Use you browsers back button to return

See Joe Heaths lawsuit

See the minutes of the 6/1/2000 ZBA meeting HERE

 

ZBA report 7/8/2000

Dan O'Shea had a chance to be a hero…

Dan O'Shea cast the deciding vote approving Song Mountains well and 2 million-gallon reservoir on Marilyn Stoker's property at the June 1st, 2000 ZBA meeting. Why did he do it?

ZBA member Bob Lieber believed the project was OK and the protections put in by the Planning Board would suffice. Del Knapp keep saying that ‘they gotta have water’ and even though his son Peter Knapp was sitting in the back of the room next to Hoss from Song Mountain there is nothing to suggest he didn’t believe that. Charley Sturgen seemed to feel the same as Bob Lieber and his comments in the Cortland Standard back that up. The three that were against the project, Barb Frier, Cathy Kinne and Carl Grillo were of the belief that the project was against the town laws and that Song Mountain could put in a dam to solve their problem. We have six people who indicate a belief in their hearts that conflict with each other. That is the way democracy works. We got from those six a fair and impartial opinion. Now we come to the deciding vote. Would it be as well thought out and impartial as the other six? You decide.

During the meeting Dan O’Shea stated on several occasions that if the ZBA turned this down the Town Board would rezone the land to allow it. (See the minutes of the ZBA meeting HERE) Several people, past Planning Board members and lawyers have told me that this couldn’t happen because it is illegal, against NY State laws and our own town laws. It is spot zoning. Changing the zoning of this one lot surrounded by residential lots is a classic case of spot zoning and it is illegal. The three that were against Song Mountains permit told this to Dan repeatedly and Dan just ignored them. After hours of fruitless discussion they voted at 11:30 with Dan O'Shea casting the deciding vote in favor of Marilyn Stoker and the Town Boards position for Song Mountain.

I read the enclosed letter at the Town Board meeting on 3/13/2000.

 

Letter/Memo read at the Town Board meeting of 3/13/2000.

At the March 2nd, 2000 ZBA meeting Peter Knapp, deputy town supervisor presumably acting as town supervisor in the absence of John Steger who was out of town made inflammatory comments in support of the Song Mountain well. So inflammatory that the result of his comments were to bring to tears one of the citizens of Preble who will be most affected by the well.

I have a legal question about the propriety of Mr. Knapp's comments to the ZBA but unfortunately our towns lawyer cannot answer this as he has a conflict of interest. According to Song’s lawyer Mr. Lafave Mr. Armstrong is also the lawyer for Marlin Stoker in the sale of her property to Song Mountain for the well. Mr. Knapps comments at the ZBA meeting was an obvious attempt to influence the ZBA to allow the well and thus financially benefit Mr. Armstrong’s other client Mrs. Stoker. Therefore Mr. Armstrong cannot advise the town board about Mr. Knapp's actions without being in conflict. With that in mind my question is about Mr. Knapp's comments at the ZBA meeting.

1… Was Mr. Knapp acting as town supervisor and if so why didn’t he identify his position at the ZBA meeting before making his comments?

2… Was Mr. Knapp voicing the opinion of the town board and if so was a vote taken and when by the board to give Mr. Knapp permission to do so?

3… Is it the position of the town board that it is appropriate to put pressure of this sort on the other town boards?

4… Did Song or its representatives compensate Mr. Knapp for his support at the ZBA meetings and other support? If so what was that compensation and was it legal?

I feel that it is unwise at best, unethical for sure and perhaps illegal for any town board member to influence or attempt to influence any of the other town boards. Both the ZBA and planning boards should be autonomous and left alone to decide on their own the merits of any case brought before them.

Therefore I call on the town board to ask Mr. Knapp to resign as town board member for his unethical inappropriate behavior.

Sincerely,

Frank Hogg

3/13/20 00

 

 

 

This is what is listed in the 'official' minutes as 'approved' by the town board of the event.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Frank Hogg was present and read a memo which he had written regarding Peter Knapp, who was present at the last ZBA meeting and expressed his own personal feelings toward the Song Mountain well. Mr. Hogg thought is was inappropriate for Peter to speak at the meeting. He was informed that any resident/taxpayer could express one’s own opinion.

Mr. Hogg asked what the opinion of the Board was? John Steger stated that the Board should not take a stand as they may be asked to make a decision in the future.

 

 

 

My thoughts after the meeting...

After the reading of my letter there was a long silence as the board pondered my letter. Then Ann Brennen asked me about #4 and whether I was accusing Knapp of anything. I replied that because of his actions now and in the past the question needed to be asked. She seemed satisfied. (Later he was asked and he said he did not receive any compensation from Song Mountain.) The lawyer Don Armstrong was silent during all of this due to his precarious position. There was some minor discussion while they tried to decide what to do with the letter and the questions raised by it. I knew that little if anything would be done and I knew they would not do the last thing asked but my main purpose was to bring in the open what Peter had done and how odd it was. I did extract a tiny concession from Steger that in the future if any board member made any comments at any board meeting other than town board meetings that they would preface it with a statement that they did not represent the town etc. I then left the meeting.

 

A reminder...

Preble town lawyer Don Armstrong is still Marilyn Stoker’s attorney. Last year when this came up Mr. Armstrong said he would remove himself as her attorney to avoid this conflict of interest. I wonder what changed his mind? Keep in mind that Marilyn Stoker, our town justice, in order to sell her land to Song Mountain, wants our town to ignore our zoning laws with the help of our town lawyer so that she can make money.

 

 

How did Dan O’Shea know that the Town Board would vote to rezone the lot? Is he clairvoyant? Can he read minds? Why did he ignore half of the ZBA board’s recommendation to allow it to go to the Town Board? Why didn’t he just abstain? Why did he vote for the Town Board's position?

If Dan ‘believed’ that Song should have this permit why didn’t he just say that instead of voicing his fears of the Town Board's action to rezone? At no time did Dan say that he believed in this. Unlike the three who were for the permit Dan’s only comment was his fear of the Town Board's action.

Did the Town Board put pressure on Dan to vote against his beliefs? He can’t say now that he believes in the project as a cover to his previous statements. Dan didn't believe the way he voted. Did he vote for the Town Board's position because the Town Board forced him to? If so then all of the Town Board is guilty because they were all informed of this pressure back in March and they did nothing to stop it, thus they condoned it. You cannot stand idly by while an action is going on and exclude yourself from guilt. If that is true then the ENTIRE Town Board is guilty of interfering with the ZBA.

The SLPOA's lawyer Joe Heath has filed a lawsuit within the 30-day period challenging Dan's ruling. If this fails then Song Mountain will exercise its option to buy Marilyn Stokers property.

Developing…

BACK