Tag: Rob Houseman

“Mistakes on top of mistakes”

First, a little refresher:  Back in August, Zoning Administrator Rob Houseman made an administrative decision that essentially said that the work at 34 Greensboro could continue without any additional wetlands scrutiny, despite the fact that Christ Redeemer Church had filed for their building permit without delineating the existing wetlands as required by law.  And, the town had approved that permit without the wetlands delineation, despite the fact that the town is currently involved in a lawsuit about those exact same wetlands!  The Acker’s appealed that decision.

So on Feb 4, the Zoning Board deliberated on the Acker’s appeal of Rob Houseman’s Administrative Decision.  And then they issued a decision that basically looked like this:

The Board ruled that Rob was wrong in part, but right, in part, and because he was right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons, on balance, we will just let Christ Redeemer Church do whatever the heck they want.  Or something like that . . . 

But the fundamental problem with the ZBA decision is that the Board didn’t account for what was in my opinion Houseman’s blatant bias in favor of Christ Redeemer Church and against the Ackers and the Greensboro Rd neighborhood.  For example, when confronted with two contradictory opinions from Certified Wetlands Scientists, Houseman reached out several times for additional information from Audra Klumb, the CWS who represents the church, but never asked for additional information from Rick Van de Poll, the CWS that we hired.  And then (again, of course, in my opinion), during his testimony at the hearing on Jan 28, Houseman blatantly and intentionally misled the ZBA by claiming that he chose to accept Klumb’s report over Van de Poll’s because she had 16 data points in her report and Rick only had 4 in his report.  Now, the number of data points really shouldn’t be the reason to choose one over the other, but it’s worse than that –  Klumb actually only had 3 data points in the information she provided to Houseman!

And that is just one of several examples of what appeared to us to be bias in Houseman’s decision making process.   So, faced with this alleged bias, we feel we have no choice but to appeal the ZBA decision, and explicitly point out to the Board the facts as we see them.  We have filed a Motion for Rehearing, and the ZBA will deliberate about our motion at their meeting on March 25 at 7 PM.

As we wrote in our appeal: “The entire way that the Zoning Administrator approached his decision indicated bias toward the Ackers and an intent to find reasons not to take any action to address their concerns. His demonstrated bias and multiple, unexplainable errors, makes the ZBA’s deferral to his judgment unreasonable.” 

You can read the full Motion for Rehearing here: Motion for Rehearing

And the Exhibits that are referenced in the Motion are here: Exhibits

If you want more, you can read the complete text of the ZBA decision that we are appealing here. And if you want some background on the whole affair click here

We are carrying this fight for the dozens of people in this neighborhood, and the hundreds of folks around town that have supported us every step of the way – financially and emotionally.  So, when you read about alleged bias against “the Ackers”, it’s really bias against every single resident of this neighborhood, every single person who has donated to the cause, every single person who has seen me or Lara around town and asked us how things are going and encouraged us to keep fighting because they know that deep down we are right.

We’ve tried for so long to just stick to the facts and the law, and present our case, and not get into personal attacks.  But in our opinion, the bias against us has gotten so blatant, and so bold, that we feel we can no longer ignore it.  This is not a decision we made lightly, and not a decision we feel particularly good about, but we have come to the point where we realize that we have no choice.  The town’s bias against this neighborhood has become one of the facts in our view, and we can’t ultimately prevail without making that part of the story.  Sad, but unfortunately, true.

When is a settlement not a settlement?

Two important events to add to your calendar if the ongoing CRC/Greensboro Rd issue interests you:

Tuesday, 11/12, 7:00 PM – a meeting at the Black Center to answer questions about the so-called “settlement”, provide updates on the process, and brainstorm about next steps. If you want to learn more about where things stand the the on-going efforts to stop this development, please plan to attend.

Thursday, 11/14, 7:00 PM at Town Hall – the Zoning Board will meet to consider the proposed “Settlement Agreement” between the town and CRC. We don’t know exactly what format this meeting will take but it is billed as a public hearing, so there will be opportunities for the community to be heard.

So, what exactly is going on here? It’s confusing, to say the least.

As you may recall, there was a mediation session in September. We were led to believe that CRC was willing to consider modifying their plans to mitigate the detrimental neighborhood impacts. In the words of their attorney, “Everything is on the table”. In preparation, we held a couple of meetings, brainstormed, gathered ideas, and were prepared to compromise in an effort to allow CRC to proceed with their development in a way that lessened, but didn’t eliminate, all the negative impacts.

Well, when push came to shove at the mediation, it turned out that actually nothing meaningful was on the table. We presented our ideas to the mediator, and the answer came back from CRC that they were unwilling to consider reducing the size of the building or parking lot, and unwilling to consider putting any limits on the hours and types of operation. In other words, they were unwilling to consider anything.

But, they did cook up a “settlement” with the town that completely ignored the abutters and neighbors. Essentially, the settlement agreement says that the town will remove all but the most toothless conditions that they placed on CRC’s approval. In exchange, CRC will agree not to sue the town for religious discrimination, but if and only if the settlement agreement isn’t appealed by the abutters. So, in other words, the Town gives up everything, and CRC gives up nothing. You can read the whole agreement here: Settlement Agreement

So, what happens next? Apparently many people have been left with the impression that this Settlement Agreement ends the issue, and that the abutters and neighbors are left out in the cold. This is 100% incorrect! Even if this agreement is approved, it has no impact on the ongoing appeals filed by the abutters, challenging both the Zoning decision that allows the use, and decision that allows the wetlands impacts. Both of those legal cases will continue, regardless of what the ZBA decides on Thurs night.

The process going forward is unclear, but what we do know is that the Settlement Agreement has to be approved by the ZBA before it can be submitted to the Grafton County Court for review. That is the topic that the ZBA is going to take up on Thursday night.

This proposed settlement agreement should be offensive to every citizen of the Town of Hanover. Town staff (Rob Houseman and Julia Griffin) , the town’s attorney, and the town’s insurance carrier crafted this so called settlement, without any regard for the overwhelming testimony from neighbors that this mega-development is inappropriate for the proposed site. The town apparently never even tried to wrestle any concessions from the church that might favor the neighbors – we sat thru the entire mediation and were never once presented with any type of even rudimentary proposal to consider.

Please come to the Black Center tonight if you would like to learn more, and most importantly, please come to the ZBA meeting on Thursday to deliver the message that back room deals that benefit insurance companies and developers are not the way we expect business to be conducted in our town.

Valley News chimes in on sign questions

In case you missed it, the Valley News had a long article on Sunday about the sign issue, and the CRC proposal in general. I’m not sure how their paywall works, but here’s a link to the article: https://www.vnews.com/Greensboro-Road-Signs-Cause-Stir-27627567.aspx

It pains me to say this, but I think it is clear that some members of the town staff see us as “the enemy” in this situation. This is not at all what we want; we have said time and time again that we don’t want to be in an adversarial position relative to the town. Sadly, I’m not sure that’s the feeling in Town Hall.

Quoting from the Valley News article:

“Meanwhile, town officials contend Acker and his neighbors dragged their feet obtaining permission for the signs. All they had to do was send in a letter and get the OK of Hanover’s five-member Selectboard, Town Manager Julia Griffin said last week.”

If that was “all we had to do”, then I wonder why town officers felt the need to send an email threatening $275 per day fines, telling us our signs were a zoning violation, needed permission from the NH DOT and so on. You can read the whole email exchange between me and town officials here and decide for yourself: Greensboro Road sign emails

I also still have questions about why specifically our signs were targeted for enforcement. If there were really safety issues, it seems like those could have easily been addressed by just moving a few offending signs? Or were the complaints really based on the content of the signs, which raises a whole host of other concerns. There are several other signs in obvious plain view on well traveled main roads in town (both in the town right of way and on private property) that don’t seem to draw any attention from the enforcers.

Thankfully, I think we got a very fair hearing with the Selectboard, (read more about that here). Reasonable people came to a reasonable resolution of the issue, and the signs can stay. So for now, maybe that’s all that really matters?

The signs can stay!

On Monday, Aug 5, the Selectboard considered the topic of the “Save our Residential Neighborhood” signs that have popped up all up and down Greensboro Rd, and all the way out into Etna and in other spots around town. For background on the topic, you can read previous posts here and here.

The Selectboard seemed mostly sympathetic to our plight, and the confusing standards that were being applied to the signs. Comparisons were made to other signs that appear around town, both in the town right of way and on private property, such as “Solarize Hanover”, “Black Lives Matter”, “Love Trumps Hate”, and others. Rob Houseman indicated that any signs on private property are most likely zoning violations, but apparently we have a “complaint based” enforcement system, so if no one complains, no action is ever initiated by the town. Seems odd that town officials would drive, bike, walk right past obvious violations every day and then try to bring the hammer down on us, but so it is.

Town Manager Julia Griffin stated that because Greensboro Rd and Etna Rd are state roads, not town roads, it really is up to the state to determine what can be in the right of way. She went on to say that she had spoken to someone at the state level who told her that they would not entertain any requests for signs in the state right of way, but that they would allow the town to make the decision for them. Based on that information, the Selectboard voted unanimously to allow the signs to remain in the right of way until Sept 30th as we requested.

Julia’s statement that the state is willing to cede authority to the town in matters relating to the state roads is curious. It seems as if the town called the state, and the state essentially said, “We don’t care, do whatever you want.” It begs the question of why the town then doesn’t do the same on issues such as biker/pedestrian safety, speed limits, road conditions, drainage issues, and a whole host of other topics. But maybe that’s a topic for another day . . .

And more about the signs . . .

The question of whether or not the signs should be allowed has been placed on the agenda for the Selectboard meeting for Monday, August 5. The meeting starts at 7:30 at Town Hall. I have no idea what will happen, but it should be interesting. If nothing else, it is an opportunity to demonstrate to the town leaders the depth of the opposition to the CRC proposal, so hopefully many neighbors and project opponents will attend.

Here is the email that I sent to the Selectboard requesting to be on the agenda:

Dear Selectboard Members – 
Per Catheryn Hembree’s email to me dated May 15, and several subsequent follow up emails, we are requesting permission from the Selectboard to place signs in the right of way.  The signs read “Protect our Residential Neighborhood” and are intended to encourage people to become more informed about the development proposals and the current situation on Greensboro Rd.
These signs have actually been around town for about two months now. We did not request permission when Catheryn originally wrote to me about the issue because we believed that we were complying with her request –  removing all the signs from the town rights of way, and displaying them on private property only.
We still believe that they are actually all currently on private property, and despite several requests from us, no one on the town staff has identified any specific signs that they believe are in a town right of way. But, we have received confusing and sometimes contradictory information about exactly where the signs can and can’t be.  To hopefully clarify the situation, we have decided to take the step of requesting this permission from the Selectboard as Catheryn suggested originally.   We would like permission to display the signs until September 30, 2019.
To help bring you up to speed on how we got to this point, we have attached copies of all the email communications back and forth on the issue between Catheryn Hembree, Rob Houseman, Julia Griffin, and us.  The emails are presented in chronological order so as you read through you will hopefully get a complete picture.
Thank  you for your consideration of this request.  We would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues further and would appreciate being placed on an upcoming agenda.

For background on the issue, you can read my previous post on the issue here: https://greensbororoad.org/2019/07/29/so-about-those-signs/

So, about those signs . . .

The “Save Our Residential Neighborhood” signs that have popped up all around Greensboro Rd and out in Etna have caused quite a stir at Town Hall. I have received several emails recently from Town officials with conflicting information – the signs are allowed on private property . . . no they aren’t allowed on private property . . . you don’t need a zoning permit, you need permission from the Selectboard to display them in the Town Right of Way . . . wait, Greensboro Rd is a state road, there is no town right of way . . . you need a zoning permit to display them . . . the town will leave any enforcement to the state . . . the town will fine the property owner $285 per day per sign . . .

So, to try to cut through all the confusion and fog, Lara and I have requested permission from the Selectboard to display the signs – even though we don’t think we need permission, and even though we don’t actually own the signs or control the placement of them, but, that is what the town officials have told us to do,so that is what we are going to do. My personal opinion is that the signs are protected free speech, allowed by state law on private property in the same way that candidates signs are allowed. But, what the heck do I know?

We have asked to be on the next Selectboard agenda. The next meeting is Monday, August 5th, and we are told that we should know by Aug 1 if we are actually on the agenda. It would be great to have a big showing of support from the neighborhood. Even if we aren’t on the agenda, I plan to go to the meeting and raise the issue during the open agenda/public comments section of the meeting. Please save the date, and we will provide more details as we know them.

In case anyone wants to read the whole story, the link below contains the 100% unabridged version of all the emails back and forth from me to various town officals on the subject, presented in chronological order. I didn’t cherry pick, edit, take things out of context – this is every email start to finish, in order.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jcaNqWKh9OX0Vib1ZTaVJtR3QxNnVmYzZRUldoeE5xZXpn/view?usp=sharing