Winchester's ZBA violated the law, gave no answers

We require government to hold public meetings so that we can, by hearing their deliberations, understand the how and why of their decisions. At their March 2 meeting, the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment made a critical decision affecting the whole town. Unfortunately the public has no idea how or why they arrived at that decision. The application of Ridgeline Marksmanship Park before the ZBA is now in limbo for no apparent reason. The property owner who sponsored the application sold the property to another buyer last month, and the new owner requested the application be withdrawn from consideration.

Without a sponsoring property owner, Ridgeline has no legal standing to continue on its own, any more than I would have the legal standing to apply for a variance to build something on my neighbor’s property without his/her sponsorship.

Ridgeline is suing both the former and new owners of its “chosen” land, requesting a reversal of the sale. However, Ridgeline did not ask for an injunction or restraining order while the case makes its way through the court.

Based on information available, the ZBA did not receive any kind of court order (public document) directing it to withhold action on the applications until the case is settled, nor to act in contradiction to the instructions of the legal property owner. That means the ZBA must act on the facts that exist — specifically that the new owner does not want a shooting range and did nullify Ridgeline’s application.

Upon bringing the meeting to order, the ZBA members voted unanimously to enter into a nonpublic session, without stating their specific purpose, as they are required to do by the Right to Know law. Apparently no ZBA member needed to know, or imagined that the public needed to know, why they had to go behind closed doors.

When the public session reconvened, the land-use administrator was prompted by a board member, “You wanted to mention a code?” She replied, “Yeah, this should have been said originally. We went into nonpublic session under RSA 91-A:3, ii, (l),” without further explanation. Reading the statute reveals that their reason for going behind closed doors was “Consideration of legal advice provided by legal counsel ...”

The statute also requires that a vote be taken in the public session as to whether or not to seal the minutes of the nonpublic session. No such vote was taken.

Instead, the board immediately voted unanimously without discussion to table the Ridgeline application, leaving the public confused as to how and why they decided, since there is no apparent legitimate reason to override the request of the actual landowner. The chairman said the tabling wasn’t indefinite but had no time limit. What did that mean?

In the absence of any explanation from the board, the public can only assume ZBA bias favoring Ridgeline, and that it led them to allow the company to store their application like a cadaver in cryogenic stasis. If Ridgeline is able to prevail in court, perhaps because of “deep pockets,” it will then be able to resuscitate the application.

Doesn’t the tabling of the application provide hope to Ridgeline? And again, in the absence of any explanation from the ZBA, doesn’t it seem they are eager to encourage Ridgeline to remain hopeful and engaged?

The ZBA’s deliberation-free process also serves to invite public suspicion that this is a company to be feared, a company willing to steamroll its opponents using expensive lawyers and consultants to bully anyone standing in its way, be they public bodies, businesses, individuals, or a whole town.

PAUL DOBBS

Ashuelot