Police officers' salaries, historic district among items on Winchester warrant

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — Abolishing the town’s historic district, preserving the local history museum and raising police officers’ salaries by 8 percent are among the 32 warrant articles voters will have an opportunity to vet at a deliberative session Saturday.
Residents will also have a chance to discuss the town’s proposed 2014-15 operating budget of $3,314,261, and $727,716 in additional spending earmarked for equipment, trust and capital funds.

Saturday’s meeting will be the only opportunity for residents to amend the budget and warrant articles before voting on them by ballot on March 11.

The proposed operating budget represents a decrease of $103,400, or 3 percent, from the 2013-14 budget of $3,417,661. It’s also identical to the default budget, which would take effect if voters reject the budget proposal.

The drop in the proposed budget came from savings realized when the town changed its health insurance plan, Town Administrator Shelly Walker said Tuesday.

The warrant also includes articles seeking to acquire a custom pumper fire truck for $440,000 through a lease-purchase agreement, and a dump truck with plow and sander for $135,201, also by means of a lease-purchase agreement. The fire truck would be paid for over seven years, while the dump truck would be paid for over five years, according to the warrant articles.

A warrant article, which selectmen have backed unanimously, asks voters to approve $28,576 to increase the salaries of Winchester Police Department employees by 8 percent to “be more competitive and in line with other like sized communities.”

Among 10 petition articles making the town meeting warrant this year is one seeking to abolish the town’s Historic District Ordinance.

The ordinance, which town meeting voters passed in March 1997, created two historic districts and a commission to regulate those districts.

Proponents of the warrant article say the commission has overstepped its bounds on many occasions, and that some of the requirements to preserve historic buildings aren’t financially feasible for private property owners.

Opponents say the commission’s oversight is necessary to preserve a town that has already lost a lot of its history.

A second petition warrant article asks voters to appropriate $5,000 for the Winchester Historical Society, to be used to operate and maintain the Sheridan House. The house contains a museum of the town’s history.

The selectmen and budget committee don’t recommend voters approve the warrant article.

Another petition warrant article seeks to designate a portion of Old Westport Road as a scenic road. The section of road is from Howard Street to the Coombs Bridge.

A staple on the warrant for many years, voters are again being asked, by means of a petition warrant article, to raise $50,000 to subsidize youth recreation programs at the ELMM Community Center.

The warrant finishes with five zoning articles dealing with topics including home businesses, extending the time period for special exceptions and function halls.

The deliberative session will begin at Saturday at 9 a.m. at Winchester Town Hall, 1 Richmond Road.

Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.

regarding emails we received recently

Let me remind all of you once again about posting comments.

The owners of this server that we are on have installed word filters that we have no control over.
What that means is, if you use some words in your comments that the filter deems inappropriate, it will never reach us. It will go where ever they have designated inappropriate comments to go.

We have implemented comment review, a process that weeds out other content that we determine to be inappropriate. Some of you can not control your language or have been just commenting nonsense over and over again in order to take up space on the server. That will not be tolerated and you're just wasting your time because none of it will see the light of day. It will go into our spam filter, not be deleted; but not published either.

 Lastly;  some comments just get lost in space, never making it to us and for this we do apologize, though it is also out of our control. If you feel your comment is legit doesn't seem to be one that should have been deleted or maybe it got lost, please repost and see if it shows up.

We welcome most all of your comments and have been allowing even some questionable ones to avoid the censorship tags some of you have complained openly about.

Remember; keep your comments civil, to the point and please stay on topic.
thank you

A historic district is a benefit, by Paul Dobbs

I attended the second public hearing on Winchester’s historic district commission ordinance Jan. 14.

My take-away was that although there have been real problems with how the ordinance has been enforced, it would be a big mistake to abolish it. It’s protecting historic buildings, has already brought some grant money to Winchester, and provides potential for long-term economic development.

There may be lots of room for improving how things are done, but the hearing made it clear to me that abolishing the ordinance would be a huge step backwards.

The majority of people speaking on the 14th were in favor of keeping the ordinance; that is, they were against the warrant article to abolish it.

Cyndy Ryder summed up what many said, that we should keep the district, but make better regulations for it, and make it clear to people how the regulations work. She also stressed that all in town government should be on the same page with the regulations.

Winchester Realtor Elena Heiden, one of those agreeing with Ryder, added, “There are many things that will be lost if this historic district is abolished.”

If good buildings were lost and/or replaced by undesirable buildings, Heiden thought there would be a potential to devalue other properties in Winchester. She defended the assertion that downtown Winchester still retains many buildings of historic integrity and charm, and reminded the hearing that the ordinance and the districts make us eligible for grants (Historic district eligibility led to the grant money that painted the Thayer Library exterior and its tin ceiling).

Everyone, both members of the public and the commission, agreed that there were problems with how the ordinance has been enforced, and as a consequence some property owners had suffered delays and unexpected costs.

But I didn’t hear how the enforcement problems were a result of actions by the commission. I heard that lack of communication between town government offices resulted in building permits being issued by mistake by other departments, which then necessitated cease-and-desist orders. A messy business certainly. It was heartening that the commission members stated their commitment to ensuring that everyone with property coming before them from now on would get a fair shake.

Another unanimous agreement, again among both members of the public and the commission who spoke, was that the proposed new regulations, essentially the same those used by Keene, were unreasonably stringent, and a very poor fit for Winchester.

Barring the appearance of someone who actually supports these regulations, there seems to be no reason to even discuss them at the public hearing Jan. 27. Rather, that hearing could be very productive as an opportunity to discuss what kinds of guidelines various people would actually support. The guidelines for a heritage village district seemed promising, since those districts seem to enable their own grant-writing.

I hope to get a chance to research them before the hearing.

In conclusion, it’s a rule of thumb that historic preservation is a plus for development. A 2005 report by the Brookings Institution says, “Nearly any way the effects are measured, be they direct or indirect, historic preservation tends to yield significant benefits to the economy.”

A 2011 report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation said that the positive influence spreads beyond just property values: “Historic preservation has become a fundamental tool for strengthening American communities. It has proven to be an effective tool for a wide range of public goals including small business incubation, affordable housing, sustainable development, neighborhood stabilization, center city revitalization, job creation, promotion of the arts and culture, small town renewal, heritage tourism, economic development, and others.”

I believe that the historic district ordinance has been protecting interesting and beautiful structures that tell Winchester’s history. We need to ensure that protection by keeping that ordinance in place, getting it working more smoothly, and starting to employ it as the foundation stone for strong economic development.

Paul Dobbs

39 Purcell Road

Ashuelot

Legal battle with Dunkin’ Donuts continues

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — Former adversaries are now allies as the legal battle over a proposed Dunkin’ Donuts in Winchester plays out in court again.
In March 2013, the developer of a proposed convenience store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts in Winchester was in Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene arguing to Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. that he should overturn the planning board’s denial of the project.

Joining the town in defense of the lawsuit was Kulick’s Inc., an abutter to the proposed project.

On Tuesday, the developer, S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. was on the other side of the aisle — and aligned with the town of Winchester — arguing why Kissinger should uphold the planning board’s decision made in July 2013 to approve the project.

Kulick’s, now in the position of being the plaintiff, was fighting against the approval.

During the roughly hour-long hearing, attorneys argued whether the the 2012 and 2013 project plans submitted by S.S. Baker’s were different enough to allow the Winchester Planning Board to accept and then approve the later plan.

Regardless of who is on which side of the case, the fate of the project is once again Kissinger’s hands. He has taken the case under advisement, and will issue a decision at a later date.

Since 2012, S.S. Baker’s, which is based in Keene, has sought to build a roughly 3,500-square-foot commercial structure at 4 Warwick Road in Winchester. The building would house a convenience store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts with a drive-through lane.

The controversial project was the subject of a lengthy public hearing leading up to the planning board’s July 2012 denial of the plan.

S.S. Baker’s appealed the matter to Cheshire County Superior Court, which upheld the planning board’s decision in April 2013. The firm has since appealed the case to the N.H. Supreme Court, where it was accepted in June 2013. That appeal is still pending.

In the meantime, S.S. Baker’s made some changes to the project and then filed a second site plan review for the project with the Winchester Planning Board in June.

Those changes included reducing the size of the building by 150 feet, removing one parking space, making room for 11 cars in the drive-through lane and not allowing vehicles leaving the property to make a left turn onto Route 10, which runs perpendicular to Warwick Road (Route 78).

According to state law, a developer can refile a project that has previously been denied by a planning board as long as it’s substantially different from the first.

In July 2013, the Winchester Planning Board approved the project, 6-1.

Following the board’s decision, Stanley S. Plifka Jr., owner of Kulick’s Inc., asked the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment to rehear, reconsider and reverse the planning board’s decision.

Plifka operates a grocery store and gas pumps at 30 Warwick Road under the Kulick’s name.

The zoning board denied Plifka’s request, 4-1, in August 2013. He then appealed the planning and zoning boards decision to Cheshire County Superior Court in September of that year.

On Tuesday during the court hearing, Attorney Kelly E. Dowd, who is representing Kulick’s, said Kissinger should reverse the planning board’s decision because the board didn’t follow state and local laws in approving the project.

“This is a textbook case of how a planning board shouldn’t operate,” he said.

There weren’t enough changes made to the project plans from 2012 version to justify the board accepting the 2013 version, he said.

Additionally, the traffic study and stormwater management plans used submitted with the 2012 plans were also submitted with the 2013 plans, he said.

Dowd said the board also illegally granted two waivers for the project, as S.S. Baker’s didn’t show that it would face unnecessary hardship if the waivers weren’t granted. The waivers dealt with landscaping and removing a vegetative buffer on the 1.19-acre property.

Attorney Matthew R. Serge of Concord, who is representing Winchester, and Attorney Gary J. Kinyon of Keene, who is representing S.S. Baker’s, both argued that the second application had enough consequential changes to allow the planning board to legally accept and act on the plan.

“There is nothing inappropriate about the board considering this again in light of the changes, and this time approving the application,” Serge said.

The board also granted the waivers properly because without them S.S. Baker’s would have faced a hardship, he added.

Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.WINCHESTER

The "hardship" is a direct result of S.S.Baker's being greedy and attempting to overwhelm the proposed site. It's the property that creates the hardship; not the proposal. Once again, a controversial decision by an appointed board is costing the town thousands of dollars.



An area variance is the most common type. It can be requested by a builder or landowner when an odd configuration of the land, or sometimes the physical improvements (structures) on the land, requires a relaxation of the applicable regulations to avoid denying the landowner the same rights and use of the property enjoyed by owners of neighboring properties. A textbook example would be a house built on an oddly-shaped lot. If the odd shape of the lot makes it onerous for the landowner or builder to comply with the standard building setbacks specified in the code, a variance could be requested to allow a reduced setback. Another would be a house built on a sloping lot. If the slope of the lot makes it onerous to comply with the height limit—typically due to the way the municipality's code requires height to be measured—then a variance could be requested for a structure of increased height because of the special conditions on the lot.

In this case the proposed store, gas station with islands and a drive thru Dunkin Donuts overwhelms the lot

A use variance is a variance that authorizes a land use not normally permitted by the zoning ordinance.^[2] Such a variance has much in common with a special-use permit (sometimes known as a conditional use permit). Some municipalities do not offer this process, opting to handle such situations under special use permits instead. Grant of a use variance also can be similar, in effect, to a zone change. This may, in certain cases, be considered spot zoning, which is prohibited in many jurisdictions.
In either case, the variance request is justified only if special conditions exist on the lot that create a hardship making it too difficult to comply with the code's normal requirements. Likewise, a request for a variance on a normal lot with no special conditions could judiciously be denied. The special conditions or hardship typically must arise from some physical configuration of the lot or its structures. The financial or personal situation of the applicant normally cannot be taken into consideration. Under most codes governing variances, approval of the variance must not result in a public health or safety hazard and must not grant special privilege to the property owner. In other words, when a variance is granted, any other property owner with similar site conditions should be able to obtain a similar variance; this criterion is often addressed by citing precedent.

There are no conditions on the lot that make it too difficult to comply with code other than the proposed structure and use is just too much for the lot. There is no precedent for this variance to be granted either and it also creates a health and safety issue for the neighbor that abuts this lot.

IMPORTANT READ

Especially for Winchester voters.

Your rights are at stake

Your votes: Cast in secret, counted in secret, kept in secret.
Are the latter two transparent? Does this instill confidence in your voting system?

A public hearing took place in Concord, Tuesday, Jan. 14, before the N.H. House Election Law Committee, to receive citizen input in regards to HB1357, recently introduced to the House to restore the public’s right (and responsibility) to know that all is right with our elections.

As a result, an amended version of HB1357 will be submitted to Legislative Services for discussion and adaption to legislative language.

The N.H. secretary of state opposes this bill, claiming it invites corruption. Former Jaffrey election clerk Deborah Sumner argued New Hampshire citizens have a “constitutional right” to view ballots to verify election results.

Why do we need to restore that right?

Because voting consists of two parts: 1) the right to cast the vote, and 2) the right to sort, count and easily authenticate voting results.

One without the other renders the voting process meaningless.

Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of the “people” overseeing the count in open meeting, and expressed it in the N.H. Constitution (Part II, Article 32). Yet New Hampshire has ignored the citizens’ constitutional right to sort and count votes in public ( RSA 659:63).

Instead, most New Hampshire vote counts take place in computerized voting machines, contradicting our Constitution by sorting and counting votes inside the machine, the count completely hidden from public view. The result, a summarizing printout that does not verify that the calculation was correct, and votes were not manipulated. Without the means to examine the ballots, we, the citizens, must blindly trust the printout result.

Access to our paper ballots would provide the traceable means for the “people” to easily verify their election results. But making matters worse, in 2003 the N.H. Legislature quietly stole from its citizens this traceable means, by exempting paper ballots from the Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A). What had previously been described as mere “policy” — used to withhold ballots from public examination — became law with the passage of HB627 FN.

It is fair to say many legislators may not have been aware of what they were voting on, when this exemption was quietly slipped into a bill that dealt with residency. And had the public known, could it have voiced its concerns about this unconstitutional act? Not likely, since although citizens today are told they had a chance to speak out at the public hearing, no evidence has been found of any public hearing having taken place in 2003 to discuss a ballot exemption.

Keeping paper ballots in secret further complicates the issue, as currently citizen access to cast ballots can be attained only by court order. This process became complicated when Sumner petitioned the court for access to Jaffrey ballots from the November 2010 election. After requesting the ballots be held for her examination, she learned they had been destroyed between three to five months before their required retention period had ended.

It should not be illegal to exercise your constitutional right (and responsibility), to know election results are accurate. You, the public, own and paid for those ballots. They need to be restored to their rightful status: easily accessible public records. Gaining access to the paper ballots allows citizens to do exactly what they should be doing, examining the actual votes and either verifying the certified results, or bringing to the public’s attention any discrepancies that need a closer look.

Citizens still have a chance to speak out. Please contact the House Election Law Committee Chairman, David Cote, at david.cote@leg.state.nh.us, or 271-3319, and voice your concerns about regaining your constitutional right, and civic duty, to easily access paper ballots to verify election results.

Committee action is expected by Feb. 6, so there’s not much time!

Janice Sevene

Protect the Count NH

77 Old Leonard

Farm Road

Swanzey

 

 

Debate over Winchester historic districts continues

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — The debate over the future of Winchester’s historic districts just got a little more complicated.
At the same time a petition warrant article is seeking to abolish the Winchester Historic District Commission, the commission is proposing better-defined regulations for allowing work on buildings in the historic districts.

It’s unclear if the events are tied in any way to each other, but Historic District Commission members say at this point one is feeding off the other.

Those in support of the Historic District Commission say its oversight is necessary to preserve a town that has already lost so much history. Opponents say the commission has overstepped its bounds on many occasions, and that some of the requirements to preserve historic buildings aren’t financially feasible for private property owners.

The town received the petition warrant article on Dec. 11. The proposed regulations were filed about the same time.

According to state law, a historic district can be abolished by the passage of a petition warrant article as long as the petition is signed by 25 registered voters, and the historic district commission holds two public hearings about the petition at least 15 days apart.

Historic District Commission member Julia Ferrari said Tuesday that the commission has been working on the proposed regulations for at least three years in an attempt to further define what is already in place.

“We’re just trying to simplify things, and not have to go back to square one every single time,” she said.

The commission has been relying on the regulations in the town’s historic district ordinance to guide its decisions, but there can be inconsistencies from year to year, depending on how the ordinance is interpreted, she said.

There have been instances when someone will ask a question one year, and the commission will answer it. The same question would be posed the next year, and the commission would have to go through the process again to come to the same answer, she said.

Voters at town meeting in March 1997 approved the adoption of the historic district ordinance, which established the five-member commission appointed by selectmen, and the borders of the town’s two historic districts in Winchester and the village of Ashuelot.

The Winchester district includes a section of Main Street from Chapel Street southwest to the Route 10 bridge, and portions of Michigan and High streets and Richmond Road. The Ashuelot district covers a section of Ashuelot Main Street, and Old Hinsdale and Back Ashuelot roads.

Since the Historic District Commission was established, some of its decisions have led to tension between its members and property owners.

In 2011, a proposal to build a Dollar General on a Main Street property that hosted a roughly 200-year-old house in the historic district became the center of a controversy that ended with a legal battle. The property, 71 Main St., is owned by Margaret A. Sharra, Winchester’s land use administrator and code enforcement officer, and her brothers, James S. and Michael P. Shannon.

The proposed regulations the commission is seeking to adopt are included in a 32-page document that covers a variety of activities in the town’s historic districts.

Those activities include landscaping; installing, repairing and maintaining lighting, windows, doors, porches, walkways and driveways; the placement of utilities and renewable energy systems; using appropriate paint, siding and roofing materials on buildings; and building renovations, additions and demolitions.

An additional nine-page document outlines guidelines the commission should follow in considering applications for demolishing and moving historic structures.

Ferrari said both documents were drafted based on regulations followed by other communities with historic districts.

A public hearing about the proposed regulations will be held Monday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. at Winchester Town Hall.

Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.

Board of Selectmen Regular Minutes 12-11-13

Board of Selectmen Regular Minutes 12-4-13

Board of Selectmen Regular Minutes 11-20-13

Board of Selectmen Work Session Minutes 11-25-13

Board of Selectman meeting Minutes 11-13-13

Board of Selectman Work Session 11-12-13

Board of Selectman meeting Minutes 11-06-13

Petition aims to abolish Winchester's districts

Anyone wanna bet who's behind this movement? Read on ...

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — On the heels of a battle to put a standalone store in one of the town’s historic districts, a new movement is afoot to get rid of the districts altogether.
A petition warrant article seeking to abolish the ordinance that established the districts will go to the Winchester Historic District Commission Monday night for review.

Voters approved the ordinance at town meeting in March 1997. It applies to the Winchester and the Ashuelot districts, and seeks to protect buildings and areas that have “cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.”

It also aims to “encourage and regulate” new construction that fits in with existing historic architecture; foster appreciation of the town’s beauty and its past accomplishments; strengthen the town’s economy “by protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the community;” and promote the public and private use of areas in the historic districts “for the education, pleasure, prosperity, and general welfare of the community.”

The Winchester district includes a section of Main Street from Chapel Street southwest to the Route 10 bridge, and portions of Michigan and High streets and Richmond Road. The Ashuelot district covers a section of Ashuelot Main Street, and Old Hinsdale and Back Ashuelot roads.

The petition to abolish the district comes roughly a year and a half after the climax of a controversial proposal by Dollar General to build a store on Main Street within the boundaries of the Winchester district. The issue divided residents, some of whom felt having a store there was better than having a decrepit building; others who said a standalone store is out of character for the area.

The property at 71 Main St. is home to a roughly 200-year-old house, which the project’s developer, Zaremba Group of Lakewood, Ohio, wanted to demolish. The house is owned by Margaret A. Sharra, land use administrator and code enforcement officer for the town, and her brothers, James S. and Michael P. Shannon.

The historic district commission must approve any requests to raze a building in either of the districts, and it denied the Zaremba proposal in July 2011. Zaremba appealed the ruling to the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment in August of that year.

In October 2011, the zoning board ruled the house could be demolished as long as the historic district commission approved plans for the Dollar General first.

Five property owners then filed a motion requesting the zoning board reconsidered its decision. The board denied the request in November 2011.

A month later, the group of residents and Kulick’s Inc., which operates a market on Warwick Road (Route 78), took the matter to Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene.

The lawsuit, which named the town’s board of selectmen and zoning board as defendants, asked the court to invalidate the zoning board’s decision and have the case sent back to the zoning board for further review.

In April 2012, Judge Kathleen McGuire ruled against the residents and Kulick’s.

Gene Park, vice chairman of the historic district commission, said Thursday the petition to abolish the districts came as a surprise.

“The commission was blindsided by it,” he said. “I have no idea where it came from.”

He is interested to hear the arguments for and against abolishing the ordinance, he said.

James Shannon and some of Sharra’s family members signed the petition. The petition also includes the signature of Denis V. Murphy 2nd, chairman of the Winchester Historic District Commission.

Murphy said this morning he signed the petition because someone asked him to.

“I’m not going to deny someone the democratic process,” he said.

Sharra, who didn’t sign the petition, said Thursday her brother, James, would be a good person to ask about the reasoning behind the petition.

Shannon was unavailable for comment and efforts to reach Sharra this morning for further comment were unsuccessful.

The petition was received by the town Dec. 11.

The historic district commission has scheduled public hearings for residents to weigh in on the petition warrant article for Monday, Dec. 30 and Jan. 14. The hearings will begin at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.

Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.

So who's the registered town voter who started the petition and why? Is this the next step towards Sharra getting her way? If people in this town want to continue having a say in what goes on in your town, then you'd better get yourself to these meetings and Deliberative or otherwise pay the consequences of your non-actions. Seems the few who think Winchester is their plum plan on abolishing anything that stands in their way.

Winchester tax rate takes a hike

Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 12:00 pm

 

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — Increases in town and school expenses have led to a nearly 10 percent rise in this year’s tax rate.
Winchester Town Administrator Shelly Walker said Tuesday the rate increase was a given once voters approved a series of warrant articles at town meeting in March and the school budget came in higher than it was in 2012.

Winchester’s 2013 tax rate is $30.73 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, an increase of 10.1 percent from $27.92 last year.

The town tax rate is $8.40, up 20.3 percent from $6.98 last year, and the local education tax rate is $16.53, an increase of 9.5 percent, from $15.09 last year.

Winchester’s state education rate of $2.61 is up 8.3 percent from $2.41 last year. Its county rate of $3.19 is a decrease of 7.3 percent from $3.44 last year.

Under the 2013 tax rate, a house assessed at $200,000 would have a tax bill of $6,146, compared to $5,584 last year.

In March, Winchester voters approved an operating budget of about $3.4 million, which was an increase of $346,074, or 11 percent, from approximately $3.07 million last year. They also approved $237,354 in financial warrant articles in addition to the operating budget. That number was $58,903 higher than the amount of monetary warrant articles approved in March 2012.

Voters approved a school budget of about $11 million, an increase of 2.3 percent over the 2012 budget of about $10.8 million.

The Winchester Board of Selectmen was able to lower the 2013 tax rate by $1 using money from the town’s unreserved fund balance, Walker said.

Tax bills are due Dec. 31.

 Just think how much more they could have lowered the increase if they just made businesses and others pay their tax bills like the rest of us.

Meghan Foley can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or mfoley@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @MFoleyKS.