Keene Sentinel Article Off The Mark ..

In Saturday's edition of the Keene Sentinel, Sept. 5th, there was a front page article written by reporter Phillip Bantz on the 'Right to Know" law and how personnel records are protected from view under the law. I can only guess this was prompted by one of the subjects on this blog as I was contacted by him personally to give comment; however I was unable to at the time due to prior commitments. He mentions this blog in his article and quote

A citizen's blog called the "Winchester Informer" has set it's sites on the town's police chief, Gary A. Phillips and some of his officers.

He also states,

The blog, whose creator remains annonymous, accuses one officer of stealing a bicycle and another of threatening and insulting residents, for example.

Mr Bantz is in error there; nowhere on this blog will you find that I have accused anyone of anything, I have simply, at the request of a citizen, Brian Jordan, reprinted his letter to the State's Attorney General's Office and opened a subject for discussion. Mr. Jordan provided proof of the content of his letter, including a letter from the Richmond Police Department in answer to his complaint filed there, signed by Andrew M. Wood, Chief of Police. The article also alleges that we posted information in regards to officer Daniel Reppucci, who was placed on administrative leave a few weeks ago. I did not and I have no knowledge of what transpired or the outcome of a recent BOS meeting as the record was sealed. Comments from the public have been edited to remove personal attacks and I am not responsible for their content. Chief Phillip's responded;

"We're in a no-win situation. When we confront people that are saying things it gives them credibility." Basically I'm ignoring what's going on because it doesn't serve any purpose to get into a he-said, she-said with the people that are just throwing things into the wind."

So there you have it, Chief Phillips isn't interested in your comments or questions. So much for an open discussion. Perhaps that's why you all have been posting your comments on this blog; hoping to get answers you can't get at the police Dept. or Town Hall.

Now, as for the content of the original article in regards to the Citizen's Right To Know law, how is it that in Massachusetts, the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe were able to obtain copies of the citizen's complaints against Cambridge Police Sargent Crowley, the officer who arrested professor Gates recently that started all the bruhaha and ended with a chat at the White House?

The files were released in response to public records requests by The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. Of the eight citizen complaints filed against Crowley during his 11 years on the force, two involved black males alleging racial bias, according to the records. He was cleared in all eight cases. ABC NEWS.COM

Are our laws so different here in New Hampshire that public officials can censor public information?
I have written back to Mr. Bantz and asked that he correct his recent article in regards to myself and my blog and await his reply.

In the meantime, we once again, welcome both sides to comment in an adult manner to comments and subjects posted on this blog and at all times to be respectful to each other.

Winchester's Highway Supt. Very Upset

During the August 26th BOS workshop meeting, Dale Gray asked that their record reflect the following;

That the Town of Winchester Highway Dept. did not work on or near the van Dyke property on Route 10 last week. The LeClair property, next to Van Dyke, may have had silt washing that caused the runoff, not the Van Dyke property. Dale states he would never do any work on the Van Dyke or State property without prior BOS approval. Dale is concerned that budget time is coming up and some citizens are making damaging and untrue remarks about Town employees, around town and on the Winchester Informer. Bob Gray, responds the employees of Winchester need to do their jobs with integrity and fulfill our fiduciary responsibilities to the people of this town

fact:

It seems this topic really upset our Highway Supt., Dale Gray, so much so that he complained to the BOS during the August 26th workshop meeting. He was angered that this website had posted information that was later to be found inaccurate and was corrected. Yet, he then claimed that the sand and silt that was clogging the spillways and drains that the NHDOT cleaned out last week, actually came from the lot next to Van Dyke's construction site, owned by the LeClaire's. The truth of the matter is, the amount of sand at the bottom of the spillway coming down from the LeClaire's property wouldn't fill a wheelbarrow, never mind two dump trucks and never reached the drain in question, some 300 feet away and uphill from the spillway. Nor did it reach the drain, less than 25 feet away next to his driveway that the state didn't bother to clean out and which is still filled with water. This is because the sump in front of Shamrock Realty is still clogged with the sand that ran off Van Dyke's through the drains and under the highway, clogging the drains and spillways across the street that the state returned to and cleaned out the following day and also created a catch basin to try and stop more sand from covering the forest floor to the right of the old rail bed. Perhaps Mr. Gray should also double check and get his facts straight or perhaps we should look for another Highway Supt. if he can't tell that all of the erosion on Van Dyke's site is the cause of all this mess. I find it highly suspect that after a complaint and pictures were submitted to the Planning Board at a compliance hearing on this matter, less than a week later the NHDOT is observed cleaning out the area mentioned in the complaint and yet did not clean out the drains before or the spillway just after Van Dyke's site. Make's you wonder just what forces are at work here. I also wonder why our Highway Supt. is out on Route 10, looking at drains and spillways if he's not involved?

Despite Citizen's Vote Triple T Going Ahead

We've received the following letter to the editor and more information on Triple T's/ N&M Properties plans to continue in their pursuit to build a compost/trash collection facility in our town whether we like it or not. Evidently they must have the support they need in order to spend the money required to push forward.

Letter To The Editor:

Imagine the thousands of tourists that hop on a motor coach every fall to enjoy the glorious colors of our region. First on their agenda is the Sheridan House and covered bridge No. 1 in the quaint village of Ashuelot with its beautiful white lattice sides and red roof. With cameras around their necks, they get ready to disembark the bus to see the grey heron standing in the middle of the river, or the cedar waxwings lined up on the telephone line. Imagine all of them getting off the bus to the stench of putrefying restaurant waste. How long do you think it will be before the tour industry takes Bridge No. 1 off its route and by passes it completely?



The village of Ashuelot is proud of its historical bridge and volunteer on a regular basis to snap photos of people wishing to be seen standing next to it. We see dozens of tourist stopping daily to enjoy its beauty. Unfortunately for us we have a company out of Brattleboro, Vermont who wants to settle the trash from three states right next to this location with a “Resource Recovery Park”. They claim that it’s the perfect location to install a sand & gravel pit, bring in over 25 truck loads of waste every day and then store and compost it, right in the middle of a wildlife corridor from Pisgah State to the Ashuelot River. On a regular basis, this neighborhood witness deer, bears, coyotes, red tailed fox, beaver, and more crossing this land to access the river. We see no way that this is beneficial to anyone, but them.



Our town came out to vote in March on their submitted warrant article and resoundingly said “NO!” Our voices are being ignored as they arrogantly continue to pursue our state’s Department of Environmental Services permits. Their proposal will have a negative impact on our village, our town, our region and our state. Again, we ask Triple T Trucking of Vermont (aka N&M Winchester Properties), PLEASE JUST GO AWAY!



Kim Gordon

Ashuelot, New Hampshire

Facts;

Since withdrawing his thinly guised “Commercial / Industrial Park” from the Planning Board docket in June, he has gone about procuring his state permits for the work. As of this writing, he has obtained an Alteration of Terrain permit (applied for December 22, 2008 and granted on June 10, valid for two years); and a Shoreland Protection permit (applied for May 22 as a “Materials Recovery Facility” and granted last week): and is currently working on a Dredge & Fill Permit for a “Materials Recovery Park”.

Quoting from his Dredge & Fill application to DES:

“This site was chosen for use as a solid waste transfer station and a composting facility to serve towns within an approximate 50-mile radius. The proposed operation will fulfill a critical regional need to divert compostable materials from the waste stream and to facilitate nutrient and mineral natural cycling

The above referenced critical regional need is a direct result of the restrictive regulatory climate in our neighboring states. Changing our protective zoning ordinances to allow any waste hauling or processing business will result in a flood of trash business in Winchester.

Imagine a regional landfill in town. Not a far fetched idea given that it is all but impossible to permit a new landfill site in either Massachusetts or Vermont. The solid waste industry in both of those states has been reduced to “piggybacking” expansions onto existing landfills or hauling trash elsewhere as existing landfill space runs out.

By way of comparing regulatory climates, Mr. Mallory & Mr. Gaskill’s Dredge & Fill permit application to the Wetland Bureau of the New Hampshire DES states that they propose disturbing 26,571 square feet of wetlands (a little over ½ acre). Their proposed mitigation for this is $5,314. In Massachusetts they would be required to replicate (or create) and maintain an equal amount of new wetland on site. This would cost much more both in real dollars and in loss of usable land. One might observe that we are selling our natural resources on the cheap, but that is another issue. Since we are afforded little protection from the state, we must rely on our own local ordinances to protect us.

We urge you when you are asked (and you will be) to once again vote NO! to any article that proposes changing our protective zoning ordinances and allowing waste hauling and processing business in our town.

Support a TRASH FREE WINCHESTER.

Who Authorized This Work ?

We've received an e-mail with a request to post this on our blog.

Hello Informer, while coming into town Thursday, I observed one of our town highway department trucks parked out on route 10 in front of the Shamrock Realty parking lot and saw the town employees cleaning out the storm drain there. Since when does the town of Winchester clean out storm drains on the state highways ? I would guess that someone reported all of the run off from that mess out there next door was clogging up the drains. Is the town now working for that Van Dyke fellow or was it someone from the planning board trying to cover their hineys for their lack of diligence and action? In any case I thought the good people of Winchester should know what their tax dollars were doing Thursday. I guess a call to the town hall or to the highway super would be in order to find out what the deal was. Good luck with this site, it is very informative despite what some say.

RH

If this is the case, we too would like to know why the town was seen cleaning out that storm drain and upon who's request did they do it? If Van Dyke's erosion efforts are working and are satisfactory to the town, then why worry about cleaning out the drain, there shouldn't have been anything in it.

We Need Your Help and Support

For over a year we have provided a blog and a website to inform and educate the citizens of Winchester to the goings on in our town. We have received many comments, emails and letters; some encouraging us in our efforts, some voicing thanks and some .. well let's just say some people aren't happy about what they see here and on our our Home Pages. We'd like to expand our Home Page to include other topics and information and provide more service to the citizens of Winchester, like notices about upcoming events, yard sales, items for sale, and other news and would like your opinions and ideas. Of course all of this will take a little more effort and some increased spending for more bandwidth and hosting fees. To accomplish this and make it worthwhile, we'd need your support and some help with the extra fees. If you'd like to help out, send your ideas to our email and a small cash donation ( even $1.00 will help ) to:

Winchester Informer
PO Box 464
W. Swanzey, NH 03469-0464

Thank you all for your continued support

Planning Board Chair violates citizen's rights again

At last night's continuation of Robert Van Dyke's compliance hearing, Margaret Sharra once again demonstrated that she is not fit to remain sitting on the Planning Board and needs to be removed immediately for her grievous conduct towards a citizen of Winchester who was attempting to give testimony at the hearing.
Mr Van Dyke, who didn't even bother to show up at the last scheduled meeting, once again showed up empty handed without the state approvals needed for his "newest" septic and community water supply systems, which he was has yet to even design and submit to the board and instead rendered excuses as he needed permission to once again perform more testing and was seeking the board's approval to bring another excavator up onto the property to construct another temporary road in which to perform these tests. Knowing full well that he can not do this, not only because this project is in litigation and waiting on a decision from Superior Court; but also without a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, he can not construct any road to cross under the power lines.
Carl Hagstron, who has been hired by Van Dyke to design his septic systems, attempted to sway the board commenting that without being able to perform these tests they cannot receive state approval as the board has requested. When asked if they had submitted their designs to DES, they replied they were still working on them. They have had since April to accomplish this and yet after nearly four more months of meetings and delays and continuances, they still have not complied.
After making several phone calls to state agencies and inquiring as to the status of Van Dyke's permits, the abutters attempted to submit written proof through emails that Van Dyke's driveway permit had expired and was no longer valid; his site alteration permit was incomplete and did not include information on changes he had made to construct a bridge on site and therefore was voided. He also does not have a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, which he needs BEFORE any construction can begin, as made clear in a letter from PSNH to Van Dyke's engineers and yet he has already excavated and altered the terrain on site, constructed a temporary road and sunk septic and water test pits and drilled a well inside the wetland's set-back. Depending on the depth of the pilings he will need to install and the width of the wetlands his bridge will span, he may need a 404 wetlands permit and a dredge and fill permit to fill in the swamp land on the site; he hasn't even applied for one.
During the discussions, a member of the audience was given permission to approach the board and give testimony. While speaking and laying the ground work for his questions he was once again rudely interrupted by chairperson Margaret Sharra who began arguing and shouting his name and demanding he stop speaking. She shouted at him several times, asking if he had a question to ask, to wit he replied yes each time and asked her politely to stop interrupting him and allow him to continue. She did the exact same thing to this person at the last board meeting disallowing him from giving testimony to the board. When she was asked to "please allow him to continue, she emphatically stated "no". When she was asked why she was being so rude to him, she threatened him with arrest if he did not leave the building. At that point tempers flared and both began shouting at each other until he left the building of his own free will. Once again, this person's 1st Amendment Right was violated by the board's chairperson. His right to give testimony at a public hearing was denied by someone who is obviously biased. She once again demonstrated she is unfit to sit on the board, let alone be it's chairperson.
After a short tirade by Ms. Sharra, the board continued the meeting, closing the hearings to the public; yet instructed Mr. Van Dyke to submit his new plans to them when they were ready. This is a complete violation of law; to not allow the public to view or comment on these new plans is not right. They also instructed him to prepare to put down top soil and seed all open ares of the site by Sept. 1st, which he refuses to do because in his own words, " it will just wash away ". So much for his adequate soil erosion measures which is allowing sand and silt to wash under the highway and onto abutters property already. This farce has gone on long enough and why he has not been shut down is the question of the day. The board continues to pander to him at every turn. If he had been made to follow the rules from the beginning and submit a completed application as the town's regulations require, he would have had to have all of his t's crossed and i's dotted and all state approvals and permits in hand before discussions started; but the PB acted improperly and has allowed him to proceed without all of the required by law permits and without meeting the other requirements they set forth for him.
Another call to the LGC in Concord and the ACLU and State Attorney General's office is forthcoming and a personal lawsuit may follow. Just how long are our selectmen going to allow this outrageous conduct to continue?

What's going on with our Police Dept. ?

We received the following letter in an e-mail and find this information disturbing and something that every citizen in Winchester should be made aware of. We have also spoken with several people about the content of this letter and will post more information as it becomes available and confirmed ..

This is a copy of a letter I faxed to the Attorney General's office last week, I have talked to them and I have heard of others who have talked to them. But they say they are too busy to help right now. What can we do about this as a community. Please help look into this. FYI - this is information I found out about by myself, can you imagine what we can do together. I heard from a business person in town that Officer Nate Jette told him that Det. Sgt. Reppucci is on Administrative Leave. What's up with this? Is this true? If so why?

To: Chief Investigator Paul Broder
State of New Hampshire Attorney General

Dear Investigator R. Tracy,

Per our conversation on Monday, July 6, 2009 I forward to you the following information.

I took it upon myself to do some investigating which disclosed the following.

In reference to Officer Nathan Jette I spoke to Paul McCoomb about a bicycle which belonged to the Winchester Police Department Bike Impound. Paul McCoomb told me Officer Jette admitted to having a bike “which he was not authorized to have” and shifted the blame to his Sgt. at the time, saying his Sgt. said he could have the bike. It is my understanding that Officer Jette is still in possession of the bike. It is also my understanding that Officer Jette failed the polygraph portion with the Town of New Ipswich in which he was disqualified due to integrity issues.

It is my understanding that Sgt. Reppucci may have other collaborating information pertaining to Officer Jette’s unethical behavior.

It would probably behoove the Attorney General’s Office to speak with Secretary Maryan Platz who seems to have her nose in everybody’s business.

I spoke with Gene Parks regarding the firearms issue which you and I had discussed on the phone on July 6, 2009.

I went to Granite State Productions in Hinsdale and spoke with the owner and I inquired about Sgt. Christopher Roberts. I went there three times. I asked the owner if he knew if Sgt. Roberts ever threatened his neighbor with a firearm, (I got this information from Steve Formica) and I was told that and many other reasons are why Officer Roberts is no longer employed by the Town of Hinsdale. The owner of Granite State Productions was very adamant that there was criminal threatening with a firearm towards one of Sgt. Roberts neighbors. At this time I haven’t verified which neighbor. It is my understanding that this allegation was not properly investigated.

It is also my understanding the neighbor threatened a lawsuit if Sgt. Roberts was not terminated. The owner of Granite State also confirmed there was litigation between Sgt. Roberts and the Town of Hinsdale which was settled behind closed doors and Sgt. Roberts received and undisclosed monetary settlement. It may behoove the Attorney General to research Sgt. Roberts Form B with Police Standards and Training. I wonder if this information was disclosed in Sgt. Roberts background with the Winchester Police Department. Would this not be a potential litigation issue if the Town of Winchester knowingly hired Sgt. Roberts with this information in his background?

Also, I went to the Town of Hinsdale on June 4, 2009 to research citizen complaints against Sgt. Roberts. I found approximately 30 complaint letters pertaining to Sgt. Roberts unprofessional behavior of which several of the complaints contained profanity towards several citizens. I have personal knowledge of Sgt. Roberts using profanity with my brother. Approximately three weeks later I returned to the Town Hall to make copies of these complaints and found only five. I came back a couple of days later to make copies and there were none. They have all disappeared. I find this highly unusual.

It is also my understanding that Sgt. Roberts insulted the manager at Kulick’s Supermarket in Winchester with his unprofessional behavior. When a complaint was filed, it was just swept under the carpet. Interestingly, this occurred right before Sgt. Roberts became Lieutenant. How is this possible?

I stopped at the Texaco station at 63 and Main Street and asked a general question and they directed me to Shippe’s Auto Repair in Hinsdale. Someone at Shippe’s Auto Repair mentioned that Sgt. Roberts may be involved with an incident involving some rims that were stolen out of a pick up truck sometime last fall and the rims may be on his truck. Shippe’s directed me to Vinnie’s Towing Service.

I am trying to get additional information and I will be sending information as I get it.

I have serious concerns about Officer Jette and Sgt. Roberts credibility especially the criminal threatening of Sgt. Roberts with regards to his neighbor. I have these concerns because I frequently visit my family in this community and I would like these concerns to be thoroughly investigated.

I ask that the Attorney General’s Office take these concerns seriously and investigate them thoroughly and I also request that the Office of the Attorney General respond to me in writing the results of these concerns.

Respectfully,

name withheld at writer's request

We have also received information that a citizen of Fitzwilliam, who works in town was followed to her home by an off duty police officer in his own vehicle and verbally harassed in her own driveway. This person filed a complaint with Winchester's Chief of Police back in April over this matter .. We are attempting to find out just how this was resolved or if any action was ever taken at all on the complaint.

Planning Board Chair out of control

This past Monday night, June 15th, during the continued hearings on the Van Dyke application, Planning Board Chairperson Margaret Sharra completely lost her composure and rudely interrupted the testimony of one of the abutters to the project who was attempting to ask a question. Given permission to step to the microphone and give testimony, he had only begun to speak when Sharra started screaming his name and after several minutes screamed at him "Do you have a question?" The abutter, Mr. Towne responded, I am trying to ask one and you are rudely interrupting me and preventing me from doing so. Mr Towne then attempted once again to ask the board why they were discussing the issue of a bond; one of the conditions they had set forth for Van Dyke, when he hadn't even gotten state approval for his water or septic designs ( requirement #1 ) gotten a signed Joint Use Agreement from PSNH ( required BEFORE he can begin construction ) notified DES of changes to plans submitted as required and gotten a new Alteration of Site permit as required by state law, gotten a new driveway permit, applied for a DES wetlands dredge and fill permit as required and to also provide evidence that they had been given false evidence regarding wetlands delineations on Van Dyke's site. He was continuously interrupted by Ms Sharra who continued to talk over him. He finally asked one last question in regards to the time the meeting finally started which was well after the 7:00pm time it had been scheduled for at the last PB meeting. Ms. Sharra had changed the agenda and times and yet never notified the abutters; yet it was apparent by Mr. Van Dyke's late arrival he was made aware of the time change; once again showing just how unfair these proceedings have become. As Mr. Towne stepped away from the microphone, Van Dyke, who had never been seated and who had remained standing off to the side of the microphone, uttered a rude comment to him and Mr. Towne turned to him and asked him to repeat his comments into the microphone for all to hear It was at that point that Ms Sharra once again started another tirade and attacked him screaming his name and making a complete fool of herself.

This woman is out of control, she's clearly biased and needs to be removed from her position as a board chairperson and member. She is NOT neutral and her conduct and actions clearly show this. We wonder why a person named in a lawsuit against the town has been allowed to continue sitting in at hearings and ethically tainting these proceedings. I guess this is a question for our Board of Selectmen.

Complaints have been filed with the State Board of Ethics and the Legal Government Center in Concord. A Citizens Complaint will also be filed with the town's Selectmen.
Though we have our doubts, we can only hope this matter is taken seriously by the board and they act in the appropriate manner. Preventing someone from giving testimony at a public hearing is a serious offense, not to be taken lightly.

Planning Board lawsuit in the hands of the judge

A final hearing was conducted at Cheshire Superior Court on May 29th, on the lawsuit against the town's Planning Board in the manner in which they have handled Robert Van Dyke's application for a Planned Residential Community consisting of 32 condominiums on Franklin Mountain next to Shamrock Realty. The Plaintiffs ( abutters ) have charged that the board has over stepped it's authority granting waivers and intrusions into the protected buffer zone stipulated by ZBA ordinances, voted into law by the town's citizens, has allowed van Dyke to destroy wetlands and that the board's chairperson has acted improperly throughout the proceedings, acting more as an agent for the applicant than a member of the board in protecting the town and the rights of it's citizens. On June 12th the abutters, following orders they had received from the court; submitted an amendment to their final arguments which included an affidavit from a member of the board, given of their own free will. We expect that both the attorneys for Van Dyke and the town will once again strongly object to this and other evidence presented and another hearing may be required to resolve their complaints. One can only wonder how much this has cost the citizens of Winchester in legal fees.

An Open Letter to Triple T / N&M Properties,

Date: May 30, 2009

RE: Response to Triple T / N&M Properties Route 119 Composting Proposal

An Open Letter to Triple T / N&M Properties,

Thank you for clarifying your true intentions on turning the Rt. 119 Property into a Compost Facility and not an Industrial Park. The Voters suspected as much. Please remember the Voters of Winchester overwhelmingly said no to you the first time.

I carefully read the responses from Triple T in the local papers and the Winchester Informer Website to those who oppose the Compost Facility. Thank you for letting us know you will be campaigning for a Zoning change. I can only speak for myself but I believe you will find my feelings below are indicative of most Winchester and Ashuelot residents.

You may go on a campaign to educate us – but we are quite capable of educating ourselves and have many qualified sources of information. We have used them and will use them.

You cannot address the amount or kind of truck traffic and it would be unfair of you to imply you can or know how little impact it would have. You are businessmen and I suspect you would want the facility to earn top dollar and work at maximum capacity. That means one of 2 options – more trucks or larger trucks and over time possibly a larger facility using the other acreage that would again increase the truck traffic. Meanwhile – you live elsewhere.

You cannot change the fact that should this kind of truck traffic be generated it will become a daily part of the tapestry of our town life.

You cannot address the impact on our community, in property value decline or on the desirability of the community as a place to live, and why should you care once the Compost Facility is making you money?

You cannot address the fact that if we grant an exemption for you – others would want the same consideration.

You cannot address the fact that a Compost Facility will generate very little Tax Income or Employment Opportunity for the Town of Winchester. You are in fact the ones who would benefit from this – not us.

If you want to use the property and have the Voters support then I suggest you might try the following:

* Use the property in accordance for what it is zoned for.
* Bring a business that makes a substantial financial contribution to the community.
* Bring a business that brings beauty to our community.
* Bring a business that brings employment opportunity to our community.



I am sorry for you in this respect – that better due diligence was not done by you before purchasing the property for the purpose of a Compost Facility. However, that is not the problem or fault of the Voters in Winchester.

You should know before you invest any more money in the goal of a Compost Facility that you have succeeded in galvanizing this community against such a facility. Voters from every political persuasion are coming together to re-affirm their opposition and go on campaign of their own. Right Wingers, Left Wingers and all those in between. Based on that, I somehow think you would be better served pursuing another option. We voted, we will vote and we will take note of Elected Officials who may be tempted to try and circumvent our will.

Before proceeding any further you need to ask yourself this question, if I may borrow from JFK, “Ask not what Winchester can do for you – Ask what you can do for Winchester.” Then we both have a place to begin. I wish you the best in that.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this Resident Tax Payer,

William A. Phillips - Ashuelot, New Hampshire - wajphil2@myfairpoint.net

Letter to the Editor of the Brattleboro Reformer

We received the following request to republish this letter to the editor of the Reformer.

Hello- If you would please post Norman's letter to the Brattleboro Reformer on your web site. Thank you- Peter Gaskill

Editor of the Reformer:

I would like to take a moment and clear up some information presented in a letter in Tuesdays May 26 Reformer in regards to my proposed compost and solid waste transfer station in Winchester.

While it is true we need a zoning change for this project the property is zoned Agricultural and Industrial. These classifications in Winchester zoning allow such uses as: Institutional residents, Retail Business/ Consumer services, Office, Open air retail Industry, and sand and gravel pits.

The project is proposed on a 25 acres site that is within a 106 acre tract. The proposed operation is separated from the highway and neighboring properties by a wooded buffer area. The access is on route 119, outside the Village of Ashuelot and where the State has upgraded the highway for heavier traffic a little more then a half mile from the Ashuelot Covered Bridge. Presently I operate a solid waste transfer station less then a mile from downtown Brattleboro. This transfer station has operated over 14 years without a complaint.

The location of this property is what has drawn us to it. It is a short distance to the intersections of routes 119, 10 and 78. All routes that would be utilized not just route 119. The truck sizes are not all tractor trailers, but many smaller single and double axle straight trucks.

What I am proposing is a business model looking towards the future. Yes, green is the buzzword, but the economics and the science make it work. I encourage anybody who is interested to contact my office by phone (802)254-5388 or e-mail peter@tripletrubbishremoval.com . I am more then glad to meet with concerned/ interested people to address concerns and mis-conceptions.

I am a Vermont resident it is true. I care about Aushoulot more then you may believe. My wife Mary was raised in a little house in Aushoulot Village, and on the wall in my home is a painting of the Ashuelot covered bridge.

Norman Mallory
N&M Winchester Properties
Brattleboro, VT

June 1st Winchester Planning Board Meeting - Please Come

Dear Fellow Winchester Citizen,

This Monday – June 1^st there will be a Public Meeting with the Planning Board as regards a proposed Industrial Park on Route 119 between Ashuelot and Winchester.

This is the same property and owner that wanted to put a compost facility in the location in question. The town voted on allowing that this past March and defeated it.

At this past Planning Board Meeting the Board was told by Stevens and Associates, who represent the property owner, that they would revisit the Compost Facility Proposal at a later date but for now are trying to establish approvals for an Industrial Park.

I would like to ask anyone getting this email to read the attached letter and be present at the Planning Board Meeting on Monday June 1^st at the Winchester Town Hall. It will start at 7pm.

Because this will impact the quality of life we have in Winchester I think it is in the best interest of us all if we hear for ourselves what is being proposed and the various viewpoints around it.

I personally am against such a proposal.

Thanks very much. Please pass this on to anyone you know in Winchester.

Strength, honor and blessing,

Bill Phillips – Ashuelot, New Hampshire

Winchester Industrial park proposal mulled

Board begins review of plan

By Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff

Published: Tuesday, May 19, 2009

WINCHESTER — After failing to get voter approval for a compost facility, a Brattleboro company says it’s pursuing an industrial park on Route 119 — but residents remain skeptical and ready to oppose the project.

Nearly three dozen residents attended a meeting Monday night to hear the Winchester Planning Board accept an application from N & M Winchester Properties for a business park across from Ashuelot Road.

Following the meeting, residents said they’ll be back, ready to oppose the plans at a public hearing June 1.

Plans call for a road and five building sites on 3 acres of the 106-acre parcel, but the applicants made it no secret they’d like to put a composting facility there instead.

The property owners — who also own Triple T Trucking, a Brattleboro trash hauling company — approached selectmen last year about building the composting facility, but the town’s regulations do not allow it.

Selectmen put two versions of zoning amendments on the ballot in March to allow composting. Voters rejected both.

Robert Stevens, president of the Brattleboro design firm that drew up the plans, indicated the company would lobby for the changes again next spring.

“Our client’s first intent for the site was composting, but that would take a change in the ordinance,” Stevens said. “It’s up to the voters to decide.”

Several residents talked outside town hall following the meeting and said the voters had already spoken.

“No means no,” said resident Paul Kovacs. “I think the voters decided clearly in March.”

The proposed zoning changes were the subject of much debate at the official-ballot first session and in letters to the editor leading up to the vote.

One would have allowed compost facilities by special exception in the agricultural and commercial districts after two reviews. It was voted down 524-300.

The other would have established a looser regulation, allowing the facilities without a special exception, only in the agricultural or highway commercial districts. It was rejected 679-135.

Though the official application presented Monday is for a road and building sites for an industrial park, it has been met with skepticism by town residents.

“They are persistent with putting their dump in Winchester,” Sharron Laurie of Ashuelot wrote in a recent letter to the editor. “This time they are coming in under the guise of a ‘commercial/industrial park.’ ”

Following Monday’s meeting, residents agreed, calling the plans fishy and saying the application looks like a ruse for the company to continue pursuing a compost facility.

“They’re going to put the road in there, and then they’ll say, ‘see, the only thing that fits is a compost site,’ ” Kovacs said.

On Monday, the planning board determined the project could have regional impact because of light and noise pollution or traffic once the buildings are up and tenants move in. An earlier report posted online at sentinelsource.com incorrectly stated the project was approved.

The town will notify the towns of Hinsdale and Northfield, Mass., and the Southwestern Regional Planning Commission.

The commission will review the plans with the board to en sure they comply with town ordinances.

The board also voted to hire an independent engineer to review the plans, at the applicant’s expense.

Peter Gaskil, general manager of Triple T Trucking, said this morning the composting site is still Plan A, but “if we can’t make one thing occur, then another thing will.”

He did not know what types of businesses would be pursued as tenants for the park, but said they would be “businesses that meet the zoning ordinances of the town.”

u The Winchester Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the plans June 1 at 7 p.m. at the Winchester Town Hall.

Sarah Palermo can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or spalermo@keenesentinel.com

An Open Letter to the Selectmen and Zoning Board of Winchester, NH,

Earlier this year a proposal was voted on by the Town of Winchester regarding the establishing of a Recycling / Compost Facility on Route 119 by N&M Properties of Brattleboro, VT. This proposal was voted down by a resounding margin as we all know. It is my understanding that inspite of the margin of defeat and the legitimate concerns of the people of Winchester a new attempt is being made to proceed with a similar plan under a different name. The same people who voted no the first time are very aware of what is happening and we have not changed our minds.

I was at the Planning Board Meeting on May 18, 2009 where one of the Stevens & Associates made clear that it is the intention of their client to revisit the Composting option for the Rt 119 property. I want you to know I am not in favor of changing ANY Zoning Regulations to accommodate this facility. Please let me explain my personal reasons for not wanting to allow this project. Many of my neighbors share these reasons.

I moved to Ashuelot because of its quiet and relatively remote location. I have invested many hours and dollars in restoring a lovely New England home on Rt 119.

The proposal to build a Recycle/Compost Facility, now being called an “Industrial Park” would ruin the tranquility we now enjoy with the addition of approximately 25 tractor trailers coming in and out of the facility each day. Those trucks along with trucks servicing a proposed Gravel Pit would destroy the small town feel and pristine environment we so much treasure here.

Should this project or any project of a similar nature be allowed to become a part of the tapestry of our town life it would only serve to set in stone our town status as a thoroughfare to be avoided. No one wants to live next to or near such a facility with the type of truck traffic it would generate. Regardless of what those proposing such a facility may say – I believe it will negatively impact all our property values.

I believe that beauty brings dignity to a community and I have sought to the best of my ability to bring beauty to my neighborhood and make people feel good about where they live. What possible beauty or advantage would this type of a facility would add to our town? I see only an estimated 25 trucks a day going in and out and future possible home buyers staying away due to the traffic, dirt and noise. Imagine having your home passed by tractor trailers 50 times a day, every day. That is exactly what our residents will face and there will be no turning back. We should all be against this.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this Resident Tax Payer,

William A. Phillips - Ashuelot, New Hampshire

Triple T Trucking = “N&M Properties of Vermont”

What? Do they think we’re stupid?

Triple T Trucking is at it again. They are persistent with putting their dump in Winchester. The first time they came to town with their dump proposal it was called a “Resource Recovery Park”. Nice green name that makes you want to go have a picnic there. This time they are coming in under the guise of a “Commercial / Industrial Park”. Admittedly we don’t want to have a picnic there, but hey it just might bring in some business that would help out with the taxes and create some jobs. Wrong!

The only businesses that “N&M Properties of Vermont” is planning on marketing to are a recycling center and composting facility, along with a sand & gravel pit to boot, all owned by Triple T Trucking. Guess what? N&M Properties of Vermont is owned by the same two guys. Aw shucks, the new selectman fell for that one…we set him straight.

To all 679 of my neighbors that voted March 3^rd not to allow this proposal and to all the other neighbors that couldn’t make it, please mark your calendars for Monday, May 18 at 7 pm Town Hall. Grab your neighbors and friends and let’s remind these guys that we DON’T WANT THEIR TRASH in Winchester. Let’s also show them that (as my neighbor Wendy Smith so kindly put it), we are not the provincial rubes that they think we are!

Sharron Laurie
PO Box 58
Ashuelot, NH 03441
239-8289


These guys are not going to give up unless we show them and our town officials that "NO" means "NO" .. and in order to do that everyone needs to show up at this meeting and let them know we won't be ignored or pushed around, that this is our town.

This is a copy of another letter abutters received recently;

STEVENS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Consulting in the Design & Development of Livable Communities

Engineers Landscape Architects Planners

May 5, 2009

RE: Triple T Materials Recovery Facility

Winchester, New Hampshire

S&A #: 08-002

Dear ( names removed for privacy )

This letter is to notify you that N&M Winchester Properties is applying for a Dredge and Fill in Wetlands Permit for the proposed construction of a commercial/industrial park that will impact approximately 27,000 square feet of unnamed wetlands.

In accordance with the New Hampshire Fill and Dredge in Wetlands Law (RSA 482-A), we are sending certified mail notification to the Town of Winchester and all the abutters within a ¼ mile of the proposed improvements.

The proposed project is located on Route 119 in Winchester, across from the Old Ashuelot Road/Route 119 intersection. Please refer to the attached USGS map showing the location of the project parcels and the approximate limits of work on those parcels.

N&M Winchester Properties had originally proposed a Materials Recovery Facility for the site which would take a waste product (organic wastes) and convert it into a saleable commodity (compost). However, local zoning changes would be required for such a facility and these changes are being pursued by the property owner. However, the parcel may be used for other allowable uses in a small commercial/industrial park. As the varying uses on the project site do not alter the proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetland, we are proceeding with the permit application.

Once certified mail receipts have been received for all parties, complete copies of the application will be sent to the Winchester Town Clerk and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Sincerely,

Peter Hetzel

Cc: Peter Gaskill

122 Birge Street PO Box 1586

Brattleboro, VT 05302

802-257-9329 Fax: 802-258-3892

www.stevens-assoc.com