Posted: Saturday, December 17, 2011 8:00 am | Updated: 8:04 am, Sat Dec 17, 2011.
WINCHESTER — A group of Winchester residents have filed a lawsuit against selectmen and the town’s zoning board over the decision to allow a discount store on Main Street.
The Zaremba Group of Cleveland won approval from the zoning board in October to demolish a 200-year-old home and build a Dollar General store in its place.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed this week, are five residents and Kulicks, Inc., a market on nearby Warwick Road about 2,100 feet from the site of the proposed Dollar General.
The group previously asked the zoning board to reconsider its decision and was denied.
They are now suing to have the decision be deemed invalid and to have the case be sent back to the board for further review.
The home in question is at 71 Main St. within the town’s historic district. Known as the Wheaton-Alexander House, it was built in 1810 and was the residence for prominent doctors in the community.
In court document, the plaintiffs argue the plan is contrary to the stated purpose of the town’s historical district: “The destruction of a historical asset and its replacement with a box store will undermine the historical, cultural and architectural value of the Historic District.”
The lawsuit also states the zoning board held an unauthorized nonpublic meeting on the issue and it wrongly concluded the building could not be sold for a profit or rented as is.
“Based on the record, it is clear that there were several viable alternatives to demolition, and that the Zoning Board of Adjustment failed to inquire sufficiently to make a reasonable assessment of the alternatives to demolition on the record,” according to court documents.
The lawsuit also says the store is not a permitted use in the town’s Central Business District given its size — 9,100 square feet.
This is one of a handful of projects Zaremba has proposed for the area.
Its plan to build a Dollar General on Main Street in Marlborough was rejected by that town’s zoning board last week. It is also working to develop a Dollar General in Chester, Vt., and is under contract to buy 1.3 acres along Route 10 in Swanzey.
Abby Spegman can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1409, or aspegman@keenesentinel.com
20 comments:
Kulicks?.....yes god forbid someone comes to town and gives the Plifkas a little competition!Same deal when he fought a gas station going in on the 4 corners. I bet he envisions his own little monopoly in our town
There is more than one name on this lawsuit why did you single out one person to attack with your comments? You are obviously a moron that supports breaking regulations just so your friend Margaret can make a buck at our expense.
Here we go again, another lawsuit filed against the town. How many does this make now 3-4 this year, maybe more. Why is it our boards are constantly being sued? Why is it that the same people serve on these boards year after year and cost this town thousands of dollars in legal fees because they do not follow their own rules and make lousy decisions? Is it arrogance, are they that misinformed about their duties or is it they just don't care what they do? Something isn't right that a public body is always getting sued. We need to take a really good look at our Zoning and Planning boards and be sure the right people are sitting on them and representing the town, this is getting very expensive having to defend their decisions in a court of law.
It mostly revolves around Queeny Sharra. If Sherman does not cut her loose this time he deserves to be sued. When Tedford and the other clowns sit and take hours of deposition maybe they will have change of heart, toward the “B”, maybe just maybe. Of course no one has accused Tedford of having any brains. The ousting of Queeny from office will be the best thing that has happened to Winchester since Erika Ryll left town.
Can Beaman come to her rescue?
I feel it is about time someone has taken the initiative to challenge the selectmen who refuse to rain-in the elected boards actions. The elected boards take their cues from the selectmen. I am so glad they are all bundled together.
Maybe they can try their lies out on the judge as they have on the citizens.
With people like Ms. Sharra influencing many board decisions no wonder we are getting sued again and again. I said we, because it is us the tax payers that are getting sued. The selectmen and the ZBA will have to be defended by Bart Mayor our town attorney. I would hope they are named personally but we will pay the attorney fees and defend them. The town legal fees were cut by the budget committee and now they will have to take the money out of the general fund.
Maybe Ms. Sharra can explan how after she accused herself at the ZBA meeting on her property on 71 Main Street but kept answering question from the floor.
No wonder our taxes are over $30.00 a thousand.
Did the Planning Board get sued just recently or is the notice scrolling across the first page is referring to the lawsuit that was done a year ago?
The Planning Board was sued Tuesday, October 25, 2011 for it's decision to give final approval for the asphalt plant despite the applicant not meeting all of the conditions they had set among other discrepancies. Search the October section and you'll find the answer to your question.
Yep. Another bogus suit that will be thrown out. And people wonder why Businesses dont want to come to Winchester.
idiot ^
The Zoning Board is being sued because it refused to listen to a request for a rehearing, based on our town attorney's advice of course.
For a project that goes against the very ordinance/rules that she created. Does it sound like a wise move? "I create the rules for you to abide by - they don't apply to me."
The real question - how much money has Margaret Sharra cost this town in legal fees this year?
Over $20,000? Does anyone know? Why can't someone have a "vote of no confidence" in her and have her kicked off for malfeasance?
Well Im sure the Informer will be the first to let us know if it goes anywhere and the last to let us know when it gets tossed if it hasn't already.
How goes the one about 71 Main st?
how come only Kulicks name was mentioned who are these other 5 people?
If you are so concerned about this why don't you just go up to the Cheshire Superior Courthouse and ask for a copy of the lawsuit? All of the information you seek will be given to you, for a small fee and then you won't have to log in to this blog and ask. You're quick to bad mouth and accuse, Ed; but really slow when it comes to doing anything for yourself.
We felt it was enough to report that another lawsuit had been filed for violation of regulations and in order to conserve space left it at that.
But the lawsuit information scrolling across the first page of this blog is not about the Main Street lawsuit.. but the one that was filed a year ago and dismissed. If you want to be credible, accurate information should be shared.
The lawsuit was re-filed, on time and contains the same complaints as the one previously ruled against. What you keep failing to mention in your attempts to discredit us, is that the original suit was dismissed not for it's content; but for missing the filing deadline by the court. This happened because Margaret Sharra lied to Mary Ryan stating the board had no regulations for a re-hearing. The PB regulations clearly had rules of procedure governing re-hearings, that Margaret Sharra had herself written, had brought up at an earlier Mitchell hearing on his behalf; but totally forgot about less than a month later when Ms. Ryan requested information in regards to a rehearing. Because of Sharra's deliberate attempt to stall and deny Ms. Ryan a hearing before the PB, the deadline for filing an appeal to the court passed.
The same suit, updated, to include more violations of law, was refiled, accepted by the court on it's merit, answered by the town's attorney and a conference has been scheduled for the 19th of March.
To the person who continues to attempt to post nonsensical comments regarding the lawsuits filed against the town;
We have previously answered you several times. If you have further comments we suggest you go to the courthouse, request the filings, read them over and then you will know firsthand what is going on if you disbelieve what you find published here.
to "December 25, 2011 11:52 PM"
It would be pointless to have her voted away, Kim Gordon was and yet we are still stuck with her B.S. and we the voters said we had enough of Bob Davis and voted him off the budget committee just to have 6 idiots appoint him back against the voters wishes. It will be very interesting to see what happens in March when we finally get rid of the H.D.C. I bet they will find away to go against the voters and squirm their way back into ruining our town.
With all the bogus lawsuits going on how come no one has filed one on the fact that voters are not listened too and people can do whatever they want no matter how we vote in March.?
Almost all our boards have lost credabilty and are useless now and its the same few people making it this way.
It's idiots like yourself who ignore the real problems and want to get rid of anyone or any group that stands up for what's right. Why do you want to get rid of a committee dedicated to preserving the history of our town over a box store, strip mall appearance and why do you ignore people who continue to break the law and think that are good for the town? People like you who vote are what's wrong with this town! You're against anyone who has common sense and wants what's right and anyone who follows the rules. Too bad we couldn't get rid of all the idiots like you simply by voting
Irene Ruth when reading your post about Bob Davis I bet you get the feeling having Bob Davis to contend with is like having a Chihuahua biting on your pant leg, no matter how hard you kick and shake your leg he doesn't let go.
People we need the Bob Davis's of Winchester to protect our interests and take a stand. At least with him we know that he will not cave in to the selectmen and their budget demands. Perhaps if we are lucky he will tell the school board to pound sand and deal with the 8M. How many more people have to go through foreclosure before the powers that be get it ? By the way I timed Maggie's ciggie break yesterday. It was over 15 minutes. We are paying her for what? Oh, better yet ask Gus or even better ask Irene.
There seems to be a very small group of commenters who come on here and defend every questionable action by the zoning and planning board and who continue to deny we have problems created by the members of these boards and instead voice their disapproval with anything negative about them posted on this blog. From reading their comments it is obvious they are a very small group, 3 or 4 at best who constantly post anonymously and question every bit of information provided by other commenters and the informers themselves, is testament to how worried about and how dangerous to their little group they consider this blog.It isn't hard to figure out who these few are and what their intentions be and why they are so worried. Information is a powerful weapon and allows people to know whom they can trust. To those who would attempt to censor or distort the truth, this blog has become a beacon for their angst and a target of their rath, which shows me just what kind of people we have in power in this town and just how manipulative they have become to hide the truth from the rest of us.
Post a Comment