Revenue fall forces N.H. spending freeze

CONCORD, N.H. -- A sharp springtime drop in revenue has shaved the state’s budget surplus to less than $4 million and Gov. Maggie Hassan said Wednesday she will seek a freeze on hiring, equipment purchases and out-of-state travel.
Hassan will ask the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee to approve her requests, as other governors have done.
In a letter to the committee, Hassan said a $25 million budget surplus in March had nearly evaporated by the end of April to $3.9 million. The shortfall mostly comes from a decrease in the amount collected through business taxes and the interest and dividend tax. April collections were $22 million below expected.
"The Department of Revenue Administration will need further data and further analysis to determine whether this is a short-term drop or a long-term trend," Hassan wrote in her request to the committee. "But given the limited information, we should act prudently, responsibly, and expeditiously to continue to ensure a balanced budget."
Hassan said changes in the tax code and more businesses applying for tax credits are factors in the decrease. Legislators are also hashing out how to manage a looming change in the amount the state collects in the Medicaid Enhancement Tax, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two judges. The tax produces about $185 million annually.
The governor will ask Legislature and judiciary to also consider a spending freeze. Agency spending can still be approved by waiver.
Hassan did not set a target for savings or say how much she thinks the freeze could save.
The state has a $10.7 billion, two-year budget.
Senate President Chuck Morse, a Republican from Salem, said Hassan’s request was overdue but he characterized the issue as a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
"As announced last week, Senate Finance Chairman Jeanie Forrester will continue to work with the departments to evaluate their spending and lapse positions for the current fiscal year in order to prepare legislative leaders should events necessitate additional legislative action," Morse said.
Democrats also supported the freeze request.
"An executive order directing a freeze in general funded hiring, equipment, purchasing and out-of-state travel is the prudent and responsible action to ensure a balanced budget for the biennium," said Senate Democratic Leader Sylvia Larsen of Concord.
Former Gov. John Lynch initiated a spending freeze in 2008 when revenue fell some $75 million below estimates.

So what's wrong with the bozos that run our town, don't they get it? Since 2008, they've been handing out raises and performance bonuses year after year and spending like a bunch of drunken sailors while Rome burns and just like the State, some businesses in this town don't pay their fair share or even pay at all, putting more burden on the citizens to carry the load.

Changes proposed for Winchester's historic district regulations

Posted: Monday, May 5, 2014 12:00 pm

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — The way the town preserves its historic buildings is getting another look.
The Winchester Historic District Commission has unveiled a set of proposed regulations that members hope will better define what can and can’t be done to homes and businesses in the town’s two historic districts. It’s the second plan in less than six months.

The new proposed regulations, which were discussed at a public hearing last week, are less detailed and extensive than the ones the commission presented late last year. The commission withdrew that version at a public hearing in January.

Commission Chairman Denis V. Murphy 2nd said this morning that residents attending the hearing last week offered a number of comments about the newest proposal, and commission members will consider that input as they continue to hash out the regulations, which will take some time.

The two biggest points residents made at the hearing were that the proposed regulations weren’t extensive enough, and some areas needed clarification, Murphy said.

The proposal includes a series of guidelines and rules property owners are required either to take under advisement or follow when making changes to the outside of their homes and some other parts of their property.

For example, the removal or alteration of historic features should be avoided, and deteriorating historic features should try to be repaired rather than replaced. When it isn’t possible to repair a historic feature, then the replacement should match the design and color of it, where possible.

The document also includes a clause outlining under what conditions a building can be demolished in the historic districts.

Requests for razing “shall be based on structural integrity and building code defects, and must include a report from a licensed architect or professional engineer, or contractor with (the) appropriate level or experience,” according to the proposed regulations.

The commission has come under scrutiny in recent years for enforcing an ordinance that some believe is too extensive and creates hardship for property owners. Things came to a boiling point in 2011 when the commission denied a request to demolish a roughly 200-year-old house at 71 Main St. to make way for a Dollar General.

The property 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.

A petition warrant article filed in December, around the same time the historic district commission unveiled its first version of proposed regulations, sought to abolish the Winchester Historic District Ordinance.

The two historic districts were created by voters at town meeting in 1997.

One district covers 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 other covers a section of Ashuelot Main Street, and Old Hinsdale and Back Ashuelot roads.

The ordinance also created a commission to oversee the districts and enact and enforce regulations in them.

The petition warrant article to abolish the ordinance included the signatures of members of the Sharra and Shannon families.

It failed, 350-296, at town meeting in March.

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

IMPORTANT HDC MEETING .. Monday April 28th at 7 p.m.

The Historical District Committee met this past Monday night to discuss and vote on accepting new guidelines regulating what can and can not be done to existing as well as new proposed homes and businesses in the Winchester Historic Districts. Chairman Dennis Murphy's oversight ( deliberate? ) of not posting this upcoming meeting on the Kiwanis billboard in the center of town has left many scratching their heads as to why the chairman of this board acted in this manner. Was he afraid of public input as the new regulations adopted, written by none other than Margaret Sharra and the previous chairman, Michael Hammond, which are very loosely drawn up and very questionable and permits just about anything the hand selected board approves.

Take a very close look at the wording of regulations J - M .. ( someone should have used spell check )

Historic District Guidelines

The Historic District Commission goal is not to freeze the past by bringing everything back to a particular time period, but to blend old and new while managing change and growth, and allowing property owners a reasonable/economical use of their property. It is important to cherish and renovate historic properties, as they are assets to our town.

1. The historical, architectural or cultural value of structure’s relationship to the surrounding area is a primary consideration.
2. The compatibility of exterior design/materials/layout is looked at in the surrounding area.
3. The scale and general size of the buildings in the surrounding area is used in decisions. Including roof types, facade openings, setbacks, etc.
4. The overall setting, lighting, parking, fencing, driveways, signage, landscaping is noted to protect against the negative effects to the character of structures in the surrounding area.

Principles:

1. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features that characterize a property shall be avoided.
2. Deteriorated historic features will try to be repaired rather than replaced. When it is not possible, replacement shall match the design and color where possible.
3. Additions, accessory structures and new work shall be compatible with the existing size, features and details of the building.
4. Skylights, solar panels, dormers, antennas, and like should be placed as not to detract from historic features. When possible they should be placed in the rear of the structure.
5. Fencing is to be compatible and contribute to the surrounding area. Design, materials and height is to be consistent with the area.
6. Recreation facilities are dependant on the degree of visibility and to be placed compatible to the surrounding area.
7. Signs that are backlit, neon or flashing are prohibited. All signs will conform to the Town of Winchester sign ordinance. The design, placement, material and color will be compatible with the structure and surrounding area.
8. Retention of stonewalls and healthy un-obstructive trees are encouraged to remain.
9. Parking areas, driveways, walkways will be designed and of materials similar to the surrounding area.
10. New construction should contribute to the surrounding area. New designs can add character and depth to the district. New construction does not have to match. Height, roof forms, materials, shapes of doors and windows, and façade elements.    However they do not have to be original materials but the materials have to match. They should blend/complement with the surrounding area.
11. A non historic structure in the historic district will not be held to these listed standards, but any exterior changes would be required to blend with the existing structure and not negatively affect surrounding historic structures.
12. Any structure in the historic district that is not historic or a historic structure with many (previous) non historic alterations cannot be mandated to make historic changes to the property that are not part of the application. The commission may ask the applicant when renovating a non historic component of a structure to make it more historic but it cannot be a requirement.
13. Demolition of a structure is not a preferable option, if replacement construction would be a better fit in the surrounding area. Per HDC Ordinance 5(a) which states; “Regulated Activities – It is unlawful for any person to construct, alter, repair, move or demolish any building, structure, or improvement which lies within the Historic Districts without first obtaining a Certificate Of Approval from the Historic District Commission”. If it is determined that it is not economically feasible to rehabilitate the building due to defects. Requests for demolition shall be based on structural integrity and building code defects and must include a report from a licensed architect or professional engineer, or contractor with appropriate level of experience that have to approved by both parties. The report shall include the costs of rehabilitation of the structure and evidence the existing building is incapable of producing a reasonable economic return on the investment or whereas the cost exceeds a reasonable end result value.
14. Relocation of a structure is not an ideal solution, but it is considered an alternative to demolition. Relocation of a structure is preferred to another area in the Historic District. 

It is obvious this was a rush job and catering to those who signed the petition to abolish the HDC and an attempt to keep the public from commenting at the meeting. We now have another board in town with no leadership or transparency. How is this good for the town?

Changes made to Winchester housing project

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — As a local agency continues to seek funding to make improvements to a roughly 40-year-old housing development, it has scaled back its original plans.
Keith F. Thibault, chief development officer for Southwestern Community Services, said Thursday that after being unable to secure competitive tax credits last fall, officials decided to change the scope of the project from rebuilding 30 units at the Wedgewood development to renovating them.

Southwestern Community Services, based in Keene, is a nonprofit organization that develops much of the Monadnock Region’s low-income housing. It doesn’t own Wedgewood, but is slated to purchase it from Keene Housing after the project is complete.

The project, which is expected to start in September, will be done over three phases, and involves renovating five duplexes at a time, Thibault said.

The complex, which was built in the 1970s, has 15 duplexes.

Renovations will include gutting and updating the inside of each duplex, and drainage improvements, as water flows toward the buildings now instead of away from them, Thibault said.

“It’s a major renovation almost to the level of restoration,” he said.

The first phase of the project is estimated to take about three months, and the entire endeavor is expected to take roughly a year, he said.

As each renovation takes place, most families living at Wedgewood will be relocated to open housing units on the site, he said. They will then be allowed to return to their homes when the renovations are complete, he said.

To move people around the complex, housing units are not being filled as people living at Wedgewood move out, he said.

The change in plans will drop the cost of the project from about $6 million to about $4 million, Thibault said.

Southwestern is working with Keene Housing on the project, and will rename it Woodcrest when the agency buys it, he said.

On Tuesday, the N.H. Community Development Finance Authority announced that Winchester will receive a $500,000 Community Development Block Grant to help make infrastructure, safety and energy improvements to Wedgewood housing.

Thibault said his agency is in the process of securing non-competitive tax credits to help fund the remainder of the project.

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

Fitzwilliam selectmen will not appeal local quarry ruling to the N.H. Supreme Court

FITZWILLIAM — Selectmen will not appeal a court order banning the town from regulating a plan to reopen a quarry that’s a stone’s throw from people’s homes.
And they aren’t saying how or why they reached their decision Monday night.

“Ultimately the board thought it was in the best interest of the town not to appeal to the (N.H.) Supreme Court,” town attorney Steven Whitley said Tuesday. “As far as how it got to that decision, I unfortunately can’t divulge the underlying legal strategy.”

Cheshire County Superior Court Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. ruled last month that Aaron E. Olson of Rindge doesn’t need town officials’ approval to mine the Webb Hill Quarry his company owns. Rather, only state land use officials need give KMO Associates LLC the OK to mine granite from the 121-acre property, according to Kissinger.

The long-dormant quarry is nestled in the heart of Fitzwilliam’s residential district, between Webb Hill Road and East Lake Road. It is about a half-mile from Laurel Lake, which residents fear could be among the natural resources at risk should KMO be allowed to mine. Residents say mining will threaten Fitzwilliam’s water quality, and bring noise, dust and heavy truck traffic.

KMO filed a civil lawsuit against Fitzwilliam in May 2013, claiming the company doesn’t need to file a mining application with the town because New Hampshire mining laws supersede Fitzwilliam’s zoning ordinances.

Town officials disagreed. They said KMO prematurely sought the court’s assistance in its efforts to remove granite from Webb Hill Quarry.

KMO never filed a site plan application with the town, so Fitzwilliam officials could not make a decision in the matter, and, therefore, never acted unlawfully to prevent KMO from using its property, town officials maintained in court documents.

Kissinger sided with KMO. The town, though, is not prohibited from taking part in the state regulatory process, he ruled.

The March order is a win for Olson and KMO, whose efforts to change Fitzwilliam’s zoning ordinances overwhelmingly failed at town meeting in March 2013.

KMO’s petition warrant article sought to make quarry reclamation — which it defined as taking already-cut stone — a new and permitted use in the town’s residential district, but it failed in a 455-129 vote.

Voters spoke loud and clear when they defeated the warrant article, abutter Wesley C. Whitham said Tuesday. But now, the selectmen are going against the wishes of the townspeople by not appealing Kissinger’s ruling, he said.

“I think the decisions of our selectmen are really in question. We want the selectmen to fight for our zoning.”

Whitham was among the residents who circulated a petition over the weekend, calling upon selectmen to appeal Kissinger’s order. The petition was created by the Concerned Citizens of Fitzwilliam, a group of residents that formed last year in response to KMO’s interest in reopening the quarry.

About 42 people signed the petition at his request, but additional copies are still out there, Whitham said.

The petition reads: “In order to protect the health and welfare of the people of Fitzwilliam and the integrity of our community, we the undersigned request that the Board of Selectmen appeal the recent court decision regarding the reopening of the Webb Quarry.”

Whitham presented the petition to selectmen at their meeting Monday. The meeting provided a second chance for residents to speak to Kissinger’s order; the first meeting was held April 14.

Members of the town’s planning board also requested a joint session with selectmen Monday to seek clarification on various aspects of Kissinger’s order, including his interpretation of the state mining law, Vice Chairman Macreay J. Landy said. Landy said Kissinger’s decision could nullify town zoning laws about mining and excavation on the books.

“The planning board wanted (selectmen) to appeal,” Landy said. “The ruling ties the hands of Fitzwilliam in terms of enforcing any of our local regulations that might pertain to quarrying.”

Landy said he’s disappointed in the outcome of the case, but it’s hard to understand what went wrong and where the town goes from here.

“I think we’re afraid it opens Pandora’s box,” he said.

However, selectmen believe the lawsuit has reached its conclusion and will not appeal to the state’s highest court, Whitley said.

“The town was disappointed by the decision. The town felt that it had made very sound arguments, but the court was not persuaded,” he said. “The town is not happy about the court’s decision, but we’ll abide by it and honor it.”

The selectmen’s decision to stop the fight has angered some residents and left them with unanswered questions.

Resident Coni Porter said she’s bewildered that the selectmen aren’t fighting the lower court’s ruling.

“I’m appalled and very disturbed that the selectmen are going to let this pass without appealing, or at least asking for clarification. It seems that the town’s lawyers are just laying down,” Porter said. “I can’t help but think, ‘Do the selectmen know something we don’t know?’ ”

Porter is a graphic designer and artist who owns and operates a home business. She said she’s concerned about what the future may hold for her property and that of others near the quarry if it’s mined.

Selectmen declined to comment about their decision Tuesday, referring all questions to the town’s attorney.

What happens now depends in large part on how KMO decides to proceed and what it envisions for its property, Whitley said.

KMO’s attorney, Thomas R. Hanna of Keene, said in an interview last week that KMO will apply for a state mining permit to reopen Webb Hill Quarry.

Alyssa Dandrea can be reached at 352-1234,
extension 1435, or adandrea@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter
@ADandreaKS.

Winchester awarded $500,000 grant for housing

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — A project to preserve affordable housing in town just got a boost from a federal grant.
The N.H. Community Development Finance Authority announced Tuesday that Winchester will receive a $500,000 Community Development Block Grant to help Southwestern Community Services of Keene acquire and improve 15 duplexes that make up the Wedgewood housing complex.

Southwestern Community Services, a nonprofit organization that develops much of the Monadnock Region’s low-income housing, is proposing a roughly $6 million project to rebuild the 1970s development owned by the Keene Housing Authority.

The housing authority is working with Southwestern on the project; once it’s completed, the development will be sold to Southwestern and renamed Woodcrest, Keith F. Thibault, chief development officer for Southwestern Community Services, said in August 2013.

The duplexes will be replaced with new two- and six-unit buildings, which will house 30 families.

Southwestern hopes to begin construction, which is expected to take about 18 months, this spring, Thibault said in August. Most of the development’s residents will have to be temporarily relocated during the construction, he said.

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

Winchester looking to turn gravel pit into business park

Posted: Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:00 am

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — The vision of town officials is for a cluster of businesses to fill a former gravel pit off Richmond Road.
Whether that vision can be made a reality is what town officials and a local economic development corporation hope to soon find out.

The Winchester Board of Selectmen agreed last week to let the town submit an application for $12,000 in Community Development Block Grant funding to support a feasibility study of building a business park on the roughly 44-acre site.

The property, which was taken by the town for unpaid taxes roughly four years ago, is behind Musterfield Cemetery and Musterfield Park. An access road connects the site to Richmond Road (Route 119).

Voters at town meeting a few years ago agreed to change the property’s zoning status from agricultural to commercial.

If the federal funding is approved, the study would include surveying residents about the business park proposal and building a community consensus; determining the total square footage that could be built on the site; and the cost of installing and connecting infrastructure such as roads and utilities, Mark Tigan, interim chairman of the Winchester Economic Development Corp., said Friday.

“This proposal has sort of been smoldering for over two years, and now seems to be gaining momentum and interest in part due to the improving economy and interest rates staying low,” he said.

The nonprofit development corporation is working with the selectmen and the Winchester Revitalization and Economic Development Committee on the project, which is being called the Stone Mountain Corporate Park for now.

The Community Development Training Institute of Worcester, Mass., is also assisting the town with the proposed project, according to a news release from the Winchester Economic Development Corp.

The idea for the park originated with the revitalization and economic development committee. But as a town committee, it’s limited in what it can do to the develop the property, Margaret A. Sharra, a member of the committee and Winchester land use administrator, said this week.

The Winchester Economic Development Corp. formed as a spin-off from the committee, and has since been at the forefront of trying to find ways to develop the former gravel pit, she said.

A business park makes sense for the site, as the area is wide open, and has access to town water and sewer, and three-phase power, she said.

“We’re really excited about it. Winchester, like many communities, is struggling, and would like a better economic base,” she said.

A business park would help with that, and bring more jobs to the town, she said.

The feasibility study is one of many steps in the process that may eventually result in the business park becoming a reality, she said.

Besides focusing on just the former gravel pit, a feasibility study would likely look at including abutting properties, such as a parcel owned by Winchester Sand and Gravel, which is for sale, Tigan said.

“I think it’s in the best interest of that seller, the town and town residents to look at the whole area comprehensively, and try to do a master plan so that all uses are compatible,” he said.

He added that such a scenario would allow the town to look at the total environmental and traffic impacts, and determine the pros and cons all at once of a build out of the area.

Town officials expect to learn about the fate of the feasibility study grant application later this year.

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

Sentinel Editorial .. Winchester in the paper again.

Sentinel Editorial..Cooler heads prevail

Posted: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 

 

There are few times when a spat pitting local political factions against each other goes to town meeting voters and still results in a best-case outcome. Typically such squabbles go from bad to worse when they reach the point of being included on the town warrant.
Thus, our expectation s were low when the warrant to be presented at Winchester’s January deliberative session included a measure to rescind the town’s historic districts. At a hearing on the topic, several residents claimed to have been victimized by the district commission overstepping its bounds. Others, even more alarmingly, contended the town doesn’t have any history left to preserve and thus, there’s no need for the district.

Margaret A. Sharra, Winchester’s land-use administrator and code enforcement officer, said at the hearing the commission simply had not done its job as intended since it was created in 1997. It is worth noting Sharra owns property that several years ago was proposed for conversion to a dollar store. The commission refused to allow it. Sharra’s name was not attached to the petition warrant article, but several of her close friends and relatives were instrumental in getting it on the ballot.

In a state and region that ardently embraces its history, historic districts have become a valuable tool for preserving the aesthetics of the past. They are not always the right tool for a particular location, and they can result in picayune and arbitrary enforcement. Still, they represent an important arrow in the quivers of preservationists. Ironically, those most opposed to historic districts are often the owners of the very property they aim to protect, because they’re the ones whose use of their property is at stake. There are arguments to be made on both sides regarding property values within such districts, and the districts are often lightning rods for complaints and warnings about what the community “will become.”

But such debates usually take place when the districts are proposed, not decades later.

Coming out of the January hearing, there was little reason for optimism in Winchester for an amicable resolution.

There was one possible middle ground, however. The district commissioners had proposed an overhaul of their own regulations, and they submitted suggested revisions to the rules at about the same time that the petition emerged.

The 32 pages of revamped regulations may have eased the minds of some voters. Or perhaps it was simply the idea that the district commissioners were listening to the complaints and open to discussion. Maybe it was simply a matter of one faction in town outpolling another when all was said and done.

Whatever the case, voters last week chose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting the petition article and keeping the historic districts in place — for now.

The town could find itself right back in the same situation entering 2015, but we choose to be hopeful the whole episode results in better communication among the officials and property owners involved, and that the proposed regulation update clarifies for everyone what’s expected within those zones.

If so, it could be an historic development.

Winchester Dunkin' Donuts debate continues

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — The battle over whether Winchester gets a Dunkin’ Donuts now involves more court orders and a pro-coffee, pro-doughnuts Facebook page.
Cheshire County Superior Court Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. issued an order Feb. 28 upholding decisions made by the Winchester Planning Board and zoning board last year approving the proposed combined convenience store, Dunkin’ Donuts and gas station at 4 Warwick Road.

On Friday, the plaintiff in the case, Kulick’s Inc., filed a motion asking Kissinger to reconsider his decision. A hearing on that motion has yet to be scheduled.

Kulick’s, a grocery store with gas pumps at 30 Warwick Road, is owned by Stanley S. Plifka Jr.

The Feb. 28 court order came after a Jan. 21 hearing during which Attorney Kelly E. Dowd of Keene, who is representing Kulick’s, argued the planning board illegally approved the project in July 2013. Not enough changes were made to the project’s plans from when the board rejected them the year before, he said.

In addition, the board granted two waivers without S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. LLC making a case for hardship in adhering to zoning requirements, which is required to get a waiver, Dowd said.

He said the planning board shouldn’t have approved the project application without a stormwater management plan. The board instead made such a plan a condition of approval, rather then denying the application itself, he said.

He also said it was wrong of the board to rely on a flawed traffic study, and to conclude that a special exception granted in February 2012 for the Dunkin’ Donuts drive-through lane hadn’t expired.

Representing the defendants, attorney Matthew R. Serge of Concord, who is representing Winchester, and Attorney Gary J. Kinyon of Keene, who is representing S.S. Baker’s, argued against Dowd’s points at the January hearing.

The lawsuit is the latest chapter in a lengthy legal battle over the project that S.S. Baker’s is proposing for the 1.19-acre property at the corner of Main Street (Route 10) and Warwick Road (Route 78).

In July 2012, the Winchester Planning Board denied S.S. Baker’s first application for the roughly 3,500-square-foot convenience store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts.

S.S. Baker’s, which is based in Keene, appealed the decisions to Cheshire County Superior Court. The court upheld the planning board’s decision in April 2013. At that time, Kulick’s sided with the town in the lawsuit.

S.S. Baker’s then appealed the superior court decision to the N.H. Supreme Court in Concord. That case is still pending.

Around the same time, S.S. Baker’s submitted a second set of plans to the planning board for approval.

In the midst of the legal wrangling, a Facebook page titled “Stop Kulick’s Market — Winchester, NH wants their Dunkin Donuts” popped up earlier this month. As of Friday afternoon, the page had 722 likes, which is about 17 percent of the town’s population of 4,341. It’s also 45 more people than the 677 who voted at town meeting on March 11.

Kulick’s isn’t against Dunkin’ Donuts, Dowd said in a phone interview Friday afternoon.

“Kulick’s has no issues with Dunkin’ Donuts coming to the town of Winchester. We have issues with what they’re proposing to do on this particular site.”

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

Winchester voters decide not to abolish historic districts, OK budget

WINCHESTER — The town’s historic districts won’t become history, at least for now.
Residents voted against a petition warrant article to abolish Winchester’s historic district ordinance, 350-296.

The ordinance, which was approved by voters at town meeting in 1997, established two historic districts, and a commission to oversee the districts and enact and enforce regulations on them.

One historic district covers 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 other covers a section of Ashuelot Main Street, and Old Hinsdale and Back Ashuelot roads.

Proponents of the petition warrant article said the commission 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 said the commission’s oversight is necessary to preserve a town that has already lost a lot of its history.

The controversy resulted in some soul-searching by the historic district commission, which has been looking into better defining its regulations for some time.

The defeat of the petition warrant article gives the commission the opportunity to look into options for classifying and regulating the historic districts moving forward.

Another controversial petition warrant falling victim to Tuesday’s vote would have changed the zoning for 50 Rabbit Hollow Road from rural residential to commercial.

Voters soundly defeated the article, which was backed by property owners Gustave “Gus” Ruth, his wife, Irene, and Kenneth Harvey, 438-178.

The vote comes about a month after abutters to the property filed a protest petition, which then forced the Rabbit Hollow article to garner a two-thirds majority vote Tuesday, rather than a simple majority, to pass.

When the Ruths, Harvey, and his wife, Claudia, purchased 50 Rabbit Hollow Road at auction in April 2012, it was advertised as commercial, Ruth said last week. The town had also assessed the property as commercial for at least eight years, he said.

The Ruths and Harveys leased the property, which has a small building, to an auto mechanic in November 2012. The town then issued a cease-and-desist order for the operation.

The Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment denied Gus Ruth and Ken Harvey’s appeal of the cease-and-desist order in June 2013, and then a variance, which would have allowed the commercial operation, in July 2013.

Other than to take the matter to court, the only other way to deal with it would be through a ballot question on the town meeting warrant, Ruth said last week.

He and Harvey decided to forgo filing a lawsuit so they and the town wouldn’t have to go through the expense, Ruth said.

In other business, voters narrowly backed a warrant article totaling $35,756 to raise the pay of police department employees, 332-317. The article, which was recommended by the selectmen, sought to make the salaries of town police officers more competitive with other communities.

At the deliberative session last month, Police Chief Gary A. Phillips said his department had trouble maintaining quality people because of the low pay.

Besides providing incentive for officers to stay with the Winchester Police Department, increasing the salaries would help the town better protect its investment of having to train and outfit the officers when they were hired, Phillips said at the meeting.

A majority of voters opted to support a petition warrant article, 348-309, to allocate $5,000 to the Winchester Historical Society to operate and maintain the Sheridan House. The Sheridan House, which is on Back Ashuelot Road, is a museum of the town’s history. Besides housing several artifacts, a barn on the property shelters some of Winchester’s historic fire equipment.

The historical society relies on membership fees, donations and fundraisers to generate revenue, but it’s having trouble making ends meet as of late, Treasurer Elena M. Heiden said at the deliberative session.

Voters also approved:

An operating budget of $3,298,617 by a vote of 529-126. The budget is down $556,223, or 14.4 percent, from the 2013-14 budget of $3,854,840.

A five-year lease-purchase agreement for a new dump truck with plow and sander equipment totaling $135,201, 345-302.

Petition warrant articles to adopt an optional veterans tax credit of $500 on residential property, 499-147; an optional veterans tax credit of $2,000 on residential property for a service-connected disability, 478-165; and an optional tax credit of $2,000 on the real or personal property of a surviving spouse of a person who died while on active duty, 497-150.

Voters rejected:

A seven-year lease-purchase agreement for a new custom pumper fire truck totaling $440,000, 329-318.

Designating a portion of Old Westport Road from Howard Street to Coombs Bridge as a scenic road, 441-200.

Of Winchester’s 2,482 registered voters, 677, or 27.3 percent, cast ballots on Tuesday.

Elections

In a three-year race for one, three-year term on the budget committee, incumbent Brian Moser won re-election with 230 votes. Falling short were Rikki Bolewski with 214 votes and Ed Katuska with 98 votes.

In a two-way race for one, three-year term as treasurer, incumbent Ruth Tatro won re-election with 440 votes. Falling short was Brian Moser with 176 votes.

In a five-way race for three, three-year terms on the Thayer Public Library Board of Trustees, Kenneth Berthiaume won with 364 votes followed by incumbent Frank J. Amarosa 3rd with 338 votes and incumbent Kim N. Gordon with 274 votes. Out of the running were incumbent Hubert L. Crowell with 270 votes and Amanda Lunt with 216 votes.

In a two-way race for one, three-year term on the Musterfield Cemetery Committee, Donald E. Hubbard won with 306 votes. Falling short was incumbent Erin G. Robb with 259 votes.

In a two-way race for one, two-year term on the Musterfield Cemetery Committee, Valerie Cole won with 360 votes. Out of the running was Hurbert L. Crowell with 216 votes.

Elected without opposition: Roberta Heinonen-Fraser, selectman, three years; Denis Murphy, moderator, two years; Bonnie Leveille, supervisor of the checklist, six years; Kenneth Cole, trustee of trust funds, three years; Harvey Sieran, Conant Public Library trustee, three years; Rick Durkee, Conant Public Library trustee, three years; Ted Whippie, Conant Public Library trustee, three years; Hubert L. Crowell, budget committee, one year; Brooke Sharra, planning board, three years; and Dean Beaman, planning board, three years.

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

Winchester voters turn down contracts for school staff

WINCHESTER — Voters here agreed to a slight budget increase but put their foot down when it came to giving raises to teachers and support staff.
The $11.2 million 2014-15 budget passed with 75 percent support Tuesday. Yet two contracts, one with the Winchester Teachers Association and one with the Winchester Support Staff Association, received only 46 percent and 48 percent approval, respectively.

The budget is up less than 1 percent from this year’s $11,086,540, but the amount to be raised from local taxes is up $413,298.

The two-year teachers contract would have cost $118,498 next school year and $63,285 in 2015-16, and the support staff contract would have cost $21,552.

Not only did voters turn down the collective bargaining agreements, but they also declined to allow the school board to call a special meeting to address those articles if they failed.

Winchester voters have been tough to sell on collective bargaining agreements in recent years. In 2012, a support staff contract failed, and last year, a one-year contract with the group received only 54 percent support.

Superintendent James M. Lewis said previously that the school board and budget committee members tried to get creative with job responsibilities to keep the budget from climbing even higher. For example, Lewis will take on the principal duties for the older students at the kindergarten-through-8th-grade Winchester School, and the district will advertise for an elementary school principal to replace Pamela Bigelow, who’s retiring at the end of this year.

The budget covers the expenses of Winchester School, and tuition to send older students to Keene High School.

An article to raise $25,000 for the Building Improvements Capital Reserve Fund passed with 56 percent, and an article to put up to $50,000 of any surplus money into a special education trust fund barely squeaked by once again, with 51 percent.

Of the town’s 2,482 registered voters, 677, or 27 percent, cast ballots Tuesday.

Elections

Trevor S. Croteau was re-elected to the school board with 460 votes. Also elected was Kevin Bazan, with 307 votes. Steven Thompson received 184.

Kaitlin Mulhere can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1439, or kmulhere@keenesentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @KMulhereKS.

HDC stays

Winchester's historic districts won't become history, at least for now.

Residents voted against a petition warrant article to abolish Winchester's historic district ordinance, 350-296.

Proponents of the petition warrant article said the commission regularly overstepped its bounds and that the district’s restrictions were a financial hardship on property owners.

Just say no, by Susan M. Newell

For two years, Winchester has contended with a former selectman, Gus Ruth, who just won’t accept that he can’t have his own way.
He has been one of the strongest activists for introducing government authority over private property rights (Aquifer Protection District, Forest Lake Overlay District, Steep Slopes Ordinance regarding subdivisions, the Conte Wildlife Refuge, and building the Conservation Commission’s treasure chest with land use change taxes, etc.).

Two years ago, Gus Ruth, Ken Harvey and spouses, bought at tax auction, 50 Rabbit Hollow Road, in a Rural Residential District. Against zoning, they used it as commercial property, renting it to a group that was loud and intrusive in the pastoral neighborhood. When challenged by the code enforcement officer, they had two lame excuses as to why they should be allowed to continue.

They claimed that the person who owned the property, before the town took it, had been illegally using it commercially (evidence seems otherwise) so they were grandfathered for illegal use. That didn’t hold water. They also claimed that because the digital property record card (accessible by many) mentioned commercial use, that misinformation (disinformation?) negated the law. Again that didn’t hold water. Then they went before the zoning board seeking a variance, but didn’t come close to meeting specific legal requirements.

So, they shut down the commercial operation.

But the story doesn’t end. Ruth and cohorts managed to get at least 25 signatures on a petitioned warrant article (Article 24) to change the zoning of 50 Rabbit Hollow Road (Map 9, Lot 23-3) to Commercial.

That constitutes “spot zoning” which was ruled illegal multiple times in New Hampshire Courts. According to New Hampshire Practice, Vol. 15, Land Use Planning and Zoning, Third Edition, Atty. Peter J. Loughlin (the handbook provided to local officials): “a court will find that a change has resulted in ‘spot zoning’ when the area is singled out for treatment from that of similar surrounding land which cannot be justified on the basis of health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community and is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”

If the warrant article fails, the subject is closed.

However, if it passes, Winchester taxpayers will face hefty legal bills. If the select board fails to implement illegal zoning that has been approved by the voters, Ruth and crew will likely bring a frivolous lawsuit against the town to force the change, and selectmen will have to defend against them. If selectmen implement the zoning change, despite its illegality, they will be sued by abutters, who will win. The only losers will be Ruth, et al., and the taxpayers.

It is odd, that while Ruth and the others are demanding exception from land use laws, for their exclusive benefit, it was stated at town meeting that Ruth submitted the petition for Article 22 to designate part of the Old Westport Road as a Scenic Road, in accordance with New Hampshire statutes. This is another one of those designations that requires landowners to jump through hoops with hearings, permits and approvals, and all the delays those entail, to receive a ruling on whether and how they may make minor landscaping changes to their own properties; and that also burdens the highway department with similar machinations just to remove overhanging limbs and maintain the road.

Winchester taxpayers, protect yourself from government overreach and unknown legal expenses by voting no on Articles 22 and 24, and in the process tell Ruth and his co-owners for one last time that no means no.

Susan M. Newell

3 Old Chesterfield Road

Winchester

Why the obstruction?, by Jennifer Marie Bellan

How Winchester treats its volunteers is disgraceful.

If you volunteer to serve on a town board, you had better be ready to support the agenda pushed by special interests in the town or your service will be deemed lesser-than, or worse, you will be seen as an impediment to their plans. I found this out when I sat as an alternate on the planning board. I even had to fight to be allowed to volunteer for this position because the then-chairman tried to block me!

Instead of fixing the historic districts ordinance so that it can work for the town, a warrant article has been inserted by a special interest group’s petition to eliminate the historic districts. Judging by the non-verbal communication exhibited between a couple of historic district commission board members and the land use officer and the now chairman of the planning board during the public hearings, the due diligence attempted by the commission board will be rendered a waste of time, because there are already two members who’ll vote the way the special interest group desires.

The Winchester Historical Society is not the historic district commission and has nothing to do with the management of the historic districts. The society runs entirely on volunteers and what money is raised through membership dues. The board of selectmen and the budget committee voted to not recommend the society’s warrant article asking the town for $5,000. That’s shameful as the society is the caretaker of the town’s history, plus, it houses the town’s antique fire equipment at no charge to the town.

During the past year, there was a group of dedicated volunteers who worked hard to fulfill their charge to investigate the consolidation of the town’s two libraries. Judging by the remarks made by certain selectmen, the commission’s report was not what they wanted to hear. Actually, it isn’t clear what the selectmen wanted this commission to do, because they now claim it was never their intention to close the Thayer Library — even though that’s what “consolidation” would mean in probate court.

And, why would a Thayer Library trustee run again for a trustee spot when he didn’t fulfill his obligations as a current trustee? Not only has he not attended a trustee meeting for the last two years (since March 2012), or ever once volunteered at the library, but he sat on the budget committee and voted against funding the library. The Thayer Library is another entity that runs entirely on unpaid volunteers. None of us receives the rent-free house plus half of our oil bill paid for by the town as this trustee’s nephew did as the prior librarian.

Of course, you can say that nobody is forcing me to volunteer and that I am foolish for doing so. But, are you saying then that all of those other wonderful Winchester volunteers, often the same people time and time again because no one else volunteers, are also foolish for trying to make Winchester a better place to live?

If you are, then that is the biggest disgrace of all.

Jennifer Marie Bellan
 P.O. Box 3

Ashuelot

Winchester zoning change on town meeting ballot is protested

Have to be real proud of a town that is always featured in the news for all the wrong reasons !

WINCHESTER — The owners of a local property are seeking support from voters at town meeting next week with a zoning issue, but opponents of the proposal say it violates their rights and state law.
Gustave “Gus” Ruth, his wife, Irene, and Kenneth Harvey, owners of 50 Rabbit Hollow Road, are backers of a petition warrant article that would allow their rural residential property to be rezoned commercial.

The petition was filed in December, and Ruth spoke in support of it during the town’s deliberative session last month.

The Ruths, Harvey, and his wife, Claudia, purchased the roughly 1-acre parcel, which includes a small building, for $25,000 at auction in April 2012. The couples put the property up for sale in December, with an asking price of $92,000.

The auction was held after the town took the property, which had been owned by Terrance P. Qualters, for unpaid taxes in November 2011. At the time of the sale, Ruth was a selectman. Harvey was, and still is, the town moderator. Both men serve on the planning board.

The petition warrant article says the property has been assessed as commercial for at least eight years, and was advertised as commercial property for the auction.

After the Ruths and Harveys bought the property, they leased it to an auto mechanic in November 2012. The town then issued a cease-and-desist order for the operation. The couples have been fighting for the commercial designation ever since.

Gus Ruth and Kenneth Harvey tried to appeal the cease-and-desist order, but the zoning board unanimously voted down their request in June. The board then voted 3-2 in July to deny a variance for the property, which would have allowed the commercial operation.

Soon after the petition warrant article was presented at the deliberative session in February, neighbors of 50 Rabbit Hollow Road filed a petition protesting the warrant article.

Christine B. Hadley, who was one of the residents to sign the protest petition, said the warrant article is an attempt to get a commercial property zoned in an area where it doesn’t belong.

“This isn’t a commercial property. It was used by someone who had a business to store equipment,” she said, referring to the previous owner.

Without the protest petition, the warrant article could pass with a simple majority. However, with such a petition in place, it needs a two-thirds majority vote, according to state law.

However, there is a chance the protest petition might not even be necessary.

According to N.H. case law, so-called “spot zoning” isn’t allowed in situations where changing the zoning of a property would go against not only the rest of the zoning district, but also a community’s master plan and the spirit of the ordinance governing the zoning district. A property would need to receive a variance to host a function different than the properties around it. And Winchester’s zoning board denied such a variance for 50 Rabbit Hollow Road last year.

Winchester resident Susan Newell wrote a letter to The Sentinel protesting the proposed zoning change.

If it passes, she wrote, “Winchester taxpayers will face hefty legal bills. If the select board fails to implement illegal zoning that has been approved by the voters, Ruth and crew will likely bring a frivolous lawsuit against the town to force the change, and selectmen will have to defend against them. If selectmen implement the zoning change, despite its illegality, they will be sued by abutters, who will win. The only losers will be Ruth, et al., and the taxpayers.”

Hadley said she knows the protest petition might be overkill, but she and other neighbors, are determined not to see the Rabbit Hollow Road property zoned as commercial.

“It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood,” she said. “The closest businesses are 1.5 to 2 miles away.”

Neither Ruth nor Harvey could be reached for comment.

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