The Cat Dam NOI* is in a legal permitting process with the Conservation Committee. One group of abutters has retained an attorney who has filed a brief that is under review by Town Counsel. At last Monday night's BoS meeting a majority of the selectmen voted to pull the NOI at the request of these abutters.
In my opinion, the majority intervened in a legal permitting process - before Town Counsel issued an opinion - and subverted the authority of another governing body. To me, this sets bad precedent.
The majority's justification is that these abutters have requested the BoS review the NOI submitted some months ago. It seems the majority never read the NOI. Why not? I did - as well as all the backup data and reports.
The majority want to give the public an opportunity to provide comment and input. Wasn't this talked about for years before the BoS and now during ConCom's permitting process? No one's voice has been silenced.
The majority want to discuss the NOI to determine if it could be 'made better'. On what basis will they do that? None of us is qualified to judge environmental engineering. ConCom is.
The majority propose to accept a plan prepared by an engineer hired by abutters who do not agree with the conclusions of the existing NOI. Does anyone really think the conclusions in this NOI will differ from those of the abutters ?
There is another group of abutters who urged the BoS to allow the process to proceed. Once the BoS has reviewed and possibly submitted the other group's NOI will this group then urge the BoS to pull this NOI? Round and round we'll go.
ConCom is the only town entity having regulatory jurisdiction in this matter. I trust the process and have respect for and confidence in ConCom. In my opinion the BoS should have allowed the permitting process to proceed to conclusion at which point the aggrieved abutters could appeal the decision to DEP and/or the courts.
The majority's action has taken this issue out of the realm of science and law and put it back in the political arena.
*Notice of Intent
6 comments:
It might be nice to wait for Town Counsel's opinion on this matter.
Why even have Town Counsel if we don't even listen to his legal opinion?
Please see "Environment vs. Abutters Yet Again" posted by Ms. Quigley on October 2, 2010 for responses to the issues she raises. Her approach attacks basic concepts of due process and private property.
There really are 5 selectman.
What's the deal with zeroing in on Ms. Quigley?
Her "approach" has been to turn it over to the committee in charge of the environment.
How does that interfer with your due process?
I am really sorry for all the Cats Dam people, all those college grads, who were scammed by their real estate agents when they bought their homes.
They live on a vital marsh -not on a swimming pool. I don't think we should reschedule the tides for them.
Buyer Beware.
I'm with the clams and Quigley.
Well I know who must have left the previous anonymous comments - Tana K. Private property rights don't feature in her thinking, unless ofcourse it is her own. I don't know where she is talking about - there is no pool around ILH although I would like one! The tide comes in and goes out, except for a nominal covering to avoid odors. Many people don't realize that if the Dam was completely removed there would only be 2 ft reduction in height of water when the tide is out (due to the natural topography being heigher than the base of the dam). Still, the algae producers and their friends, Ms Quigley, Ms Kasperowitz persist in taking up more and more town time and money. Is'nt there bigger issues?
Post a Comment