Tuesday, June 06, 2006

June 6, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board by James Hall

June 6, 2006

Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826

Dear Board Members:

It has come to our attention that the Town of Cohocton Clerk is NOT forwarding correspondence that is addressed to the Cohocton Planning Board. During this period of intense review, this conduct is inexcusable. If this is the policy of the Town of Cohocton, it violates the mandate you have to receive full, complete and timely information and input from the citizens.

It has been represented by Sandra Riley, that all documents and correspondence are being sent directly to attorney Daniel Ruzow. And why is Dawn Dana from Bagdon also being sent such information? Why is the flow of information being kept from the intended agency - the Cohocton Planning Board?

It is in our mutual interest and serves the direct benefit of the entire community to ensure that the Cohocton Planning Board is not deprived of access to all documents as you conduct your solemn responsibility as lead agency for the UPC Wind Turbine Project.

This is just another example of the administration for the Town of Cohocton to circumvent the review process. The Town of Cohocton Planning Board is being deprived of needed information. It behooves our communal interests that an immediate inquiry and investigation be conducted into the decision and parties involved who are responsible for this unprofessional conduct.

Because of this serious breach of questionable behavior, I call for an extension of the Planning Boards review process of the proposed Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, in order to guarantee your due diligence responsibility.

When the integrity of the process is intentionally undermined the basis for additional legal actions increase. The Cohocton Planning Board deserves the respect, independence and authority of the lead agency. That means that any interference from the Supervisor, Town Councilmen or legal representatives will be challenged in court.

Respectfully,

James Hall

David Miller - ESQ

No comments: