Zoning board backs Winchester Dunkin Donuts

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — The zoning board of adjustment won’t ask the planning board to reverse its approval of a combination Dunkin’ Donuts, convenience store and gas station.
In a 4-1 vote Thursday night, the zoning board denied an appeal filed by Kulick’s Inc., requesting the board, based on several technicalities, reverse the planning board’s decision last month. Zoning board member Kenneth Cole was the lone dissenter.
Kulick’s Inc. is owned by Stanley S. Plifka Jr., who runs Kulick’s Market at 30 Warwick Road. The business, which includes a grocery store and gas pumps, is less than a half-mile from the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts, convenience store and gas station at 4 Warwick Road. Plifka has opposed the project since it first came before the planning board in April 2012.
In July 2012, the planning board denied the project, and developer S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. appealed it in Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene. Judge John C. Kissinger Jr., who granted Kulick’s intervenor status in the case, upheld the board’s denial.
S.S. Baker’s appealed Kissinger’s decision to the N.H. Supreme Court on May 17, but it also filed a second site plan review application with the planning board in June.
The second plan was nearly identical to the first, with the exceptions that the 3,500-square-foot building was 4 feet shorter than in the previous proposal, and vehicles would be prevented from making a left turn from the store’s parking lot onto Main Street. The new plan also allowed for up to 11 cars to be in the drive-through lane for Dunkin’ Donuts instead of 10.
In Kulick’s appeal to the zoning board, its attorney, Kelly E. Dowd of Keene, wrote the planning board shouldn’t have accepted the second application because it didn’t meet the criteria that would have made it different from the first filing. The board also violated local zoning laws by granting certain waivers for the project, and some conditions included in the project’s approval were illegal, Dowd wrote.
Dowd also claimed the special exception granted by the zoning board in February 2012 allowing the drive-through window for Dunkin’ Donuts was invalid because it expired in a year. S.S. Baker’s didn’t request an extension of it, he wrote.
Zoning board Chairman Louis Fox said Thursday the only matter his board could address in the appeal was the special exception, and Dowd agreed.
“All the issues brought before us, except the special exception for the drive-through window, are either planning board or court issues,” board member William McGrath said.
Dowd has also filed the appeal in Cheshire County Superior Court in accordance with state law.
Fox said the zoning board had been advised by its legal counsel that the clock stopped ticking on the special exception when S.S. Baker’s appealed the planning board’s decision on its first application. Therefore, with the case still pending in Supreme Court, the exception was still valid, he said.
“The zoning board consulted our counsel, which costs the town money. I’d hate to go against advice we pay for,” he said.
Cole disagreed with Fox’s assessment, saying the second application was a new application, different from the original.
“If we decide that the special exception is valid, we’re saying the planning board did its job, and we don’t have to provide a special exception for the new application,” he said.
At one point, Dowd asked board members if their decision stating the special exception was still valid meant they believe the second application was the same as the first.
There was a brief pause before Land Use Administrator Margaret A. Sharra told members it was a trick question.
The board never answered it.


 Still being directed by Sharra. The only member who knows what's right and how to follow procedure was Cole, the rest shouldn't even be sitting on this board. The fact that another application was filed with the Planning Board while there was in effect an appeal to the State Supreme Court, made that application null and void and it should never have been heard, let alone acted on. This is what happens when Selectmen pick their flunkies instead of the public voting for members on the ZBA and members of the Planning Board are chosen out of loyalties and not based on their knowledge of rules, regulations and laws... Is there any wonder why this town gets sued so many times?

Fight continues over Winchester Dunkin donuts

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — The owner of Kulick’s Market continues to fight the construction of a combination Dunkin’ Donuts, convenience store and gas station less than a half-mile from his business.
Stanley S. Plifka Jr., owner of Kulick’s Inc., is asking the zoning board of adjustment to rehear, reconsider and reverse the planning board’s July 15 decision approving the project at 4 Warwick Road.
Plifka, who operates a grocery store and gas pumps at 30 Warwick Road, has opposed the project, which first came before the planning board in April 2012.
When developer S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. of Keene appealed the planning board’s July 2012 decision to deny the project in Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene, Kulick’s filed for intervenor status, which Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. granted.
In the motion to intervene, attorney Kelly E. Dowd of Keene, who represented Kulick’s, wrote the business would be “directly harmed as a result of traffic, environmental and economic impacts if the proposed project moves forward.”
The Dunkin’ Donuts/convenience store/gas station is proposed for a 1.19-acre site on the east corner of the intersection of Main Street (Route 10), Warwick Road (Route 78) and Hinsdale Road (Route 119).
In June, S.S. Baker’s filed a second site plan review application with the planning board after Kissinger backed the board’s 2012 denial of the project.
In addition, S.S. Baker’s appealed Kissinger’s decision to the N.H. Supreme Court on May 17.
While the second site plan was nearly identical to the first, it was designed to prevent vehicles from making a left turn from the store’s parking lot onto Main Street, and allows for 11 cars to be in the drive-through lane for Dunkin’ Donuts instead of 10.
The 3,500-square-foot building is also 4 feet shorter than in the previous proposal.
In Plifka’s request for a rehearing, Dowd points to several technicalities that should result in the planning board’s decision being overturned by the zoning board.
Dowd claims the planning board shouldn’t have accepted the second application because it didn’t meet the qualifications that would have made it different from the first filing. The claim also says the board violated local zoning laws by granting certain waivers for the project, and some conditions the board included in the project’s approval were illegal.
In addition, Dowd wrote the special exception granted by the zoning board in February 2012 is invalid because it expired in a year, and S.S. Baker’s didn’t request an extension. The exception allowed for the business to have a drive-through window.
The zoning board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on Plifka’s request Thursday, Aug. 29, at 7 p.m. at town hall.

Winchester sidewalks to make downtown safer

Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:00 pm

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — It took decades, but residents will soon have a safer way to walk between their homes and businesses in the downtown area.
After three years of preparing and planning, and decades of discussion, town officials plan to start construction of a new sidewalk from Kulick’s shopping center on Warwick Road (Route 78) north to Main Street (Route 10) next month. Town officials are shooting for a Sept. 30 start date for the project, Land Use Administrator Margaret A. Sharra said Monday.
Town officials expect the project to be done by the beginning of November, she said.
“I think we’re finally going to get there. I’ll be happy when a shovel breaks the ground,” she said.
For several years, town officials have been looking to install about a mile-long sidewalk from the shopping center to Main Street.
Discussions about the project date back to the 1980s when it was first talked about by the town’s economic development committee, Sharra said. It was again discussed in the 1990s and 2000s, she said.
There are hundreds of people who walk from Main Street to the shopping plaza, which has a number of businesses including a market, bank, hair salon and hardware store, she said. It’s “extremely unsafe” with no sidewalk, she said.
“It’s very important we’re finally going to be able to give residents safe access to the services they need,” she said.
It will also make it safer for children walking to school, Town Administrator Shelly Walker said.
The new asphalt sidewalk will follow the eastern side of Route 10 and cross Mirey Brook on the existing bridge deck, Sharra said. After going over the brook, the sidewalk will cross the road to the western side of Main Street and continue along the Ashuelot River to meet the existing sidewalk, she said.
The project is expected to cost $371,000, with 80 percent of the tab being picked up by a federal Transportation Enhancement Grant, awarded to the town in March 2010. The town is responsible for covering the remaining 20 percent, which is $74,200.
One of the reasons it’s taken so long to start construction is that town officials have had to navigate through several mandates tied to the grant, Sharra said.
For example, any change to the project has to get the OK from state and federal highway agencies, which can complicate things and draw out the process, she said.
Town officials plan to begin soliciting bids for the project next week, Sharra said.

"Hundreds of people"  walking around downtown?  When???
"Safer for school children walking to school" ??  How many kids live in that area of the business district?

$371,000 .. With no bids yet, just how did the Town come up with that figure??

For that kind of money the town could afford some nice concrete sidewalks and granite curbs like they just put in along Route#101 in Dublin .. Of course things like that don't happen in Winchester.

So why does the town have to sub this work out? Can't the Highway Dept. with a budget close to half a million dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment, grade and lay down some ugly asphalt  sidewalks like they do in other towns? Why does every project in the town have to be subbed out? Exactly what does our highway crew  do all day for the money they get paid? Anybody got any answers?