria. Members of the Board pointed out that: the Board uses criteria set forth in the Rules and Regulations, the Board has supported inclusion of such language as recently as ad hoc zoning meetings this year, and the Planning Board has attempted to clarify all uses by adding a use table but the changes have not made it to a Town vote. Pill contended that those actions do not solve the “problem” with the bylaw as it exists, and the intent of the suit in Land Court is to gain a formal ruling to validate the concerns.
-------------------------------
Zoning Board of Appeals — Meeting Minutes — January 1, 2007—7:00 p.m. — Shelburne Town Hall
A duly posted meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Shelburne Town Hall, 51 Bridge St, Shelburne.
Present: Joseph Palmeri, John Taylor, Lowell Laporte, Theodore Merrill
Absent: William Sweeney
***************
Chairman Joe Palmeri called the meeting to order at 7:10pm.
The Chair reported that member William Sweeney has requested a leave of absence due to the decent passing of his wife, Judy Sweeney. The request is before the Board of Selectmen.
The Board reviewed a Request for Special Permit received from Attorney Kevin Parsons representing Mitchell Excavating Inc for the installation of a concrete batch plant at 855 Mohawk Trail. The Building Inspector had denied Mitchell’s building permit citing that the proposal exceeded the 35 foot height limitation and that the project would require a Special Permit as the use was not specifically permitted in the commercial zone.
The Board voted to set a Hearing on the Special Permit for 7:15PM on Thursday March 1, 2007 at the Town Hall. A site visit will be scheduled on February 27, 2007 at 5:00pm as per the custom/rules of the board. Palmeri will notify the appropriate Town Office staff for posting and room reservations.
Zoning Board of Appeals — Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2007—7:00 p.m. — Shelburne Town Hall
A duly posted meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Shelburne Town Hall, 51 Bridge St, Shelburne.
Present: Joseph Palmeri, Theodore Merrill, John Taylor, Lowell Laporte, Catherine Smith
Absent: William Sweeney, Laurie MacLeod
***************
Chairman Joseph Palmeri called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
Palmeri recessed the meeting at 7:15pm for the purpose of a Public Hearing on the request of Mitchell Excavating Inc to operate a concrete batch plant at its current location on Mohawk Trail.
Following the hearing, which was continued until 03/29/07 at 7:00pm, Palmeri called the regular meeting to order at 7:24pm.
Attorney Michael Pill, as attorney for Pioneer Nutritional Formulas Inc of 304 Shelburne Center Road, asked to address the board. Pill reported that he had filed suit at Land Court against Mitchell Excavating, the Town of Shelburne, and others concerning Mitchell’s application and the wording of our Zoning Bylaws. With the stipulation that Pill only address his concerns about the bylaw and not discuss the Mitchell application Pill was allowed to continue. Pill stated that the commercial section 6.0 of the bylaws appears contradictory as it starts with exclusionary language and then changes to inclusionary language, numbering in sections 6.0 and 7.0 are confusing, and that the bylaws have no special permit criteria. Members of the Board pointed out that: the Board uses criteria set forth in the Rules and Regulations, the Board has supported inclusion of such language as recently as ad hoc zoning meetings this year, and the Planning Board has attempted to clarify all uses by adding a use table but the changes have not made it to a Town vote. Pill contended that those actions do not solve the “problem” with the bylaw as it exists, and the intent of the suit in Land Court is to gain a formal ruling to validate the concerns.
Zoning Board of Appeals — Meeting Minutes — April 5, 2007—7:00 p.m. — Shelburne Town Hall
A duly posted meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Shelburne Town Hall,
51 Bridge St., Shelburne.
Present: Theodore Merrill, Lowell Laporte, Joseph Palmeri, Catherine Smith
Absent: William Sweeney, Laurie MacLeod, John Tayor
*************
Chairman Joseph Palmeri called the meeting to order at 7:10pm
The meeting minutes as submitted by clerk John Taylor for March 1, 2007 were approved by unanimous vote after a suggestion by Ted Merrill to include the wording “to build and operate a concrete batch plant” from prior wording “to operate a concrete batch plant”.
Approval by unanimous vote for hearing minutes dated 3/1/07 and 3/29/07 as submitted by clerk John Taylor.
Joe Palmeri mentioned the issue of Attorney Michael Pill’s intention of a lawsuit against the Town of Shelburne in land court. The documented complaint dated 2/28/07 from attorney Pill mentions the intention to withdraw this lawsuit without prejudice if Mitchell Companies as represented by Attorney Kevin Parsons proceeds with withdrawal of application for a special permit. The status of Attorney Pill’s intentions remain unclear. Ted Merrill questions viability of lawsuit in land court over its bylaws if there is no active case currently pending before the ZBA.
The addendum titled “Evaluation Criteria for Special Permits” was questioned as to whether it would hold up in court since it’s not specifically included in current bylaws. This addendum is intended as a guide for ZBA members. Ted Merrill suggested the drafting a letter to the Board of Selectmen mentioning some concerns about the current bylaws. Palmeri agrees but also suggests allowing time for the dust to settle given the current contention in town.
Laporte speaks to the notion mentioned by some that large corporate retailers are not likely to locate in Shelburne. Ted Merrill offers his view that many existing lots in the village residential district are non conforming to existing lot size requirements, so why require the minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. feet.
The Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies asks the ZBA to fill out a Local Permitting Survey. Information gathered helps the state agency in understanding issues facing municipalities. This survey to be completed at next ZBA meeting.
Move to Adjourn 8:45pm. So voted.
Sure his own town in Massachusetts won't let him put an asphalt plant there, so he come here to the land of milk and honey and lax regulations to pollute our town.
The better question might be why do we have a code enforcement/land use department? Why do we have a Zoning Board. One makes a decision and the next appeals it...
Why bother spending the time and effort, attorney's fees ( if needed ) or getting people to vote in warrant articles if our boards are just going to waive conditions and regulation at every turn. I say dump the bunch of them and start over. Can we take the town to court over this?
This is not associated with this subject. Take a cruse through the town hall parking lot on Thurs. and see if all or most of the poor overworked employee are still working after the party, better yet go to the party, you are still paying these people. This would not be an issue if it wasn't for the 3 and 4 day work weeks, with employees coming and going as they please. With these people its Christmas all year long.
I believe that all the people that are running the town should be fired . they are the ones that are running the town not the people. We need new blood running the town that will stand up for the people.
If there are 21 conditions that need to be addressed how the heck could the planning board approve this plant?
Post a Comment