Swanzey Board nixes plan for store

Fire protection a sticking point; no Dollar General

By Garrett Brnger Sentinel Staff |

SWANZEY — A proposal for a Dollar General store was killed because of its fire protection plan.
The planning board voted Thursday night to deny Zaremba Group LLC’s application to build a Dollar General store at the corner of Cobble Hill Road and Route 10. Only Chairman Glenn W. Page supported the application.
The crucial issue was the proposed sprinkler system for the 9,100-square-foot building. The system called for relying on West Swanzey Water Co. Inc. to provide the water, but the company has refused, saying its system could not take the strain.
Although Zaremba Group attorney Silas B. Little 3rd argued West Swanzey Water was legally required to provide the property with fire protection, planning board Vice Chairman Scott Self replied that had yet to be determined. In the meantime, he said, Zaremba had failed to find an alternate plan.
“You’re in a position where you think you can force a private water company to hook up to your building, and maybe you can. I don’t know,” Self told Little. “But that sounds like it’s going to be a court battle and in the meantime you’re going to go ahead with your plans, but you should have an alternate in place providing that case does not go the way you plan.”
Board members referenced a letter dated May 8 from West Swanzey Water President Sally Brown that stated the water system could not support any more emergency fire protection systems. Based on this and a wariness over the system’s capabilities, Zaremba was told at the July 26 planning board meeting to provide another fire protection plan that did not rely on West Swanzey Water, such as a cistern.
Instead, Zaremba stuck with the sprinkler plan.
During Thursday night’s meeting, Michael J. Joanis, a fire protection engineer from Covenant Fire Protection, testified on behalf of Zaremba Group that when he tested the water pressure for the site it met all of the requirements for the sprinkler system.
Little argued under West Swanzey Water’s public utilities commission tariff, anyone in the company’s service area is entitled to water service and therefore the fire protection plan was valid.
Nothing beyond “anecdotal evidence” had been produced to prove adding Dollar General would be a burden to the system, he said.
“We have relied on both field data and filings with the public utilities commission, and I think they are entitled to a dignity and deference that far surpasses anecdotal or possible qualifications as to the ability of this West Swanzey Water Company to provide fire protection,” Little told the board.
Reached Thursday night, West Swanzey Water Co.’s Brown said adding Dollar General to the system would stress the system’s machinery too much since one of the pumps is more than 60 years old and does not work well.
Little said Brown had refused to meet with Dollar General or its engineers. Brown declined to answer when asked about Little’s comment.
Water supply was not the only thing board members knocked the plan for.
Several members continued to voice concerns about traffic safety issues they believed would arise by adding another driveway to the area.
Little said there was no basis for concern and that Zaremba’s traffic study showed no problems with the plan. An independent review of the traffic study requested by the board had also agreed on “all fundamental points,” he said.
Little also protested the suggestion that Zaremba pay for a sidewalk between Cobble Hill Road and Gomarlo’s Food and Circus.
The board’s selectmen’s representative, Nancy Carlson, disagreed with Little on all points and their exchanges became increasingly terse as the meeting drew on.
At one point, Little accused Carlson of having pre-judged the application because Carlson and the other selectmen had opposed the project’s driveway permit.
Although it denied Zaremba’s application, the planning board approved the subdivision of Stephen and Joan Pappas’ lot, where the project was to be located.
Little and other project representatives declined to comment on the decision.
Zaremba, a Cleveland-based land development company, has proposed several Dollar General projects in the area. One such proposal in Winchester was blocked three weeks ago when it failed to get a key variance from the town’s zoning board.
Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

Board of Selectmen Regular Minutes 8-1-12

Let's blow some more money; after all it isn't ours.

Planning Board Minutes 07-16-12

People are starting to realize that those entrusted to act in their best interests are not and are starting to get involved and hold those responsible for illegal actions accountable. Who's going to step up to the plate again in Winchester?

Group suing Antrim board 

By Kaitlin Mulhere Sentinel Staff

Group suing Antrim board ANTRIM — A month after a group of Antrim residents alleged the Board of Selectmen held illegal meetings, five residents have filed a lawsuit against the board claiming it violated the state’s Right to Know law.

In a lawsuit dated July 30, the plaintiffs allege that selectmen decided on the terms of a payment plan with a wind energy company in a series of secret meetings. Those meetings violate the Right to Know law’s requirements for posting notices of meetings in advance, preparing and posting meeting minutes, and properly using nonpublic sessions, according to the lawsuit.
On June 20, selectmen approved a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with Antrim Wind Energy. A subsidiary of Portsmouth-based Eolian Renewable Energy, Antrim Wind wants to build 10 wind turbines on Tuttle Hill.
The project is currently under the control of the N.H. Site Evaluation Committee because of its large size, about 30 megawatts.
The lawsuit states that “the conscious decision to exclude the public and to meet in secret rendered the Nov. 30 and June 20 public hearings meaningless,” and asks that the Hillsborough County Superior Court invalidate the PILOT agreement that was approved on June 20.
The lawsuit also asks for an injunction ordering selectmen to abide by the Right to Know law.
“This was not an oversight, this was not an isolated instance where the requisites of the statute were mistakenly overlooked,” the lawsuit reads. “These secret meetings were structured to exclude the public.”
The plaintiffs — Gordon Allen, Mary Allen, Charles Levesque, Janice Longood and Martha Pinello — are five of the seven residents who sent a letter on June 14 to selectmen requesting dates, time, public notices and minutes for any meetings between selectmen and Antrim Wind representatives.
In a letter dated June 19, the selectmen’s attorney Robert W. Upton 2nd responded to the June 14 letter listing five dates from February 2011 to April 2012 when selectmen and Antrim Wind representatives met to negotiate the PILOT agreement.
His letter states that RSA 72:74, which allows a town to enter into a PILOT agreement, “clearly contemplates that these kinds of negotiations would not occur in a public meeting” because confidential financial information was discussed.
The statute requires selectmen to hold a public hearing after the negotiations are complete so the public has an opportunity to question the PILOT agreement, according to Upton’s letter.
But the plaintiffs counter in the lawsuit that the private meetings do not state the provision of the Right to Know law that would have allowed the Board of Selectman to go into nonpublic sessions, and in fact, that there is no part of the nonpublic meeting requirements that would allow for discussion of a PILOT agreement.
Further, the plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that since the public could not attend meetings where details of the PILOT agreement were negotiated, members of the public had no opportunity to understand the subject matter at the two public hearings.
Upton could not be reached for comment this morning.
Levesque has previously said that he is not opposed to the wind farm, but that there is no doubt that the selectmen held illegal meetings.
Finally, the lawsuit claims that while the wind-turbine project falls under the jurisdiction of the state’s Site Evaluation Committee, tax assessing and the decision to enter into a PILOT agreement are the sole jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen.
The state committee is expected to reach a decision on whether the project is approved in the fall.
Kaitlin Mulhere can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1439, or kmulhere@keenesentinel.com

 

Oh so familar .. just change the name of the town

Madness must be stopped 

 

Perhaps a review of events might clarify the political turmoil in Marlborough: 1. The board was sued for violating RSA 91-A, the right to know law. This is the keystone law in maintaining open government.

2. It lost the case and, in a 52-page order, members were placed under injunction not to violate the law again. The selectmen were found guilty of several different instances of violating the law.
3. Almost the first words spoken by Selectman Johnny Northcott after that was “It was a slap on the wrist” and it would be “business as usual.”
4. The board is now being sued again for living up to Northcott’s comments, by again violating the law. This time they are accused of not providing public information, holding illegal meetings, mishandling town meeting requirements for implementation of petitioned articles, and improper release of 35 sealed, confidential documents.
The board members’ defense? They claim the plaintiff didn’t give the documents back, she read them, and is talking about the contents. The other violations have all been denied. Kill the messenger!

The truth? The documents were not marked confidential, the only way to tell they were confidential was to read them, and she has not mentioned the names of the nine people whose rights were violated.
She has asked the county attorney and Department of Justice how to handle the documents. They advised her to petition the court for instructions and she has done so.
So, to recap, we have selectmen who were tried in court and found guilty of breaking laws, then attempt to minimize the event in their comments in news media and to the public.
They are again accused of violating the law, this time facing contempt of court, and now they turn down a chance to stream live meetings to the public free, without cost to the public.
One would think that the board would welcome public exposure, but this refusal keeps their exposure to a minimum, something they seem to be striving for
.
Take a look at www.townhallstreams. com/locations/north-hampton-nh to see how North Hampton handles its openness in government issues.
I have personally experienced periods of 20 minutes of silence where the Marlborough board has shuffled files and papers around without explanation of what they were doing, without a word being said to the public.
North Hampton is open, has respect for the public, and there is never a doubt that they are doing their best to keep their citizens informed.
But, what is the saddest thing about the whole issue is that the board has been getting away with it. Only a few people try to hold them accountable, others just don’t care, and some seem to enjoy the rumor mongering that is going on.

Someone once said that you get the government you deserve. I think it is time for some more people to get involved to stop this “Marlborough madness.” ( substitute Winchester )

Attend meetings, write letters, make phone calls. Stop accepting unfounded rumors as truth, speak up against falsehoods.

The Right to Know law is not perfect. It is one of the few laws that requires that the public go directly to the courts for relief. It allows the budgeted town funds to be used to defend the people who violate the law.

But, remember that in the last case, it was the selectmen who were declared lawbreakers, not the plaintiffs. Contrary to rumors, the plaintiffs get nothing. In fact they have to put court costs up front, only being reimbursed when the court finds in their favor.

Let me emphasize that point, the selectmen were declared by a New Hampshire court to have violated the law, and the citizens of Marlborough had to pay for their court costs.

Now the selectmen are sued again and will have the benefit of using the public’s money again for their defense.

Yet I hear comments that the plaintiffs have cost the town money.

So, let me see if I have this right, the selectmen get a pass for violating the law, but the plaintiff gets the blame for protecting her rights?

When you figure out that logic please let me know.

ROBERT CAMERON
50 Oliver Road
Marlborough

This is what the BOS did not want to include in it's meeting minutes, that Jennifer Bellan went before them to complain of the inappropriate conduct of Margaret Sharra and how they covered it up as usual. Want to guess who the management of the sidewalk grant is she is talking about?

Inappropriate dealings in Winchester

  Winchester’s Planning Board seems to be willfully ignorant about the role of alternates on its board.

In direct opposition to the state law and the board’s own rules of procedure, an alternate (me) was initially blocked from participating in the deliberative session concerning the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts by the land use assistant, who was no longer a member of the planning board.

When I brought this procedural misstep to the attention of the selectmen, I was told, in essence, that I had nothing to complain about because I was ultimately allowed to speak that night.
Instead, the select board argued with me about my contention that Winchester should not be expected to pay for half of the Dunkin’ Donuts perimeter sidewalk when the town doesn’t have enough money for its own sidewalk project.
This deal was suggested by the land use assistant to the select board before the planning board could deliberate on the application. I was told by the select board that I was wrong in my assessment that taxpayer money was being used so a multimillion dollar company wouldn’t have to pay for its own sidewalk, because it would be part of the matching funds in the grant for the town’s sidewalk project.
I don’t think the town understands that grant money is taxpayer money.
Moreover, it is money with very clear rules about the application, deadlines to be met, how matching funds are procured, and how discrepancies between the projected cost and the actual costs are handled.
The management of the sidewalk project grant should be investigated.
Winchester cannot afford to have future state or federal money withheld because of prior mismanagement — and we definitely cannot afford to “sweeten” deals with multimillion dollar companies to bring them into town.
JENNIFER MARIE BELLAN
P.O. Box 3
Ashuelot

Official quits amid secrecy

Silence angers staff who sought probe

By Laura McCrystal / Monitor staff

August 2, 2012

 

The Hillsboro selectmen spent more than $46,000 in legal fees for an investigation of their town administrator that led to his resignation last month, according to the selectmen.
The investigation report about John Stetser's job performance will remain private as part of Stetser's resignation agreement, which the selectmen accepted last month.
While the selectmen said they hope the town will now move on from the four-month investigation, town employees have expressed anger over how the situation was handled.
Deputy town clerk and tax collector Denise DeForest spoke out at a selectmen's meeting last month, asking for "an apology for everything that's been going on for four years." And Wendy Brien-Baker, who resigned from her position as a town office clerk in May but has continued to work on a part-time basis, spoke to the Monitor about her frustration with the resignation agreement.
"Here we are with nothing," Brien-Baker said. "Nothing from it, other than him resigning. . . . And yes, he's resigned. But the truth is all under lock and key."

Four women seek inquiry

DeForest and Brien-Baker were among the four female town employees who requested an independent review of Stetser's job performance in February.
Their request did not list specific complaints against Stetser, who was hired as town administrator in 2008. The selectmen said at the time that the investigation would include allegations of sexual harassment and complaints about Stetser's management of personnel situations. They hired attorney Emily Rice of the Concord law firm Orr & Reno to interview town employees and elected officials.
Brien-Baker said she personally met with Rice for a five-hour interview during the investigation. She declined to discuss details of the sexual harassment allegations with the Monitor.
She said Stetser also began delegating his responsibilities to other employees when he began as the town's administrator, and the town office became a "chaotic, hostile work environment."
After working for the town for six years, Brien-Baker resigned in May. The investigation had continued for two months at that point, and she did not want to stay while it was unclear whether Stetser would keep his job.
"During the investigation there were actually sightings of him continuing the behavior that we've all reported. And also because of the investigation, all around town they were calling us names - 'whiny town office women.' "
Brien-Baker said she wished the selectmen had listened to complaints from town employees over the past few years. She said she and other employees only asked for an independent review of Stetser's job performance because the selectmen hadn't taken any action on their own.
Last November, Brien-Baker and four other employees submitted a written grievance to the selectmen about Stetser's management of a personnel issue involving then-Town Planner Shane O'Keefe. The grievance said Stetser had failed to acknowledge the employees' complaints.

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment allegations had also been brought to the selectmen beginning in 2010, Brien-Baker said. Russell Galpin, chairman of the selectmen, told the Monitor in March that he had previously been aware of sexual harassment complaints against Stetser. The selectmen believed at the time that they could not act without a first-hand account, he said, but had since learned "that was erroneous."
Galpin maintains that the independent investigation was necessary because the selectmen could not have conducted an unbiased review on their own. They needed a report that "could stand up in court" if it led to a lawsuit, he said.
Rice's investigation cost more than $38,000, Galpin said, although the selectmen had initially planned to spend about $20,000. He said the town paid an additional $8,000 to the town's attorney, Michael Donovan, for work related to the investigation and resignation. 

"When you start dealing with lawyers, it gets expensive," Galpin said.Galpin said the resignation agreement also helped avoid a lawsuit, which would have been much more expensive than the investigation.
Selectman Steven Venezia said while "the whole matter was unfortunate for all parties involved," the selectmen acted in the best interest of the town.
The selectmen said the separation agreement gave Stetser a few more days of paid leave than are in his contract and one extra month of health insurance. His resignation is effective Aug. 30 and does not include a cash settlement.
At the July selectmen's meeting when the selectmen accepted Stetser's resignation, DeForest told the selectmen she was disappointed that "this whole situation got off way too easy."
Galpin promised DeForest at the meeting that the board will handle similar issues more efficiently in the future. DeForest told him "that doesn't make it right."
"Shame on all of you," she said. "Shame on all of you."
Galpin said this week that the selectmen hope to schedule a meeting with town employees to "just have them sit down and say, 'Hey, look, this has been a big hassle and a lot of problems. Let's get back to working for the town of Hillsboro.' "

Seeking apology

Galpin said the selectmen accepted Stetser's resignation with an agreement not to disclose details of the investigation because it would "get it out of here, get it done with and let's move on."
Brien-Baker said she feels the town employees deserve an apology from the selectmen to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past four years, and she still feels the report should be made public.
"The four people that signed the request weren't even able to read the investigation that they requested," she said. "Instead, they make some settlement, make some promise to keep everything locked up. Who's it protecting?"
Galpin said only the selectmen, the town's attorney, Stetser and Stetser's attorney have read the investigation report.
Although he had initially wanted to publicize the report, Galpin said he changed his mind because the final agreement was "the most economical way to get out of it."
"I know I'm not noted for keeping my mouth shut, but on things like this you kind of have to," he said.
(Laura McCrystal can be reached at 369-3312 or lmccrystal@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @lmccrystal.)

BOS letter to Ewers regarding renovations in HDC

BOS Meeting Minutes 7-18-12

HDC Meeting Minutes 7-23-12

~  D R A F T  ~

Town of Winchester

Historic District Commission

Meeting Minutes

Monday, July 23, 2011

Attendance:  Mike Haman (Chairman), Gene Park, Matt Ambrogios, Sherman Tedford (Board of Selectman Ex Officio), Brian Moser (acting Planning Board alternate), Julia Ferrari; Alternates - Dennis Murphy III, Sheri Rowe. Absent:  Kim N. Gordon (Secretary & Planning Board); Public:  Mr. & Mrs. Joe Ewers, and Michael Willard.

Meeting opened at 7:00 pm. 

First order of business: Review of meeting minutes of 12-06-25.  Chair read the minutes.  M. Haman made the motion to accept the minutes as complete, but to include an excused absense for Julia Ferrari.  G. Park seconds.  3 Ayes, & 3 abstained.  Discussion about a full board and legally accepting the minutes.  

Second order of business:  BBR Bicycle Repair Shop & Skateboard Shop, Map 26/Lot 28 (144 Main Street, Winchester) sign application.  Mr. Burban is not present and it is noted that this is the second time.  He was contacted by the Land Use office regarding attend the meeting to discuss his signs.  The board discussed the Code Enforcement needs to enforce the signs violation.  B. Moser made a motion to have the Code Enforcement notify the owner that Ben Burman is in violation.  G. Parks seconds.  Discussion.  The Chairman will write a letter to the CEO.  All in favor.

Third order of business: Ken Cole, Map 28/Lot 44 (Main Street, Winchester).  The property owner has completely the proper application & submitted the fee.  The application includes drawings of siding and double hung vinyl windows.  B. Moser made a motion to approve the proposed changes.  No second.  S. Tedford recommended accepting the application as complete.  B. Moser withdrew his motion and amended his motion – to accept the application as complete. Discussion – about the lack of specificity in the application.  It is noted that the applicant is not in attendance at the meeting to answer questions.  G. Park second.  All in favor. 

B. Moser made a motion to accept the windows and the approval is contingent that the siding matches the original / matching siding.  S. Tedford seconded. Discussion.  M. Ambrogios said that it is the standard of the HDC to keep the original for historic integrity. J. Ferrari stated that this is correct and the board would like to see them keep the integrity of the historic value and the board continuing with the precedence of the board.  M Haman noted to the board that Mr. Cole has already started the replacement of the windows before getting an approval.  B. Moser & S. Tedford removed their motion.

G. Parks made the motion to keep the double hung windows as similar type & layout/size and the wood siding material as the original.  The information on the application is too vague.  The Chairman confirms that he visited the site before coming to the meeting and that the owner has begun replacing the original double hung windows with a new size and design.  J. Ferrari seconds the motion.  Discussion: S. Tedford feels that the motion is too vague and needs more specificity.  Questions about matching the existing siding.  G. Park amended his motion to include match existing wood siding.  J. Ferrari approved amendment.  Discussion:  Mr. Cole should come before the board to discuss and give clarification as to why he began construction on his home, before coming before the board for approval.  Energy efficiency in wood windows.  S. Tedford would like the owner to come before the board if he has any questions.  All in favor.  The Chairman will draft a letter to the owner for the board. 

Fourth order of business:  Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Ewers, Map 19 / Lot 16 (369 Back Ashuelot Road, Ashuelot)  The Chairman read a letter to the board that he wrote to the Building Inspector on Monday, July 16^th berating the Inspector for issuing the permit before it came before the board, enlight of the fact that it does not match the original historic integrity.  The Land Use office issued the Ewers a building permit to renovate a barn within the historic district. 

J. Ewers came before the board to explain the construction project.  The original was a free standing structure (not attached to the house, but through the roof).  He presented a power point presentation to the board.  The roofline is now above the original roof line for water tightness.  The original roof line in not square / plumb nor the ability to join the new construction to the old structure.  The original was slate on top of wood shakes on the front of the building and asphalt on the back of the structure.  M. Haman states that he is in disagreement that the building cannot be built to match the existing roof line. 

J. Ewers stated that M. Willard received the permit from L. Austin.  The original building permits are vague.  The application is not the same as the building permit.  The owners did not know that they were in the historic district, but the Land Use office did not inform them.  Mr. Nigh checked off that it was in the HDC and Mr. Austin wrote a note stating that it was a renovation.  June 4^th was the date when the building permit was issued.  Mr. Nigh was told that they were good to go on the start of their construction.

After a lengthy discussion with the owners, B. Moser notes that the board has a problem.  It is obvious from the documentation that the original permit issued to the homeowners/contractor is not the same as the document that was submitted to the HDC.  There are several notes that were not part of the original permit.  Clearly it was added after it was issued.  The problem appears that after the fact - the Land Use office doctored the permit.  The owner also pointed out that the LUO noted that there was to be one site inspection.  It was noted on the permit that he inspected the pouring of the foundation on June 5^th.  No work had been completed at that time.

B. Moser has several issues that he is concerned about.  The owners should have known that they were in the historic district.  The bigger issue is the original building permit that was issued to the owners is clearly not the same as the permit being presented by town hall.  Several things were filled out at town hall that are highly questionable.  J. Ewers stated that Mr. Nigh was told that the Building Inspector was going to touch base with M. Haman with the HDC and was not given a letter of permission from the HDC. 

S. Tedford would like for the HDC to bring forth this issue to the Board of Selectman to deal with.  B. Moser made a motion that the HDC should defer to the BOS about the doctored documents.  S. Tedford seconds.  Discussion.  Does Mr. Austin know that this home is within the historic district commission?  Clearly.  Mr. Nigh was instruction about filling out the form, and informed that Mr. Austin would contact the Chairman of the HDC and was then given permission to begin construction.  M. Haman reiterates that Mr. Austin informed him that he had issued a building permit to the Ewers and that they planned to retain the historical integrity. 

The Chairman reminds the board that the LUO has issued a “cease and desist” order on the construction.  B. Moser would like to resolve the issue immediately.  S. Tedford reminds the board that the BOS can lift the order, but this is also an employee issue.  The board recommended that the Ewers put a tarp over the project until the Board of Selectman have had an opportunity to go before the board.  All in favor.   The Ewers were advised to attend the BOS meeting on Wednesday, June 25^th.  L. Ewers asked if they should be proactive and have elevations drawn for the next HDC meeting.  The Chair advised that it was not necessary at this time.  The Chair will contact the Ewers if the BOS schedules their issue at the next meeting. 

Fifth order of business: Old or new business.  J. Ferrari updated on the signs – the signs are now made and ready to install.  The board discussed the locations to install the signs.  G. Park will confirm that the property owners will allow the installation of the signs.  J. Ferrari & G. Park will request the Town Hall will issue a standard letter to the D.O.T. that they will be responsible for the maintainence of the signs.  There are two signs for Ashuelot & two for Winchester.  There was a discussion about locations. 

B. Moser made a motion to adjourn.  S. Tedford seconded.  All in favor.   Meeting adjourned at 8:22 pm. The next board meeting will be held on Monday, August 27, 2012 at 7 pm. 

Minutes approved on:

Minutes respectfully submitted by: 

Kim N. Gordon, HDC Secretary

Michael Haman, HDC Chairman

Doesn't This Sound Familar?

Selectmen overstep their authority

 

Lately, we’ve seen the articles about the troubled select board in Marlborough.

For those who need to be brought up to speed, a few of the residents of Marlborough sued the select board as they believed they were violating the states Right To Know law. That’s the law assuring open government for the citizens.
We have a right to know just what they are or plan on doing. Pretty simple if you ask me. Especially in small-town government of only three select board members. The citizens must provide for the checks and balances we have in larger levels of government.
I was not one of the citizens involved in the suit.
Well, the short story is the decision was found in favor of the citizens who brought the suit. The judge wrote 52 pages of decision and enjoining the select board from further violations. It is the largest win of a Right to Know suit in New Hampshire.
If it took me a half-hour to finalize this one page, that’s 26 hours of writing by a judge and his staff. Not a minor slap on the wrist by any accord.
Several citizens, myself included, wanted a good way to help the select board. Preventing the possibility of questions from the citizens of Marlborough if the board is again violating their rights. We offered, at no cost to the town, a video system including all video and network equipment to stream public meetings via the Internet. This would allow all citizens of Marlborough the possibility to watch these meetings live or at a later date and time.
We even learned there is a sub-website of YouTube called CitizenTube.com for just this purpose. It does not include advertising that may complicate town positions from assumed endorsements.
Now, I understand the select board, and in particular Mrs. Harris and Mr Northcott voiced reservations if those involved in the offer had the prerequisite knowledge and skills. For what it’s worth, I am a senior network engineer for a major Massachusetts university system and Internet service provider.
Typically, my time through a service provider would bill at $250 per hour. I have been doing this job since 1978. I know my craft.
During a public meeting on July 9, the board dismissed this offer summarily and without any discussion.
As they held no discussion on the offer, they never learned the level of free expertise they were being offered. This is not the first time I have volunteered my time and skills to the town, and also had those offers summarily dismissed by the select board.
I need to ask why. What are you afraid of?
I have lived in Marlborough for about four years now. I want to be a part of my town and help it be the best place to live — anywhere. I need to ask the other citizens of Marlborough a question. Do you realize the select board is, by virtue of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, working at your will?
Because I don’t believe they are. It has been my observation the select board is prone to summary dictatorial decisions.
Rest assured, I will again vote for someone willing to change the status quo in Marlborough. Because it needs to change and soon.
JIM PHILOPENA
265 Frost Hill Road
Marlborough


Hope this sinks in  and people here in Winchester realize that we have the same problems here. That our own BOS was also taken to court and was reprimanded for violating the "Right To Know Law"  several years ago and they are right back at it again, There's only one reason to hide information from the public; wrong doings.Does another lawsuit have to be filed here again?

Winchester Nixes Dollar Store

WINCHESTER — A proposed Dollar General store in Winchester is dead in the water after it failed to get a key variance.

The town zoning board voted unanimously at its Thursday night meeting to deny the Zaremba Group LLC’s application to waive a maximum size requirement for the store. Board members said the proposal’s size was incompatible with the rest of the district.

The proposed site is in the central commercial district on Main Street, where the maximum footprint for a building is 5,000 square feet. The proposed Dollar General is 9,030 square feet.

Zaremba Group is the Cleveland-based land development company that has been working on several Dollar General proposals in the region, all of similar size.

The board voted 4-0 to deny the application. Board member John E. Pasquarelli, who is also a member of the town’s Revitalization/Economic Development Commission, abstained from voting.

According to the town’s zoning ordinance, the 5,000-square-foot limit is imposed “to maintain the visual character and architectural scale of existing development in the downtown.”

The proposed plans show the building sitting approximately 93 feet back from the road. Parking would be along the side of the lot and around the back of the building. Aside from the driveway, much of the 155-foot-long roadside edge would be landscaped.

Although board members said the proposal was attractive and might even improve the look of the downtown, it was the building size that was the problem.

Zaremba Group attorney Silas Little unsuccessfully argued that the proposal should receive a variance based on the ratio of the building’s size to that of the nearly 5-acre lot it sits on.

“The vast majority” of other businesses in the district fail to meet the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and occupy between 19 and 89 percent of their respective lots, according to Little’s calculations.

Since the Dollar General would occupy only about 4 percent of its lot, the project would be less dense than other businesses in the central commercial district and should qualify for the variance, Little said.

Board member Kenneth A. Cole disagreed. The purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the character of the downtown, not to determine the lot’s density, he said.

The site could be “200,000 square feet, 400,000 square feet, a half a mile; you’d still be limited to that 5,000 square-foot limit,” Cole said.

The size argument also failed because of the lot’s shape. Five acres looks impressive on paper, but much of that land comes from the lot’s depth, which extends well over 1,000 feet into the woods. The roadside frontage is only 155 feet.

“This is the shape of the lot,” Fox said, holding up a nameplate.

Before voting, the selectmen ran through a checklist of conditions under which the board could grant a variance: the variance would not be contrary to public interest, the spirit of the ordinance is observed, substantial justice is done, the value of surrounding properties is not diminished, and literal enforcement would cause an unnecessary hardship.

Aside from agreeing that surrounding properties would not suffer, the board found no reason to grant a variance, and the project’s fate was sealed.

This is not the first time the proposal has seemingly hit a wall.

The lot at 71 Main St. the Zaremba Group wants to use for the store is currently occupied by the Wheaton-Alexander House. The 200-year-old house is part of the town’s historic district and requires the Historic District Commission’s permission to be demolished.

The commission denied the group’s application in July of last year, but Zaremba appealed to the zoning board, which reversed the decision in October. A request for a rehearing was rejected.

As a result, a group of five residents and local grocery store, Kulick’s Inc. petitioned Cheshire County Superior Court for an injunction in December. Their petition was denied in May.

And even if Zaremba had received a variance, it would have still had to get its building design approved by the Historic District Commission, the same group it that turned it down the first time.

In the town hall parking lot after the meeting, Zaremba Development Manager Matt Casey said he did not know the next move was. The developers would need to discuss the decision with Dollar General before determining a course of action, he said.

“It’ll be up to them,” Casey said.

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

Celebration of Life for Dan Carr

Today, Saturday, July 21st, there will be a send off celebration for Dan Carr, poet and visionary, 

starting at 2:00 p.m. at the Cathedral of the Pines, Hill House, 10 Hale Hill Road, Rindge, NH 03461.

We will be celebrating his life and work, reading his poetry and remembering him.

We will be having light refreshments afterward in a nearby picnic area under the pines.

We look forward to seeing you, if you can attend.

Thank you.

Love to you all.

Julia Ferrari

In Winchester, Budget relief

WINCHESTER — The purse strings have been officially loosened, and the town of Winchester can now spend the money its voters approved.

A letter from the Department of Revenue Administration read aloud at Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting said the state agency would comply with a court order to allow the town to spend the nearly $3.9 million of its spending plan. This includes every warrant article voters approved earlier this year.

The department had disallowed $418,956 of the town’s plan this year because its spending limit was exceeded when appropriations for the water and sewer departments were added in after a budget deadline.

The response comes after a long wait. The court’s decision was announced at the June 27 selectmen’s meeting, the day after Town Administrator Joan C. Morel sent a letter to the department notifying it of the court’s decision.

Selectmen Chairwoman Roberta Fraser said after the June meeting that agency officials had assured the town they would comply, but the three-week wait for those assurances appears to have caused some trepidation among board members.

While waiting for the department’s response, selectmen voted on July 11 to curtail town purchases. They also refrained from signing an agreement for services for the ELMM Community Center or paying it the money voters had approved. Any checks the board had written for expenses approved in warrant articles, in anticipation of the state’s response, were locked up in the safe.

Morel said that after Wednesday’s meeting the board has returned to its regular purchasing policies, and the contract with the center has been signed. The board also approved sending out the checks for money appropriated in warrant articles.

The state department’s director of municipal services, Barbara J. Robinson, wrote that the delay was due to the “highly unusual circumstance.”

The town’s budget crisis was the result of a dispute between the town’s selectmen and budget committee over water and sewer department funding.

When selectmen removed the departments’ funding from the town operating budget and introduced the spending as separate warrant articles, the committee recommended not funding them. Then-committee Chairman Brian D. Moser said this had been a form of protest against the selectmen’s move.

Because Winchester is an official-ballot town with a municipal budget committee, the Department of Revenue Administration establishes a limit to the amount its voters can approve: adding 10 percent to the budget committee’s recommendation.

The committee soon changed its recommendation to include $537,802 for water and sewer, but the state department used the panel’s earlier recommendations, and the original zero-dollar amount was binding. With more than half a million dollars in water and sewer funding missing from the equation, the spending limit was lowered dramatically — to $418,956 below what voters approved.

As a result, the department reconciled the difference by cutting funding for all of the town’s warrant articles — except the water and sewer departments, whose funding was allowed because it’s vital to town operations — as well as more than $170,000 from the operating budget.

Some of the warrant articles include $50,000 for the ELMM Community Center, $28,000 for the Evergreen Cemetery Care Fund, $56,000 for the police youth aid officer and $50,000 for the Conant Library maintenance and repair fund.

This caused selectmen to take legal action against the budget committee. Their dispute was resolved with a consent decree in which the board and committee say neither actually intended the original zero-dollar appropriation to be the official recommendation.

Cheshire County Superior Court Judge William J. Groff signed the decree on June 21 and ordered the spending limit be recalculated to just over $4 million.

The budget incident did have some lasting effects. Because of the uncertainty surrounding its funding, the ELMM center had to scale back its summer programs by cutting the entire adventure program and also removing the weekly field trips from its day camp.

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.

In Winchester, a Dunkin’ Donuts plan is rejected

WINCHESTER — A proposal for a Dunkin’ Donuts at the corner of one of the town’s busiest intersections is dead for now after the planning board voted to deny its application.

S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. LLC’s application for a combination gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts at the intersection of routes 10 and 78 was rejected on the grounds of traffic concerns and the belief it overwhelmed the proposed site.

According to corporate filings with the state, S.S. Baker’s Realty is managed by Teofilo Salema, the owner of five other Dunkin’ Donuts, in Keene, Swanzey and Hinsdale.

The 3,265-square-foot, single-story proposed project includes a convenience store, six gasoline pumps and a drive-through Dunkin’ Donuts. Planning board Chairman Dean Beaman said the project met all of the board’s requirements, but board members spoke at length about their concerns with traffic and the size of the lot.

After almost 40 minutes of discussion, Beaman’s motion to approve the application failed 4-3.

Board member Kim N. Gordon then made a motion to deny the application, which she said “overwhelms the site and does not adhere to best design standards.”

“He’s trying to put three businesses into a postage stamp lot,” said Gordon, who added she would be fine with having only the Dunkin’ Donuts.

Fellow board member Jack Marsh Jr. added his traffic concerns to Gordon’s motion. Marsh said he was worried about the left turn out of the site along Route 10, parking along the shoulder of Route 10’s northbound lane and an overflow of traffic for the drive-through onto Route 78.

The motion to deny the application passed 4-2, with Larry Hill abstaining. Hill said although he agreed with some of the points in the motion, he did not understand other parts.

Salema and his land use agent, James P. Phippard from Brickstone Land Use Consultants LLC, left the meeting immediately following the decision.

Salema said he was disappointed, but declined to say more.

“There’s just so much I want to say, it’s not even worth it,” Salema said.

During the meeting it was clear whom he believed was responsible for the rejection, though.

When Gordon made her motion to deny the application, Marsh advised her to include her own reasoning within her motion. Salema, who was sitting in the audience, supplied one for her.

“Kulick’s,” he said.

During the course of the public hearing, the project received opposition from local grocery store Kulick’s Inc. through its attorneys. Kulick’s is less than a mile away from the proposed site on Route 78 and also operates gas pumps in the plaza where it’s located.

Owner Stanley S. Plifka Jr. said this morning he was happy about the board’s decision.

Plifka said he was not opposed to having a Dunkin’ Donuts in town, but thought it should stand alone, without the gas pumps.

“We need industry and not duplication,” said Plifka, who had previously spoken against adding a third set of gas pumps to the area surrounding the intersection.

In addition to Kulick’s gas pumps, there is also a gas station at the southwest corner of the intersection, diagonally across from the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts. Another gas station and convenience store is located in the center of town, just over a half-mile north on Route 10.

Salema and Phippard said after the meeting that they need to speak with their attorney before acting.

Phippard said they could appeal the decision to Superior Court, request the planning board reconsider its decision or re-file their application.

“That’s all allowed, but I don’t know what we’re going to do,” Phippard said.

Garrett Brnger can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or gbrnger@keenesentinel.com.