Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bear
We unequivocally believe that our town officials have the utmost integrity, will follow the law and will make decisions accordingly. That’s all we can hope for.
|
It’s great that you believe in the volunteers on these boards. Most of them all want to do the right thing, and none of them are getting paid for their civic passion.
That said, these boards often don’t fully understand the laws, and they make unintentional mistakes. A good land use attorney can spot those mistakes, and turn them to the advantage of their client, be it a proponent of the development, or an opponent of the development.
If there is a large group of community members that oppose the development, consider an e-mail or social media campaign to solicit funds for legal representation. In the near term, this won’t cost much, because the attorney is simply going to review the application, attend a couple of meetings, and provide proper testimony that might help the ZBA members understand the legal reasons why a variance might not be legally justifiable. The ZBA is really acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and they can’t (or shouldn’t) be making a variance decision based upon personal preferences of the community members. They really need legal justification to render a decision, yet they’ll only hear one legal opinion if there is only counsel for the applicant presenting testimony.
Nobody likes to have to hire attorneys, but I really feel that a small amount of legal expenditure at this juncture will really help concerned community members to understand the process, and be better equipped to handle a mistake by a local board of volunteers.
FWIW, I know very little about this application, and have no opinion as to the actual ramification to community members. It may well be that opposition is overly concerned about the actual impacts. Conversely, we may all be getting an eyesore on what should justifiably remain rural. I just hate to see the community members get railroaded by wealthy landowners, who can afford any amount of legal expense to overcome local opposition.
Get 10 people to donate $1,000 to a legal fund, and you’ll probably have enough to get somebody to review the application, appear at the public hearings, and provide a concise legal argument on behalf of an abutter. Trust me on this …. it’s a necessary expenditure to stop this thing, assuming it warrants being stopped.
EDIT: I just read a news article that indicates the applicants have pulled the variance application, and are now only seeking special exceptions. I suspect they determined they were unlikely to prevail in a variance appeal. The special exceptions are less likely to be overturned on appeal, so I could make a case that an attorney would be less beneficial at this stage.