WINCHESTER, N.H. -- The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office said they are investigating a fatal officer-involved shooting in Winchester.
It happened around 9 p.m. Monday. Early Tuesday morning, officers could still be seen at the apartment building at the corner of Keene Road and Mechanic Street where the shooting took place.According to the Attorney General's office, the incident began when four police officers responded to a family dispute at the apartment building. Officers said a woman on the scene said her husband was inside, armed with a knife and suicidal.Officers tried stopping the man using tasers as he advanced toward them with the knife, but the man did not stop. One of the officers shot and killed the man. His identity has not yet been released.
An autopsy is scheduled for Wednesday.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Board of Selectman's Meeting Wednesday June 29th, 2011
This coming Wednesday evening the BOS will be hearing testimony from two of our state representatives in regards to the proposed asphalt plant being constructed on the grounds of the old P&G gravel pit. They will speak out about the hazards to the people in the area and the effects it will have on the lives of residents of Winchester and Swanzey.
We ask that all those who oppose this project please attend and voice your concerns and support the efforts of our state reps to convince the BOS that this proposed project not be allowed to go forward.
The DES had until last Friday, June 23rd to make a decision on the concerns of the people who attended the earlier hearings and who wrote letters to the department. No answers have been received from the Board of Air Quality yet and there is a window of 10 days to file an appeal of any decision that is handed down.
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL JULY 6TH-NO MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT
DES WILL GRANT MITCHELL A TEMPORARY PERMIT JULY 5TH WHICH WILL BE GOOD FOR 18 MONTHS TO SEE IF THEY ARE WITHIN AIR QUALITY STANDARDS BEFORE A FINAL PERMIT IS ISSUED.
AN APPEAL OF THEIR DECISION WILL BE FILED WITHIN THE 10 DAY WINDOW
We ask that all those who oppose this project please attend and voice your concerns and support the efforts of our state reps to convince the BOS that this proposed project not be allowed to go forward.
The DES had until last Friday, June 23rd to make a decision on the concerns of the people who attended the earlier hearings and who wrote letters to the department. No answers have been received from the Board of Air Quality yet and there is a window of 10 days to file an appeal of any decision that is handed down.
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL JULY 6TH-NO MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT
DES WILL GRANT MITCHELL A TEMPORARY PERMIT JULY 5TH WHICH WILL BE GOOD FOR 18 MONTHS TO SEE IF THEY ARE WITHIN AIR QUALITY STANDARDS BEFORE A FINAL PERMIT IS ISSUED.
AN APPEAL OF THEIR DECISION WILL BE FILED WITHIN THE 10 DAY WINDOW
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Panel votes to hire consultant
WINCHESTER — The town’s Historic District Commission wants extra help on a tough decision.
The commission voted Monday to hire a consultant to review the historic value of the house at 71 Main St.
A developer has applied to the commission for permission to demolish the building, which is in the historic district, and replace it with a Dollar General store.
The commission voted to hire Lynne Emerson Monroe, a Kensington historic preservation consultant, to report on the history and architecture of the building, according to Vice Chairwoman Julia Ferrari.
Applicant Zaremba Group of Cleveland still has to confirm that it will pay Monroe’s fee of $2,500, Ferrari said.
The commission is scheduled to vote on the application on July 11.
Controversy over the proposal has pitted those who say the vacant, derelict building should be replaced with a new business against those who say the store doesn’t fit in the historic district.
The building is owned by Margaret Sharra, a member of the town’s planning board, and her two brothers.
The commission voted Monday to hire a consultant to review the historic value of the house at 71 Main St.
A developer has applied to the commission for permission to demolish the building, which is in the historic district, and replace it with a Dollar General store.
The commission voted to hire Lynne Emerson Monroe, a Kensington historic preservation consultant, to report on the history and architecture of the building, according to Vice Chairwoman Julia Ferrari.
Applicant Zaremba Group of Cleveland still has to confirm that it will pay Monroe’s fee of $2,500, Ferrari said.
The commission is scheduled to vote on the application on July 11.
Controversy over the proposal has pitted those who say the vacant, derelict building should be replaced with a new business against those who say the store doesn’t fit in the historic district.
The building is owned by Margaret Sharra, a member of the town’s planning board, and her two brothers.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Board denies Pembroke asphalt plant .. So what's wrong with our ZBA?
PEMBROKE — Relying in part on Merriam Webster’s College Dictionary, a judge has affirmed Pembroke’s move to block construction of an asphalt plant near Concord’s backup water supply.
Last fall, Pembroke’s zoning board denied Continental Paving’s request to build a new asphalt plant on North Pembroke Road. It based the decision on two factors: the land in question is not zoned for manufacturing and the plant would sit near a portion of the Soucook River that Concord sometimes uses for drinking water.
When Continental Paving appealed, saying it would change its plans to address concerns about fuel spills contaminating the water, the zoning board denied the company’s request, saying even if the possible threat to the aquifer were addressed, the area was still not zoned for manufacturing. Continental Paving argued its new plant would be for storage, not manufacturing.
Continental Paving sued the town in Merrimack County Superior Court this past winter, and on May 31, Judge Richard McNamara dealt the company a third blow by affirming the zoning board’s decision to deny Continental Paving a second hearing. In his decision, McNamara called the board’s denial “reasonable and legal.”
In his six-page decision, McNamara discussed a range of procedural legal issues. But part of the decision stemmed from the definition of the words “manufacturing” and “processing” because the area in which the company wants to locate the plant permits the former but not the latter.
Attorneys for Pembroke cited a 1994 edition of Webster’s dictionary to differentiate between the two words, and McNamara depended on those definitions to rule.
“The function of the asphalt plant will be to take the raw materials . . . and join it with the liquid asphalt and heat it to create a new material: paving asphalt,” he wrote. “Under the circumstances . . . it appears CPI (Continental Paving Inc.) would be engaged in ’manufacturing’ if it operated an asphalt plant.”
The city of Concord intervened in the case because of its concerns about the plant’s proximity to the aquifer.
“The city of Concord was very concerned that their aquifer would be poisoned by an asphalt plant,” Bonney said.
The firm has 30 days to file an appeal with the N.H. Supreme Court.
Mitchell's asphalt plant is being built in the agricultural zone, which is deemed NOT appropriate for business and right in the aquifer protected zone. We can't even vote these people off this board; they are appointed by the dimwits we call our selectboard. Hopefully citizens who vote in Winchester will someday smell the coffee, wake up and elect people who have the town's best interests at heart and not their own.
When Continental Paving appealed, saying it would change its plans to address concerns about fuel spills contaminating the water, the zoning board denied the company’s request, saying even if the possible threat to the aquifer were addressed, the area was still not zoned for manufacturing. Continental Paving argued its new plant would be for storage, not manufacturing.
Continental Paving sued the town in Merrimack County Superior Court this past winter, and on May 31, Judge Richard McNamara dealt the company a third blow by affirming the zoning board’s decision to deny Continental Paving a second hearing. In his decision, McNamara called the board’s denial “reasonable and legal.”
In his six-page decision, McNamara discussed a range of procedural legal issues. But part of the decision stemmed from the definition of the words “manufacturing” and “processing” because the area in which the company wants to locate the plant permits the former but not the latter.
Attorneys for Pembroke cited a 1994 edition of Webster’s dictionary to differentiate between the two words, and McNamara depended on those definitions to rule.
“The function of the asphalt plant will be to take the raw materials . . . and join it with the liquid asphalt and heat it to create a new material: paving asphalt,” he wrote. “Under the circumstances . . . it appears CPI (Continental Paving Inc.) would be engaged in ’manufacturing’ if it operated an asphalt plant.”
The city of Concord intervened in the case because of its concerns about the plant’s proximity to the aquifer.
“The city of Concord was very concerned that their aquifer would be poisoned by an asphalt plant,” Bonney said.
The firm has 30 days to file an appeal with the N.H. Supreme Court.
Mitchell's asphalt plant is being built in the agricultural zone, which is deemed NOT appropriate for business and right in the aquifer protected zone. We can't even vote these people off this board; they are appointed by the dimwits we call our selectboard. Hopefully citizens who vote in Winchester will someday smell the coffee, wake up and elect people who have the town's best interests at heart and not their own.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Dollar Store Hearings Delayed Again
The decision concerning the controversy over the construction of a new "Dollar Store" in Winchester has been delayed by 23 days, to July 11th.
The first hour of a public hearing, which started at 7:30 Tuesday evening, was largely devoted to negotiations between the town's HDC board and the lawyer representing the applicant regarding the qualifications of the consultants the commission wanted to review the application.
About 35 people waited patiently through the discussion. When the public was invited to speak, a steady stream of speakers spoke in defense of the town's historic character and master plan.
...more info to come
The first hour of a public hearing, which started at 7:30 Tuesday evening, was largely devoted to negotiations between the town's HDC board and the lawyer representing the applicant regarding the qualifications of the consultants the commission wanted to review the application.
About 35 people waited patiently through the discussion. When the public was invited to speak, a steady stream of speakers spoke in defense of the town's historic character and master plan.
...more info to come
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Shady Dealings On Store
Letter to the editor in Saturday's paper;
This is directed to the selectmen of Winchester and the head of the planning board, who is trying to play a shell game on the town and its residents, by trying to put a Dollar General store downtown, in out protected historic district.
Any selectman who allows this should be removed from office and the head of the planning board should step down immediately for trying such an underhanded tactic. It is immoral and unethical and is exactly why Winchester is laughed at by the entire state.
JOSEPH
Main St.
Winchester
This is directed to the selectmen of Winchester and the head of the planning board, who is trying to play a shell game on the town and its residents, by trying to put a Dollar General store downtown, in out protected historic district.
Any selectman who allows this should be removed from office and the head of the planning board should step down immediately for trying such an underhanded tactic. It is immoral and unethical and is exactly why Winchester is laughed at by the entire state.
JOSEPH
Main St.
Winchester
Wrong Spot For a Store
I would just like to say that I have lived in Winchester for many years.
I moved here to get away from the city life; I fell in love with the quaint main street and country feel of this small town. But now they want to put a dollar store in the center of town and that would be a shame.
I thought we had a historic district to preserve our beauty and character.
What is going on in our town hall and how can this happen?
AGNES
Winchester
I moved here to get away from the city life; I fell in love with the quaint main street and country feel of this small town. But now they want to put a dollar store in the center of town and that would be a shame.
I thought we had a historic district to preserve our beauty and character.
What is going on in our town hall and how can this happen?
AGNES
Winchester
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Who’s on which side?
For those of you who don't read the Sentinel but do read our blog, here's another Opinion letter that was published in the paper in regards to the destruction of 71 main Street.
Let me get this straight:
In Winchester, there’s an old house in the historic district that’s owned by a woman who works for the town and is on a number of boards, who wants to tear this house down and put up a Dollar General.
The property is on Main Street and sits between the community center and the VFW. The house is one of the first buildings in Winchester (from the 1700s) and she wants to put in its place a monstrosity of a building that looks like any other strip mall store in the country.
When she bought the property, she knew it was in the historic district, but now she wants the historic district board to ignore the fact that her building would disrupt the historical cohesion among the district’s buildings.
There is also a brand new Family Dollar store in town that was built outside of the district in an existing shopping center.
She sent her lawyer to a historic district meeting who asked that a certain historic district board member not be allowed to deliberate on her application because of possible “animosity” that could spill over from the planning board, where both women serve and where the woman who has the building has started the process to have the other removed from the planning board.
This is the same lawyer who represented the applicant of the asphalt plant that came before the planning board last year. The woman who voted for the asphalt plant is the one who wants to put up the Dollar General. The woman who voted against the asphalt plant is the one they’re trying to remove from the planning board.
From where I sit, the “animosity” is coming from the woman who wants to put up the Dollar General, not the historic district board member. And I think it’s directed to every Winchester resident who wants to protect our town from becoming just another ugly backwater town.
MARIA
ASHUELOT
Let me get this straight:
In Winchester, there’s an old house in the historic district that’s owned by a woman who works for the town and is on a number of boards, who wants to tear this house down and put up a Dollar General.
The property is on Main Street and sits between the community center and the VFW. The house is one of the first buildings in Winchester (from the 1700s) and she wants to put in its place a monstrosity of a building that looks like any other strip mall store in the country.
When she bought the property, she knew it was in the historic district, but now she wants the historic district board to ignore the fact that her building would disrupt the historical cohesion among the district’s buildings.
There is also a brand new Family Dollar store in town that was built outside of the district in an existing shopping center.
She sent her lawyer to a historic district meeting who asked that a certain historic district board member not be allowed to deliberate on her application because of possible “animosity” that could spill over from the planning board, where both women serve and where the woman who has the building has started the process to have the other removed from the planning board.
This is the same lawyer who represented the applicant of the asphalt plant that came before the planning board last year. The woman who voted for the asphalt plant is the one who wants to put up the Dollar General. The woman who voted against the asphalt plant is the one they’re trying to remove from the planning board.
From where I sit, the “animosity” is coming from the woman who wants to put up the Dollar General, not the historic district board member. And I think it’s directed to every Winchester resident who wants to protect our town from becoming just another ugly backwater town.
MARIA
ASHUELOT
Monday, June 6, 2011
Historic District Commission Agenda 6-9-11
Town of Winchester
Historic District Commission
Notice of Meeting
June 9, 2011
Historic District Commission
Notice of Meeting
June 9, 2011
The Winchester Historic District Commission will be meeting on 6-9-11 at 7 PM on the main floor or the Town Hall, 1 Richmond Road for the following:
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Review minutes of 5/23 meeting.
3. Review application of the United Church of Winchester - 99 Main Street
4. Public Hearing of General Dollar Store - 71 Main Street
5. Old or new business.
6. Adjourn.
Planning Board Notice of Meeting 6-6-11
Town of Winchester
Planning Board
Notice of Meeting
6-06-11
Planning Board
Notice of Meeting
6-06-11
The Winchester Planning Board will be meeting on 6-06-11 at 7pm on the Main Floor of the Town Hall, 1 Richmond Road for the following:
1. The board will review the minutes of 5-16-11 for approval.
2. The board will review the update on the building of the asphalt plant.
3. The board will discuss upcoming projects.
4. Any old or new business.
5. Adjournment.
Cronyism in Local Politics
From the Opinions page of the Sentinel ..
I was recently informed that a person who is employed by the town of Winchester and heads the planning department, owns a house and piece of land next to the VFW.
She is campaigning the town to allow her to sell it to the Dollar General store chain, so that that may build another dollar store in town.
Mind you that this property sits right in the heart of our historic district and that we already have one dollar store, a flea market, many junk stores.
I’m asking fellow residents to comment on their thoughts of this backroom deal that will alter the face of our town for good.
Contact your selectmen and voice your opinion, let them know your future vote will depend on their actions.
But beware, for I am told this is a done deal, that the select board are turning their heads and pushing this through, without any concern of our towns image, the historical society’s input, traffic and safety hazards, are all being ignored.
I ask you, if this property was not owned by the head of the planning department, would anyone else even be considered?
Typical Winchester politics!
RICHARD
WINCHESTER
I was recently informed that a person who is employed by the town of Winchester and heads the planning department, owns a house and piece of land next to the VFW.
She is campaigning the town to allow her to sell it to the Dollar General store chain, so that that may build another dollar store in town.
Mind you that this property sits right in the heart of our historic district and that we already have one dollar store, a flea market, many junk stores.
I’m asking fellow residents to comment on their thoughts of this backroom deal that will alter the face of our town for good.
Contact your selectmen and voice your opinion, let them know your future vote will depend on their actions.
But beware, for I am told this is a done deal, that the select board are turning their heads and pushing this through, without any concern of our towns image, the historical society’s input, traffic and safety hazards, are all being ignored.
I ask you, if this property was not owned by the head of the planning department, would anyone else even be considered?
Typical Winchester politics!
RICHARD
WINCHESTER
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
PLEASE HELP SAVE OUR HERITAGE
An Historic home near the center of Winchester at the beginning of the town's Historic District is in DANGER of being destroyed by an out of state company, and replaced by another dollar store.
Do we want Winchester to become tacky town, or do we believe we live in a beautiful place? Lets keep it beautiful for the future. Make calls to your friends, and please come to the Public hearing on June 9th 7 p.m. at the Winchester Town Hall.
The house in question is located at 71 main Street and up until a month or so ago contained tenants and was occupied. The owner of the home is none other than Margaret Sharra, who instead of fixing up the house and preserving the history of Winchester, she's looking to make a very substantial personal gain. Is this why she pushed to change Zoning Laws and Site Plan Regulations earlier this year and worded those changes herself? Sure does make one wonder who she really represents sitting on the Planning Board and working in the Land Use Office.
The building has a long history and at its core it is a Federal style home, typical of the earliest architecture of homes after the Revolution. More recent parts of the building were part of a unique feature of Winchester's town in the early twentieth century called "Seven Acres."
This Main Street home is part of the town's historic row alongside the ELM center and the Shipman Tavern. Save Our Heritage and call the Town Hall, send a letter to the Historic District Commission and ZBA to state your support for keeping the Historic look of our town, and preserving this heritage home.
The house in question is located at 71 main Street and up until a month or so ago contained tenants and was occupied. The owner of the home is none other than Margaret Sharra, who instead of fixing up the house and preserving the history of Winchester, she's looking to make a very substantial personal gain. Is this why she pushed to change Zoning Laws and Site Plan Regulations earlier this year and worded those changes herself? Sure does make one wonder who she really represents sitting on the Planning Board and working in the Land Use Office.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Memorial Day --- Honoring Our Fallen Heroes
Across the nation, many cities and towns will hold celebrations, parades and of course there will be the obligatory barbecues. Many speakers will give oratory honoring those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, crowds will cheer and wave Old Glory and bands will play rousing military music. Please take a moment this weekend to visit a local cemetery and say a small prayer of thanks over the grave of a veteran who has given their lives so that you may enjoy yours.
This was a favorite poem of my father, a veteran of WWII who was wounded serving our great nation, he carried it in his wallet so he never forgot the friends he lost on the battlefields of Europe. It was written by Dr. John McCrea and first published in 1915. I'd like to share it with all of you as we honor our heroes this weekend.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
This was a favorite poem of my father, a veteran of WWII who was wounded serving our great nation, he carried it in his wallet so he never forgot the friends he lost on the battlefields of Europe. It was written by Dr. John McCrea and first published in 1915. I'd like to share it with all of you as we honor our heroes this weekend.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Margaret Sharra, a Real Piece of Work !
Just how vindictive and manipulative can this woman get? There is no room for personal agendas on town boards and as an employee of the town, she's an embarrassment to her position and the town as well.
Accusations are flying on the town’s planning board.
One member has received a vote of no confidence in the wake of the board’s decision to allow the owner of a town gravel pit to run an asphalt plant at the same location.
Now, it’s up to the town’s selectmen to decided if they will consider removing planning board member Kim Gordon from office.
Gordon was the sole member to vote against Mitchell Sand and Gravel’s asphalt plant application when it was approved Jan. 3., because it was an incomplete application and many questions about this plant had not been answered.
She is under fire for her decision to submit a sworn statement as part of a lawsuit filed by abutters to the planned plant against the town. She was contacted by the attorney representing the abutters and was asked to answer several questions or be subpoenaed to do so. Rather than be subpoenaed she agreed to answer questions in general but not to divulge any confidential information she had received as a Planning Board member. Other members of the board had also been contacted and spoke with the abutter's attorney; yet only Ms. Gordon has received Sharra's ire over this, how come?
In the affidavit, Gordon states board Chairman Margaret Sharra was incorrect when, on Feb. 7, she rejected an abutter’s motion to reconsider the vote, saying the board’s rules prohibited a reconsideration.
Gordon’s statement also suggests Sharra acted in bad faith.
“I believe that, as our Chairman, Margaret Sharra knew that our rules allow for reconsideration. She created our rules of procedure in 2009,” Gordon wrote in the affidavit.
In a letter to board members dated April 25, Sharra wrote she believes Gordon’s statement “is apparent of her thorough dislike for me. ... this dislike has created a toxic environment which has affected the board’s integrity and the functioning of the board.”
In the letter, Sharra also accuses Gordon of sharing confidential information with opponents of the asphalt plant, yet she provides no proof as the accusations are baseless.
At the end of the letter, Sharra moves for a vote of no confidence in Gordon.
The board passed the motion at its May 2 meeting. Members voted 3-yes ( Sharra, Beaman and Blodgett) one-no and one member abstained ( Jack Marsh was not in attendance )
Gordon was then asked to appear in non-public session at a meeting of of the selectmen this past Wednesday, May 11.
In a letter submitted to the selectmen at that meeting, Gordon’s lawyer, Joseph S. Hoppock of Keene, wrote that the board should “reject and dismiss what is nothing more than a foundationless, personal attack on Ms. Gordon by Ms. Sharra.”
But if the board does not dismiss the charges, he wrote, Gordon requests a public hearing under state law.
The lawsuit attempting to overturn the board’s decision on the asphalt plant, filed by Mary Ryan and James Will in Cheshire County Superior Court, was dismissed by Judge Marguerite L. Wageling on April 20 on the grounds that it was filed too long after the plant was approved.
This is just another attempt by Margaret Sharra to get her own way and to force her will on the board.She is upset with Ms. Gordon for other personal reasons as well regarding the Historical Distric Commision's ruling on her proposed Dollar Store on Main Street in the Historic District to which Ms. Gordon is a member.
If anyone needs to be removed from the Planning Board, it is our opinion that it be Ms. Sharra for her well documented conduct and malfeasance while acting as chairman which has resulted in the many lawsuits the town has faced in the past and will in the future if she remains on the board attempting to control decisions.
Accusations are flying on the town’s planning board.
One member has received a vote of no confidence in the wake of the board’s decision to allow the owner of a town gravel pit to run an asphalt plant at the same location.
Now, it’s up to the town’s selectmen to decided if they will consider removing planning board member Kim Gordon from office.
Gordon was the sole member to vote against Mitchell Sand and Gravel’s asphalt plant application when it was approved Jan. 3., because it was an incomplete application and many questions about this plant had not been answered.
She is under fire for her decision to submit a sworn statement as part of a lawsuit filed by abutters to the planned plant against the town. She was contacted by the attorney representing the abutters and was asked to answer several questions or be subpoenaed to do so. Rather than be subpoenaed she agreed to answer questions in general but not to divulge any confidential information she had received as a Planning Board member. Other members of the board had also been contacted and spoke with the abutter's attorney; yet only Ms. Gordon has received Sharra's ire over this, how come?
In the affidavit, Gordon states board Chairman Margaret Sharra was incorrect when, on Feb. 7, she rejected an abutter’s motion to reconsider the vote, saying the board’s rules prohibited a reconsideration.
Gordon’s statement also suggests Sharra acted in bad faith.
“I believe that, as our Chairman, Margaret Sharra knew that our rules allow for reconsideration. She created our rules of procedure in 2009,” Gordon wrote in the affidavit.
In a letter to board members dated April 25, Sharra wrote she believes Gordon’s statement “is apparent of her thorough dislike for me. ... this dislike has created a toxic environment which has affected the board’s integrity and the functioning of the board.”
In the letter, Sharra also accuses Gordon of sharing confidential information with opponents of the asphalt plant, yet she provides no proof as the accusations are baseless.
At the end of the letter, Sharra moves for a vote of no confidence in Gordon.
The board passed the motion at its May 2 meeting. Members voted 3-yes ( Sharra, Beaman and Blodgett) one-no and one member abstained ( Jack Marsh was not in attendance )
Gordon was then asked to appear in non-public session at a meeting of of the selectmen this past Wednesday, May 11.
In a letter submitted to the selectmen at that meeting, Gordon’s lawyer, Joseph S. Hoppock of Keene, wrote that the board should “reject and dismiss what is nothing more than a foundationless, personal attack on Ms. Gordon by Ms. Sharra.”
But if the board does not dismiss the charges, he wrote, Gordon requests a public hearing under state law.
The lawsuit attempting to overturn the board’s decision on the asphalt plant, filed by Mary Ryan and James Will in Cheshire County Superior Court, was dismissed by Judge Marguerite L. Wageling on April 20 on the grounds that it was filed too long after the plant was approved.
This is just another attempt by Margaret Sharra to get her own way and to force her will on the board.She is upset with Ms. Gordon for other personal reasons as well regarding the Historical Distric Commision's ruling on her proposed Dollar Store on Main Street in the Historic District to which Ms. Gordon is a member.
If anyone needs to be removed from the Planning Board, it is our opinion that it be Ms. Sharra for her well documented conduct and malfeasance while acting as chairman which has resulted in the many lawsuits the town has faced in the past and will in the future if she remains on the board attempting to control decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
