Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Planning Board Refuses To Protect Winchester/Swanzey Citizen's

After being wronged by the ZBA last month, citizens of Winchester and Swanzey were once again told their health and concerns over the quality of their lives does not matter to those who swore an oath to protect them. With absolutely no benefit to the town of Winchester or it's people, or compliance with the Town's Master Plan; Mitchell Sand and Gravel got just what it wanted from 6 members of the Planning Board who voted to approve their application for a smelly, noisy, toxic fume spewing asphalt plant on Route #10, which will lower property values in the area and drive residents indoors during operating hours. For those of us who will be affected 6 days a week from 6:00am to mid afternoon and quite possibly during the night time hours too, this fight will go on !

The board received hundreds of pages of credible evidence and hours of testimony on numerous topics besides air quality; but in their haste to go home early last night they did not even broach the subjects they could have considered to deny this application. One other issue that stands out in all of this is that Mitchell, who owned property in the Manning Hill/Burt Hill area and who approached the board several years ago after being turned down in his home town of Turner Falls, Massachusetts, pulled his application after a certain town employee made it clear to others that there were too many expensive homes in that area for something like this. Care to guess who was involved ?

Published: Tuesday, January 04, 2011
WINCHESTER — After months of heated public hearings, the Winchester Planning Board’s final meeting on plans for a proposed asphalt plant was relatively quiet.
The application was approved 6-1, with a list of 21 conditions attached addressing a range of environmental concerns.
During previous public hearings on the proposal, residents had pleaded with the board to reject the application, citing concerns about the effect the plant would have on both health and property values in town.
But on Monday night about 30 people assembled quietly to listen as the board reviewed the application by Mitchell Sand and Gravel of Shelburne, Mass., to add asphalt production capabilities to the company’s gravel pit near the Winchester-Swanzey town line on Route 10.
At one point, a “stop the asphalt” sign fell out of a resident’s pocket and unfolded slightly on the floor. She returned it to her coat. 
It was clear early in the meeting that the majority of the board’s seven members were inclined to approve the application, but they spent almost two hours hammering out the limitations they would impose on the facility. 
During the public hearing, which began in November, residents opposed to the plant urged board members to consider air quality concerns in their ruling.
Board members, however, pointed out they do not have the jurisdiction to regulate air quality, which is done by the N.H. Department of Environmental Services.
However, the board is requiring the company to give the town copies of the regular maintenance test reports it submits to the state environmental agency.
The reports will be available for the public to review at town hall.

Also available at town hall will be the results of an annual test of four water-quality monitoring wells the board is requiring. This includes two existing wells and two wells to be added downhill of the proposed plant.
The board set the normal operation of the facility at 6 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., six days a week.
The plant will take up no more that 1.5 acres inside the existing gravel pit. The board set a maximum height of 80 feet.
Mitchell Sand and Gravel representative Robert Snedeker said three or four employees will be hired at the start, with the possibility of hiring 25 people within five years. He said the company plans to have the plan running within a year.
If the company is hired for a job that requires overnight operation, it will be required to give 14 days advance notice to the towns of Winchester and Swanzey as well as abutting property owners.
The facility will be subject to a review by the planning board and the Winchester Fire Department before it begins operations, to make sure it complies with the town’s requirements.
Board member Kim Gordon voted against the application. She questioned whether the erosion and runoff plan for the facility were complete, as it lacked an engineer’s stamp of approval.

I’m not going to approve anything the engineer won’t put his stamp on,” she said.
Snedeker said he thought the board’s conditions were fair.
“There’s nothing there that’s unreasonable,” he said.
But some residents were dissatisfied.
“None of the things the people asked for were considered ... there’s been ample knowledge of people being upset about this,” said Winchester resident Julia Ferrari.
Ferrari intends to continue her opposition.
“This is not the end of the process,” she said. “The state still has to review things.”

Sarah Trefethen can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1439, or strefethen@keenesentinel.com



4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The reason why this meeting was so quiet was merely because the public was not allowed to speak or comment. The public hearing was closed at the prior planning board meeting. By law, neither the applicant nor the opposing public is allowed to speak once the public hearing is closed. Had WE the citizens of Winchester and Swanzey been allowed to speak or respond, rest assured that we would have had MUCH to say about the board discussions and their final decision. However, we respectfully obeyed the law.

To the contrary, the board on several occasions asked questions of Mr Mitchell and Mr Snedecker, using the rationale that they were only asking for Yes or No answers. However, on one occasion a yes or no answer was impossible, and Mr Snedecker did speak beyond that, which was not legal.

Additionally, while the board was deciding upon conditions for approval, Margaret Sharra actually asked Mr Snedecker if one particular condition would be acceptable to them, to which he responded YES. It is not customary for town boards to ask an applicant if any condition is alright with them.

The planning board went out of it's way to appear as if they were being strict with the conditions they set on Mr Mitchell and the proposed asphalt plant, yet the public was not fooled. The minimal conditions list (with 14 conditions) submitted to the planning board by the public to at the very least reduce the impact of the plant was largely ignored, and most conditions were not addressed at all in the discussions.

Anonymous said...

Who are you "anonymous"? What resident(s) of Winchester and Swanzey are you? Be true to yourself.

Glad people have a forum said...

Wow, someone got a bug up their....sorry!

Anonymous said...

As the reporter said, it was so obvious on how the board was going to rule in Mitchell's favor that they all; except Ms. Gordon could have mailed their responses in. It is so obvious that their are other agendas at stake here, time to vote out all of the azzh_les and get some responsible people on these boards.