WINCHESTER — The owners of a local property are seeking support
from voters at town meeting next week with a zoning issue, but opponents
of the proposal say it violates their rights and state law.
Gustave “Gus” Ruth, his wife, Irene, and Kenneth Harvey, owners of 50 Rabbit Hollow Road, are backers of a petition warrant article that would allow their rural residential property to be rezoned commercial.
Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.
Gustave “Gus” Ruth, his wife, Irene, and Kenneth Harvey, owners of 50 Rabbit Hollow Road, are backers of a petition warrant article that would allow their rural residential property to be rezoned commercial.
The petition was filed in December, and Ruth spoke in support of it during the town’s deliberative session last month.
The Ruths, Harvey, and
his wife, Claudia, purchased the roughly 1-acre parcel, which includes a
small building, for $25,000 at auction in April 2012. The couples put
the property up for sale in December, with an asking price of $92,000.
The auction was held
after the town took the property, which had been owned by Terrance P.
Qualters, for unpaid taxes in November 2011. At the time of the sale,
Ruth was a selectman. Harvey was, and still is, the town moderator. Both
men serve on the planning board.
The petition warrant
article says the property has been assessed as commercial for at least
eight years, and was advertised as commercial property for the auction.
After the Ruths and
Harveys bought the property, they leased it to an auto mechanic in
November 2012. The town then issued a cease-and-desist order for the
operation. The couples have been fighting for the commercial designation
ever since.
Gus Ruth and Kenneth
Harvey tried to appeal the cease-and-desist order, but the zoning board
unanimously voted down their request in June. The board then voted 3-2
in July to deny a variance for the property, which would have allowed
the commercial operation.
Soon after the petition
warrant article was presented at the deliberative session in February,
neighbors of 50 Rabbit Hollow Road filed a petition protesting the
warrant article.
Christine B. Hadley, who
was one of the residents to sign the protest petition, said the warrant
article is an attempt to get a commercial property zoned in an area
where it doesn’t belong.
“This isn’t a commercial
property. It was used by someone who had a business to store equipment,”
she said, referring to the previous owner.
Without the protest
petition, the warrant article could pass with a simple majority.
However, with such a petition in place, it needs a two-thirds majority
vote, according to state law.
However, there is a chance the protest petition might not even be necessary.
According to N.H. case
law, so-called “spot zoning” isn’t allowed in situations where changing
the zoning of a property would go against not only the rest of the
zoning district, but also a community’s master plan and the spirit of
the ordinance governing the zoning district. A property would need to
receive a variance to host a function different than the properties
around it. And Winchester’s zoning board denied such a variance for 50
Rabbit Hollow Road last year.
Winchester resident Susan Newell wrote a letter to The Sentinel protesting the proposed zoning change.
If it passes, she wrote,
“Winchester taxpayers will face hefty legal bills. If the select board
fails to implement illegal zoning that has been approved by the voters,
Ruth and crew will likely bring a frivolous lawsuit against the town to
force the change, and selectmen will have to defend against them. If
selectmen implement the zoning change, despite its illegality, they will
be sued by abutters, who will win. The only losers will be Ruth, et
al., and the taxpayers.”
Hadley said she knows the
protest petition might be overkill, but she and other neighbors, are
determined not to see the Rabbit Hollow Road property zoned as
commercial.
“It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood,” she said. “The closest businesses are 1.5 to 2 miles away.”
Neither Ruth nor Harvey could be reached for comment.
2 comments:
Sue Newell commenting on frivolous lawsuits - what a joke. She has a zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with her. If this passes, will she be the first abutter to file another costly frivolous lawsuit with the town?
Just finished reading Sue's letter to the editor in today's sentinel. Here's the deal that I take away from this is NO means NO. Frankly I don't give a damn who you are or where you live but you do have to follow the law. Obviously, some of the people in this town believe that intimidation and manipulation will win. Perhaps the Ruth's and the Harvey's will be willing to foot the legal expense bill to get what they want and not tag the town. I for one cannot see them parting with their pennies.
Food for thought people just remember that No is NO.
Post a Comment