19 April 2011

Hi

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 my points.

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.

On 2/20/2011, Toadhollowman wrote   
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 the petition.


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 chestercountynews@gmail.com 

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.
http://www.chesco.org/election/lib/election/pdf/absentee_app.pdf   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...........

Best wishes

Chickenman
West Vincent Infos