Opinion ID: 2291239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Glasser's Due Process Rights

Text: Glasser argues that the Planning Board denied him due process at a number of stages in these proceedings. The record amply supports a conclusion that his due process rights were adequately protected throughout the permit approval process. As an abutter he was notified y mail of the developers' planned project several months before any application was submitted. He had a copy of the preliminary subdivision plan as early as January 1988. He gave the proposal to his own independent environmental expert, who in turn prepared a point-by-point report on the plan, noting several potential problems. Glasser then appeared at a town meeting with this report and presented his concerns. As the result of questions raised in that report, the developers obtained additional hydrology and drainage reports for the Board's consideration; the expert's concerns on the deer yard issue were also a factor in the Board's requiring the developers to work with the DIFW to insure that the plan provided adequate protection for the deer yard. Glasser was present at all but the last of the eight public meetings at which the subdivision was discussed, and he was present went the time and date of the eighth meeting was announced. At all seven meetings he attended, Glasser was an active participant, and on more than one occasion his suggestions were incorporated into the final subdivision plan. This history makes clear that Glasser's various allegations of due process violations are insubstantial. Contrary to his contention, Glasser was able to participate meaningfully thought the permit approval process. His argument that the fact the Town's attorney was paid by the developers created an impermissible conflict of interest and necessarily prejudiced the attorney in favor of the developer is without merit. The financial arrangement was public, and Glasser offer no evidence is support of his contention that the arrangement caused the attorney to favor the developers in his dealings with the Town. Glasser's argument that the Board was required to base its decision on sworn testimony is equally unfounded. Neither the statutes nor our decisions offer any basis for this contention.