Mr Towne, on behalf of the residents of Winchester and those residents of Swanzey who also will be affected by this plant, has filed a request for a rehearing based on procedural conduct by the chairman of the board. Mr. Towne, was also not notified of this scheduled hearing as required by law.
There is definitely something wrong with our town boards when they act in such a secretive and arrogant manner and have no respect for the law or the town's citizens.
For those of you who did not attend the previous meeting when the exception was granted, here is content taken from the minutes of that meeting;
Rob Hitchcock, Engineer from SVE for Mitchell, responds to the five requirements for a SE.
He speaks to the criteria and also submits them in writing.
1. Is the proposed use permitted in the district?
Manufacturing is allowed in the Agricultural District (AD) with a SE.
the real answer is no it's not
2. Is the specific site appropriate location for such a use?
It is very appropriate. The site is currently an active gravel pit. The preferred location is more than 1200ft away from abutting residences. The exit/entry is to Rt. 10 and town roads are not impacted. Aggregate is available on site for the process.
the only reason they want to move it, is because it gives them more area for expansion and the location will not be affected by the upcoming State's highway project and bridge replacement project
3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the adjacent area?
Once the plant is built we think the residents of Winchester and Swanzey will barely notice its presence. The facility has minimal odor, little noise and will not distract from property values. Asphalt is a benign substance.
A. Humes would like to know what evidence the applicant has in regards to property values. Mr. Hitchcock states he has spoken with Diane Smith at Powers Appraisal. She said it was her opinion and the opinion of her staff, the asphalt plant will not have a negative impact on property value. This was not an actual appraisal.
A. Humes raises his hand and asks for a show of hands of those who think property values will be negatively affected. Seven Westport Village area residents raised their hands along with A. Humes.
Chris Wilder, Westport Village, asked if the homes near the Keene asphalt plant were built before or after the construction of the asphalt plant. Mr. Hitchcock does not know. His question to Diane was: would the plant have a negative affect on values? Powers Associates said when finding comparable home sales, they would not make any adjustment because of an asphalt plant at that location.
Mr. Little explains how appraisals are done and concludes there would not be a negative impact.
A. Humes disagrees because if neighborhood characteristics change, then values change. Mr. Little speaks of Rose Lane values (the neighborhood near the Lane asphalt plant in Keene) and says there is not a negative value adjustment.
Mr. Hitchcock reminds the board the preferred location will be 2000 ft away from Rt. 10.
A. Humes states the wind currents affect Westport Village.
Mr. Hitchcock reminds the board the state addresses air quality.
this is all a bunch of malarkey and opinions, evidence from other areas affected by asphalt plants in near proximity to homes has shown a decrease in property values on average of 27%. and this information along with other documents were submitted to the board and were ignored. Asphalt plants are noisy, smelly and do affect not only property values; but the health of nearby residents
4. Will the proposal result in nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians?
The presence of the hot mix plant will not have any adverse impact on vehicles or pedestrians. May have up to 40 additional trucks per day for asphalt, but that would be offset by a decrease of about 20 trucks per day that now ship material.
once again, another misleading statement and the unsubstantiated opinion of Hitchcock; increased traffic is both a safety hazard and an increase in air pollution from diesel fumes, therefore a nuisance and serious safety issue to anyone driving, walking or living in the area. We find it almost laughable that they say there will be a decrease in truck traffic as they stated before the Planning Board that there would be upward of 80 to 100 trucks a day.
5. Will adequate and appropriate facilities be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use?
The existing house will be converted to office space. Water and sanitary services are available.
Further, the Supreme Court has declared that each of the following conditions must be found in order for a variance/special exception to be legally granted;
a) the variance will not be contrary to the public interest; ( more than 125 people signed a petition against this plant)
b) the variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance; seeing as how this is NOT ALLOWED in the Agricultural Zone, it surely is isn't consistent with the spirit of the ordinance
c) substantial justice is done by granting the variance; what justice? Mitchell could build in the Highway Commercial part of his lot without any variances/special exceptions, yet he'd have no room to expand there and would be held up by the State.
d) granting the variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties; evidence was provided that it would despite statements from Mitchell ans the project was declared one of regional impact.
e) special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship".
there are no conditions .. period.
14 comments:
Residential property values near the Rose Lane asphalt plant in Keene, namely the Cold River Plant, have likely never been evaluated in terms of the impact of the plant. Therefore no evidence was presented by Mitchell or his associates stating that the plant has had no impact on residential property values. One can not present evidence that does not exist.
There are not many qualifying residential properties near the Cold River plant to include in a study on effects on property values if a study were to be conducted. This is because most of the residential properties near the Cold River plant were built AFTER the plant went in, therefore they would not qualify as a part of a valid study on property values. A residential home/property MUST exist prior to an asphalt plant coming into a neighborhood in order to conduct a comparison study afterward demonstrating the impact on the value of it.
Furthermore, there are almost no similarities between the Cold River plant and the Winchester proposed asphalt plant on any matter of concern, yet Mitchell and associates have repeatedly referenced it for comparison. The only true similarity is that the Cold River plant is over 40 years old and this is the same as the type of decades old used plant Mr Mitchell plans to purchase for the Winchester site.
The public did submit to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board evidence of property values dropping significantly from an asphalt plant entering into an existing residential neighborhood. Not only did the values of the homes drop, the homeowners were given tax relief for the obvious drop in the reduced value of their homes.
When the residents of the town of Weare, NH were faced with an asphalt plant proposal, their boards accepted concerns from residents on reduction of property values and a resulting drop in tax income from the town as valid. Weare, NH did not get and asphalt plant.
The residents of the town of Franklin, NH are still actively fighting a proposed asphalt plant in their town.
Just before the Christmas holiday, the zoning board in the town of Pembroke, NH rejected a proposed asphalt plant due to citizens concern that it could harm their groundwater.
What is wrong with the members of the Zoning and Planning Boards of Winchester that they can not see (or choose not to see) what is self evident and to vote accordingly? Currently they have put out a clear message to the citizens of Winchester and Swanzey that our concerns are not substantial. Yet all the evidence submitted by numerous concerned citizens points to abundant proof that the asphalt plant application SHOULD BE DENIED, and that approving it is nothing short of unethical and illegal. The boards have aborted their fiduciary duty to protect the citizens, which they swore to when they accepted their positions.
FIDUCIARY= pertaining to the control and management of property for another, as in guardians and trustees. (from WikiAnswers)
When the residents of the town of Weare, NH were faced with an asphalt plant proposal, their boards accepted concerns from residents on reduction of property values and a resulting drop in tax income from the town as valid. Weare, NH did not get and asphalt plant.
The residents of the town of Franklin, NH are still actively fighting a proposed asphalt plant in their town.
Just before the Christmas holiday, the zoning board in the town of Pembroke, NH rejected a proposed asphalt plant due to citizens concern that it could harm their groundwater.
What is wrong with the members of the Zoning and Planning Boards of Winchester that they can not see (or choose not to see) what is self evident and to vote accordingly? Currently they have put out a clear message to the citizens of Winchester and Swanzey that our concerns are not substantial. Yet all the evidence submitted by numerous concerned citizens points to abundant proof that the asphalt plant application SHOULD BE DENIED, and that approving it is nothing short of unethical and illegal. The boards have aborted their fiduciary duty to protect the citizens, which they swore to when they accepted their positions.
FIDUCIARY= pertaining to the control and management of property for another, as in guardians and trustees. (from WikiAnswers)
wanna bet they blow him off again as they did last time resulting in another lawsuit? this is their way of doing things in this town and why Winchester residents are always taking these boards into court.
Why don't you identify yourself Mary instead of hiding behind the identity of "Anonymous". We Winchester folk will take care of our own town. We don't need some out of towner telling us how we should do things.
Mr Towne is not appealing on behalf of anybody but himself. He does not represent anyone.. although he may feel he is doing us a favor. As a Winchester resident, thanks but no thanks Mr. Towne.
"Asphalt plants are noisy, smelly and do affect not only property values; but the health of nearby residents"..
Informer, where did you get this? There was no evidence submitted by the opponents that proved this at all. Where were their experts? Where is the information that asphalt plants cause health problems to nearby residents? Speak the truth Informer. Stirring the pot with false statements proves you are not worthy of serious consideration. You are not telling the truth.
The only one not telling the truth here is the chicken sheet hiding behind the anonymous option attempting to stir the pot herself, right Irene? Why don't you and Gus take a long hike and find something useful to do besides spouting your useless and untruthful drivel. I don't know why the Informer allows these kind of lies to be posted on this blog, perhaps it's to show just what moronic imbeciles we have involved in town government. I for one am glad this town has people like Mr. Towne who will stand up to you bullies and give you fits with his gumption to stand and fight the injustices brought upon him, it's too bad that there are not more like him, but it appears the numbers are growing.
To the obviously uninformed or seriously deranged person who stated that information posted that asphalt plants are noisy, smelly and release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere isn't true and that those citizens who oppose this plant provided no information to back up their claims in the form of reports by experts, like the EPA, numerous doctors and state agencies from around the country, it's apparent that either you were not in attendance, fell asleep during the meetings or just not capable ( I hate calling anyone stupid ) of understanding the information and testimony presented at these hearings. Your statements bear no truth, but that's expected of someone so full of themselves that they will not admit the truth nor would they know it if it walked up behind them and bit them in the posterior.
It's also evident that your only reasons for commenting is a very lame and vague attempt to be disruptive as you have done in the past.
All of the documentation provided by both sides is public information and can be viewed by anyone,'nough said.
You may not be thankful for Mr. Towne's actions but we are and hope he is successful in getting this plant shut down. Only a fool would want something like this in Winchester, are you a fool poster?
This could have been avoided had the boards' read the regulations voted on by the town that governed the use of this land. I do not see how Mr. Mitchell can prove hardship if this plant is not approved. He still will have the gravel operation and please remember that he bought this pit sans asphalt plant.It is too bad that Mr. Towne and company have to fight the town for respect and to have the town understand that they are breaking "rules" that have been voted on and approved by the town of Winchester. Thank you for doing this Mr. Towne and company.
As expected, the ZBA denied any wrongdoing and John "Pinocchio" Hann read from a prepared statement ( wonder what it cost the town for that ) and then declared that he had left the Conservation Commission meeting before any discussions began on the asphalt plant and the board's recommendation that it be moved back and allowed in the Agricultural Zone, therefore he saw no reason to recuse himself and declare there were any justifications for a rehearing. The rest of the stone cold members barely moved, let alone comment.In fact you could have put cut-outs of them at that table and never known the difference.
It has become very apparent to those in attendance that this board is no longer a functional part of any land use process and should be replaced immediately to avoid more costly litigation. We all know that won't happen anytime soon, so once again a lawsuit will be filed against their actions in Superior Court. It seems that this is the only way any citizen gets to comment before a ZBA hearing request from now on.
This is at least three times this year that John Hann & his board have said that they didn't want to deal with something at a local level. By dealing with it locally - how much does it cost the town? Only the electricity to open town hall for an hour?
Instead, the taxpayers are forced to pay $120 per hour (or is it more?) to have our attorney argue this in court. Is there a good reason for "passing the buck"? Does this committee feel that they are not capable of dealing with it themselves? Perhaps they should consider recusing themselves if that is the case.
We the taxpayers would like to have the committee consider every time, “If this is coming out of my own pocket, do I really want to spend this kind of money?” Perhaps they would be less likely to rush to send it to Superior Court to decide.
To Stop Passing the Buck: I say this to you. Perhaps the reason that Mr. Hann and his commmittee pass the buck is that they have no clue about what they are dealing with. Rather than say we don't know ( a trait that is predominant in Winchester) they rule in an arbitrary manner. As a taxpayer in this town I would appreciate Mr. Hann saying I don't know instead of costing me another $500.00 a year for his ignorance. Perhaps it's because they all believe that they are smarter than we are. We ( those of us looking for information) have to look things up to find out the answer. Oops, I will check spell check to make sure the words are spelled correctly. We are not afraid to say we don't know and will find out. How the heck do think that Mr. Towne and his friends get the information for the blog. I will leave you with this thought there have been comments on the blog about bullies and I do believe that we have a situation where the bullies believe that they rule!
So,I say this Mr. Hann and company get your act together! I for one am sick and tired of you making Winchester look bad!
I don't think it's a question of whether John or the board know or don't know what they should do, I think it's more of a question of being misled by Margaret and John's own ego. It is well known how Margaret feels about Mr. Towne, he after all took her to court and proved she does things she should not and I personally think she has begun to influence the ZBA's decisions and ability to function properly because she holds sway over her friend John Hann. I always thought of John as a fair and just man with Winchester in his heart; I now have my doubts and say to him your latest actions and treatment of Mr. Towne has been disgraceful and morally and legally wrong. You are leading this town to ruin and losing your reputation as a fair and just person.
Post a Comment