19 April 2011
I continue with the same meeting following my last newsletter.
On 3/7/2011, after Jim Wendelgass produced his monologue, then
Clare Quinn decided to step up and continue the discussion about
me. As before, I quote what was said, in italic. Then I interject
Clare Quinn said
And in addition to Jim's comments, I was also, uh, mentioned in
the last e-mail, which is kinda standard operating procedure,
um, uh, Mr. Chickenman has asserted that Clare Quinn,
Supervisor, Executive Director of French and Pickering Trust
would fight tooth and nail if anyone tried to exploit our
natural resources, except in this case, quote, er, parenthesis ,
or are there others, parenthesis.
The implication that I see something improper from a
conservation standpoint in Pam Brown's case is wrong. Even on
property's protected by conservation easements by French and
Pickering Trust or any other conservation organization, and Pam
Brown's is not, by the way, the property owner can reserve
certain rights, often including the right to build an accessory
dwelling unit in what is called the minimal protection area.
Other reasonable improvements are also permitted as long as the
impervious coverage limit is observed. In the minimal protection
area, which is the area of easement designated for residential
improvements, there are usually no restrictions on the removal
of trees other than delineated specimen trees. In the standard
protection area of the conservation easement, tree removal is
permitted to allow construction and uses such as agriculture
allowed by the easement. Even in the high protection area where
the most environmentally sena-sensitive features are protected,
tree removal is protected for trail construction and for healthy
woodland management. That's-those are the facts.
Yes, they are the facts. Again, just like Jim, Clare has,
through her explanation, infers that I have said what Pam Brown
did was illegal. No, once again, I repeat Pam is an avowed
environmentalist that did to her property that would upset her
if her neighbor did the same. That's all, Clare. Walk the walk,
instead of just the talk. Your facts and what I have said are
two completely different things. Except for one thing. The
conservation easement on her property clearly does not allow the
development of another Residential home on the property, unless
she reserves one Transferable Development Right.
I would like to point out that Mr. Chickenman has attacked Pam
Brown on 3 or 4 occasions now.
I have never “attacked” her. Exposing someone for being a
hypocrite is not an attack. I would never attack anyone. Plus,
you may recollect, that I received an email from someone opposed
to my writings, that I answered in my newsletter 2/28/2011.
'Toadhollowman' gave me his name but did not give me permission
to publish it.
You also only report data that is about certain WV people not
on Barry's side? Why not publish about TDR's to others but
Pam Brown? I believe Arty also received TDRs at the same
time...and another person...
Stop picking and choosing...report all the facts and
then...maybe...some of us on the fence will give more credence
to what you say...obviously, you won't stand up to the people
you are targeting....is it that you fear retribution or is
there really something else??????
I answered the questions but then it prompted me to look
further into Pam Brown's case. I kept uncovering more stuff.
Without that email I certainly would not have uncovered the
covenant Pam signed.
Um, she is a private citizen, she is not an elected official,
Yes, she is not an ELECTED official, she is an APPOINTED
official, just like Clare Quinn.
um, he states that the Pam Brown transaction is newsworthy
because, in my opinion, the taxpayers did not get what they paid
for. Um, I think we've outlined the taxpayers got the same thing
on every other TDR transaction in this township. Everybody in
this township is in—who, had, is entitled under zoning to build
an accessory dwelling unit, still has the right after TDR's are
purchased by the township.
No other TDR sellers have built a home on the protected
property except Pam Brown. And the Covenants, again are quite
clear that you must retain a Development Right in order to build
a Residential Dwelling. Pam Brown built a Residential Dwelling,
accessory or not. READ THE COVENANT!
Some actually have a couple of other rights left on the
property. I would counter this seems likely that Mr. Chickenman
deems Pam Brown, this is my personal opinion, the case, uh, Pam
B—Brown's case newsworthy is simply only because she was
instrumental in organizing the residence petition drive that
eventually led to Barry DiLibero's removal from office by the
Court of Common Pleas.
I didn't know that. Hmmm. But what difference does that make?
Maybe those who live in glass houses should not throw stones?
I did note in my last e-mail that Barry Dilibero did not vote to
give her TDR money. I wondered why the hearing was scheduled
when he was not in attendance. But now you know who organized
As usual, if you want to be on or off my list, or have some
comments or suggestions, or know someone who would like to be on
the list, please let me know. If you would like to see what I
have written previously, just ask. Feel free to forward this email on
to anyone you think might be interested. Especially though, if
you don't want to continue to receive my mails, please tell me.
I'll take you off the list and confirm that I have done so.
Just hit reply to this email or write to firstname.lastname@example.org
Election Day is May
17, 2011. If you are going to be away, please send in an
application for an absentee ballot right away. It takes a while
to get one back in the mail. Here is the link.
Remember, your vote can make the difference in our township.
If you'd like to know
who I support, well I'll tell you. Later...........
West Vincent Infos