Last laugh is on residents
Winchester gets another slap in the face by their elected officials.
This town is filled with nepotism and cronyism. There is no equality; it is just about who knows who. The current planning board should have been ineligible to vote on anything as Margaret Sharra (one of the owners of the house) has been their boss for the past 10 years. In fact, the town should remove the historic district completely. If they are going to approve one person to break the town’s law, then they should do so for all.
What a joke! The laugh is on the citizens of Winchester.
ROBERT CONRAD
11 Ashuelot St.
Winchester
10 comments:
Well said, too bad most in Winchester either don't get it or just don't care.
Robert - well said!
Informer I bet you wont post this as you are so partisan, however why can't an owner of a piece of crap house tear it down? Since when have we decided to throw out property rights just because a co-owner is a public employee who some don't like. If it was a WInformer regular I bet you would be singing a different tune. Lets see?
Because regulations are meant to be followed by everyone and in this case, this property falls under the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission which is compelled to enforce the rules that are part of our town's ordinances. Is that so hard for you to understand? It has nothing to do with the co-owner being a public employee or whether she's liked or disliked. The rules are suppose to be the same for everyone, although in this instance the above mentioned public employee does not think so.
I'm a firm believer that you can do as you want with your property, but every one knows that the owners had condos in mind when they purchased and whatever happened to those plans[ probably wetlands problems]they need to change the rules that were in effect when they bought this property.My problem isn't the dollar store, its the underhanded way we do business in this town.
If it is a "piece of crap"? What kind of intellect purchases it as a good investment property?
Better yet, how did it get a renters permit? Could it be that the code enforcer didn't do their job properly?
Being the one in charge has it's perks - doesn't it?
The only problem is this wasnt a planning board decision but the zoning board and this dump is not in the heart of the historical but the last house on the edge.
Let's look at this from an objective standpoint and see if it makes sense to anyone reading all of the statements made by Ms. Sharra and the chairman of the ZBA, Lou Fox.
This property was purchased by someone who is familiar with the Town's regulations and building codes as she is also the assistant code officer. Her two brothers; co-owners are as we are told, are also both experienced contractor's. Most people buying property hire a licensed home/building inspector to make sure they aren't getting shafted when they purchase and acquire a list of what is needed if the property is not up to code so they know full well what expenses they may incur over the sale price. They are also made aware at the time if there are restrictions on the property ( remember Sharra is an employee in the land Use Office ).
After purchasing the property and doing some minor work, two apartments were rented out. Was this done properly? Only those involved know for sure.
Next the tenants are evicted so the property can be sold; yet there is absolutely no proof given or shown that this property was listed locally or in the State of New Hampshire as Sharra claims; nor were any of the details regarding this sale made public citing privacy issues. One can only assume how this all came about. People with nothing to hide answer questions; but not in this case.
Next we have a smear campaign to keep Kim Gordon off of the HDC Commission to prevent her from voting against this proposed demolision as the regulations dictated.
Then a public outburst and a berating of an HDC member by Selectman Tedford "for not voting as instructed"
An appeal to the ZBA which should have never been heard; but those on the board were hand picked by our Selectmen so what else did you expect them to do.
Lastly, the decision by the board, that Sharra is a part of, to overturn the HDC's ruling based on testimony by her contractor brothers that it would be too expensive to repair the building for occupancy .. huh?
That's really compelling evidence.
As Bob said in his letter, this was an inside deal from the get go by a town employee using her position and influence to make a huge personal profit at the Town's expense.
How much has this cost the town so far in attorney fees (aka Bart Mayer)? The last I heard, it was over $4,000+. Not a dime out of Margaret's pocket - but we the tax payers are expecting to pay for this nonsense? It doesn't get any more crooked than this.
Last house or first house or smack dab in the middle, what difference does that make? It's in the district and therefore falls under the guidelines for properties within the district. It's obvious you are a supporter of Sharra's and have no regards for rules, regulations or doing what's right.
Post a Comment