A+ A A-

Conduct of 2 Planning Board members dealt serious blow to integrity of zoning ordinance

To The Daily Sun,

First, I want to make it clear that I am writing this as a single member of the Board of Selectman. My opinions expressed in this letter should in no way be interpreted as representing those of anyone else on the board individually or as the view of the board as a whole.

The Board of Selectmen, relative to whether or not there was cause to remove two elected planning board members from office, conducted a public hearing recently. There was much uproar about the process of how that hearing came about and very little about the actual conduct of the two members in question. That was certainly unfortunate and by anyone's standards it could have been handled better. However, in this case the conduct occurred entirely in the public eye, recorded on video and recorded in the official minutes of the meeting. Neither I, nor anyone else had to rely on some anonymous complaint to determine whether or not the actions of the members actually took place. This was conduct, which occurred, in an open hearing for a Conditional Use Permit, conduct that was not refuted in any way by one of the members during their hearing.

The focus should have been and should be on the conduct of the two Planning Board members during the public hearing for the Bear's Nest application. This was for a lookout tower that had been constructed without any building permit, and was in violation of two portions of the Zoning Ordinance. During that hearing, both members stated repeatedly and emphatically that it was their opinion that the application before them failed to meet one or more of the required criteria necessary for approval. One member voted "no" on three of the required criteria, but then choose to vote for the application's approval. That member continued to state that they felt the application was in violation of the ordinance but that it was a "has been", referring to the fact that the building already existed. When questioned further about changing their mind, their statement was "I didn't change my mind, I changed my vote". In other words, they still felt that the application was in violation of the ordinance, but were voting for its approval anyway.

The second member in question also felt that the application did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and stated so repeatedly during the hearing. He also stated at the beginning of the hearing "If I may, I do not think in any way the fact that something has already been built should affect our decision at all". Yet when it came time to actually vote and weigh in on whether or not the applicant had met the criteria, he refused to vote on one of the criteria and then abstained on another. When questioned by fellow board members about that conduct he stated, "I abstained on those two, um, for the reason that there is a reality here... the alternative really is to deny it and the effect of that would be to either require that it be moved or taken down or some other, or maybe we go to court for six months or a year...". He followed that with, "I guess in further, to further my thoughts on the thing. I think that the board ought to very carefully consider what happens if we say no. I don't like being held, to have my feet held to the fire." When that member was asked why he didn't just vote then on those two criteria he responded, "Because I am not going to say that I believe that they passed, that they met those two criteria." In other words, much like the member mentioned above, this member also did not feel that the necessary criteria had been met, yet they then proceeded to make the motion to approve the application and voted for it in the end.

The issue at hand is this: members of our land-use boards are not there to do what they think is in the best interest of the public or the voters. Their duty is to protect the public interest as embodied in the zoning ordinance. This is a very important distinction! The overall integrity of our zoning ordinance is an invisible party to every case and part of their function is to protect its interests! The question that should be asked in every case is, "Could we allow EVERYBODY whose property is in these same circumstances to do the same thing, and still preserve the integrity of the zoning ordinance?" In this particular case, we have two Planning Board members who repeatedly stated that this application did not meet the requirements of our zoning ordinance, but still failed to protect it by voting accordingly! There should have been no consideration given as to the possible consequences of their particular vote, whether in the affirmative or negative, other than would their decision uphold the integrity of the zoning ordinance. It shouldn't have mattered how deep they perceived the applicant's pockets to be, or how impressive the applicant's attorney was in presenting their case, or the perceived threat of a lawsuit if the application was denied, all that should have mattered was whether the applicant met the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In this case these two members felt that the applicant had fallen short but would not or could not do their duty and uphold our zoning ordinance.

At the end of the day, I believe that the conduct of these two Planning Board members dealt a serious blow to the integrity of our zoning ordinance. In doing so, I also believe that damage was done to the credibility of any enforcement attempts in the future regarding our zoning ordinance. It has been stated by some that we as a Board of Selectmen should have challenged the Planning Board's decision in Superior Court. It is my opinion that if these two Planning Board members had done their duty that would not have been necessary, nor would it have addressed the much more serious issue. It is one thing for our land-use board members to faithfully apply our zoning ordinance, make a judgment call on any given application as to whether or not it meets the required criteria and then vote accordingly. In those cases one might still disagree with their decision, but they will have followed the law and applied it to the best of their ability. If however, we have members who will not vote to uphold our zoning ordinance even when they think and publicly state that it would be violated by a particular application, then what is the point of having a zoning ordinance in the first place?

Jonathan W. Tolman

Selectman, Town of Moultonborough

Last Updated on Friday, 13 September 2013 01:54

Hits: 283

Bob Kingsbury's views were those shared by many Americans

To The Daily Sun,

I read with great sadness of the passing of Bob Kingsbury, a true patriot and gentleman who loved his country. I had the great pleasure and honor of meeting Mr. Kingsbury at several rallies and meetings over the past two years. He stood out to me as a very patriotic gentleman who was proud to have served his country. At a time when I was researching my father's service in the army in WWII and tracing his footsteps through the European theater of operations, Mr. Kingsbury was a wealth of information and was more than patient and gracious with his time.

My father, too, fought at the Battle of the Bulge. Mr. Kingsbury was kind enough to relate some information on that battle to me as well as give me some very informative publications he had written on the subject. His thoughts and insight into that great Battle gave me a much better picture of what my Father and so many other brave young men had endured.

To read that Rep. David Huot did not think Mr. Kingsbury's views made him a candidate to serve the public was really offensive to me. We need more people like Bob Kingsbury! He was the epitome of a true American patriot and a part of that greatest generation the likes of which I fear we may never see again. It might interest Rep. Huot to know that Bob Kingsbury's views are the views many Americans share, myself included. His passing is a great loss and he will be greatly missed by me and many others at future rallies and meetings.

Christine Wittmann
Alton

Last Updated on Thursday, 12 September 2013 10:16

Hits: 193

Rep. Huot's remark is a confirmation of the trouble we are all in

To The Daily Sun,
It is quite telling when a former judge and sitting state representative can write about someone who has just passed away as though it doesn't matter what he says about him. I am referring to the recent letter Mr. Huot wrote, which had tasteless comments about the Honorable Representative Kingsbury. It is confirmation of the trouble we are all in. Mr. Huot of ALL people should know that Representative Kingsbury was ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. It is clear that Mr. Huot's vanity supersedes his intelligence, because by Mr. Huots standards, when he lacks the ability to agree with Representative Kingsbury, he thinks Representative Kingsbury shouldn't have served the people who elected him! Mr. Huot has shown his true, dirty, liberal colors. Mr. Huot lacks respect for our God-given rights to ELECT WHOM WE CHOSE and the long honored right for Representative Kingsbury's TO SERVE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
I for one will always remember the time Representative Kingsbury took to talk to his constituents and listen when they spoke. He is going to be sorely missed by those who love this state and country. Representative Kingsbury had more class in his baby finger than Mr. Huot will ever have, because with Mr. Huot's over inflated ego, there is simply no room for class.

Barbara Howard
Alton

Last Updated on Thursday, 12 September 2013 10:11

Hits: 286

Rep. David Huot should be ashamed of himself, an apology is owed

To The Daily Sun,

This is a response to Rep. David Huot's letter to the editor dated Sept. 10 (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/opinion/letters/71361-rep-david-o-huot-9-5-114-priority), which gave "recognition" to a great man, the late Rep. Bob Kingsbury, a soldier, father, friend, and patriot.

I initially thought it was nice of Rep. Huot to "reach across the aisle" with his (limited) admiration of Rep. Kingsbury, until I got to the point in his letter where he said "...some of us did not think it wise that a person with his views should serve in public office..." I just about fell off of my chair!

I was going to keep my opinion to myself but as I carried on my work at my computer that awful gut feeling didn't go away; something just kept tugging at me to not "just sit around and complain (but to voice my views) openly and honestly," a virtue Rep. Huot's letter seems to extol.

So here is open and honest: I can't believe that Rep. Huot, an elected official — a judge for 30 years — who is purportedly so well acquainted with our legal and political process to have decided the fate of thousands of litigants spanning three decades — would have the arrogance and haughtiness to condemn Rep. Kingsbury's "wisdom" for serving in public office because of a view or set of views that he holds which happen to contrary to the author.

That narrow-minded reasoning is tantamount to saying "unless your opinions can be inserted comfortably into Judge Huot's little partisan container, it would be unwise to serve in public office." That one line of Rep. Huot's "reasoning" alone exemplifies the depravity of partisan representation, calls into question the "wisdom" and discretion he used for so many years on the judicial bench, and has made an abject mockery of the 70-year legacy of Rep. Kingsbury's service. He should be ashamed of himself and he owes the late Rep. Kingsbury a public apology.

Josh Youssef

Laconia

Last Updated on Thursday, 12 September 2013 10:07

Hits: 475

Bob Kingsbury was true warrior for high standards & principals

To The Daily Sun,
After reading Rep. Huot's lip service to the Honorable Bob Kingsbury, I feel moved to respond.
Mr. Huot, don't look now but your progressive bent is showing. Many, many of us do not think it wise that a person with your views should serve in public office. I would think that Bob would find it a compliment that you never agreed with him. He was a man's man, who knew what was important and that is truth, freedom and the American way, led by the Constitution of the United States and the New Hampshire State Constitution. No wonder you "can't remember anything on which Bob Kingsbury and I ever agreed". Representative Robert Kingsbury was obviously everything that you are not. You must not believe in the Constitution. You must not believe in individual rights. You must not believe in personal property rights and freedom. You, sir, must be of the "collective" mentality. He was duly elected by his constituents whom he served well and to the best of his ability. Are you saying that the majority of citizens who voted for him and put him into office were wrong? Apparently so. Voters please take notice, all of you were wrong in voting for Representative Kingsbury according to Mr. Huot. Oh, and by the way, I am proud to say that I shared many of Representative Kingsbury's "views" and was co-sponsor on at least one of his bills and supported others.
Bob Kingsbury was one of the most honorable men I have ever met and I will miss him. His heart was true and brave and he was truly a warrior for high standards and principles. He loved his country, his cause and his people with passion. Just a very great man. My sympathies are with his family and many friends.
You were a true hero Bob and I will always remember you.
The Honorable Susan C. DeLemus
Rochester

Last Updated on Thursday, 12 September 2013 10:02

Hits: 263

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN