Update…Board of Selectmen (BOS) in the Dark! Town Counsel files court document defining Ancillary and Accessory…and Chairman Blomback has no idea what the definition means!

bang-head-against-brick-wall Is this how you want your town government to be run?

On December 30,2016 town counsel filed a response prior to a January hearing date in Forster v. Henniker Merrimack County Superior Court Case  No.:  217-2016-CV-00534.

In that document the Henniker, through their attorney states the following town-of-henniker-zba-memo-of-law-12-30-16 see page 5.

“…the  Court   observed    that   “[c ]onsistent    with   the  common    law,  the  Town’s    ordinance    defines   an accessory    use  as  a  ‘use   subordinate     and  customarily     incidental    to  the  main … use  on  the  same lot. ‘”   The  Court   continued    “[h]ere,    the  petitioner    failed  to  establish   that  the  proposed    uses  have ‘commonly,     habitually    and  by  long  practice    been   established    as reasonably    associated    with  the primary  … use.”   

As I have shown in a previous post the NH Supreme Court also stated that the use must rise above being rare:

“While the strength or degree of the customary or habitual association does not lend itself to definition by formula, and while the combination need not occur in a majority of instances of the principal use, the uses must be associated with a frequency that is substantial enough to rise above rarity.” Alfond, 129 N.H. at 29 (citation omitted).”

Just ten days after Chairman Blomback tells Mr. Damourra he cannot give him a definition of ancillary and accessory uses, town counsel files a court document defining ancillary and accessory.

Clearly, Chairman Blomback has no idea what town counsel is doing!

When was the last meeting between the BOS and Town Counsel regarding their defense in Forster v. Henniker Merrimack County Superior Court Case  No.:  217-2016-CV-00534?

I would like to know how many Selectmen/women have seen the pleadings? Does the BOS receive copies of these pleadings?

Clearly the Chairman is disengaged from his duties and has no clear understanding of what is happening, not applying Zoning Regulations equally and is unprepared and unresponsive to the needs of our community.

Clearly the home owners of 60 Juniper Ridge, cannot prove that a motocross track on a 1/2 acre residential property has been established as being common, habitual and reasonably associated with a residential property in Henniker.

The BOS, by taking no action, is in fact contradicting their position in Forster v. Henniker 217-2016-CV-00534.

I ask you once again, Is this how you want your town government to run?

OHB

http://www.onlyhennikerbruce.wordpress.com

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s