Shocking new! More Warrant Articles by the Selectmen.

ASK YOURSELF! ARE THESE PEOPLE FOR REAL? Pay off frozen sick time? What the Hell is this. We just paid off John Gomarlo over $5,000.00 for frozen comp days. Are we Morgan Stanley Dean Witter or something? You either take them or lose them. Tell the selectmen to stuff this one.

Subject: 2 additional and 1 revisited $..........

1. Warrant Article ARTICLE 8 To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of$18,340.00 to payoff frozen sick time for Town employees? (was$14,500.00) Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 5-0.

2.ARTICLE 14 Are you in favor of raising and appropriating the sum of SixThousand Dollars ($6,000.00) for the support of The Winchester Learning Center, provided that the Winchester Learning Center raises an equal or greater amount from other sources? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 3-0, with 2 abstentions.

3.ARTICLE 15 To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate up to$10,000.00 to reimburse the trust fund for the purchase a new boiler for the Conant Public Library? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 5-0.

Do you think it is time to return our children back to our schools

WARRANT ARTICLES APPROVED BY THE BO$

We guess the BO$ thinks Santa is going to be bringing all of us brand new wallets filled with crisp new $100.00 bills. On top of all of the budget increases and raises they've laden the new budget with, now they expect us to fork over more money. We guess they really don't get it ...... These articles will be discussed on January 13th, at the town hall, the public is invited, so be sure to attend and let them know how you feel.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $28,677.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 16 at the 2006 Town Meeting for the purpose of performing the assessing update or revaluation of the real estate in the Town of Winchester scheduled for 2009-2010? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 5-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will raise and appropriate $24,800.00 as the forth of five lease-to-purchase payments for the 2004 International dump truck, plow, and sander package? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 5-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate an amount not to exceed $18,000.00 to be deposited in the Evergreen Expendable General Care Trust Fund established by an affirmative vote by the 1998 Town Meeting as Article 11; the source of these funds to be withdrawn from the surplus generated by the perpetual care funds already established for the care and maintenance of lots within the Evergreen cemetery, and not from taxation. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 5-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $6,000.00 to support the annual Pickle Festival? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 5-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Police Cruiser Capital Reserve Fund established in 2006 at the Town Meeting under Article 14? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $5,000.00 to hire a professional firm to prepare an impact fee schedule? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $14,500.00 to payoff frozen sick time for Town employees? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Account under the provisions of RSA 35:1 III for the purpose of future upgrades and/or purchase of the town’s computers and networking system, and to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in this fund with the Board of Selectmen being the agent of said fund? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $15,000.00 for promoting commercial and industrial development in the Town, and name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend said funds? This is to be a non-lapsing account. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $50,000.00 for the purpose of subsidizing youth recreation in the Town to be paid to the E.L.M. Memorial Community Center on a contractual basis? Inserted by Petition. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $40,000.00 for the Town’s share of State road grant reconstruction costs for bridges and place it in the non-lapsing Capital Reserve Fund established at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 19 for that purpose? Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

ARTICLE___ To see if the Town will vote to authorize the expenditure of payments from the Ambulance Outside Activity Fund for the lease/purchase of a new 2009 ambulance? The cost of the ambulance will be $35,000.00 per year for a term of 5 years. The lease/purchase contract does contain a non-appropriations clause. This expenditure will not come from taxation. Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, 4-0.

12 approved Warrants $221,977.00 (not including ambulance-$35,000.00)


... and here's some more they have been discussing..

ARTICLE ..... Shall the Town vote to discontinue Hawkins Road? Hawkins is classified as a V road. It’s really a driveway with one resident, which the Town should not have to maintain. Selectman Whippie makes a motion to recommend this Warrant Article, and notify the owner and abutters. Selectman Berthiaume seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.

ARTICLE ..... Shall the Town vote to discontinue the Class 6 portion of Fullam Pond Road? Fullam Pond is classified as a VI road. The abutter of this location would like to discontinue the umaintained portion because recreational vehicles access his property from Old Chesterfield. The Town would no longer own or maintain this road. Selectman Whippie makes a motion to recommend this Warrant Article, and let the abutter have this portion. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.

ARTICLE ..... Shall the Town vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-a, I(b) to authorize the conservation commission to expend funds for contributions to ‘qualified organizations’ for the purchase of property interests, or facilitating transactions related thereto, where the property interest is to be held by the qualified organization and the Town will retain no interest in the property? Selectman Ruth, Chairman of the Conservation Commission explains that a lot of towns have been donating to outside interests to purchase development rights of properties. The purpose is to preserve open space. The Conservation Commission is authorized to give money for Winchester properties, but not for land outside the town. Members of the Board are concerned with the terms “qualified organizations” and lack of taxation for non-profits, and giving other towns the opportunity to purchase Winchester property. The Board will not place this Article on the Warrant. The Board would like to see if other towns put this on their Warrant, and if it passes. This is a new law effective January 1, 2009.

ARTICLE ..... Shall the Town vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-a, I(a) to authorize the conservation commission to expend funds to purchase interests in land outside the boundaries of our municipality, subject to the approval of the local governing body? The Board feels comfortable with this proposal because the BOS can authorize expenditures, and the Town would acquire interest in the property. Selectman Berthiaume makes a motion to recommend this Warrant Article. Selectman Fraser seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.

ARTICLE..... To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $50,000.00 to be placed in the Fire Department Capital Reserve Fund, for the purpose of purchasing new fire apparatus, as established under Article 21 at the 2005 Annual Meeting? The BOS discussed this last week and agreed not to put on the Warrant. Fire Chief Barry Kellom spoke with Bob Gray and is asking the Board to reconsider. After review, the BOS are still not in favor, and the article is stricken from the Warrant.

ARTICLE ..... To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $30,000.00 to purchase 5 new Scott Air Packs for the Fire Department? The Fire Department has approximately 25 working air packs, but most are older models (1994), which are heavy. The BOS agrees that at some point these packs should be replaced, but the money should come from his budget. The suggestion is made that Barry purchase new air packs (April 2009), based on the funds available at the end of this year. The Board will not place this Article on the

Department Budgets for Fiscal Year 2009 - 2010

We have published 99% of the new budget figures proposed by the Board of Selectmen and approved by the Budget Committee on our main web site. As more information becomes available and verified, we will update the figures. While some departments did see a small decrease, mostly because some bonuses were cut, once again most saw increases, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and people are losing their jobs, their homes and are struggling just to put food on the table. You can find the new figures by clicking on the "Town Budget" link at the top on the Winchester Informer Home Page. It's a disgrace that our town's elected officials can't find some common sense and some fiscal responsibility and think of those who rely on their prudence.

Money to burn! Pre-buying of town heating oil!

It will cost us all more tax dollars to keep our town employees and the school warm this winter because of a poor judgment call by our selectmen. On Sept. 3rd when the town selectmen chose to except a bid from Barrows Coal Co. of Brattleboro, Vt for 50,000 gals of #2 fuel oil @ $3.919/gal at a cost of $197,125.70 and 1,000 gals of kerosene @ $4.449/gal at a cost of $4449.00, leading economist were predicting a fall in oil prices due to instability of the market and the increasing bad economy. Even if the selectmen missed these reports, it had been brought to their attention and our selectmen refused the advise of our town adviser, John Gomarlo. John warned the selectmen to hold off on pre-pay decision for another few weeks to see how much more the price would drop; but the selectmen refused to listen to him. Their hasty action has cost us tax payers, $70,759.70 at today's spot market prices of $2.55. Not a very wise decision to say the least.

Employees Cost Town Too Much !!

The Informer has learned through two anonymous sources that the annual cost of 23 full time Winchester town employees for this fiscal year, not counting overtime or reimbursement for gas and mileage allowance will be over 1.3 million dollars. That's right, their gross wages,clothing and shoe allowance,health benefits,retirement and other compensation is costing us nearly half of the town's budget. This does not include the part time employees working for the town of Winchester. How does that make you feel as you struggle to come up with this year's property tax payment or the money to put food on your table or buy fuel oil.

Is it time to return to 3 elected selectmen?

Posted by Budget Committee Member Bob Davis; Is it time to go back to a 3 selectmen board? After having a long discussion with one selectmen about the fact that they are forgetting who's money it is they are spending and that the selectmen have a responsibility to provide a prudent and reasonable fiscal accountability of the budgeting of our tax dollars, I came away shaking my head. It was like talking to a wall. They continue to add more pork to the dept. budgets with more wasteful spending. Why? Is it in case we vote for a default budget in March that these increases will make next years default budget much larger? The selectmen have approved budget increase in every dept. and passed them to the budget committee to approve. This budget committee refuses to be realistic and has only cut out some increases and has more or less approved the selectman's increases. As a member of the budget committee, I have voiced the tax payer concerns we have received here on the blog and on the numerous phone calls I have received, at our meetings, warning other board members that the tax payers have no stomach for more tax increases. However; my voice has fallen on deaf ears and I received foolish smirks and laughter from certain committee members, who seem to not care how the public feels. The voice of the people will be heard in March when we organizes a "get out the vote" at the next deliberative session. We will take back "our town"!
We can not be concerned about what services will be cut or what hours are to be cut at town hall as they threaten us if we do, let them figure it out.

The selectmen and the budget committee refuses to listen to the tax payers. As some of us see it Gus Ruth, Ted Whippie and Sherman Tedford in the way they have acted as a voting block to give the town employees wage increase way above the average for this area.

Please inform us more about what is going on in Ashuelot Village.

We received this comment in the Guest Book and we think it is important enough to be a post on the blog. If something is going on and you feel it is of interest to others, please e-mail us at winchesterinformer@gmail.com

Really fed up said: November 10th, 2008 12:04 pm
You thing this stuff is wrong, you might want to start paying attention to what the historical commission is up to and how much they will cost tax payers and private home owners if some one doesn't start paying attention to what they are up to, a few peoples personal opinions ( Ted Whippie & Dan Carr)are being forced onto entire neighborhoods (Ashuelot Village) People really need to inform themselves on whats going on behind the scenes

False Information and Wasting our Time?

We have been accused of doing the town a great disservice by Johnp, a very disgruntled Winchester resident who has accused us of posting false information and wasting our time because no one in Winchester cares about anything we post. Below is Johnp's post on the Forum board .. comments are welcome; but please keep them civil.

November 6, 2008 11:36 AM
Hello to whom ever it concerns! I just thought I would congradulate the owner of this blog site as being the biggest donater of false statements to the people of winchester. Keep up the good work. To bad you dont include your identity so we can come laff at you to your face. Everyone knows how ya must hide here in a blog, good job! Sure hope ya run for a office with all this info, that would even be more fun. Yes I find this lots of fun just to type to ya. Bet ya dont post this one Ha Ha! So keep up the goood work that has taken up so much of your time thatno one will ever read and continue doing what ya are doing it will only hurt your self and no one else in the town will give ya the time of day. Sure hope ya are realy proud of what you are doing, I know I am proud to know, thanks to ya very lame blogging as to what not to do. Again thanks for for showing me how not to be. I know my chain of command very well and when it comes time fix something I know where to go and who to ask and it surely wont be at this very lame approch ya have here. When it comes to town affairs ya have get of your computer chair ,walk out the door, go to town meetings,ask questions, and last but least make real attempts in getting to real truth, gossip and rummers get ya no where! Real invloved winchester residents get to real answers, no real involovement gets no real truth. I have spent litteraly thousands of ours asking questions and how to get things fixed none of my time has been wasted at all. How much time has been wasted here. how many things have ya fixed for winchester here . I thought so! those answers are ya have gained no ground at all . What a real waste of time.
So again keep up the good work and keep showing us all a good time

We need more town employees like Rick Meleski!

Here is a town employee that cares about "our town"! Rick saved us thousands of dollars when he raised the manhole covers on main street this year. Dale Gray insisted the work was to be put out for bids claiming his crew shouldn't do the work because they do not know how. Budget Committee Member Bob Davis visited a crew raising the lids in Keene and took pictures of how simple of an operation it was to raise the lids. Giving the pictures to Ken Berthiaume helped convince the selectmen to talk to Rick Meleski who said he could do the job saving us thousands. You do not hear this from other town employees.

I am convinced we should have one employee like Rick Meleski in charge of the sewer, water and highway dept. Our budget is out of control and full of unnecessary, wasteful spending. The highway superintendent job should be an elected position. We need support to do this. WinchesterInformer.com will be circulating a petition to make the highway superintendent an elected position please support us and sign it.

The following is from the BOS minutes Oct 15:

Rick Meleski would like to assist the Highway Department with plowing this winter. The current water operator Ric Brooks does not have his CDLB to operate the loader. Ric Brooks needs experience and training in order to operate the town truck. Selectman Ruth has no problem with Rick Meleski assisting the department as long as it does not interfere with his job at the sewer plant. Selectman Berthiaume discusses using local people (contractors) who might like the work, as a backup alternative since Rick is unavailable 3 mornings a week. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to approve Rick Meleski’s plowing for the Highway Department this winter as long as it does not interfere with his job, and Ric Brooks is trained by next winter to plow in his stead. Selectman Whippie seconds the motion and it passes 4-0.

Follow the money!

At the Oct 22,2008 selectmen meeting. Selectmen Roberta Fraser makes the motion to transfer $250.000.00 from the water fund to the Capital Reserve. Which passed by a 5-0 vote. Watch where this money goes. Follow the money! In the past John Stetser got the selectmen to place money from the town sewage fund into the Capital Reserve Fund to spend as they saw fit. This is part of the reason we have no money in the Capital Reserve Fund for the Sewage account. Unless we have a unknown water project coming up, this money will be used somewhere else. The following is the minutes from the BOS meeting. Read for yourself.


8th Order of Business: Water Fund/Capital Reserve

Chairman Tedford talked with Treasurer Peg Tatro regarding money in the Water Fund
(roughly $318,000-$350,000.00). Chairman Tedford suggests transferring at least $200,000.00 from the Water Fund, to the Capital Reserve to earn better interest. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to transfer $250,000.00 from the Water Fund to the Capital Reserve, and if there is a problem with that transfer amount, Peg Tatro can come to next week’s meeting to discuss. Selectman Ruth seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.

So, under the guise of getting a higher return on the money it's transferred to a different account, where it can be spent on anything the Selectman deem necessary.

Can we afford these out of control budgets?

This was posted by Bob Davis Budget Committee Member and I approved this posting: Oct 28, 2008, The Budget Committee once gain fails to cut any serious money from the town budget. They did however cut a little money from the Selectmen’s proposed increases. Tonight it was Sharon Haley’s turn to discuss the Financial Dept’s budget. Last year her budget was $115,223.00. She came before us tonight, requesting an increase of $12,602.00 in her budget, which would have brought the total to $127,825.00. The budget committee, after a small debate, voted to cut $4,182.00 which includes the dept's performance bonus, bringing the new total budget to $123,643.00. This is actually another increase in town spending of $8,420 for this dept. These are not real honest budget cuts. What I discussed with the dept head, what everyone over looks, which doesn’t show up in her line item budget, is the hidden costs under the line item called insurance.

The accounting supervisor, Sharon Haley, receives a $43,474.00 salary. However, when we add in the hidden benefits of ; 3 weeks paid vacation, 10 paid sick days, 12 paid holidays, medical, dental and vision benefits and the cost of living raise and performance bonus she's received, her pay actually totals out around $55,557.42 (using 2006 -2007 stats). Now the accounting assistant, Amy Bond, receives a salary of $34,758.00. If we add her 2 weeks vacation, the 10 paid sick days, the 12 paid holidays and the cost of medical, dental, vision insurance and her raise and performance bonus, we come up with an actual total salary of $55,404.60.
Now as you can plainly see, the real budget numbers of the Financial Dept. are $160,554.42, not $123,643.00 and all of this is for just two people, in a downstairs office. We're not done yet, we still have 4 more offices to go. To make real budget cuts, I called for a cut of Amy Bond's hours and pay making the assistant job part-time. This job was done for years with one full time employee, Irene Ethridge, and a part-timer. In all fairness, the work load has increased a little; but can still be carried out the old way. There is no real need for having two full time employees and it's costing us a substantial amount of tax payer money to boot. We are headed for very hard times, with all of these increases; because if we don't act responsibly and really start cutting out the pork, next year people are going to be taxed out of their homes.
So what if the employees have to work a little harder and buckle down on these expense items, we all have to tighten our belts in bad economic times. This is letting the tax payers down and increasing the risk that some more of our neighbors and friends may lose their homes or have to move away because they can no longer afford to live in Winchester. I ask my fellow board members where is the fiscal responsibility that we are entrusted to carry out to protect the citizens of Winchester from continued over spending ? I didn't see any again, at last night's meeting.

People in town not paying taxes!

Is this true? Are there some people in town not paying their fair share while the rest of us pick up the slack? Is this a case of our town officials unlawfully looking the other way?

We've received the following letter from a concerned citizen that this may actually be the case regarding a neighbor of theirs.

Hello there,

I wish to inform you that I discovered that I have nearby neighbors who live without permits of occupnacy and have done so for a long time (17 years). This makes me wonder how many other homes are there in town that do not have permits of occupancy and yet peole are living in it? This neighbor is( name has been removed while we investigate this claim),who has a an extension cord to his house from the phone pole to his house that gives electricity. Why are we allowing this to take place for so long? I wish to remain anonymous but my other neighbors are very upset that the building inspector has let him get away with it for so long. We believe that he has something on the building inspector. That he is also selling a piece of his property (a for sale sign by owner) is apparent and we are wondering why we weren't notified that he sub-divided his property.
How many places are there in this town with this problem? We need to tax them as well for it is not fair to others to see this happen.
What do you say?

The letter writer provided us with their name; but wishes to remain anonymous.

Cash strappped town in need of reform!

We are a cash strapped town with plenty of pork in our budget that needs to be cut, however those in charge are making sure that the dept heads are getting their fair share. They do not want to save the tax payers any money, they just want to protect their bottom line and keep their bonuses, raises and special perks. Take the Highway Dept., under Dale Gray's leadership for example. This dept is costing us thousands in perks that no other town government, would ever conceive of allowing such give aways.
The town Highway Dept has satellite TV, ( the excuse was they need to WATCH the weather to be fully prepared ) they get Green Mt. coffee delivered for $93.00/mo at our expense, they wear comfort fit jeans, jackets, and shirts at a cost to us of as much as $290.00 a month for cleaning, they get 10 sick days, paid vacations, cost of living raises each year and get to drive their own personal piece of town equipment back and forth to lunch on us. In next year's budget, Dale Gray, wants an increase in diesel fuel for the equipment, from $28,000.00 to $50,000.00 with no over sight or control of the usage. No selectmen can tell us, where this amount of fuel goes. To be fair it is hard to anticipate the cost of fuel for next year; but with no checks and balances, with no control, no paperwork, nothing to check the actual factual usage for town vehicles, you have to wonder. Could they be heating the town garage with it? It burns in a heating system just as well as it does in a town grader. It would burn cleaner in anyone's furnace then the grader. Could it be used in town employees personal diesel trucks? It does make you wonder, why no accurate records are kept, doesn't it? No one is being accused of any wrong doing and even if they were, most of the selectmen would protect them just like they protected John Stetser. We know Ken Bethiaume and Roberta Fraser wouldn't tolerate it, but that is just two who we feel actually concern themselves with how things are being done. This is why this year, we must elect people that will work in the best interest of the town and not their allegiance to their buddies. We must demand our officials keep accurate, honest records of all expenditures and make them available for viewing at any time, by both the town's Budget Committee and the public themselves. There must be accountability at Town Hall.

How many raises did you receive last year?

It seems that some town employees enjoyed 3 raises annually for the past 3 years. One: annual raise for performance, Two: the cost of living and three; the (zinger) performance bonus. Can you image only one person failed to receive the performance bonus last year! The payment is a given! Some raises where done at the expense of the tax payers by calling it a promotion. At the Budget Committee meeting Tuesday night the motion from Ken Gardner to remove the line item "performance bonus" from the budget was passed by a 6 - 2 vote. This was the same amendment that Bob Davis attempted to attach to a motion 2 weeks ago and it failed. Colleen DuQuette and Roberta Fraser voted to keep the performance bonuses in the budget.. Upset at the outcome, outraged member Colleen DuQuette said, she will make a motion to increase the annual raises next meeting. Will she succeed? We will let you know.

Bob Davis went on record as saying, if we do not make an honest attempt to cut the taxes,the tax payers will be angry and outraged. At the deliberative session we know people will not consider a default budget and will attempt to cut the budget by $500,000.00 or more and at least one $1,000,000.00 from the School Budget ...Winchester Informer feels, we can do this! It is our best weapon! The Budget committee is quite evenly split, between the people that want to cut taxes and the ones that want to allow continuous overspending. There are several people up for re-election this year for Budget Committee and we would love to see the people in town stand up and vote out those that would continue the current trend. If anyone would like to run for these open seats the process is am easy one to follow. It is so simple and doesn't require much of your time. Just $1.00. Please help support those of us who promote change and vote out those who continue the unchecked spending. It's time to remove these people who think the tax payer is an endless supply of dollars. We cannot continue to follow this path of tax and spend and expect our town to grow and prosper, it's time for change.

Preserving the Historic Look of Ashuelot Village

The Informer has received a request to open a discussion on preserving the older buildings in Historic Ashuelot Village in a natural way instead of using synthetic siding. We received the following letter and thought this was a very important issue that merits space on our blog. Welcome people of Ashuelot Village!

People in the village of Ashuelot would like to see it begin to be thought of as an Historic place.
We are asking that the Historic district preserve the look of the exterior facade of old buildings such a the Hotel in the village, by painting, and not siding with synthetic materials.

Historic Commission Public hearing tonight: Monday Oct 20 at 7 pm at the Town Hall
Please stand up for our history in this simple way.

We already have our beautiful covered bridge, lets keep looking good, and become a destination that people travel too, throughout the state.
Thank you.
Julia Ferrari

What's Van Dyke up to?

The Informer has received the following emails asking us to start a new discussion. It would seem that many people are keeping an eye on what has been going on out on Franklin Mountain this past week and are very concerned.

Would it be possible to start a new discussion regarding that contractor Van Dyke and what he's up to now out on the mountain?
Keene Road resident

What's Van Dyke doing up on the mountain now? Thought he couldn't do any more digging while there was a lawsuit pending? Could we start a discussion on this subject?
thanks,
Mary K.

Saw that contractor tearing up more of the mountain by Shamrock this past week, why is the town letting them work when there's a lawsuit filed against the town? Isn't this illegal? Be a good topic to discuss on the blog don't ya think?
Green Valley folks

Diesel Truck Expenses ..

The Informer has received the following email asking us to start a new discussion on possibly saving the town some money on fuel expenses .. We'd welcome feedback from everyone on this subject and if you have other cost saving ideas, please bring them forward.

I would like it if there is a way we can start a new blog to address the issues of the diesel truck expenses. I sincerely believe that it is time for the town to get a veggie conversion kit for the diesel truck instead of forking over thousands in diesel fuel expenses. I have done some research and discovered that a veggie oil conversion kit and labor would run an average of 2 grand. There is a such a mechanic in Rhode Island. Is it possible that this blog can address money saving methods for the town to survive?
Thank you.

Sincerely Yours,
Silverhawk Spirit-Carroll

Questionable Conduct and more Payouts

We have been informed by reliable sources that at the Oct. 7th Budget Committee meeting a question in regards to a line item expenditure out of the A.C. Lawrence Account came up. The answer provided was that the BOS have approved paying John Gomarlo some $15,000.00 or more he is demanding for 520 day hours of accumulated sick time he never took. At the rate of 10 days/80 hours per year, this goes back some six years that he never took a day off. Though this practice of paying employees for unused sick time was disallowed several years ago, John is demanding he get paid. With no way to replace this money, once again the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. It was also reported that John has used up all of his pay allowance under the Land Use Dept. and wants to be paid out of the Highway Dept. budget. Dale Gray objected to this and reminded the board that Gomarlo doesn't even work for he Highway Dept. Despite this fact, the Selectman overruled Gray and approved the payments anyways. This is just plain wrong and outrageous conduct by our BOS. What do you think, should he be paid for this unused sick time or should the Selectman have stood firm and refused under the town's rules on not continuing this practice and should the Selectmen have taken the money from other accounts to cover this leaving us to foot the bill once again?

After posting this, we found some of the reported information to be incorrect; however if we were to edit this to reflect the errors, it would skewer the responses below. So for good or bad we have decided to leave the original post unedited to avoid any confusion editing could create.

Wastewater Treatment facility Upgrade report:

In February of 2004, the town was notified by the state DES that the town's WWTF was approaching 80% of it's permitted flow. In June of 2004, the town retained Tata & Howard to conduct an evaluation of the plant and report on it's condition and submit recommendations. At last night's Selectman's meeting the board received a report from Tata & Howard that basically states the plant is out dated, needs new rotors with automatic controls within the oxidation ditches, recommends the installation of two(2) new center feed clarifiers with flocculators in the center well, recommended the replacement of the existing chlorination/dechlorination system with an Ultraviolet Disinfection System (UVDU), the installation of a packaged centrifuge system within the existing drying bed enclosure, installation of a new generator, installation of a new return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge(WAS) pumps, the purchase of new laboratory equipment and additional I/I investigations. Additional upgrades would include upgrades to the existing headworks such as a new grit removal system and grinder and the on site construction of a septage receiving facility. Based on this evaluation the estimated probable implementation costs for the recommended improvements which would also include a 25% engineering and contingencies fees was at the time of the report $2,970.000.00. Based on escalation costs of 15%, the estimated probable implementation cost has risen to $3,415.000.00.
All of this was based on the projected population of Winchester being around 5,350 by the year 2026. There was no discussion on just how the town is suppose to pay for all of this or why the plant has been so neglected all these years or where the money ear-marked for this plant has gone in the past. With people exiting New Hampshire in droves ( US Census report ) does anyone seriously think Winchester's population is going to increase to those projected numbers, especially with the town fast approaching maximum build-out and that there are only three potential areas remaining in town for development? While there is no doubt the plant needs some serious upgrades, do we really need to be looking at a complete re-build at such a high cost?

2008 - 2009 Proposed Budget Increases Again

Once again our Board of Selectman show that they have no fiscal responsibility and continue to spend, spend, spend. Raises, bonuses, and now huge department budget increases across the board, just more of the same from the people we entrusted with our tax dollars.
There are important reasons that voters value fiscal responsibility in their elected officials. Managing public money is a matter of public trust, and a charge that should not be taken lightly. They are entrusted to wisely manage our resources and to prevent runaway spending and out-of-control government growth by requiring all departments to run more efficiently. Instead, they continue to increase department spending and award those that ignore their department's budget and continue to over spend,year after year.
They need to apply the brakes on this runaway spending and establish a tradition of frugality that will require departments to run more efficiently, instead of rewarding those that don't. If they can't; or won't, and continue on as they have, then we need to find people who will have the public's and town's best interests at heart and remove those that are only looking out for themselves.

Am I missing something here?

Over the past few months, we've all heard the same old cry, time and time again about how our town is so broke and that we've all got to look at ways to stop the bleeding; yet it seems that our Board of Selectman are still wearing those rose colored glasses from times gone by. After talking about shutting down street lights to save money on this year's budget, the board unanimously decides to hire a new Executive Assistant, at an undisclosed rate of pay at a recent nonpublic session held Sept. 3rd and at the same meeting, gave several town employees not only a 3% raise, they also voted to give these same employees a bonus too.
Highway Dept. Sup. John Gomarlo, received a $958.00 bonus
Cemetery Dept.Sup. Norm Struthers, received an $810.00 bonus
Sewer Dept. assistant, Fran Domenick, received a $975.00 bonus
Water Dept. Sup. Gary Puffer, received a $1388.94 performance bonus.
Checking back on another nonpublic session, held on Aug. 27th, we found that they had done the same thing earlier, giving Margaret Sharra, Land Use Dept. a $1.00/hr raise and an undisclosed performance bonus, and then raising the salary of the Sewer Dept Sup.,Rick Meleski, after a 90 day review, to $42,900.00. How is this saving the town, us taxpayers, any money if they continuously hand it out as fast as it comes in?
Though I don't begrudge anyone being compensated for doing their jobs well, this is a slap in the face to all of those in town who are struggling to keep their heads above the ever rising tide rolling over them in food and energy costs and constant town tax increases. For a town that's so broke I wonder where they found the money to do this, surely turning off a few lights isn't going to offset the cost of these raises and bonuses and a new hiring. Anyone want to bet we'll see it reflected in the new budget? If you're happy with this, then go back to sticking your head in the sand; if not, then attend the next Board of Selectman's meeting and let them know. And if they refuse to listen, then send them a message in March, that the buck stops here!

Your comments, both pro and con are welcome ..

Should we put a stop to "double dipping"

It is a known fact that there are quite a few town employees who hold several different salaried positions; while this might be said is a good idea in regards to having experienced people fill those positions, it also gives the appearance in some cases as impropriety, bias and/or nepotism. We feel with the infusion of "new blood" so to speak, perhaps even more qualified people would and should be given the chance to come forward and provide their input to the benefit of us all. The practice of filling positions without being elected by the citizens of Winchester should also be stopped, this too wreaks of favoritism and impropriety. We feel that each town position is important and therefore should be filled with the most qualified candidate and that candidate should be an elected one in all fairness. In these hard economic times, should we not be getting the most bang for our buck? The subject was also broached in another discussion here on the board that perhaps in another effort to save the town some money, several depts. could/should be combined; ie: sewer and water for example. What do you think? All this talk about change and the future of Winchester should perhaps start at our town hall.

Appauling Situation Calls for Action Now !

Seems nothing changes in our town, more of the same old, same old, stick it to the taxpayers. The heck with rules and regulations! We received an email this morning from Budget Committee member, Bob Davis, who attended last night's Board of Selectman's meeting and came away disgusted after he learned the following:

As we all know this past weekend races were held at the Winchester Speedpark Motocross Track; as evident by the noise, increased traffic and all the campers parked along the roadway entrance into the track and along the river at the back of the track. What you don't know according to Bob's email was that our town Fire Chief, Barry Kellom, took a fire truck out of service to re-fill the water tanks on campers parked at the speedway. According to Bob, the selectman were told that Gary Puffer, our Water Superintendent, had opened the gates over the weekend at the town's pumping station and filled the truck with un-metered water, which was then used to fill an unknown number of campers at the track. Who authorized this? It surely wasn't the selectman who seemed to be caught by surprise at the news. Would this not be considered theft of service by both of these men? Who paid for the water and the gas for the truck and do both of these men expect to be paid overtime for working this weekend? Does the town have some kind of secret contract with the owner's of this track to supply town water to patrons camping at the track over the long Labor Day weekend? Besides the obvious, what would have happened had there been a fire and this truck was needed? Just how much longer would it have taken to respond if it had to be driven to the water plant and refilled, before heading out to the fire? Another thing Bob pointed out, was what happened to the grey water and sewage in the tanks of these campers.No one seemed to have an answer. As an owner of a camper himself, Bob knows you must empty the used water before refilling with fresh. As water is used, it either goes into the grey water holding tank or your sewage tank. Was this waste water dumped on the ground or worse, into the river? This area is in our town aquifer and there are protected wetlands and the town's wells only feet from where these campers were parked. Unless Gary Puffer and Barry Kellom can explain their activities this weekend and where the water went, then one must assume they allowed without question dumping of gray water into our aquifer and wet lands at the Winchester Speedpark. This whole situation stinks! Everyone should be calling the town hall and demanding their resignations. We can not afford to continuously put up with this kind of conduct.

It's Time To Enforce Winchester's Noise Ordinance

Bob Davis is circulating a petition to get the town's selectman to enforce our new Noise Ordinance. Below is a copy of his petition;

This introductory letter is to inform you about myself. As you may know, last spring I went door to door in neighborhoods that were affected by the loud noise of the racetracks, to ask for signatures and your support, on a petition to ask the town selectman to enforce the noise ordinance that was passed by the voters in 2001. In my attempts to get them to do this, they informed me that the ordinance was unenforceable. So I returned to the Selectman’s meetings, time and time again until my perseverance finally paid off. A new Noise Ordinance was drafted and passed by the voters in March of 2008. Now I am asking you, if you will commit yourselves in joining me, in supporting the enforcement of this new Noise Ordinance. With a new petition of names in hand, I will ask the Selectman to enforce the ordinance and make the racetracks significantly reduce their noise. If this fails, I will then call everyone who showed an interest to set up a meeting and at that time ask all to decide if we should go forward and look into filing a legal action to force the town to comply. If we do decide to proceed, we should then organize a committee. I have spoken with the law firm of Rath, Young and Pignatelli, who represented a group of citizens from Tamworth, NH who organized and called themselves the “Focus Group”. They formed to fight the noise of a racetrack in their community .. and won. This law firm has the experience and legal know how and I believe that their outline of the “Enforcement of the Winchester Noise Ordinance” is the right way to proceed if it comes down to it. I have spent a lot of my own money and time, in my efforts to get this far. I know I can not afford to continue this fight alone. I strongly believe a united front will persuade the selectman to act. Therefore; I am asking you for your help and support and to join me if you want to try and do something about this noise situation. We are not going to try to put them out of business, we just want them to adhere to the noise ordinance and the will of the people. If there is no interest to support my efforts, then you will not hear from me again on this matter. This is a one time plea to join me in trying to make Winchester a better place for all. I thank you all in advance for your support.

You can contact me by calling 239-7299.

Bob Davis


We'd ask that everyone in favor of a quieter Winchester to please get in touch with Bob and sign his petition and show your support by attending the meeting with him when he presents his petition.

Letter to Board of Selectman

The following letter is being sent to the BOS on behalf of fairness. If they are going to allow the Winchester Snowmobile Club, run by Dean Beamon to be linked to from the Town of Winchester's official town site, why not our sites too? After all, we are providing a service and important town information to the public, more so than a snowmobile club I might add.

the letter reads...

The Board of Selectmen;

As a community group, we would like to ask you to add our web links to the Winchester Web page site under “useful links“. Our groups are all working for the betterment of the community and the public interest of lowering taxes and the public safety. Please add winchesterinformer.com, winchesterinformer.blogspot.com and winchesternoisecoalition.blogspot.com at your earliest convenience. This gesture would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert Davis

Should we privatize some departments?

This topic was submitted by Bob Davis.

In an effort to look into the town saving some money and maybe lowering our property taxes, I'm seriously wondering if it is about time we followed the State of Wisconsin by privatizing the highway, water and sewage depts. The State of Wisconsin did this and about 70% of their towns have adopted this way of doing business by privatizing. It works great for them. I have researched privatizing by contacting the State of Wisconsin Dept. of Resources and they sent me a treasure trove of information that they used in making their decision. From finding the right contractors, to the writing of their contracts, to punishing those contractor who do not live up to their contracts. We must change the way we do business in town in an effort to save taxpayer monies. A $67,000.00 salary for a highway superintenden, is plainly too much money for a small town like Winchester to pay out. More will be advertised about this program before our town election. I welcome everyone's input and comments on this subject.

Town's Emergency Management Director resigns

Jim Ammann has given notice effective Oct 1st, that he is stepping down and resigning as the town's Emergency Management Director. The selectmen will be advertising in the Keene Sentinel over the next two weeks to fill the vacancy.

Related Web sites

We've received a number of requests to expand the blog so that visitors could post subjects they wished to discuss in their own words; unfortunately a blog does not allow this. So what we have done is opened two new web sites for everyone.

www.winchesterinformer.com .. Is modeled after the former Winchester Informed Citizen and we hope to continue in the tradition, by bringing you up to date information on important issues in our town.

http://talkback.winchesterinformer.com/ .. Is a new discussion forum set up to promote open discussions on a range of topics that is entirely up to you. You may view any open discussion on the site; however to post a comment or open a new topic you will have to register. Information regarding registration is posted on the forum. We hope all of the citizens of Winchester will take an interest and freely speak what's on your mind.

Both sites are works in progress, so please forgive the construction as we continue to develope both. If you have ideas you'd like to share with us on ways we can improve the sites, please contact us. .. winchesterinformer@gmail.com

Information is the food of thought, come and share your views and comments and get involved with the workings of our town. Working together we can make Winchester a town we can all be proud of.

Town Administrator Resigns

Amy Lewis, Winchester's Town Administrator gave notice to the Board of Selectman that she was stepping down to be with family in Florida. It is rumored that Bob Gray, has been chosen to fill the vacancy.

Why won't they act ?

Though he was voted out of office by the citizens of Winchester, there are still questions as to what went on while John Stetsor was our town manager that need to be addressed. This is a recent "letter to the editor" sent into the Keene Sentinel ..

In New Hampshire, selectmen have the legal authority to open bank accounts and get credit for the town. Employees, even town managers, aren’t allowed to do that kind of thing on their own. Check out RSA 37:6 for the specific powers and duties of town managers.

A "Right to Know" request and $24.00 got me some interesting documents about credit cards. One is a credit card application dated 4/25/07 for a Town of Winchester MasterCard in the name of John Stetser, with a $10,000 credit limit. The “Authorized Officer Signature” is J. H. Stetser. John H. Stetser is listed as the only “authorized contact” who can make changes to the account. So far the town hasn’t come up with a document showing selectmen approved the application. Keep in mind, that isn’t $10,000 once, it can be $10,000 over and over as fast as the town can pay the bills.
The town manager approves payments for all bills and determines the budget department and line item charge backs. Some of his approved payments and charge backs are most interesting. There's one for an overnight stay at the Sise Inn, which is, according to it’s website “one of the finest hotels in Portsmouth”, $193.43 charged back to Executive Publications. Then there's Papagallo’s $50, Red Blazer Restaurant (Concord) $28.72, Burlington Coat (Concord) $40.97 (rumored to be underwear), Sears (Concord) $14.99, Papagallo’s $100, TK’s Family Restaurant $20.86, TK’s Family Restaurant $17.04 (with a note “mtg w/Swanzey town administrator Ex”), Papagallo’s $50, Sunoco Winchester $26.75, Smart Quote (software?) $252.00, which was charged back to General Government Buildings Contracted Services, plus many miscellaneous charges at Wal-Mart, Staples and others. It is hard to figure out from the documents provided just how all these expenses were charged back to us taxpayers. There is also a late fee and finance charges, charged to this account.
The Town Manager’s contract allows him mileage reimbursement for the itemized use of his vehicle but doesn’t say anything about paying for gasoline, meals, lodging, entertainment or clothing. So far, the town has not been able to provide documentation of our selectmen approving such expenses.
I also discovered that the Town of Winchester has three store credit cards ( Wal-Mart, Staples and Home Depot). Since July there has been one charge on the Wal-Mart card, $20.76 for Pepto Bismol, Advil, Rolaids and Puffs, all charged back with Stetser’s signature to General Government Buildings Supplies & Expenses. How do buildings take antacids?
I haven’t tracked down all of the details on all the charges, but I’m curious about several weekend charges at Home Depot. Isn’t it time for the selectmen to step up to the plate and hold John Stetsor accountable for these charges? Is this not abuse of his powers? Also, why did Stetser accuse some selectmen of being dishonest when he observed Ken Berthiaume looking through the files in the accounting office “without permission from the board "? (April 2nd selectmen' s meeting minutes.) Every selectman should be digging through these files and finding out what’s been going on with the town’s money. It's their job to do so.
It is impossible for the budget committee to do it’s job if the financial reports can’t be trusted.
Will our selectmen ask the attorney general to investigate what went on with the John Stetser credit card abuse, or will they just ignore it, hope everyone forgets? He may be gone; but many questions remain.


Bob Davis
Budget Committee Member
893 Old Westport Road
Winchester

Do we need a time clock for town employees ?

This topic was submitted by Budget Committee member, Bob Davis

We all know that town employees have gone to a 4 day work week. But are we getting the most for our dollars when a town employee comes to work late every day, goes to lunch early and comes back to work late? Or when they leave early from a job and drive all the way back to the town garage just to have lunch? This has been brought to my attention time and time again by members of our community asking what is happening in our town. There have been reports that Highway Dept Superintendent Dale Gray goes to work late most of the time too. Four day work week was intended to save money not waste it. Is this the best we can expect for our tax dollars? Perhaps it's time we make these employees accountable by implementing a time clock/payroll procedure, it's evident that we need a system in place to ensure that these abuses stop immediately. The trust system is not working in Winchester.

Town firetruck used to fill pools?

It was reported that our new $250,000.00 town fire truck was driven to Vernon, Vt. to fill a swimming pool a few weeks ago. Who authorized this? What would have happened if we had had a serious fire here in town while this truck was elsewhere? Can we afford the risk of being without the services or the wear and tear to this vehicle to go around filling swimming pools? This matter was brought to the attention of the selectmen and new guide lines are being set up, but still this was foolishness at it's best and misconduct to say the least and something like this should have never happened. Common sense says you don't take a town emergency vehicle out of state, not for any reason, least of all to fill swimming pools.

Planning board has explaining to do

The following was submitted and printed in yesterday's Keene Sentinel in the Reader Opinion section...

To The Sentinel;
Winchester residents, it is your money! Is this a laughing matter? Some of the Planning Board members thought so.
Most people of Winchester know about the conditional approval given to Robert van Dyke by our town planning board for his 32-unit condo project on the hillside of Franklin Mountain on Route 10, behind Shamrock Realty.
What you don't know is that this planning board has been under the watchful eye of our town attorney, Barton Mayer; because of complaints of favoritism and pandering to the advantage of Mr. Van Dyke.
Most residents aren't aware that an appeal has been filed in Superior Court on behalf of the abutters, who are questioning the conduct of the planning board in reaching this decision, naming Chairperson Margaret Sharra and board member Dean Beamon personally.
In my previous letter to the editor of the Keene Sentinel, I raised several questions about the conduct of several members of this board and the possibility of a lawsuit being filed if they continued pandering to this applicant.
Just why wasn't the board afraid of being sued by the abutters, the very people they swore to protect, several of whom are disabled and on fixed incomes? For what reasons did they overturn their denial of this application?
No reasons were ever given, except to say they may have acted to hastily.
Were there suddenly new changes to the town's subdivision rules and regulations or was this simply Margaret Sharra using her influence as chairperson to once again help Mr. Van Dyke?
The granting of a waiver to allow Mr. Van Dyke relief from having to submit a completed application, as required by the town zoning laws on any building project, under the premise that this would cause him undue hardship of having to spend the money required to submit completed plan and design changes, was an outrageous motion from the board.
The issue of hardship is relative to the property and not the applicant. Having to spend the money to do things right is not a hardship. Every other developer who has submitted an application to the planning board has had to comply with the laws and submit a completed plan.
Either we elect people and become a town with laws that everyone must abide by equally, or have none at all.
We cannot allow elected officials to be influenced by special interest, they must all be of good conscience and capable of reaching a fair and lawful result on their own and shouldn't cast any doubt of implication of impropriety.

ROBERT DAVIS
893 Old Westport Road
Winchester

Is this really a laughing matter?

At a recent town Planning Board meeting, the subject of this lawsuit against the town was brought up. Several members of the board including Margaret Sharra and Dean Beamon can be heard laughing as they discuss, what they believe are the merits of the case and can be heard calling the abutters dumb and foolish. When one of the board members brings up the fact, that the so-called law, Margaret Sharra quoted from at their reconsideration meeting, was in fact, not a law and that the abutters could prevail, Margaret Sharra says .. " well you all know what I meant." Mr. Beamon comments "that no matter what, it is a no win situation for the abutters; because if they lose they have to pay their attorney and if they win, they still lose because we will raise their taxes to pay for the suit"
Lots of laughter can be heard coming from the members of the board after this statement, I guess they think it's a funny thing for the people of this town to have to pay for what they do. Are you laughing? Are these the kind of people you want representing you on the board?

( a copy of the tape of this meeting was obtained through the Selectman's office and the above comments were taken directly from the tape )

Proposed Trial date set

Barton Mayer has requested a proposed trial date of February 1, 2009 at Cheshire County Superior Court for the Planning Board Appeal hearing. Silas Little, on behalf of the plaintiffs has agreed as has John Ratigan, attorney for Mr. Van Dyke.

Town's attorney seeks to block discovery

Silas Little, the plaintiff's attorney received word from Barton Mayer, the Winchester Town Attorney, that he will seek to block and quash any efforts to obtain interrogatories and/or depositions from the Planning Board members.

Board members to be questioned

Silas Little, attorney for the plaintiffs intends to propound interrogatories from all the members of the Winchester Planning Board to discover all of the communications that occurred between
Board members on this application from August or so of 2007 until approval that occurred earlier this spring in 2008.

Mr Little had previously filed "A Right To Know" request to discover any and all communications between the board members that was not part of the Town's official records and was stonewalled by Margaret Sharra who did not completely honor his request under the law.

Summary Statement Of Petitioners

The following summary statement was filed in Superior Court on of the abutters by their attorney Silas Little ..

The Petitioners are abutters and aggrieved persons to land owned by Robert Van Dyke which received from the Winchester Planning Board site plan approval for a cluster development.

The Petitioners challenge the participation of Margaret Sharra and Dean Beamon in the deliberation of the Planning Board on the site plan. The Petitioners assert that these two(2) members of the Board were disqualified because of positions taken during the process which showed they were not neutral to the application.

The Petitioners also raise the issue of the interpretation of the cluster zoning ordinance and the permissible intrusions into the buffer zone for this cluster development as well as the granting of several waivers by the Planning Board without proper demonstration under the Planning Board regulation of the necessary facts in order to obtain the requested relief.

This Summary Statement is intended pursuant to notice of the Court and is not deemed an admission or to delimit the appeal to the court.

Board grants conditional okay ..

Despite Mr. Van Dyke not having all of his permits..
a required condition brought up at the last meeting.

Despite the town's attorney advising against it ..
" Do not give an approval without all permits in place".

Despite knowing the buffer zones aren't properly marked ..
Van Dyke's employees erroneously marked the zones.

Despite knowing someone ( employees? ) removed wetlands markers ..
Put in place by ACOE certified Soil Scientist working for PSNH who marked them for protection.

Despite several of the abutters having water rights issues with him ..
The Townes, Homans and Websters all hold deeded water rights to the property.

Despite his numerous violations of both state and town codes ..
Wetland violations, no erosion controls, excavated without permit, removed truckloads of soil from the site, intruded on buffer zones .. logged and clearcut without a permit.

The board voted to give him conditional approval to go ahead.

A formal complaint has been sent to the State Ethics Commission in regards to Margaret Sharra's conduct throughout the proceedings and a complaint will be filed with the town's selectman this week regarding her pandering and preferential treatment of this applicant.

The abutter's will be filing an appeal and suit against the town of Winchester over this decision.

Next Planning Board meeting

The Planning Board will meet April 21st at 6:30pm at the town hall auditorium on the main floor and continue with the discussion of this project. Unless a motion is made to open the public hearing, they will make a decision to approve or uphold their denial of the application. Let's all hope they use some common sense in their decision making and realize what a mistake it would be to approve this project with so many questions left unanswered.

Town attorney says toss the tapes

It seems our request, under the " Right to Know " law, for copies of all of the taped Planning Board minutes in regards to Mr. Van Dyke's proposed condo project sparked Margaret Sharra into bringing up the subject at the March 17th meeting. She asked the town attorney how long should the tapes be kept and his response was that the board did not need to keep the tapes and to dispose of them. The record, he stated; has been set with the minutes. Now the minutes he speaks of, are a typed up, heavily edited version of what took place on the night of that meeting. It is not a verbatim, word for word, point, counterpoint accurate account of everything that was discussed; but a short and condensed version put together by Margaret Sharra. The trouble with this is, that it's her version of recording the events of that particular meeting on that particular night and many questions and answers and comments are left out of the official record. Though the board voted to keep these recordings for 60 days and then destroy them. ( By the way, the Selectman destroy their tapes after 30 days ) my question to them would be, just how accurate would the information be, if needed for a court appeals hearing? I'm also wondering why, with all of the important topics the Planning Board needs to discuss, the chairperson would bring up the subject of meeting tapes at this time, right after our request for them. Just one of those things that makes you wonder if someone has something to hide.

Annual Town Election .. and the John Stetser saga ...

Be sure to get out and vote today in the annual town election. There are a number of positions to be filled and warrant articles on the ballot that are important to how our town government is run. Each and every vote counts, so be sure to exercise your right to be heard and get to the polls before they close tonight at 7:00pm.

Where to vote: Town Hall, main floor
When: 8:00am - 7:00pm

Disturbing Behavior

There seems to be a small group of people, intent on preventing us from informing the citizens in town, of the status of this proposal to build these condominiums on Franklin Mountain. Over the summer, many of our flyers and notices were removed from "free" bulletin boards around town and now the same thing has begun to happen again. Notices at several store bulletin boards and at the town re-cycling center have been vandalized and removed. I can only wonder why these people involved, are so afraid of us informing the citizens of Winchester about this project and these proceedings and what they expect to gain by their conduct. It's truly disgraceful to know that there is an element in town against freedom of speech.

How to post comments

At the bottom of the article you wish to comment on, click on comments.

Type your comments in the box.

Now choose an identity to post under. If you have a Google account, you may use that or sign up for one. If you don't have a Google account, choose the user/url option and put your name in the box provided .. no url required. Or you can choose to be anonymous.

Double check your comments, spelling and desired user name and when done click on Publish Your Comment.

The owners of this blog, reserve the right to moderate all posts for language and any slanderous or personal attacks. Remember this is a family blog viewable by persons of all ages, please post all comments responsibly.. thank you.

If you have a topic you'd like to discuss on the site, send an email to us along with your article and any comments you'd like to add and we will post it for you and open it to discussion.

Decision delayed on condo project

The Keene Sentinel Tuesday February 12, 2008
by Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff

Winchester- The Winchester Planning Board has postponed a decision on Rindge developer Robert Van Dyke's 32 unit condominium development on Franklin Mountain Until April 7.
At the board's meeting Monday night, members requested Van Dyke secure certain agreements before they would consider granting conditional approval.
Because the project includes land underneath power lines owned by Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, the board asked that Van Dyke obtain approval from the company to do construction under the lines before the next meeting.
The board also wants to wait until the New Hampshire Dept. of Environmental Services agrees the site can support enough water and septic systems for the 32 planned units.
"I would be more comfortable if we waited until the DES approval was in.. I wouldn't just be hoping we made the right decision," board member Larry R. Hill said at Monday's meeting.
Before the April 7 meeting -- 7 p.m. at the town hall -- the board hopes to visit the site. The time and date of the visit will be posted at the town hall.

Something fishy going on in Winchester

The Keene Sentinel January 27, 2008
Letter to the Editor

To The sentinel:

This letter is in response to an article in the Regional section

of the Sentinel, published on Jan 10th, 2008, under the heading,

"Briefs".

The article, headlined, "Waivers Granted For Housing Plan"

stated: "A proposal to build 32 condominium units in Winchester

may be approaching it's second judgment day after the granting of

several new waivers by The Winchester Planning Board ..."

Outrageous!

Every taxpayer in Winchester should be up in arms over this

decision by the Planning Board and especially chairperson

Margaret Sharra, over her push to reopen the application of the 32

unit condo project, which had been previously denied by unanimous

vote at the Sept 19th meeting.

Mr Jack Marsh had convinced the board to deny this application

based on town law and his and the board's concerns that many

issues had been left unresolved.

Now,suddenly the board has done a complete turnaround and has

granted three of four waivers submitted to the town board by

Mr Vandyke's attorney and representatives of the engineering firm hired

to develop this project.

This includes granting a waiver to allow Mr Vandyke relief from having

to submit a completed application, as required by the town zoning laws

on any building project,under the premise this would cause him undue

hardship by having to spend the money required to submit completed

design changes.

The Planning Board also granted Mr. Van Dyke a special waiver to

intrude upon the required 100 foot buffer zone surrounding the project,

meant to protect abutters and wetlands, to construct water retention

ponds and culverts; which will channel runoff from the project onto the

adjacent neighbors' properties.

They are also allowing him to extend the entrance to the cul-de-sac

125 feet over the zoning ordinance requirement of 400' simply because

his lot layout doesn't meet the criteria,not because of any topographic

obstacles. As stated in the article, this proposed project just doesn't

fit the terrain.

No mention of the impact of leaching upwards of 20,000 gallons of

live sewage into the hillside behind existing neighborhood homes or

whose responsibility it will be to provide for these people if their water

and septic systems fail.

Nor did they have concerns what impact the approval of this project

will do to our over strained $10,000,000.00 school budget and our

property taxes.

As a member of the budget committee, I know firsthand how fragile

the school budget is. What's the impact going to be once these 32,

two- to- three bedroom units are occupied by school children?

Many of our citizens are not aware that Winchester taxpayers

currently pay the fourth-highest rate in the state.

Why have they granted all of these exemptions of the zoning

ordinance rules for this applicant?

Is Margaret Sharra, working for the townspeople; or is she

actually pandering to this applicant? Was Sharra, at the October

15th, Planning Board meeting, working in the best interest of the

town when she introduced the matter of reconsideration, passing

out documents she researched, to planning board members

indicating other towns being sued, casting out fear that the board

acted too hastily?

I feel that there is more going on here than meets the eye and that

there are other interests at stake,based on the out come of the

board's decisions.

When I questioned why certain members did not recuse themselves

when there was a special interest in the outcome of their vote, I was

verbally attacked by certain members of the board for raising these

concerns.

Have some of our board members broken their oaths; to protect the

rights, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Winchester and to

enforce and abide by all of our current land use rules and zoning laws,

by showing their indifference to their responsibilities?

Citizens of Winchester, I implore you to stand up for our town, to be
present at the next Planning Board meeting on February 11th
( call the town hall for time )
Call or write the selectman and planning board members.

BOB DAVIS
893 Old Westmport Road
Winchester

Waivers granted for housing plan

The Keene Sentinel Thursday, January 10, 2008
by Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff

Winchester - A proposal to build 32 condominiums in Winchester may be approaching it's second judgment day before the town planning board.
On Monday night, the board granted two out of three waivers requested by the Franklin Mountain project's developer, Robert Van Dyke of Rindge.
In September, the board rejected the proposal; but re-opened the hearing process in November under fear that it acted too hastily, said board member Kenneth Cole in his motion to reopen the hearing in October.
Of the two waivers granted, one allows two detention basins within part of the protected buffer zone between the development and neighboring properties and one allows a cul-de-sac in the development to be 125 feet longer than the town maximum of 400 feet.
The board decided to waive the road length restriction based on the topography of the land in question, Sharra said.
Part of the plans detailed a road with a slope of 11.5 percent, steeper than the town maximum of 8 percent, said Planning Board Chairman Margaret A. Sharra. The board chose not to grant this waiver.
"Part of the waiver request is that they need to justify it and we felt the justification was not there." Sharra said, adding "that safety was also a concern".
Though most issues in the town's reconsideration of the project have been completed, "the board decided to postpone closing the hearing for at least one more month", Sharra said.
"We didn't want to close it just in case we missed something", she said.
Van Dykes proposal, which is also awaiting approvals and permits from state agencies will be before the board again at it's Feb 4 meetings.
During the first round of hearings, neighbors and other resident enthusiastically opposed to the plan, hiring a lawyer to speak on their behalf before the board.
The residents were concerned that the project would draw too heavily on an already limited water supply.

Rindge developer Van Dyke is behind both

The Keene Sentinel Wednesday, October 31,2007
by Sarah Palermo

Rindge developer Van Dyke is behind both

Robert Van Dyke is now fighting battles over land-use regulations in two Monadnock Region communities.
In 2004, the Rindge developer proposed a condominium complex in jaffrey near Mount Monadnock and in March, he applied to build another complex on Franklin Mountain in Winchester.
Members of the Winchester Planning Board unanimously rejected that proposal in September; but put the issue back on the agenda for Nov 5 because they are concerned they may have acted too hastily, according to board member Kenneth A. Cole
They will examine the process they used to reach the denial and reopen the public hearing for more information from the developer.
The jaffrey proposal has been tied up in legal battles for three years, with a recent petition from local residents added to the piles of paperwork.
Twenty-two citizens from Jaffrey, the town governments of Dublin and Marlborough and the Society for the Protection of N. H. Forests filed a petition last week in Superior Court, asking a judge to overrule the decisions made by the Jaffrey planning and zoning boards.
Both boards ruled in September that the complex would not need variances from a town ordinance establishing buffers around wetlands.
Because the plan shows 28 units on one lot shared by all residents of the complex, instead of separate lots, Van Dyke did not need a variance from the town's wetlands buffer requirements, according to the zoning board minutes.
The wetlands-protection law requires lots to have a minimum of 200 feet of shore frontage, so the single lot would be in compliance. If the complex were divided into separate lots, it would not meet the requirements and the project would need a variance according to the minutes.
The petition claims the decisions are illegal because they allow the developer to bypass the intent of the law.
James P. Bassett of Concord, the petitioner's lawyer, said the complaint may hold for all towns in the state.
"If it's as simple as doing a condominium development instead of a conventional subdivision", Bassett said, "a lot of developers will go that route to avoid satisfying environmental ordinances".
"I don't think it would be solid policy for Jaffrey or any community to follow".
Van Dyke is confident his opposition was a minority of the town and the decisions of the boards will stand.
"It's a sign of the times," he said Tuesday, when reached by phone at his Rindge office. "It seems like a lot of people who have moved here to Jaffrey are not pro-growth."
Bassett did not know when the court will decide on the matter; but according to Lee A. Sawyer, chairman of the zoning board, the matter is on the agenda for the board's Nov 6 meeting at the town hall.
At that time, the board will discuss whether to grant the petitioners another chance to argue for the necessity of the wetlands variance.
"This hasn't been as curt and dry as everyone hopes it would be," Sawyer said.

Winchester plans

In Winchester, Van Dyke's proposal for 32 condominiums was shut down by unanimous vote by the planning board in September.
At the time, board Chairman Margaret A. Sharra requested twice that the board wait until it's next meeting to hear more information and vote on the matter.
During the discussion several board members expressed concern that the town would become tangled in a legal snag similar to the situation in Jaffrey.
At that meeting, Sharra suggested they reconsider how the decision was reached.
Kenneth A. Cole made the motion in October to open the issue again and she said the board did so under advice from it's lawyer.
"We might have been a little hasty with the denial," Cole said. "Sometimes we make decisions under a little stress and in this case, we were able to reconsider it".
The plan the members see at their next meeting will be slightly different, according to Van Dyke, who would not say what changes had been made; but called them minor.
At this time, the proposal is still for a 32 -unit condominium complex with a community center.
The hearing on the development will be reopened at the meeting of the planning board on Nov 5 at 7 p.m. at town hall.

Back from the dead

At the October 15, 2007 Planning Board meeting, Margaret A. Sharra and Kenneth A. Cole decided to reconsider the decision to deny Robert Vandykes application ..

" Fifth order of business: Old and new business. M. Sharra passes out copies of the second draft of proposed zoning changes, an important superior court decision and other information.
M. Sharra and the board discuss the superior court decision on Land Use boards reconsidering decisions. The board interprets reconsideration as reconsidering not just the decision but how the decision was determined. M. Sharra asks the board if they would like to reconsider Mr. Vandyke’s PRD. She explains that what reconsideration does is open the hearing process to continue discussion on the application. Reconsideration does not necessarily mean the decision will be changed but rather to obtain more evidence to make a more informed decision.
K. Cole moves to reconsider the decision of the board, of 9-17-07, on the application of RVD’s PRD located on Rt.10. J. Amman seconds. The board discusses again the understanding of reconsideration and allowing for the board to hear more evidence to be able to make a clear, informed decision. D. Beaman yes, J. Amman yes, K. Cole yes, M. Sharra yes, K. Berthiaume yes, J. Marsh no. Motion passes. "

Winchester condo proposal voted down, drawing applause

The Keene Sentinel Tuesday, September 18, 2007
by Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff

A plan to put an 80 bedroom condominium community on Franklin Mountain was unanimously rejected by the Winchester Planning Board Monday night.
Proposed in March by Robert Vandyke of Rindge, the development would have sat off of Route 10 just south of Westport Village Road.
The motion to dismiss Vandykes application for 32 condo units and a community center came after more than two hours of discussion between the board, the public and Vandykes engineer - and a brief intermission caused by a fire alarm at town hall.
When the vote was announced, the nearly 20 residents in attendance erupted in applause.\
Board member Jack D. Marsh Jr., who moved to deny the application, cited excessive slope of the property, the inadequacies of community resources, such as transportation and emergency services to handle such an increase in population and the failure of the developer to preserve the existing features of the property -- the plans called for cutting trees and filling streams.
Vandyke did not attend the meeting and could not be reached for comment today.
Several Winchester residents and Silas B Little 3rd, a lawyer retained by two abutters, questioned the layout of the wells and septic systems, the storm-drainage plans and the possible increase in schools aged children and demand on the town's municipal resources.
Ultimately; however the issue that brought the most comments was not included in the motion to deny.
Five residents with homes near the proposed site said they were concerned the projects high demand for water in an area of town where there have already been problomatic wells could cause their own water supply to run dry.
After making the motion to deny, Marsh explained he had purposely omitted that complaint, anticipating Vandyke will appeal the decision.
'I didn't include the problems with the wells in the motion in case of a suit and appeal. The state of New Hampshire does not recognize any studies showing that a new well might make an old one down the road run dry," marsh said.
Planning Board Chairman Magaret A Sharra twice recommended the board wait until next meeting to decide and board member Kenneth A Cole also anticipates a court battle over the denial.
Marsh acknowledged Cole's fears had merit saying, ": the objections I made come right out of our regulations. No matter when it happens, if we deny this, we're probably going to have to go to court."

Sarah Palermo can be reached at 352-1234. extension 1436, or spalermo@keenesentinel.com

Concerns Raised About Condo Plans

The Keene Sentinel Sunday September 16, 2007
by Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff

Winchester - Though the Boston and Maine Railroad tracks by Franklin Mountain have been silent for some time, the property next door has been generating noise in recent months.

Rindge developer Robert Vandyke has plans for what could be Winchester's first planned residential development, on the property and will appear before the planning board Monday night for a continuation of a public hearing.
The project, off of Route 10 just south of Westport Village Road, could create 32 new condominium units and a community center run by a homeowners association.
Plans show the units clustered together on roughly 17 acres of the property. The remaining land, about 27 acres, would be protected in a conservation easment.
Vandykes proposal has met with opposition at previous public hearings and some concerned residents have been trying to gather more support for Monday.
Cope T Homan and Michael Towne own properties adjacent to the proposed development and have been involved with circulating petitions and fliers around town, hoping to limit the size of the development.
I'm really not the type of guy that says, "Don't develope any of your land; but I do not believe with the buffers and wells and all, that there is enough buildable land for all this," Homan said.
Vandyke could not be reached for comment.
THe developer recently faced lawsuits from a group including residents of Jaffrey, the towns of Dublin and Marlborough and the Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests, for a development proposed near Mount Monadnock.
Magaret A. Sharra, Winchester planning board chairperson, said the board was "not pleased" with delays in a five lot subdivision project Vandyke started on Route 119. The lots have been vacant, after most trees and brush were removed, for several months.
"We didn't know at that time the things we could require in terms of vegetation to be left in place, or time limits on when it would have to be done," she said.
More accustomed to working with smaller subdivisions, the planning board has hired a consultant from Stevens and Associates Engineering in Brattleboro, at Vandykes expense, according to Sharra, to help members understand various surveys and studies of the property.
Shara said the planning board has given the proposal serious consideration.
"This isn't a two-lot subdivision and the board has been very careful, taking it slowly, " she said.
"We're going to put in every reasonable protection for the town known to man."
> The Winchester Planning Board meets Monday at 7 p.m. at the Winchester Town Hall on Richmond Road.

Sarah Palermo can be reached at 352-1234. extension 1436, or spalermo@keenesentinel.com

Links to Planning and Zoning Board minutes

We've removed the links to the town's site because they keep changing the url. We have provided a link to the town's web site on our homepage ( see link at bottom of page ) and from there you can find the links to the meeting minutes of each board. Be aware though, some dept's haven't updated meeting minutes in months. )
If you click on the dated minutes links, which you will notice are not in sequence and which have been edited recently, you will get a new page with a written transcript of what took place at each meeting with regards to this project. The transcripts are not verbatim, only what chairperson Margaret Sharra deemed important and therefore, not all information is included in the minutes; thus the records are really incomplete.

Of particular interest is the Zoning Board minutes of 5/31/07, to wit, no abutters were notified as per law and only one family attended because someone attached a note to their front door informing them of the meeting.

Condo Project on Franklin Mountain

Are you aware that contractor Robert Van Dyke of Rindge, has purchased a parcel of land on Franklin Mountain and has submitted a plan to build 32 condominiums and a community center on it to the Winchester Planning Board? If he is successful in getting approval, this will open the door to more and more development of our forests and wetlands. Mr. Van Dyke already has a project ongoing in Winchester on Route 119E on the Winchester/Richmond town line in which he has clear cut the forests and left the land open to the elements and erosion and it’s an eyesore to everyone.

There is no need for this planned development in Winchester. There is no housing shortage here; in fact many of our neighbors are in trouble and are trying to sell their homes before they lose them. Why do we need to destroy more of our natural resources ?

Mr. Van Dyke’s property is situated on Route 10, adjacent to and directly behind Shamrock Realty. His planned development will not only affect those homeowners that directly abut his property; but adversely affect us all .

His plans call for drainage into existing streams and wetlands, wells that will pump thousands of gallons of water to this community, which could leave those living nearby waterless and a very dangerous driveway entrance just on the rise above Westport Village Road. His plan is to build this community, sell the units and then pull out; leaving an association, run by the owners to maintain the wells, septic, roadways and storm drain cisterns on their own.

Please give us your support and help us stop this unnecessary project before it’s begun.

Please come and voice your concerns and help us protect our natural surroundings.

Special points of interest:

· More new taxes?

· Adverse effects on current residents in the area?

· The real possibility of wells going dry?

· Pollution of existing wetlands and streams?

· The natural beauty of another forest and habitat to hundreds of songbirds and other animals destroyed, purely for economic gain!