1-30-08

Walpole’s Zoning Appeal That Nobody Owns

By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer

            One of the four people whose names head the notice of appeal filed January 4 against the Walpole Zoning Board and reported in Monday’s Eagle Times was unaware that the appeal was being lodged in the Keene Superior Court in her name before reading about it in the newspaper, two learned of it from this reporter on Tuesday and none were involved in hiring the lawyer and filing the appeal!

            The lawyer who filed the suit declined on Tuesday to identify his client or clients or to say who was paying the bill for the appeal.  At least until he had a chance to discuss it with them later in the week.

            Community activist John Hansel of Walpole--not named as an appellant--was the person who solicited her participation, according to Cathy White, one of the four appellants listed in the notice of appeal. 

White said on Monday, after being surprised to see her name in the Eagle Times story, that she had agreed to lend her name to a petition effort to get the Zoning Board to reconsider its granting of a special exception to Chamberlain Machine to build a new factory on agriculturally zoned land in Walpole.  Hansel, she said, had called her at home to seek her permission to use her name in an attempt to force the board to reconsider, but she was unclear about the exact nature of the action.  She did, however, tell Hansel that she did not want to be involved in any “lawsuit”. 

White does favor reconsideration of the special exception but not participation in a court action.  White also noted that her name is misspelled in the court filing, that its assertion that her house is the “closest residence to the proposed industrial facility” is incorrect and that, contrary to the claim of the filing, she did not attend the October 17 zoning board hearing. White did not see the notice of appeal before it was filed, nor did she sign it.

After learning about the appeal late Monday, Ms. White telephoned the attorney that filed the appeal, Geoffrey Ransom of Concord, and requested that her name be removed from it.

Clarence (Clancy) Houghton, reached on vacation in California Monday evening, was surprised to hear that his name was on the appeal and had no explanation of it.  He did say that he thought the special exception was improperly granted and that, had he been asked, he would have considered signing on as an appellant.

Dr. Jennifer Palmiotto, the third listed appellant, said Wednesday evening that she was also listed inaccurately as an appellant.

Dr. Tucker Burr, the fourth listed appellant, said Tuesday afternoon that he was aware of the pending appeal and fully supported it.  He did not initiate it and is not funding it.

So who actually engaged attorney Ransom to file the appeal and who is paying for it if none of the listed participants are?  Mr. Ransom says it’s a confidential matter of attorney client privilege and he will not disclose it until he can “sort it out with” his client later in the week.

As to Mr. Hansel who solicited Ms. White to be a participant in an effort to get the zoning board to reconsider, he’s not talking.  In a phone call on Tuesday morning, Hansel said that, while he strongly supports the appeal, he has “No comment” about whether he is involved in it, “No comment” whether he engaged attorney Ransom, “No comment” about whether it was he that supplied the information in the appellate filing, and “No comment” on whether he is paying for it.  

So, someone is appealing the zoning board’s decision.  But nobody is willing to accept responsibility for it at this point.

                                                --30--