In last night's Sentinel ( Mar. 4th ) there was a letter to the editor submitted by Planning Board chairman, Margaret Sharra, giving her personal opinion on several of the warrant articles on this year's ballot and implying that the board supported her views 100%. This is not true and to use her position as a chairperson, to offer credence to her stated views was wrong and misleading.
She wants everyone to vote "yes" on Article #2; stating that by upgrading our sewer plant now it will help bring in commercial and industrial growth to Winchester and help off-set our rising property taxes. While this sounds great on paper, the truth of the matter is, this town has wasted millions of dollars set aside for this plant over the years and now we're suppose to cough up more money. With the state cutting back aid to towns, there'll be no money to help pay for these improvements and tax payers will ultimately be forced to shoulder the expenses once again. While it is true that the plant does need to be upgraded, how can anyone state what the future may bring and by waiting until our economy is in better shape, when funds are more available, would not be a prudent measure to take. As for bringing in business to offset our taxes; just look at the record for the past 6 years; prime acreage along Route 10, which may have attracted large companies and commercial stores has been wasted on race tracks, junkyards and a concrete plant, not to mention the logging operations which have depleted our forests and made the entrances to our town along Route 10 and 119 an eyesore to any potential businesses, who may have once considered Winchester when seeking a place to build.
Article 8; she recommends a yes vote to spend another $15,000 in an attempt to advertise Winchester as a place for businesses to come; however with the 4th highest tax rate in the state, a defunct sewer plant and very little prime locations available is it any wonder why towns surrounding us, like Swanzey and Troy, are attracting all the business. Just throwing more good money after bad. Haven't they supposedly been doing this for years now, or have they just been spending that money already designated on something else?
Articles 27-34; authored by guess who, is nothing more than a change to regulations already on the books that help protect Winchester from over development and set rules for contractors and others to follow. Amending these regulations to make them more lax and doing away with our voted in Steep Slope Ordinance will leave the town open to just about anything proposed with no checks and balances to protect us. As it is now, the Planning and Zoning Boards hand out waivers of the current regulations, like candy at Halloween. Anyone can purchase any piece of property in town and simply cry "hardship" to get around our current regulations. Making them more lax is just plain foolishness. Are there other agendas at work here?
She then goes on to state, she has grave concerns over all of the petitioned articles submitted by citizens of Winchester, who are concerned with the past actions of our Planning and Zoning Boards and which are an attempt to strengthen and prohibit more destruction of our forests and wetlands and to hold these boards members to their sworn duties. One can only wonder the real reasons behind her attitude towards people who wish to hold her accountable. Once again she implies that the Planning Board, in unison, agrees with her views, which is not true and singles out Articles 36-40.
Article 36; she claims will set the town back 20 years and will allow contractors to build on every acre of land in town unfettered by rules or regulations; HOGWASH ! Removing Planned Residential Developments from the town's ZBA regulations and Subdivision regulations will make it harder for contractors to come into town' purchase an otherwise undevelopable piece of land and get around the current ( which she wants you to vote to change to make them more lax ) ZBA and Subdivision rules, by circumventing the density requirements of 1 house per 2 acres of land rule. PRD's are nothing more than a condensed subdivision, crammed onto a lot that normally would be restricted to guidelines already established and only maximizes the contractor's profits. It doesn't promote conservation as she states, as these lots are typically unbuildable without PRD regulations on the books, it really just promotes more destruction of our forests and wetlands and does nothing to preserve our rural character at all. For example, take a look at the lot beside Shamrock Realty on Route 10, or on the town line going out Route 119 towards Richmond, is that preserving our rural character?And as for complying with state laws mandating fair housing for all; nothing could be further from the truth, there is no mandate. If you're really concerned about preserving our rural character and stopping the destruction of more of scenic mountainsides and wetlands, vote a resounding yes on this article.
Article 37; submitted by more concerned citizens in town that the board has been ignoring it's own regulations, to which she claims " First and foremost, the planning boards and zoning boards of adjustment do uphold all ordinances of the town of Winchester", is once again, not true. Time and time again, over the protests of abutters and other concerned citizens of Winchester, both boards issue waivers of these regulations to contractors, allowing them to get around regulations and build projects they otherwise could not do if they were to be held to strict compliance. And as she so eloquently states, " A vote either way will not change anything"., Exactly the problem we should all be concerned with. Why have rules and regulations at all, if boards just continue to waive restrictions and guidelines to protect the town in favor of contractors seeking to maximize their profits. We recommend a yes vote to send a clear message that we expect them to follow their own regulations to the letter as written.
Article 38; once again she states this would be detrimental to our rural way of life; how is this possible? By voting yes, you'll be stopping contractors from coming back and expanding subdivisions and other developments that put added strain on our already over taxed infrastructure such as our police and fire dept's. Just how is this a "good use of our land".
Over the past several years only a couple of townspeople have approached the board and asked for permission to develop back lots they owned, time and time again, it has been contractors before the board looking to expand whenever they needed more cash.
Article 39; is very clear and there is nothing confusing or questionable in the wording or intent. We'd like to know how prohibiting underground storage tanks, whether they be for fuel or other chemicals, in downtown Winchester will create many problems. Such a blatant statement without explanation is what's confusing, not the intent of the petitioners.
Article 40; also leaves no doubt as to what the petitioners are asking. Are you in favor of allowing facilities to be built in town to transport, store and recycle and treat solid waste, refuse and putrescible materials? This petition was submitted to block a Vermont waste hauler from building a proposed compost facility in Winchester. If allowed, 20 trucks a day, hauling garbage from other towns in New Hampshire and from Massachusetts and Vermont will be traveling on our roads in and out of the plant. Under the guise of composting, this hauler will be bringing in meat waste, grease, oils and fats among other waste ( medical?) which is never used in composting. This will be simply nothing more than waste handling and will lead to rodent and other vermin ( not to mention maggots which turn into flies ) infestation and will bring in pathogens from all over, to our town. Voting yes on articles 35 and 40 will be overturning the safeguards written into our town by-laws 20 years ago to keep out-of-town trash and garbage out of Winchester. The petitioners intent was clear; vote no and uphold our current laws that are on the books.
Margaret Sharra's attempt to influence voters by providing incomplete and misleading information and only one side of the story ( exactly what she does when writing up the meeting minutes of the planning and zoning board ) using her position as chairman of the planning
board, clearly shows her own intent is not in the best interest of the voters and citizens of Winchester.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Right on target, thank you.
I find it quite annoying that Ms. Sharra has time to keep writing letters to the editor in a vain attempt to look as though she is so concerned about the town, but her actions speak otherwise. I'm someone that she made jump through hoops when I went before the planning board and yet, after completely reading all of this information on the van dyke proceedings and talking with several board members, it has become apparent to me and many others that she is a very shallow person with her own agendas. I pass this information along to everyone and warn you to be very wary of this woman.
Ms. Sharra and the planning board has cost us any hope of finding meaningful industrial and commercial development along Route 10 to offset our taxes. We can only looking forward to more business that make dust, dirt and noise and now on
N Main Street a metal pole barn that could explode ( new fire works place) sending metal shrapnel everywhere.. This building is so ugly, out of place doesn't fit the neighborhood and it is nothing more than a metal barn. I was to understand it would be built out of block with a brick front. I had rather seen a row of outhouse there. Your planning board at work. How stupid are we to take it from these people.
Aren't there building codes that say that new construction must meet the current characteristics and aesthetics of the area and wouldn't this force them to build something not only more appealing but more in line with the rest of the neighboring properties? Does their building meet code for a business selling explosives? Of course getting Leroy or anyone else involved to enforce these codes would be another matter.
Post a Comment