Opinion ID: 2674691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Chairman

Text: In September 2009, Sherman submitted two different versions of his subdivision proposal. By now, the proposals had become much more conventional than his first application, and they did not include the recreational facilities initially envisioned. Soon after submitting the proposals, Sherman discovered that the Planning Board Chairman had been replaced. The new Chairman, Don Serotta, was “openly hostile” towards the MareBrook application and had written letters to the Town in 2001 against the project. For three months, the Planning Board refused without explanation to put Sherman’s proposals on the agenda. Then in December 2009, Serotta explained that Sherman needed to pay $25,000 in consultants’ fees. Yet Sherman did not receive an invoice ‐12‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER for those fees as required by the Town Code for approximately two months. Serotta had other demands as well. He required an additional “cluster plan,” which would lead to another reworking of Sherman’s DEIS. Serotta also insisted that all roads must be twenty‐four feet wide instead of thirty feet. This required Sherman to redraw his plans to relocate curbs, drainage, water and sewer mains, and grading. Later, Serotta canceled Sherman’s appearance at the Planning Board’s monthly meeting and demanded $40,000 more in consultants’ fees. The Planning Board also insisted that Sherman respond to a questionnaire, which required Sherman to provide, among other things, an evaluation of a traffic intersection in the Town of Monroe (located miles away) and the details of a wetlands walking trail crossing that did not cross any wetlands. ‐13‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER Sherman was also required to answer all inquiries by local residents. Some answers to these questions needed to be repeated twenty to forty times because the Planning Board did not permit him to quote a previous answer.