Brookfield man suing town over order to remove sign
By
Craig S. Semon
Telegram & Gazette Staff
Posted Sep 23, 2017 at 6:00 AM
Updated Sep 23, 2017 at 11:27 PM
BROOKFIELD – A local resident is suing the town and the Zoning Board
of Appeals seeking to overturn a ruling ordering him to, among other
things, take down a sign that has been at the center of controversy for
years.
John D. Holdcraft this week filed the lawsuit in Worcester Superior Court. It was also signed by Mr. Holdcraft’s counsel, James P. Ehrhard of Ehrhard & Associates in Worcester.
For years, various selectmen, municipal employees and regular citizens have butted heads with Mr. Holdcraft for derogatorily mentioning them by name on the 8-by-4-foot double-sided sign on his property facing Route 9.
The Zoning Board of Appeals sometime around July 16, 2003, granted the special permit to Mr. Holdcraft for his property located at 6 South Maple St.
Included among the conditions were: building a shed (8 feet high, 8 feet wide and 27 feet long) to operate a “Retail Service for Charitable Reasons” business; having a sign stating “Retail Service for Charitable Reasons” to conform to the town’s zoning bylaws; and being granted a two-year special permit subject to renewal for another two years, if Mr. Holdcraft fully complied with the permit.
The special permit and subsequent extension expired Dec. 31, 2005.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Holdcraft was able to use the shed and the property surrounding it in “quiet enjoyment” until March 21, approximately 12 years after the extension was granted.
But all of that changed when one of Mr. Holdcraft’s main targets on his sign, Selectman Clarence R. Snyder III, made a written request for Zoning Enforcement Officer Nicholas Thomo to issue a cease-and-desist order against Mr. Holdcraft for conducting “an illegal business with illegal signage” and order the removal of the business, shed and signage from the premises.
On April 3, Mr. Thomo sided with Mr. Snyder and issued a cease-and-desist order.
According to Mr. Thomo’s letter, Mr. Holdcraft violated conditions of
the permit by failing to provide appropriate landscaping and signage on
the property and to ensure no items were to be left outside.
Mr. Holdcraft was ordered to bring the property into compliance with the conditions of the original special permit, including appropriate landscaping and signage.
In his “administrative appeal” to ZBA Chairman Charles Wilson, Mr. Snyder further pointed out that the cease-and-desist order did not address the primary issue of whether the special permit had expired on Dec. 31, 2005.
The suit expounds on Mr. Snyder writing in his administrative appeal that he was “aggrieved” by the decision, while never stating how he was aggrieved. The suit alleges that Mr. Snyder is not aggrieved in any way.
“It is truly only about taking down Holdcraft’s sign so that elected Selectman Snyder cannot be criticized under the First Amendment,” the suit states. “The ZBA members were obviously happy to do their Selectmen’s bidding.”
Another point the suit makes is the ZBA “never sent any notice whatsoever,” via U.S. mail or constable, to Mr. Holdcraft, abutters or interested parties about the hearing on July 19 and the continuation of the hearing on Aug. 1 and 2.
However, the suit mentions that Mr. Holdcraft was handed by a constable prior to the Aug. 2 meeting a notice that the Aug. 2 meeting was going to be continued to Aug. 16.
On Aug. 16, the ZBA ruled 4 to 1 in favor of Mr. Snyder’s complaint.
The suit’s final argument alleges that the statute of limitations,
regarding the building permits and special permits under Mass. General
Law, had long ended.
The suit claims that the ZBA had no basis to overturn the decision of the zoning enforcement officer and grant Snyder’s complaint, and the ZBA ruled incorrectly and without foundation that Mr. Holdcraft must take down his building and no longer use the property as he has for more than 12 years.
“What we have here is a sitting selectman (Mr. Snyder) attempting to use the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals to take away Mr. Holdcraft’s property and livelihood for no other reason than to silence a town resident who speaks out against him,” Mr. Ehrhard said. “Snyder and his friends on the ZBA left Mr. Holdcraft no other option but to go to court. And the ZBA is spending Brookfield taxpayer dollars to fight Snyder’s battle for him. The whole thing is a clown show.”
The suit is seeks to have the court declare that the ZBA ruling upholding Mr. Snyder’s complaint is invalid and to overrule it.
Also in the suit, Mr. Holdcraft requests a temporary and permanent injunction invalidating and voiding the decision of the ZBA overruling the zoning enforcement officer; enjoining the defendants from interfering or in any way encumbering Mr. Holdcraft’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property; enjoining the defendants and their agents from threatening or harassing Mr. Holdcraft with respect to his rights in regards to the property and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and correlating rights in the Massachusetts Constitution.
In addition, the suit claims that “the defendants did engage in and continue to engage in a pattern and conspiracy to deprive Holdcraft of his property rights, constitutional rights, and to generally harass him and deprive him of due process and quiet enjoyment, all as a consequence of him pursuing his federal and state rights of free speech.”
Mr. Snyder said he had no comment about the suit.
John D. Holdcraft this week filed the lawsuit in Worcester Superior Court. It was also signed by Mr. Holdcraft’s counsel, James P. Ehrhard of Ehrhard & Associates in Worcester.
For years, various selectmen, municipal employees and regular citizens have butted heads with Mr. Holdcraft for derogatorily mentioning them by name on the 8-by-4-foot double-sided sign on his property facing Route 9.
The Zoning Board of Appeals sometime around July 16, 2003, granted the special permit to Mr. Holdcraft for his property located at 6 South Maple St.
Included among the conditions were: building a shed (8 feet high, 8 feet wide and 27 feet long) to operate a “Retail Service for Charitable Reasons” business; having a sign stating “Retail Service for Charitable Reasons” to conform to the town’s zoning bylaws; and being granted a two-year special permit subject to renewal for another two years, if Mr. Holdcraft fully complied with the permit.
The special permit and subsequent extension expired Dec. 31, 2005.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Holdcraft was able to use the shed and the property surrounding it in “quiet enjoyment” until March 21, approximately 12 years after the extension was granted.
But all of that changed when one of Mr. Holdcraft’s main targets on his sign, Selectman Clarence R. Snyder III, made a written request for Zoning Enforcement Officer Nicholas Thomo to issue a cease-and-desist order against Mr. Holdcraft for conducting “an illegal business with illegal signage” and order the removal of the business, shed and signage from the premises.
On April 3, Mr. Thomo sided with Mr. Snyder and issued a cease-and-desist order.
Mr. Holdcraft was ordered to bring the property into compliance with the conditions of the original special permit, including appropriate landscaping and signage.
In his “administrative appeal” to ZBA Chairman Charles Wilson, Mr. Snyder further pointed out that the cease-and-desist order did not address the primary issue of whether the special permit had expired on Dec. 31, 2005.
The suit expounds on Mr. Snyder writing in his administrative appeal that he was “aggrieved” by the decision, while never stating how he was aggrieved. The suit alleges that Mr. Snyder is not aggrieved in any way.
“It is truly only about taking down Holdcraft’s sign so that elected Selectman Snyder cannot be criticized under the First Amendment,” the suit states. “The ZBA members were obviously happy to do their Selectmen’s bidding.”
Another point the suit makes is the ZBA “never sent any notice whatsoever,” via U.S. mail or constable, to Mr. Holdcraft, abutters or interested parties about the hearing on July 19 and the continuation of the hearing on Aug. 1 and 2.
However, the suit mentions that Mr. Holdcraft was handed by a constable prior to the Aug. 2 meeting a notice that the Aug. 2 meeting was going to be continued to Aug. 16.
On Aug. 16, the ZBA ruled 4 to 1 in favor of Mr. Snyder’s complaint.
The suit claims that the ZBA had no basis to overturn the decision of the zoning enforcement officer and grant Snyder’s complaint, and the ZBA ruled incorrectly and without foundation that Mr. Holdcraft must take down his building and no longer use the property as he has for more than 12 years.
“What we have here is a sitting selectman (Mr. Snyder) attempting to use the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals to take away Mr. Holdcraft’s property and livelihood for no other reason than to silence a town resident who speaks out against him,” Mr. Ehrhard said. “Snyder and his friends on the ZBA left Mr. Holdcraft no other option but to go to court. And the ZBA is spending Brookfield taxpayer dollars to fight Snyder’s battle for him. The whole thing is a clown show.”
The suit is seeks to have the court declare that the ZBA ruling upholding Mr. Snyder’s complaint is invalid and to overrule it.
Also in the suit, Mr. Holdcraft requests a temporary and permanent injunction invalidating and voiding the decision of the ZBA overruling the zoning enforcement officer; enjoining the defendants from interfering or in any way encumbering Mr. Holdcraft’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property; enjoining the defendants and their agents from threatening or harassing Mr. Holdcraft with respect to his rights in regards to the property and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and correlating rights in the Massachusetts Constitution.
In addition, the suit claims that “the defendants did engage in and continue to engage in a pattern and conspiracy to deprive Holdcraft of his property rights, constitutional rights, and to generally harass him and deprive him of due process and quiet enjoyment, all as a consequence of him pursuing his federal and state rights of free speech.”
Mr. Snyder said he had no comment about the suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment