BOS letter to Ewers regarding renovations in HDC

BOS Meeting Minutes 7-18-12

HDC Meeting Minutes 7-23-12

~  D R A F T  ~

Town of Winchester

Historic District Commission

Meeting Minutes

Monday, July 23, 2011

Attendance:  Mike Haman (Chairman), Gene Park, Matt Ambrogios, Sherman Tedford (Board of Selectman Ex Officio), Brian Moser (acting Planning Board alternate), Julia Ferrari; Alternates - Dennis Murphy III, Sheri Rowe. Absent:  Kim N. Gordon (Secretary & Planning Board); Public:  Mr. & Mrs. Joe Ewers, and Michael Willard.

Meeting opened at 7:00 pm. 

First order of business: Review of meeting minutes of 12-06-25.  Chair read the minutes.  M. Haman made the motion to accept the minutes as complete, but to include an excused absense for Julia Ferrari.  G. Park seconds.  3 Ayes, & 3 abstained.  Discussion about a full board and legally accepting the minutes.  

Second order of business:  BBR Bicycle Repair Shop & Skateboard Shop, Map 26/Lot 28 (144 Main Street, Winchester) sign application.  Mr. Burban is not present and it is noted that this is the second time.  He was contacted by the Land Use office regarding attend the meeting to discuss his signs.  The board discussed the Code Enforcement needs to enforce the signs violation.  B. Moser made a motion to have the Code Enforcement notify the owner that Ben Burman is in violation.  G. Parks seconds.  Discussion.  The Chairman will write a letter to the CEO.  All in favor.

Third order of business: Ken Cole, Map 28/Lot 44 (Main Street, Winchester).  The property owner has completely the proper application & submitted the fee.  The application includes drawings of siding and double hung vinyl windows.  B. Moser made a motion to approve the proposed changes.  No second.  S. Tedford recommended accepting the application as complete.  B. Moser withdrew his motion and amended his motion – to accept the application as complete. Discussion – about the lack of specificity in the application.  It is noted that the applicant is not in attendance at the meeting to answer questions.  G. Park second.  All in favor. 

B. Moser made a motion to accept the windows and the approval is contingent that the siding matches the original / matching siding.  S. Tedford seconded. Discussion.  M. Ambrogios said that it is the standard of the HDC to keep the original for historic integrity. J. Ferrari stated that this is correct and the board would like to see them keep the integrity of the historic value and the board continuing with the precedence of the board.  M Haman noted to the board that Mr. Cole has already started the replacement of the windows before getting an approval.  B. Moser & S. Tedford removed their motion.

G. Parks made the motion to keep the double hung windows as similar type & layout/size and the wood siding material as the original.  The information on the application is too vague.  The Chairman confirms that he visited the site before coming to the meeting and that the owner has begun replacing the original double hung windows with a new size and design.  J. Ferrari seconds the motion.  Discussion: S. Tedford feels that the motion is too vague and needs more specificity.  Questions about matching the existing siding.  G. Park amended his motion to include match existing wood siding.  J. Ferrari approved amendment.  Discussion:  Mr. Cole should come before the board to discuss and give clarification as to why he began construction on his home, before coming before the board for approval.  Energy efficiency in wood windows.  S. Tedford would like the owner to come before the board if he has any questions.  All in favor.  The Chairman will draft a letter to the owner for the board. 

Fourth order of business:  Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Ewers, Map 19 / Lot 16 (369 Back Ashuelot Road, Ashuelot)  The Chairman read a letter to the board that he wrote to the Building Inspector on Monday, July 16^th berating the Inspector for issuing the permit before it came before the board, enlight of the fact that it does not match the original historic integrity.  The Land Use office issued the Ewers a building permit to renovate a barn within the historic district. 

J. Ewers came before the board to explain the construction project.  The original was a free standing structure (not attached to the house, but through the roof).  He presented a power point presentation to the board.  The roofline is now above the original roof line for water tightness.  The original roof line in not square / plumb nor the ability to join the new construction to the old structure.  The original was slate on top of wood shakes on the front of the building and asphalt on the back of the structure.  M. Haman states that he is in disagreement that the building cannot be built to match the existing roof line. 

J. Ewers stated that M. Willard received the permit from L. Austin.  The original building permits are vague.  The application is not the same as the building permit.  The owners did not know that they were in the historic district, but the Land Use office did not inform them.  Mr. Nigh checked off that it was in the HDC and Mr. Austin wrote a note stating that it was a renovation.  June 4^th was the date when the building permit was issued.  Mr. Nigh was told that they were good to go on the start of their construction.

After a lengthy discussion with the owners, B. Moser notes that the board has a problem.  It is obvious from the documentation that the original permit issued to the homeowners/contractor is not the same as the document that was submitted to the HDC.  There are several notes that were not part of the original permit.  Clearly it was added after it was issued.  The problem appears that after the fact - the Land Use office doctored the permit.  The owner also pointed out that the LUO noted that there was to be one site inspection.  It was noted on the permit that he inspected the pouring of the foundation on June 5^th.  No work had been completed at that time.

B. Moser has several issues that he is concerned about.  The owners should have known that they were in the historic district.  The bigger issue is the original building permit that was issued to the owners is clearly not the same as the permit being presented by town hall.  Several things were filled out at town hall that are highly questionable.  J. Ewers stated that Mr. Nigh was told that the Building Inspector was going to touch base with M. Haman with the HDC and was not given a letter of permission from the HDC. 

S. Tedford would like for the HDC to bring forth this issue to the Board of Selectman to deal with.  B. Moser made a motion that the HDC should defer to the BOS about the doctored documents.  S. Tedford seconds.  Discussion.  Does Mr. Austin know that this home is within the historic district commission?  Clearly.  Mr. Nigh was instruction about filling out the form, and informed that Mr. Austin would contact the Chairman of the HDC and was then given permission to begin construction.  M. Haman reiterates that Mr. Austin informed him that he had issued a building permit to the Ewers and that they planned to retain the historical integrity. 

The Chairman reminds the board that the LUO has issued a “cease and desist” order on the construction.  B. Moser would like to resolve the issue immediately.  S. Tedford reminds the board that the BOS can lift the order, but this is also an employee issue.  The board recommended that the Ewers put a tarp over the project until the Board of Selectman have had an opportunity to go before the board.  All in favor.   The Ewers were advised to attend the BOS meeting on Wednesday, June 25^th.  L. Ewers asked if they should be proactive and have elevations drawn for the next HDC meeting.  The Chair advised that it was not necessary at this time.  The Chair will contact the Ewers if the BOS schedules their issue at the next meeting. 

Fifth order of business: Old or new business.  J. Ferrari updated on the signs – the signs are now made and ready to install.  The board discussed the locations to install the signs.  G. Park will confirm that the property owners will allow the installation of the signs.  J. Ferrari & G. Park will request the Town Hall will issue a standard letter to the D.O.T. that they will be responsible for the maintainence of the signs.  There are two signs for Ashuelot & two for Winchester.  There was a discussion about locations. 

B. Moser made a motion to adjourn.  S. Tedford seconded.  All in favor.   Meeting adjourned at 8:22 pm. The next board meeting will be held on Monday, August 27, 2012 at 7 pm. 

Minutes approved on:

Minutes respectfully submitted by: 

Kim N. Gordon, HDC Secretary

Michael Haman, HDC Chairman

Doesn't This Sound Familar?

Selectmen overstep their authority

 

Lately, we’ve seen the articles about the troubled select board in Marlborough.

For those who need to be brought up to speed, a few of the residents of Marlborough sued the select board as they believed they were violating the states Right To Know law. That’s the law assuring open government for the citizens.
We have a right to know just what they are or plan on doing. Pretty simple if you ask me. Especially in small-town government of only three select board members. The citizens must provide for the checks and balances we have in larger levels of government.
I was not one of the citizens involved in the suit.
Well, the short story is the decision was found in favor of the citizens who brought the suit. The judge wrote 52 pages of decision and enjoining the select board from further violations. It is the largest win of a Right to Know suit in New Hampshire.
If it took me a half-hour to finalize this one page, that’s 26 hours of writing by a judge and his staff. Not a minor slap on the wrist by any accord.
Several citizens, myself included, wanted a good way to help the select board. Preventing the possibility of questions from the citizens of Marlborough if the board is again violating their rights. We offered, at no cost to the town, a video system including all video and network equipment to stream public meetings via the Internet. This would allow all citizens of Marlborough the possibility to watch these meetings live or at a later date and time.
We even learned there is a sub-website of YouTube called CitizenTube.com for just this purpose. It does not include advertising that may complicate town positions from assumed endorsements.
Now, I understand the select board, and in particular Mrs. Harris and Mr Northcott voiced reservations if those involved in the offer had the prerequisite knowledge and skills. For what it’s worth, I am a senior network engineer for a major Massachusetts university system and Internet service provider.
Typically, my time through a service provider would bill at $250 per hour. I have been doing this job since 1978. I know my craft.
During a public meeting on July 9, the board dismissed this offer summarily and without any discussion.
As they held no discussion on the offer, they never learned the level of free expertise they were being offered. This is not the first time I have volunteered my time and skills to the town, and also had those offers summarily dismissed by the select board.
I need to ask why. What are you afraid of?
I have lived in Marlborough for about four years now. I want to be a part of my town and help it be the best place to live — anywhere. I need to ask the other citizens of Marlborough a question. Do you realize the select board is, by virtue of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, working at your will?
Because I don’t believe they are. It has been my observation the select board is prone to summary dictatorial decisions.
Rest assured, I will again vote for someone willing to change the status quo in Marlborough. Because it needs to change and soon.
JIM PHILOPENA
265 Frost Hill Road
Marlborough


Hope this sinks in  and people here in Winchester realize that we have the same problems here. That our own BOS was also taken to court and was reprimanded for violating the "Right To Know Law"  several years ago and they are right back at it again, There's only one reason to hide information from the public; wrong doings.Does another lawsuit have to be filed here again?

Winchester Nixes Dollar Store

WINCHESTER — A proposed Dollar General store in Winchester is dead in the water after it failed to get a key variance.

The town zoning board voted unanimously at its Thursday night meeting to deny the Zaremba Group LLC’s application to waive a maximum size requirement for the store. Board members said the proposal’s size was incompatible with the rest of the district.

The proposed site is in the central commercial district on Main Street, where the maximum footprint for a building is 5,000 square feet. The proposed Dollar General is 9,030 square feet.

Zaremba Group is the Cleveland-based land development company that has been working on several Dollar General proposals in the region, all of similar size.

The board voted 4-0 to deny the application. Board member John E. Pasquarelli, who is also a member of the town’s Revitalization/Economic Development Commission, abstained from voting.

According to the town’s zoning ordinance, the 5,000-square-foot limit is imposed “to maintain the visual character and architectural scale of existing development in the downtown.”

The proposed plans show the building sitting approximately 93 feet back from the road. Parking would be along the side of the lot and around the back of the building. Aside from the driveway, much of the 155-foot-long roadside edge would be landscaped.

Although board members said the proposal was attractive and might even improve the look of the downtown, it was the building size that was the problem.

Zaremba Group attorney Silas Little unsuccessfully argued that the proposal should receive a variance based on the ratio of the building’s size to that of the nearly 5-acre lot it sits on.

“The vast majority” of other businesses in the district fail to meet the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and occupy between 19 and 89 percent of their respective lots, according to Little’s calculations.

Since the Dollar General would occupy only about 4 percent of its lot, the project would be less dense than other businesses in the central commercial district and should qualify for the variance, Little said.

Board member Kenneth A. Cole disagreed. The purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the character of the downtown, not to determine the lot’s density, he said.

The site could be “200,000 square feet, 400,000 square feet, a half a mile; you’d still be limited to that 5,000 square-foot limit,” Cole said.

The size argument also failed because of the lot’s shape. Five acres looks impressive on paper, but much of that land comes from the lot’s depth, which extends well over 1,000 feet into the woods. The roadside frontage is only 155 feet.

“This is the shape of the lot,” Fox said, holding up a nameplate.

Before voting, the selectmen ran through a checklist of conditions under which the board could grant a variance: the variance would not be contrary to public interest, the spirit of the ordinance is observed, substantial justice is done, the value of surrounding properties is not diminished, and literal enforcement would cause an unnecessary hardship.

Aside from agreeing that surrounding properties would not suffer, the board found no reason to grant a variance, and the project’s fate was sealed.

This is not the first time the proposal has seemingly hit a wall.

The lot at 71 Main St. the Zaremba Group wants to use for the store is currently occupied by the Wheaton-Alexander House. The 200-year-old house is part of the town’s historic district and requires the Historic District Commission’s permission to be demolished.

The commission denied the group’s application in July of last year, but Zaremba appealed to the zoning board, which reversed the decision in October. A request for a rehearing was rejected.

As a result, a group of five residents and local grocery store, Kulick’s Inc. petitioned Cheshire County Superior Court for an injunction in December. Their petition was denied in May.

And even if Zaremba had received a variance, it would have still had to get its building design approved by the Historic District Commission, the same group it that turned it down the first time.

In the town hall parking lot after the meeting, Zaremba Development Manager Matt Casey said he did not know the next move was. The developers would need to discuss the decision with Dollar General before determining a course of action, he said.

“It’ll be up to them,” Casey said.

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

Celebration of Life for Dan Carr

Today, Saturday, July 21st, there will be a send off celebration for Dan Carr, poet and visionary, 

starting at 2:00 p.m. at the Cathedral of the Pines, Hill House, 10 Hale Hill Road, Rindge, NH 03461.

We will be celebrating his life and work, reading his poetry and remembering him.

We will be having light refreshments afterward in a nearby picnic area under the pines.

We look forward to seeing you, if you can attend.

Thank you.

Love to you all.

Julia Ferrari

In Winchester, Budget relief

WINCHESTER — The purse strings have been officially loosened, and the town of Winchester can now spend the money its voters approved.

A letter from the Department of Revenue Administration read aloud at Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting said the state agency would comply with a court order to allow the town to spend the nearly $3.9 million of its spending plan. This includes every warrant article voters approved earlier this year.

The department had disallowed $418,956 of the town’s plan this year because its spending limit was exceeded when appropriations for the water and sewer departments were added in after a budget deadline.

The response comes after a long wait. The court’s decision was announced at the June 27 selectmen’s meeting, the day after Town Administrator Joan C. Morel sent a letter to the department notifying it of the court’s decision.

Selectmen Chairwoman Roberta Fraser said after the June meeting that agency officials had assured the town they would comply, but the three-week wait for those assurances appears to have caused some trepidation among board members.

While waiting for the department’s response, selectmen voted on July 11 to curtail town purchases. They also refrained from signing an agreement for services for the ELMM Community Center or paying it the money voters had approved. Any checks the board had written for expenses approved in warrant articles, in anticipation of the state’s response, were locked up in the safe.

Morel said that after Wednesday’s meeting the board has returned to its regular purchasing policies, and the contract with the center has been signed. The board also approved sending out the checks for money appropriated in warrant articles.

The state department’s director of municipal services, Barbara J. Robinson, wrote that the delay was due to the “highly unusual circumstance.”

The town’s budget crisis was the result of a dispute between the town’s selectmen and budget committee over water and sewer department funding.

When selectmen removed the departments’ funding from the town operating budget and introduced the spending as separate warrant articles, the committee recommended not funding them. Then-committee Chairman Brian D. Moser said this had been a form of protest against the selectmen’s move.

Because Winchester is an official-ballot town with a municipal budget committee, the Department of Revenue Administration establishes a limit to the amount its voters can approve: adding 10 percent to the budget committee’s recommendation.

The committee soon changed its recommendation to include $537,802 for water and sewer, but the state department used the panel’s earlier recommendations, and the original zero-dollar amount was binding. With more than half a million dollars in water and sewer funding missing from the equation, the spending limit was lowered dramatically — to $418,956 below what voters approved.

As a result, the department reconciled the difference by cutting funding for all of the town’s warrant articles — except the water and sewer departments, whose funding was allowed because it’s vital to town operations — as well as more than $170,000 from the operating budget.

Some of the warrant articles include $50,000 for the ELMM Community Center, $28,000 for the Evergreen Cemetery Care Fund, $56,000 for the police youth aid officer and $50,000 for the Conant Library maintenance and repair fund.

This caused selectmen to take legal action against the budget committee. Their dispute was resolved with a consent decree in which the board and committee say neither actually intended the original zero-dollar appropriation to be the official recommendation.

Cheshire County Superior Court Judge William J. Groff signed the decree on June 21 and ordered the spending limit be recalculated to just over $4 million.

The budget incident did have some lasting effects. Because of the uncertainty surrounding its funding, the ELMM center had to scale back its summer programs by cutting the entire adventure program and also removing the weekly field trips from its day camp.

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

In Winchester, a Dunkin’ Donuts plan is rejected

WINCHESTER — A proposal for a Dunkin’ Donuts at the corner of one of the town’s busiest intersections is dead for now after the planning board voted to deny its application.

S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. LLC’s application for a combination gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts at the intersection of routes 10 and 78 was rejected on the grounds of traffic concerns and the belief it overwhelmed the proposed site.

According to corporate filings with the state, S.S. Baker’s Realty is managed by Teofilo Salema, the owner of five other Dunkin’ Donuts, in Keene, Swanzey and Hinsdale.

The 3,265-square-foot, single-story proposed project includes a convenience store, six gasoline pumps and a drive-through Dunkin’ Donuts. Planning board Chairman Dean Beaman said the project met all of the board’s requirements, but board members spoke at length about their concerns with traffic and the size of the lot.

After almost 40 minutes of discussion, Beaman’s motion to approve the application failed 4-3.

Board member Kim N. Gordon then made a motion to deny the application, which she said “overwhelms the site and does not adhere to best design standards.”

“He’s trying to put three businesses into a postage stamp lot,” said Gordon, who added she would be fine with having only the Dunkin’ Donuts.

Fellow board member Jack Marsh Jr. added his traffic concerns to Gordon’s motion. Marsh said he was worried about the left turn out of the site along Route 10, parking along the shoulder of Route 10’s northbound lane and an overflow of traffic for the drive-through onto Route 78.

The motion to deny the application passed 4-2, with Larry Hill abstaining. Hill said although he agreed with some of the points in the motion, he did not understand other parts.

Salema and his land use agent, James P. Phippard from Brickstone Land Use Consultants LLC, left the meeting immediately following the decision.

Salema said he was disappointed, but declined to say more.

“There’s just so much I want to say, it’s not even worth it,” Salema said.

During the meeting it was clear whom he believed was responsible for the rejection, though.

When Gordon made her motion to deny the application, Marsh advised her to include her own reasoning within her motion. Salema, who was sitting in the audience, supplied one for her.

“Kulick’s,” he said.

During the course of the public hearing, the project received opposition from local grocery store Kulick’s Inc. through its attorneys. Kulick’s is less than a mile away from the proposed site on Route 78 and also operates gas pumps in the plaza where it’s located.

Owner Stanley S. Plifka Jr. said this morning he was happy about the board’s decision.

Plifka said he was not opposed to having a Dunkin’ Donuts in town, but thought it should stand alone, without the gas pumps.

“We need industry and not duplication,” said Plifka, who had previously spoken against adding a third set of gas pumps to the area surrounding the intersection.

In addition to Kulick’s gas pumps, there is also a gas station at the southwest corner of the intersection, diagonally across from the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts. Another gas station and convenience store is located in the center of town, just over a half-mile north on Route 10.

Salema and Phippard said after the meeting that they need to speak with their attorney before acting.

Phippard said they could appeal the decision to Superior Court, request the planning board reconsider its decision or re-file their application.

“That’s all allowed, but I don’t know what we’re going to do,” Phippard said.

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

Winchester is in for a rude awakening

Back in February, the town of Winchester passed a budget that was designed by the team of Jackson/Horton, who are now on our school board.

I was the accountant for Winchester School. This was a new assignment for me for the 2011-12 school year. I was responsible for payroll, accounts payable, purchasing and basically anything else that needed to be done for our new school administrative unit.
I worked hand-in-hand with Ken Dassau our superintendent, Charlie Paulin our business manager, Chris Boyle our technology director and Marie Braley our assistant to the superintendent.
We all started training for our jobs way back in January 2011, while we were still doing our regular jobs.
This group of administrative unit staff and the current school administration, and some of the past school board members put together a budget we knew would work, a bare-bones budget.
Our town voted to adopt the even smaller budget proposed by Jackson/Horton team. The team totally destroyed our administrative unit by cutting our salaries big!
I’m only going to discuss my job, which the team never, ever, even asked me what I did. They cut my salary, which in turn cut my hours, but I still have the same duties.
Meanwhile, our superintendent resigned and will be done Aug. 30, our business manager is basically just staying on for the summer, and our tech director left for a job that will pay him what he is worth in another school district.
We also lost our 7-8th grade science teacher to another school district and one of our 6th-grade teachers left also.
I was going to stay on because I love my job, my school and the staff I work with. Unfortunately, the stress of worrying what would happen in the upcoming year, losing the wonderful people I worked with in the administrative unit, knowing we were going into the school year with a budget that will never make it with the expenses that are “set,” made me ill.
I have resigned my position as accountant for Winchester School. I will miss all my co-workers but many are friends, so I will still get to see them.
What I will miss most is a job I love, children that knew my name and gave me huge hugs, and happy employees.
Wake up Winchester: Just because you passed a smaller budget does not mean we still won’t have the same expenses we knew about.
I will be hanging back and awaiting the results of this fiasco. Unfortunately, I am also a taxpayer in the town of Winchester and I know what to expect.

PATRICIA CHOTAIN KASAL
204 Manning Hill Road Winchester



Spending over 11 million dollars on a top heavy school budget is NOT fiscal responsibility Patricia. It is a proven fact that as a country we are spending nearly double over the past 10 years on education and yet our students can not compete with other students from around the world. Even poor, underdeveloped countries surpass our students in math and sciences. The United States was once #1 in the world, yet despite doubling the costs for teachers, administrators and aides according to the three-year study OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics. Several months ago there was another report published in the Keene Sentinel regarding Winchester ( as well as other towns ) students showing that they were far behind other students in the area despite increases in education funding and new hires here in Winchester. Despite all the chest thumping and rah rah nonsense coming out of the school system, it's obvious to all of us who bear the brunt of these tax increase, that there are serious issues that need addressing asap for the sake of the students who depend on their education to fulfill their life's dreams. How much longer are we going to continue to allow dumping millions into a failing system and turning a blind eye to the problems. Yes, we are in for a rude awaking come tax time in December when all of the spending for the school and town comes due. It's too bad that our students and taxpayers aren't getting their monies worth and that we have educators and town officials that only think of themselves first.

UPCOMING ZBA HEARINGS

Town of Winchester

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Notice of Meeting

7-19-12

The Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment will be meeting on 7-19-12 at 7pm on the Main Floor of the Town Hall, 1 Richmond Road for the following:

1. The board will review an application for a Variance from the Zaremba Group and if accepted as complete will move into a public hearing.

2. The board will review the minutes of 4-5-12 for approval.

3. Any other business

4. Adjournment

Town of Winchester

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Notice of Application & Public Hearing

8-02-12

The Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment will be meeting on 8-02-12 at 7pm on the Main Floor of the Town Hall, 1 Richmond Road for the following:

The board will review for acceptance an application for an Appeal from an Administrative Decision. The application, submitted by E. Fifield, T. Talbot, M. LaCroix, P. Jackson, E. Heiden, J. & S. Auld, M. & M. Donachie, and L. &. B. Gurney is for property located at 133 Old Chesterfield Road, map 8, lots 49 & 54. The appeal is alleging an error of the Planning Board, on 6-04-12, regarding an approval of a distillery and cabins in the site plan application of Robert Patton-Spruill.

If the board finds the application to be complete the board will move into a public hearing on the matter. If a decision is not reached the hearing will continue at the next meeting without further notice. The application is available for review in the Land Use Office during regular business hours.

Respectfully,

Margaret Sharra, Land Use

Making the Best of It!

Town’s budget snarl forces cuts to programs

WINCHESTER — Adventure-seeking teens would normally be gearing up for the start of the Ellen Lambert Murphy Memorial Community Center’s summer adventure program, but this year they will have to look elsewhere.

The ELMM center canceled its six-week Adventure Crew program for 6th- to 8th-grade children, as well as the weekly field trips for its day camp, because of a potential $50,000 funding shortfall stemming from the town’s budget troubles.

A disagreement between the budget committee and selectmen over how to fund Winchester’s water and sewer departments led the committee to recommend not funding the departments as a form of protest. This threw off state calculations for the town’s permitted spending limit, and almost led the N.H. Department of Revenue Administration to require $419,000 in cuts, including the center’s funding.

Although it appears the problems are fixed and the community center will receive its funding, the program is still gone for the year.

Frank E. Linnenbringer, president of the center’s board of trustees, said the money from the town represents anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of the center’s annual budget. Other funding comes from room rentals, grants, registration fees and the center’s trust fund.

Linnenbringer said the board held a special meeting on June 4 after members learned about the potential shortfall. Unsure if the nonprofit community center would receive the money, the board planned on having only the programs’ $65 registration fees available as funding.

The center runs two summer programs, the Adventure Crew and Kids Club, a day camp for children in kindergarten through 5th grade.

Linnenbringer said the board was confident it could run the day camp, which starts Monday, if it removed the weekly field trips, but the adventure program, which does activities such as whitewater rafting and rock climbing, could not be done without off-site trips.

Cheryl A. Laraba, the center’s vacation activity coordinator, said the center had to plan for the worst.

“We can’t plan a summer camp and not have the funds to back it up,” Laraba said. “Because then if we didn’t get the funds that would be a disaster.”

Office Manager Danielle M. Borges said the adventure program, which had 28 participants last year, offered local children opportunities they wouldn’t normally have available.

“Our parents don’t typically have the budget to take their kids to things like rock-climbing clinics,” Borges said.

Linnenbringer said the board notified parents who had already registered their children about the changes and cancellation so they could find alternate plans if necessary. Most of the parents were understanding, but the children, especially the older ones, were disappointed, he said.

Now it looks as if the center will get its funds after all. A Cheshire County Superior Court judge ordered the town’s spending plan be permitted, including the center’s funding. Although the official approval from the Department of Revenue Administration has not arrived, the town expects the agency will comply with the order.

The check for the center is cut and will be mailed Thursday after the town’s contract with the center is signed at the July 11 selectmen’s meeting, said Winchester Town Administrator Joan C. Morel.

Though Linnenbringer said the timing of the payment is similar to other years, it is too late for the center to start the summer camp.

“We’re not going to try to throw together a summer camp in two days,” he said.

The center will be looking to reintegrate some field trips into its day camp program, but Linnenbringer said now the center will have to contend with a transportation problem. The day camp has two 15-passenger vans, but needs to rent extra vans or buses for field trips, he said.

However, the finite supply of rental transportation will have been mostly claimed by other camp programs in the area by now, Linnenbringer said.

“If you haven’t already reserved a vehicle you kind of have to do without,” he said.

Both Linnenbringer and Borges said they were not blaming anyone for the center’s situation.

“I’m not angry,” Borges said. “I understand it was a mistake. We’re just making the best of it.”

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

More shady dealings in Winchester

More shady dealings in Winchester

Once again “due process” trumps truth.

I’m referring to the recent dispute over Winchester’s legal budget limits, and the court decree to allow selectmen to spend more.
In a document submitted to the court by the selectmen’s attorney, and the attorney he reportedly picked for the newly elected budget committee, a statement is made that there was a dispute between the two bodies over how to fund the water and sewer departments.
As with all half-truths, that was a lie.

The original dispute was over how much to fund the departments. The selectmen didn’t want budget cuts, so, in a move never before attempted, they pulled water and sewer entirely from the operating budget and added warrant articles for them, thus overriding the budget committee’s legal authority to determine amounts.

The second lie, by implication, is that both parties involved in the original dispute agreed to the settlement.

Make no mistake, the selectmen’s attorney is very cagey. He did not sue the (2011) budget committee as individuals, but sued a generic budget committee as a body. That means the people who responded to the suit are not the same people who voted to cut budgets, but instead are a group comprised of a “new majority” that supports higher spending.

Members of this new majority may not have known the truth about the original dispute, or they may have chosen to ignore it for personal or political reasons.

Those who knew the truth and chose to vote with them to submit the lie to the court have no excuse.

In my experience as a selectman, I learned that state officials routinely accept false statements on documents as long as they are approved by a majority of the elected body. I expect the same is true for judges.
I also learned that the majority of the select board had little regard for the truth when it related to a pet project or employee. I often refused to sign documents containing false statements, for which I was frequently ridiculed as being an “obstructionist.” I’ll make no apologies for refusing to lie.

 If you don’t demand integrity from your elected officials, and “officers of the court,” you can count on nothing but more of the same in the future.

SUSAN M. NEWELL
3 Old Chesterfield Road
Winchester