Follow the law

| 29 Sep 2011 | 08:25

    To the editor: I write in support of the opinions expressed by P.R.Rushton in the March 31 issue of the Courier (“Unhappy with Kelley”). Unfortunately, the behavior he finds objectionable is not an insolated incident, nor is it limited to the Fauchere project. My personal experience with the ARB has led me to believe that operating two retail businesses in the borough is not worth the aggravation. Since one of the ordinance’s primary objectives is to promote economic development in the Historic District, it is very disappointing that the public is exposed to this treatment. The ARB should not be a vehicle for individuals to impose their own personal tastes in an attempt to recast the Borough into a Victorian Village. The well-intended Historic District Ordinance, which established and governs the ARB, seems to have foreseen such an unfortunate situation and attempts to prevent such behavior. In addition to three professionals (a registered architect, the building officer, and a licensed real estate broker), the law requires that all other members of the ARB must own property in the Historic District and must either live in or operate a business in the Historic District. Makes sense to me: trained professionals are needed to put their stamp of approval on the technicalities and private citizens who live/work in the district ought to have a say. I often wonder if there’s anything worse than a critic who has no skin in the game. The Borough Council can easily prevent future difficulties by following the ordinance. That’s why it’s there. The Council should ensure that all ARB members are properly qualified and trained, and that they maintain professional and constructive inter-personal skills. Michael Buchanan Milford