I was up in Northern NH and couldn't attend. Some questions, in case anyone knows the answers:
- So basically the ZBA decision is status quo for the shut down?
- Is the 1,000 yard cease and desist permanent; or only until expanded use application is approved (if it is approved)?
- While I disagree with the 1,000 yard range issue; the continued cease and desist for the covered area seems vindictive (assuming that's still in place). That pavilion is built like a tank and by now would have had any very minor code issues corrected. Was there any mention of how to get that structure out of double secret probation?
Thanks...
As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in their stance except for the biomix issue (says not going to pursue whatever they were looking into since they "cannot prove quantity delivered". Voted down).
Cease and desist remains in place, which I believe was called "temporary" but seems essentially permanent since it was voted to remain in place.
Agreed, the vote to forbid use of covered pavilion seems vindictive. Someone earlier mentioned that an inspector "found" a very minor issue with the structure on inspection. Which was subsequently remedied.
There was very little discussion. No discussion of the facts in the matter or how they derived their decisions. Of the few comments being made by the board, one was that the club can apply for permits.
The club has a certain amount of time after the written decisions to bring this to court, I think.
I believe the Belchertown town administrator was there sitting with the board in order to throw his weight around (literal and figurative sense). Here is one example comment publicly made by him previously (not at this meeting), "the abutters of this facility who are sincere in their commitment to being good neighbors have been harassed, accused of being newbiews, nimbies, tree huggers, antis and weirdos in spite of the fact that many have openly suggested they own firearms and are not against the Club but rather are hardworking families owning millions of dollars of real estate and simply want their right to assume a normal life in the homes they reside in."