Check out the Yellow Pages for 2008-09 and 2009-10 if you want to see proof that Baker's home was the site of a "home occupation," albeit one without a required permit.
Were you denied a "home-occupation" permit?
Join our cause.
After all, if the politically powerful can skirt the law then all fairness and justice go out the window.
We call on Bruce D. Baker to resign immediately from the Burlington Planning Commission.
Baker is a lawyer. He is an officer of the court.
We have proof he ran or allowed his wife (with whom he shares the home in question) to run a consulting business out of 842 South Prospect Street with NO PERMIT.
City Hall cited him for an unlawful home occupation, meaning planning staffers concluded there was adequate cause for the issuance of a Notice of Violation.
So what happened?
Baker cried foul.
There was no appellate review.
Nor, folks, did Baker have the chance for a public forum to defend himself.
Don't you think he would like that opportunity?
By law, he is as much entitled to a fair hearing as is anybody else.
Don't you think he would be the first to cry foul if one of his clients were denied a fair hearing?
Of course he would.
City Hall officials - including the Honorable Robert Kiss, the mayor - have to this day failed and refused to provide proof that Act 250, Vermont's land-use statute, allows a cited land-use violator to simply demand, "Please withdraw my Notice of Violation because I disagree with your decision."
The statute is written to protect not only applicants, but more importantly third parties who are given a right to appeal findings of municipal planning bodies.
If and when City Hall can point to language defending its conclusion that it can "withdraw" a Notice of Violation without a hearing, without what we consider due process, then we will post it on this blog.
At that point we will demand that City Hall staffers testify first what led them to conclude Baker had violated the law and second what evidence they have that shows that their initial conclusion was faulty.
Then we will ask Baker to testify - under oath - who placed advertisements in two editions of the Yellow Pages promoting the existence of a "home occupation" - to wit, HallerLee Human Resources Conhsulting LLC - located at 842 South Prospect Street, Burlington, Vermont.
We need to hear from Bruce D. Baker under oath.
"Under what conditions were these 'affidavits' procured," we will ask. "Were the so-called affiants paid for their testimony? If so, how much? If not, why not?"
We will ask Mary Margaret Lee to testify under oath as to when HallerLee began operating from 842 South Prospect Street.
We will ask her why neither she nor her husband applied for legal permission to operate this business from a residence - their own.
We also need to pose questions under oath to each and every City Hall employee or elected official, or both, what they knew and when they knew it about the history of Burlington v. Bruce Baker.
Ladies and gentlemen, Bruce D. Baker is not only a member of the city's Planning Commission.
Baker is also its vice chairman.
He votes on applications submitted by fellow Burlington taxpayers and in the absence of the chairman has the power of the gavel.
But who gets special treatment?
Bruce D. Baker.
Join our cause, folks.
Join our fight for justice for all.
Demand that City Hall enforce the municipal planning laws as they were designed by their framers.