In the appeal the residents allege the Winchester Planning Board failed to enforce some of the 23 conditions it put in place when it granted permission in January for Mitchell Sand and Gravel to operate a hot mix gravel plant in an agricultural district.
At a Sept. 19 compliance hearing, however, the appeal charges the board overlooked many of its own conditions — starting with one that required the compliance hearing take place before the plant started operating. The plant started making small batches of asphalt on Aug. 26.
Other allegations in the appeal claim that the planning board failed to enforce the standards it had set for water quality monitoring, and that the plant has been working at night without notifying the town of Swanzey or other abutters, as required in the conditions the board laid out in January.
According to the appeal, the town’s building inspector has stated that enforcing 12 of the 23 conditions is the “responsibility of others.”
“It is unlawful and unreasonable ... for the Planning Board to impose conditions on the approval of a site plan application, as it did on 3 January 2011, and to decide, thereafter, not to enforce the conditions or to decide that determining compliance was the ‘responsibility of others,’ ” Joseph S. Hoppock, attorney for the petitioners, wrote in the appeal.
The petitioners are F. Michael Towne of Winchester, and Arthur Beckman Jr., Rodney Plummer and Mary Ryan, all of Swanzey.
The town of Winchester must file a written appearance form in court by Dec. 6 and has until Jan. 6, 2012, to respond to the appeal.
6 comments:
So three residents of another town, and our local opponent to everything, is going to cost us money to deal with this? When this appeal gets dismissed, like the other ones that Mary Ryan and Mr. towne have filed previously, the Town should go after these four for attorney fees. They just dont get it. Enough is enough.
You don't get it, wrong is wrong and if your friends at town hall continue to ignore their own rules and regulations, they'll be more suits filed. I'm not opposed to everything, just businesses that will affect the health and welfare of my family, my neighbors and those idiots that don't have a clue but go along with whatever comes out of town hall. What you fail to say or maybe even notice is that it is the same group of people whose decisions cause these types of lawsuits. And you're right, enough is enough. We're not costing the town of Winchester a dime, it's the people on the boards that have caused this suit to be filed by violating their own regulations once again.
Is this the reason that Mr. Tedford is considering not running for the select board again? Poster of 9:17 you need to understand that the rules were made by the townspeople. They thought long and hard about this. How dare the board of select people and planning board not follow the rules. If it had been a towns person you can damn well bet that the town would have taken them to court. Don't forget that the backers behind this project were the Beamans. Remember NIMBY! Thank them when the taxes go up and we all find out about the dirty little deals that people want to keep quiet.
So how come all the other lawsuits filed by Towne and Ryan on this project have been dismissed and we have not heard anything about it from the Informer? I thought this location was where we could get informed on what is going on in town in an unbiased forum. Was I mistaken?
I was not part of any other lawsuit filed in regards to this action by the board. The filing is on record at the courthouse and anyone can request a copy. In fact I believe it was posted here for all to see a while back when it happened. Do your homework before you comment on something you obviously know nothing about. The lawsuit filed by Mrs. Ryan and others was not dismissed because it had no merit, it was dismissed because Margaret Sharra and others on the Planning Board played games and she ended up filing late according to a new judge assigned to Superior Court that Silas Little sought out. This time make no mistake about it, the board screwed up again and the filing was in time.
To the person who continues to attack me personally and call me a liar among other derogatory remarks:
The Informer forwarded your latest comments directed at me before it was deleted and I'll answer your allegations that I am not telling the truth when I stated I was not part of the previous lawsuit.
Yes, I filed an appeal of the ZBA's decision to overturn our code enforcement officers denial of Mitchell's permit and yes, because of a technicality and erroneous information received from the Town of Winchester, the court refused to hear my challenge because it was deemed I filed late. If you go and check the court records you will find that the opposing council in that matter, Silas Little; not Barton Mayer, sought out his friendly judge once again to get it dismissed. Once again the town was saved from having to answer a skewed decision made by one of it's boards not on merit but on a dispute over the time frame for filing. There is a discrepancy in the RSA's governing appeals.
RSA 677:15 states you have a 30 day window unless minutes were filed late, which is always the case in Winchester. Minutes are never posted on time despite what Sharra or others say, or what date they put on them. Another RSA governing appeals 21:35 states that you have until the next business day if the offices of Town Hall are not open or if your filing date falls on a weekend; but the courts do not recognize this .. why not? Seems our courts see things one way and the legislature in it's attempts to be fair to all see it another. This is what causes so many pro-se' cases to be dismissed, besides not being privy to the inner circle at the court house.
So to answer your question, yes, my appeal of the ZBA's unbelievable decision to overturn our code enforcement officer's denial based on Lou Foxes testimony and opinion, that asphalt, despite being listed on numerous state toxicity lists and highly regulated by DES and the EPA is not toxic was not heard and the attorney of record was Silas Little; thus it cost the town nothing as Barton Mayer deferred to Little in the matter and Little, last time I looked does not work for the town of Winchester .. yet.
So once again, your attempt to discredit me falls short as the facts don't support your allegations. I'd strongly suggest that before you comment again on something you know nothing about that you seek the truth before calling someone a liar and put it in print, that's called libel.
Post a Comment