2010 Selectmen's Proposed Warrants

This is an incomplete partial list of the town's warrants to be placed on the ballot for 2010


TOWN MEETING WARRANT
SB2
TOWN OF WINCHESTER
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

To the inhabitants of the Town of Winchester, in the County of Cheshire in said state, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet in the Town Hall in said Winchester on Saturday the 30th of January next 2010 at nine o’clock in the forenoon to discuss, debate and amend warrant articles #1 through # and to receive the reports of the selectmen, town treasurer and other town officers including the agents and committees and act thereon. Final vote will be by the official ballot on Tuesday, March 9, 2010.

You are hereby notified to meet in the Town Hall in said Winchester on Tuesday, the 9th of March next 2010 at eight o’clock in the forenoon to act upon the following subjects. The Polls not to close an hour earlier than seven of the clock in the afternoon.



ARTICLE 1. To choose all necessary Town Officers for the ensuing year.

ARTICLE 2. [$300,000.00 for matching STAG]


To be enacted, this article requires a 3/5 vote.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen
Recommended by the Budget Committee



ARTICLE 3. [$817,000.00 Wheelock Brook Bridge Replacement: 80% from NHDOT, 20% from Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve]

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen -
Recommended by the Budget Committee -


ARTICLE 4. Shall the Town of Winchester raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $ ? Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $ , which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town of Winchester or by law or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen -
Recommended by the Budget Committee -


ARTICLE 5. 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 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 7-0, with 4 abstentions


ARTICLE 6. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $22,760.00 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 2015?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 8-3


ARTICLE 7. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate $24,800.00 as the fifth and final lease-to-purchase payment for the 2007 International dump truck, plow, and sander package?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee 11-0


ARTICLE 8. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund established under Article 7 at the 2009 Town Meeting for the purpose of future upgrades and/or purchase of the town’s computers and networking system?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee 6-5


ARTICLE 9. 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
Recommended by the Budget Committee -



ARTICLE 10. 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
Recommended by the Budget Committee 9-0, with 2 abstentions



ARTICLE 11. 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 at the March 2006 Town Meeting under Article 14?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee 7-4


ARTICLE 12. To see if the Town will authorize the Selectmen to enter into a 3-year lease/purchase agreement in the amount of $65,000.00, to be paid in 3 annual principal and interest payments of $23,175.00 for the purpose of purchasing a 2011 Ford 1-ton dump truck, with central hydraulics system, flat bed dump body and plow set-up? At the end of the 3-year lease agreement, no additional payment will be required and the Town will own the truck.

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee

Article 13. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of up to $25,000.00 for the cleaning, repair, and refinishing of the concrete retaining wall at the Town Beach?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee


Article 14. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $250,000.00 to finish chip-sealing approximately 9 miles of newly-shimmed roads, which are: Woodard Avenue, Ashuelot Street, Old Chesterfield Road, Pudding Hill Road, Rabbit Hollow Road, Forest Lake Road, South Scofield Mountain Road, South Parrish Road, and Mine Road?

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 5-0
Recommended by the Budget Committee


Article 15. To see if the Town would be in favor of removing 52 streetlights at various locations within the Town?


Article 16.

Are you in favor of rescinding the municipal budget act as defined under RSA 32:14?

To see if the town will vote to place 67% of the revenue generated from the tower to be located on town property in the conservation fund in accordance with RSA 31:113, and the balance to be deposited in the general fund. Further, to vote to reduce the amount of revenue generated by the land use change tax to be placed in the conservation fund from 75% to 50%?

Editorial comment: thereby reducing the total average payment into the conservation fund from tax revenues.

Important Dates and Timeline to 2010 Town Meeting

NOVEMBER:

11/09/2009 First Day to Accept petition articles for zoning ordinances, historic
district building codes for 20010 Town Meeting 675:4;40:13 VII

DECEMBER:

12/09/2009 Last Day to Accept petition articles for zoning ordinances, historic
district building codes for 2009 Town Meeting 675:4;40:13 VII

12/25/2009 Last Day to post and publish notice for first hearing on proposed
adoption or amendment of zoning ordinance, historic district, building codes.
If a 2nd hearing is anticipated RSA 675:3;675:7:40:13,II-a(c)

JANUARY:

01/04/2010 Department Heads reports due to Bob Gray for Town Report.

01/05/2010 Last Day to hold first public hearing on adoption or amendment of zoning ordinances, historic district, building codes. If a 2nd public hearing is anticipated. RSA 675:3;40:13, II –a (c)

01/08/2010 Last Day to post and publish final planning board public hearing on proposed adoption or amendment on zoning ordinances, historic district, building codes. If a 2nd public hearing is anticipated. RSA 675:3;40:13, II –a (c)

01/08/2010 Last Day of governing body to vote to extend polling hours at March 09 elections. RSA 659:4-a,IV(reduction of polling requires vote by Board Selectman)

01/12/2010 Last Day to publish notice, time place and subject of public hearing on bond or note issues over $100,000 RSA 33:8-a,I;40:13,II-a(c)

01/__/2010 Budget Committee’s public hearing on town budget. After the public hearing, the Budget committee will meet to recommend their budget, or recess to another date to meet to recommend their budget. Meeting to be held at the Town Hall.

01/12/2010 Last Day for voters to petition Selectmen to include an article in the town meeting warrant (does the subject matter need a public hearing?) RSA 39:3;40:13,II-a (b)

01/12/2010 Last Day to publish notice of January 19 session for correction of the checklist (required on day before opening of candidate filing period) RSA:654:27;669:5


01/__/2010 Budget Committee Hearing on the School Budget – School

01/16/2010 If a session to correct the checklist is on the 23rd in your town this is the last day post and publish newspaper notice of the time, place and day. RSA 669:5;654:27-:28


01/19/2010 Last Day to hold public hearing on adoption or amendment of Zoning Ordinances, Historic District Ordinance or Building Code, Planning Board must determine final form. RSA 675:3;40:13,II-a (c). An official copy of proposal must be placed on file in the Town Clerk Office no latter than the 5th Tuesday before town meeting (February 3rd) must also be prepared in time for posting of the warrant (last day is 01/26/2009) RSA 675:3;40;13,II-a (c) (d).

01/19/2010 Last Day to hold public hearing on annual budget

01/19/2010 Last Day to hold public hearing on note issue or bond over $100,00. Hearing can be held no earlier than 60 days before 1st session. RSA 33:8-a,I;40:13,II –a (c).

01/19/2010 Supervisors must hold a session to correct the checklist day before the opening of candidate filing period.

1/20/2010 First Day to file for office for local offices. (last day 01/29/2010)

01/23/2010 If the session to correct the checklist will be on January 30th this is the last day to post and publish newspaper notice of the date, time and place.


01/25/2010 Last Day for Selectmen to post warrant and budget at all polling places and at Town Clerks office or town hall. Warrant shall state place date and hour for each of the two sessions for the 2nd session the warrant shall also state day hour of the election hours polls open and close, and which items are to be voted on by ballot. RSA 40:13,II and II –a (d)

01/29/2010 Last Day to File for Office for local officials

01/30/2010 Last Day to correct checklist if your meeting falls on February 6th at a minimum the supervisors must be meet between 11-11:30 the checklist must posted by midnight February 6th.

01/30/2010 First Session of the Deliberative Session to be held at the Town Hall beginning at 9:00AM.

FEBRUARY:

02/02/2010 Last Day official copy of final proposal to adopt or amend Zoning Ordinances, Historic District or Building Code to be placed on file at the Town Clerks Office. RSA:67:3,V


02/09/2010 Last Day for Supervisors to post Town Meeting Checklist in the Town Clerk office or in the Town Hall. Notice must also be published in the newspaper 7 days prior to session.

02/20/2010 Last Day to publish notice in the newspaper, of February 28 session to correct checklist. 654:27;669:5;40:13,VII

02/27/2010 Last Day for Town Clerk to accept vote registration for 2nd session.

02/27/2010 Supervisors to hold session for correction of checklist for 2nd session of annual meeting at a minimum 11- 11:30 no correction or additions may made after this session until election day.

MARCH:

03/02/2010 Annual town report with budget must be available.

03/2/2010 Last Day to submit zoning ordinance protest petitions to require 2/3 vote at town meeting. RSA 675:5;40:13,VII

03/05/2010 Last Day for Supervisors to post final corrected checklist

03/09/2010 Second Session (Final Voting) on warrant articles and budget

John Stetser and Hillsborough Selectmen Brought To Task.

It would seem Winchester is not alone when it comes to having issues with our Selectmen. Here's an interesting article that was sent in to us in regards to our former town manager.


Hillsborough Selectmen challenged to set record right
Thu, 11/05/2009 - 20:45
Hillsborough
Group of Seven focuses on illegal appropriations
By Michael Pon

An informal assembly of Hillsborough Residents, who refer to themselves as the Group of Seven, is challenging the board of selectmen to set the record straight on the matter of $147,000 that was appropriated to renovate the Community Center Building to house the town offices. They want to see a warrant article put on the upcoming warrant for the annual town meeting that will formerly set the record straight.
Russell Galpin, the town moderator, is the spokesman for the Group of Seven, which is comprised of Arlene Johns, Gail and Bob Johnson, Tom McClure, Ann Mooney and Bob Thomas.
They are also concerned about several other appropriations the selectmen made that they consider to be inappropriate, including expense vouchers for meals and hotel rooms, the purchase of a laptop computer, a town vehicle, questions bout a town audit, a multi-year contract, and the duties of the town administrator.
They complain, in a list of grievances, that town administrator John Stetser did not fulfill his duty to prepare the town budget for 2009.
“Since he could not answer questions about items in the budget at town meeting, it was very obvious that he did not know about the items or the reasons from them in that budget,” they state.
The Group of Seven originally confronted the selectmen about these issues on Aug. 11, 2009. Since then, both former chairman of the selectmen, Paul Haley, and current chairman Joe Collins have both responded to the charges, but their explanations, which cite an “emergency” that prompted them to make the renovations to the Community Center, have not been accepted as sound by the Group.
“What they’ve got to do is put a warrant article in the 2010 town meeting for a deficit appropriation for the $147,003,” said Galpin. “That would legally give them back the money they spent, which is now a deficit. They’ve snuck it into the budget, and they think that is perfectly legal, but the Department of Revenue Administration says it’s not.”
Although Haley and Collins claim the move to renovate town hall was done under pressure from Max Schultz, the State Fire Marshal, to move the town offices out of the basement of the Fuller Public Library building, the Group of Seven insists there was no language in Schultz’ letter to the selectmen, written in May 2008, that states any emergency in the building – only that he wanted to see progress made toward bringing the building up to fire and safety codes.
Galpin suspects that Haley did not want to apply to the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) and Superior Court for an emergency town meeting to appropriate the funds because the request would have been denied, based on the content of Schultz’ letter.
According to Galpin, the $147,003 in question has been entered in the ‘Official Report of the Appropriations Voted,’ for the town budget of 2009 under account #34194, General Government Buildings, an account meant for town building maintenance and repairs. However, Galpin maintains the renovations made to the Community Building, resulting in a small office complex and meeting room on the first floor is a Capital Expense, cannot legally be assigned to that account.
According to the research the Group of Seven has done, the money to cover the expenses of the renovations was transferred from several accounts within the budget. They admit that the selectmen do have authority to transfer from one account to another within the budget when necessary, and within prescribed limits, but they point out that the renovations were a Capital Expenditure and not part of the general budget. They also maintain, in a list of grievances, that this or any Capital Expenditure “has to be approved by the voters in the same manner as the purchase of a major piece of equipment or a road reconstruction project. According the DRA, it is against the law to transfer money from the budget to any expenditure outside the budget.”
The Group of Seven wants the selectmen to contact the DRA and get the $147,003 renovation expense properly accounted for and the money properly appropriated.
They want the current selectmen to “tell the people” that this is being done, so that at least they are admitting to it and putting books straight.
Although, selectman Lou Ann Rousseau was not on the board at the time these decisions were made by the selectmen, the Group of Seven has said it wants to confer with Rob Buker, who was on the board at the time, yet does not seem to have been informed of these actions by Haley and Collins.
Buker is now back on the board of selectmen after retiring last March. He was appointed to fill Haley’s seat, who recently stepped down for health reasons.
--------------------

Forced To Make A Change

Unfortunately due to the disruptive person with the childish mind who insists on not only personally attacking Mr. Keenan, ignoring our requests that he stop, we've had to make a change to the way you all are allowed to post your comments.
This person has taken pleasure in duplicating his raves and rantings and has begun harassing the site all in the name of protecting the town and it's problems which we have been discussing here on the blog.
For the time being until this person is identified and charged for his adolescent behavior, we are forced to implement a form of moderation which will be done by the owners and which will only be singling out duplicate postings to stop the nonsense. We apologize for having to do this and for the delay you may see before your comment is published.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask..

The Informer

From The Desk Of John Keenan .. Part #2

This afternoon we received a request to post another of Mr. Keenan's comments to the BOS. At last night's meeting Mr. Keenan spoke to the board and raised the following issues;

1> He continues to be concerned about the malfeasance and incompetence of Margaret Sharra, chairperson of the town's Planning Board, who has caused now over $20,000.00 in legal fees on the Van Dyke matter. She should not be allowed to keep calling Barton Mayer, our town attorney, all of the time to keep getting his opinion. Upon, a reply by attorney Mayer, the reply should be copied to all planning board members, so that all members have the information provided in front of them to make an informed decision and specifically not just Margaret's interpretation.

In addition all planning board members should have access to all information and any weekly updates one hour prior to the meeting. Even Boy Scouts are prepared.

2> Conflict of interest and failure to recuse herself and failure to not allow anyone else to be the secretary to the Planning Board. She was formally employed by Earl Beamon and Dean Beamon is also on the board and there is upon information and belief that Kathy Beamon is also a cousin of Margaret and she is the step-mother of Dean Beamon.

Therefore; whenever Beamon matters are heard , Dean Beamon and Margaret Sharra must properly recuse themselves from participating in the meetings and remove themselves from the room. In the past, Margaret has remained sitting at the chair, directed the meetings, led the discussion, instructed the board and asked the applicant questions on behalf of the board.

3> She should be sanctioned for her incompetent conduct at minimum one half of the total legal fees on the Van Dyke case. As of this date, November 19th, 2009, the amount is over $20,000.00.

4> The Planning Board, has been referring to Carl Hagstrom as a Certified Soil Scientist for the State of New Hampshire; however he only has one license in NH and that is for a Wetland's Specialist only. Hagstrom, does not have the authority by the State to do wetland delineations on Mr. Van Dyke's or any other project. Can you imagine, what a judge in Superior Court or Supreme Court would do with this information if brought to their attention?

5> Regarding temper tantrums, hissy fits, and bad hair days by Margaret. On or about 2-3 years back, Dennis Whitcomb, another citizen of Winchester, had a disagreement with Margaret Sharra, to which she started screaming and threatening to call the police, and yelling at Dennis. This is unprofessional conduct.

In the Van Dyke matter, Sharra has been so unprofessional, as to continually interrupt the main two abutters and has threatened to call the police and in fact 3 officers were at one planning board meeting.

If you had a calm, professional chairman of the board, who would calmly hear all sides and be considerate to everyone, at least in the Van Dyke matter, you would not have over $20,000.00 in legal fees as of today's date with a possible motion for contempt coming up in Keene Superior Court for Margaret's direct flouting of judge Tucker's order of August 28, 2009.

Mr. Michael Towne was sent a certified letter for a hearing from the board scheduled for October 5th, 2009 @ 6:00pm. Mr Towne, had a medical excuse to request a continued date for the rehearing and was turned down by the board. Therefore; Mr. Towne, has never had the required hearing pursuant to the judge's order.

6> The Planning Board at the direction of Margaret Sharra is a disgrace. Winchester does not want these exorborant legal fees. So the populace has to do something about it, specifically because the BOS who have the power to terminate an elected official refuse to do anything. The town would be best served if the Planning Board would start over on Van Dyke, get themselves a calm, professional chairperson, who would hear all sides, including the public, the abutters and the developer.

7> It is rare in America, that even in a small " insider" town; that any chairperson of a Planning Board take it's minutes. This is a clear conflict of interest. In addition, I might point out that at many meetings, there is Sharra's version, possibly a different version in the newspaper, and also a different version from Sharra's in the actual recorded transcripts of the meeting. I would again strongly advise, Margaret Sharra to recuse herself and completely stay out of the Van Dyke matter for the good of all involved. Her conduct is clearly unprofessional, not calm, and hurts all taxpayers of Winchester.

The Board of Selectmen do not want to get involved. However they have the right to hire and fire an elected person and also limit their functions.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

From The Desk of John Keenan

We received a request to post Mr. Keenan's open letter to the Board of Selectman and to the citizens of Winchester in it's entirety and without edits. Mr. Keenan is a citizen of Winchester and is concerned with a number of issues going on in town, especially the lawsuit against Margaret Sharra and the Planning Board ...

From the Desk of John Keenan :
re: Malfeasance, incompetence of Margaret Sharra, chairperson of the Planning Board. Sharra causes town $20,000 in legal fees and asks for a raise??

The following is uncontroverted;

1> Through Margaret's extreme rudeness and lack of fair play, (allowing people to be heard in a calm and professional manner) the Van Dyke legal bills ( billed and paid through October 26th, 2009) are: Van Dyke $2,480.00 and Towne/Homan $17,219.00. This alone totals $19, 699.00 so far. This type of unnecessary spending increases Winchester property taxes. Margaret is almost totally at fault for this extreme malfeasance.

2> Recently, a judge ordered Margaret to recuse herself from any hearing re:Towne ... Her previous seperate inquiry to DES disqualified her from participating in the boards discussion of Towne's motion for Reconsideration. Her improper involvement invalidated the board's previous decision ( see Judge Tucker's ruling August 28th, 2009 ).
She often improperly seeks to advocate for a developer like in this case, or, when after a Planning Board is over, the public, including abutters and their attorney, are told to leave and yet the developer, his engineers and attorney stay on chatting with the board after nearly every meeting. This is absurd and wrong and yet has happened time and time again.

3> One of her tactics to control the flow of information the board receives is to interrupt whomever she doesn't feel sees eye to eye with her, in this case, Mr. Towne who she has rudely interrupted several times and she has threatened to call the police, on at least two occasions, after she got into a " hissy fit".
Her position on this board requires professionalism and calmness and fairness. It may have saved the town $20,000.00 if she had remained calm, professional and allowed both sides to testify without censor. If she had done this, we would not have $20,000.00 in legal fees over this.

4> She should also not be allowed to be calling attorney Barton Mayer all the time, or so she says she does, to get his opinion and if she does, he should answer in an e-mail so that ALL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS have a copy and make an informed determination based on this information; not just relying on what Margaret interprets his meaning was. In addition, all planning board members should have access to all information and any weekly updates before the meeting ... Even Boy Scouts are prepared !!

5> The Planning Board has done very little correctly in the Van Dyke case from what I can see.
a.) There has never been a completed application submitted to the board by Van Dyke to this day.

b.) He needs and does not have a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, applied for in March of 2008. Margaret Sharra keeps insisting it will be issued any day every time this point is brought up.

c.) He needs and does not have State approval for his community water system or his septic design. In fact, though the public hearings are closed, according to the minutes, he still hasn't fully designed them yet !!

d.) The board has given him a final approval with conditions; though he has yet to meet the conditions of his conditional approval and has given him another year to do so.
How is this being fair to the abutters and other townsfolk ??

6> A Conflict of Interest: She works 32 hours in the Land Use Dept. as chair of the Planning Board, she presides over and takes the minutes of these meetings despite the board having an assigned secretary, she also was formally employed by Earl Beamon as a real estate agent. That is ridiculous and should not be allowed, the secretary must take the minutes !!

7> Recusal; Both her and Dean Beaman must recuse themselves when Beaman matters are heard, this is the law .. and yet at one meeting when Kathy Beaman approached the board for her"green elderly subdivision", Margaret remained sitting at the head of the table and under the guise of taking the minutes, directing the meeting indirectly by instructing the board and asking questions for them ... This is what she calls recusal?? She should have stepped down and possibly left the room, not remained seated on the board !

8> She should be sanctioned for her incompetent conduct in the amount of 1/2 the legal fees, $10,000.00 that the town has incurred due to her conduct. I suggest that $10,000.00 be divided among the police patrolmen in an attempt to keep them on our police force as they are the lowest paid in the area.

9> She is also the secretary; but not an appointed member of the ZBA ( or is she?? ) She should only be allowed to on one board and not a secretary on the other, too much conflict!
This is also true of Ken Cole, he sits on the ZBA and until recently also on the planning board where is still remains as an alternate. In any case, she should not be allowed to take the minutes for both boards and definitely not for the planning board.

10> The Planning Board has been referring to Carl Hagstrom as a he is Certified Soil Scientist, not! According to the State of New Hampshire, he is a Wetlands Specialist and according to what I read on the DES site, he does not have the authority to do wetland delineations on this Van Dyke project; yet when board member Jack Marsh brought this up before the board; it was stated that this information was irrelevant?? ( check the minutes of 10/05/2009 )

11> Due to Sharra's malfeasance in the Van Dyke matter, the case will now be heard in the State Supreme Court and because of the lack of response at the recent BOS meeting, there exists the possibility of a Contempt hearing in Keene at Superior Court.

In Conclusion:

The Planning Board at the direction of Margaret Sharra is bull headed and stupid. Winchester does not want these exorbitant legal fees. So Do something about it !!
In my opinion the town would be best served if the board would start over; get themselves a calm, professional chairperson, hear all sides ( abutters and developer )
The key to all this is: DO IT RIGHT!

You know, with someone besides Sharra taking the minutes we may not end up getting alternate versions of what happened at these meetings from the town's version, to the newspapers to the actual transcription of the recorded audio. Margaret's slanted untrue version has fraudulently slanted these minutes to make her look better after her unprofessional conduct -- see October 5th minutes page #6 and August 3rd minutes and the June 15th minutes in regards to the Kathy Beaman project.

Just Do it Right for everyone .....

State Supreme Court Accepts Case

We received word from the two neighbors still involved in fighting the Planning Board and the way the matter has been handled over the proposed condominium development on Franklin Mountain, that the State Supreme Court has accepted their case before them. They were notified by mail in a letter today, from the Clerk of Court, that case No. 2009-0713 has been accepted. We'll post further information as it becomes available from them.

Looks like the town will be spending a lot more of our tax dollars in the near future.

Board of Selectmen Petitioned to Remove Sharra

At tonight's Board of Selectman's meeting, Mr. Towne approached the board during the public session and requested that under RSA 673:13, Section II the board exercise it's authority and remove Margaret Sharra as chairperson and member of the Planning Board. Citing her animosity, malice and outright rudeness to him at both the June 15th and August 3rd meetings, where she acted in bad faith, rudely interrupting and yelling at him as he attempted to speak to the board and for allowing her personal feelings of dislike for him to cloud her judgment and move her to act in a very detrimental way involving not only the other members of the board; but resulting in the town being involved in a very expensive lawsuit as a result of her conduct. He stated her treatment of him and others was very wrong and that her actions demanded this situation be dealt with immediately if the Selectmen and the Planning Board were to have any credibility. He also reminded them of Judge Tucker's recent ruling and that under RSA 673:14, she had been disqualified from participating in discussions and that the Planning Board's denial of Mr Towne's request for a reconsideration be vacated and that the matter be re-heard. However on October 5th, she did just that by orchestrating the nonpublic session the board entered into before the scheduled meeting to grant Mr. Towne his ordered hearing and that by her interference, the board once again denied him the opportunity to participate, though they knew he was recovering from surgery and had received a letter from him requesting a continuance. Mr. Towne also informed the board that if they did not act upon his request to do the right thing, he would once again be forced to seek relief through the court and file a motion for contempt, which unfortunately will implicate all of the members of the Planning Board, something he does not want to do. Before Mr. Towne could finish speaking to the board, member Tedford, made a motion to close the public hearing and stated they should not be discussing anything with him due to the ongoing litigation. As Mr. Towne was turning from the microphone to take his seat, Chairman Ruth spoke out that Mr. Towne would do anything to stop the proposed condominium project before the board. What this board and the Planning Board fail to see is that if Mr. Towne had been afforded the same courtesy as any other abutter, had been notified when this project was first proposed as required by law, allowing him to participate in due process , had been allowed to present testimony before the board without being censored by Margaret Sharra and if the board had just followed it's own rules and regulations when dealing with this contractor, requiring him to be accountable to both the board and abutters as they have done with other applicants in the past; then perhaps there would have been no lawsuit and wasted tax payer dollars. Unfortunately; because of the lack of any response to his request and what appears to be the failure of this board to take any responsibility and act upon his request, the town once again may find itself back in court for failure to do the right thing.
It's your money they will continue to spend to defend the actions of a chairperson who is so obviously out of control she'll stop at nothing to get her way. Don't blame Mr. Towne for attempting to exercise his rights to be heard. Put the blame where it belongs.