Residents ask about Crotched’s timeline
FRANCESTOWN — Concerns were raised at Monday night’s Select Board meeting regarding Crotched Mountain Ski and Ride’s timeline to install visors to lights in the new expansion.
Residents at the meeting expressed concern about Crotched Mountain installing visors to the 38 lights in a timely fashion, to fully comply with the conditions of he variance they were recently granted.
Larry Laber of Francestown said Monday that he is worried that the mountain will postpone installing visors until next year. “Tell Crotched Mountain to put visors up or they can’t operate,” Laber suggested.
Select Board member Abigail Arnold replied that the board hasn’t had time to talk about Crotched Mountain. “We will take that as an option – can’t say we’ll do it, though,” Arnold replied.
According to Select Board member Scott Carbee who spoke with the Ledger-Transcript after the Zoning Board meeting on Nov. 26, Crotched Mountain does not need to have the visors up for the 30 days following the meeting because someone might appeal the granted variance. Once the 30 days are up on Dec. 26, Carbee said it will be up to Code Enforcement Officer Ed Hunter to check in with Crotched Mountain and see what their plans are and how things are going. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Select Board, Carbee said on Nov. 26.
If an individual does not agree with this decision, they can file a request for a rehearing with the town, not the Zoning Board, Zoning Board Chair Silas Little said in an interview Wednesday. “You have to file a written request with the town office,” Little said.
Usually the request is generated by an aggrieved person or the aggrieved party’s attorney, and the request should follow the guidelines in RSA Ch. 677, Sec. 2 and 3. Francestown does not have a specific form someone could fill out and submit, like the town of Rindge does, Little noted.
Little said anyone who feels they are an aggrieved person by this granted variance can file a request and it will then be up to the Zoning Board to decide if that request was made by someone who truly was an aggrieved person.
If the board agrees that the individual is not an aggrieved person, the case could go to the Superior Court, which would then have to determine if the filing party is an aggrieved person or not.
As of Wednesday, Little said no one has yet filed a request for rehearing, and Town Administrator Michael Branley confirmed that.
Lindsey Arceci can be reached at 924-7172, ext. 232, or email@example.com.