Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Who’s on which side?

For those of you who don't read the Sentinel but do read our blog, here's another Opinion letter that was published in the paper in regards to the destruction of 71 main Street.

Let me get this straight:

In Winchester, there’s an old house in the historic district that’s owned by a woman who works for the town and is on a number of boards, who wants to tear this house down and put up a Dollar General.
The property is on Main Street and sits between the community center and the VFW. The house is one of the first buildings in Winchester (from the 1700s) and she wants to put in its place a monstrosity of a building that looks like any other strip mall store in the country.
When she bought the property, she knew it was in the historic district, but now she wants the historic district board to ignore the fact that her building would disrupt the historical cohesion among the district’s buildings.
There is also a brand new Family Dollar store in town that was built outside of the district in an existing shopping center.
She sent her lawyer to a historic district meeting who asked that a certain historic district board member not be allowed to deliberate on her application because of possible “animosity” that could spill over from the planning board, where both women serve and where the woman who has the building has started the process to have the other removed from the planning board.
This is the same lawyer who represented the applicant of the asphalt plant that came before the planning board last year. The woman who voted for the asphalt plant is the one who wants to put up the Dollar General. The woman who voted against the asphalt plant is the one they’re trying to remove from the planning board.
From where I sit, the “animosity” is coming from the woman who wants to put up the Dollar General, not the historic district board member. And I think it’s directed to every Winchester resident who wants to protect our town from becoming just another ugly backwater town.



Anonymous said...

There's a Dollar General on Rte. 9 in Brattleboro. That's close enough.

Dont destroy history said...


Anonymous said...

Uses her positions to get what she wants not what's good for the town.

Restore history said...

It is apparent that she has no recall of her own "Master Plan" for the town.
"...In order to achieve this vision of Winchester, the Master Plan Sub-Committee has identified the following goals:....Protect Winchester's historic places."

can see right through her said...

You didn't read the fine print;

"as long as it doesn't interfere with Margaret making a profit"

Seems she has forgotten an awful lot in regards to the Master Plan especially where asphalt plants, wood burning plants and cluster developments are concerned ; but again as long as she gets something out of it, it's good for the town

time to cut her loose said...

This is the woman the select board should be looking to get rid of, hasn't she caused enough problems in this town? Just how many more lawsuits and hearings is it going to take for them to wake up and remove her for all of the problems she has caused. It seems Ruth is the only one backing her and that Joan Morel who's another one they should send packing.

Anonymous said...

Margaret Sharra abused her authority as planning board chairperson and as a employee of the town to keep all confidential information acquired in her capacity and not to give misleading information for financial gains.

Now in saying that, I was told by a good source a Mr. Hillock came to the land use office at the town hall to inquire about some property for sale at 71 Main Street (the yellow house and land in question). Mr. Hillock question Margaret Sharra about what he would be allowed to do on this property. Margaret Sharra told this person this property is in the Historic District and most of the land is in the wet land district. This land can not be built on, but took this information to here family members who placed a deposit on the property within two weeks.

she should go said...

I agree it's she who should be removed from the planning board and all of the other committees she's on. If she is guilty of rewriting regulations to promote her own dealings she should be fired and procecuted. Are the selectmen looking into her actions?