Winchester selectman resigns

WINCHESTER — The town's five-member board of selectmen is now down to four.
Kenneth S. Gardner resigned from the board June 11, two days before he sold his house on Adams Court.

Gardner, who was elected to the board in 2009, was in his second, three-year term. That term was set to expire in March 2015.

While Gardner will remain in the area, he plans to spend the winters in Florida, town officials and residents said.

Town Administrator Shelly Walker said Thursday selectmen are looking for residents interested in filling Gardner's seat until town elections in  March 2015. The board plans to address the matter after the July 4 holiday, she said.

Walker said anyone interested in serving on the board of selectmen can fill out a volunteer interest form either at town hall or from the town's website at www.winchester-nh.gov/pages/winchesternh_clerk/index.

Development site put up for sale

By Meghan Foley Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — There’s a new twist in the controversial plan for a combined convenience store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts here, and it’s not another lawsuit.
The property on which the store is supposed to be built, 4 Warwick Road, is for sale as legal wrangling over the proposed project continues.

The property, which is at the corner of Routes 10 and 78, is being offered for $595,000, according to a listing on the ReMax Town and Country website.

A message left Monday afternoon for Teofilo Salema, manager of S.S. Baker’s Realty Co. of Keene, asking why the property was for sale, wasn’t returned. S.S Baker’s owns the property and is proposing the project. It also owns other Dunkin’ Donuts stores in the area.

The roughly 1.19-acre property is valued at $64,700, according to town assessing records.

Meanwhile, one of the two court cases involving the project has been resolved, while the other has been appealed to the N.H. Supreme Court in Concord.

The first lawsuit was brought by S.S. Baker’s against the town after the Winchester Planning Board denied the proposal for the convenience store, gas station and Dunkin’ Donuts in July 2012.

The case was heard in Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene, and in April 2013, Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. upheld the board’s decision. Kissinger said in his ruling the board was justified in denying the application based on traffic safety concerns, and determining that the project would overwhelm the site. He also said that the board acted within the law in denying the project because it didn’t adhere to certain design standards.

S.S Baker’s then appealed Kissinger’s ruling to the state Supreme Court in May 2013. The court accepted the case in June of that year, and in March, it affirmed Kissinger’s decision.

Around the same time S.S. Baker’s appealed the case to the Supreme Court, it filed a second site plan application for the project with the Winchester Planning Board.

The second plan, while similar to the first one, had some differences. First, the proposed 3,500-square-foot building was going to be 4 feet shorter than first suggested. In addition, vehicles wouldn’t be allowed to make left turns from the store’s parking lot onto Main Street (Route 10), and up to 11 cars could fit in the drive-through lane for Dunkin’ Donuts. The drive-through lane in the first plan had space for only 10 vehicles.

The planning board approved the second plan in July 2013.

A month later, the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment decided not to grant a request from Stanley S. Plifka Jr., owner of Kulick’s Inc., to rehear, reconsider and reverse the planning board’s approval of the project.

Plifka, who operates Kulick’s Market at 30 Warwick Road, opposes the project.

Plifka said Monday he isn’t against Dunkin’ Donuts, but doesn’t think the proposed project is good for the property.

“It’s a very dangerous intersection for the building they’re trying to put up,” he said.

Plifka then appealed the planning board and zoning board decisions to Cheshire County Superior Court, and in February, Judge Kissinger upheld the boards’ decisions once again. He then denied a motion filed by Kulick’s Inc. to reconsider his ruling in March.

On April 30, the N.H. Supreme Court accepted Kulick’s Inc.’s appeal of Kissinger’s ruling. That case remains pending.

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

Unanswered questions about Winchester students at Keene High

Sentinel Editorial
Sometimes what’s ideal isn’t what’s feasible. And sometimes, what seems to make sense somehow just doesn’t work.
A decade after Winchester started sending its high school students to Keene, there is still a palpable tension over the arrangement.

The latest issue has been one of information: Winchester school officials say they’ve repeatedly asked for data on how their teens are doing at Keene High School, but that information hasn’t materialized.

At a meeting earlier this month in Winchester, parents and board members alike said they feel their kids are looked down upon in Keene. This despite Keene High Principal Lynda Wagner’s proclamation that “You’re part of us.”

That message was certainly better received than when a previous Keene official said five years ago that Winchester students were dragging down the high school’s test scores.

Wagner was in Winchester to present a report that theoretically would satisfy the town’s demand for information. What she provided was, she said, the same information the district gives each Unit 29 town on the students it tuitions into Keene.

It wasn’t enough. For each number, the Winchester board had questions. And some of the data — such as that Winchester’s students have a grade-point average of 2.49 compared to Keene High’s overall 2.92 — begged for context that simply wasn’t to be had at that meeting.

Now, Winchester School Board members want more: They want to know how their kids feel about being at Keene High School.

That — and conversely, how Keene students and staff feel about the Winchester students being there — is the million-dollar question. More likely, a multimillion-dollar question.

The question revolves around whether Keene High is a good fit for the Winchester students, and if not, what the town can do about it.

Winchester is 10 years into a 20-year deal to send its students to Keene. Officials say they’re not looking to get out, but they have also formed a withdrawal committee to study that very possibility.

The issue is, then, what? Conversations with Hinsdale about sending Winchester’s students to Hinsdale High School were friendly, but Hinsdale says it can’t take that many more students.

The current arrangement came about because Winchester’s Thayer High School building had become so run down it no longer was accredited. The school is still used for some middle school and other programs, but would require an expensive overhaul to become fit to be a high school again.

Keene officials say they’re committed to all the high school’s students, including Winchester’s. But after a decade of uneasiness, some may conclude Keene simply isn’t a good fit for Winchester’s students. That’s what the town’s school board wants to determine.

At the time, Keene was the best option for Winchester’s teenagers, and whether a perfect fit or not, it still may be.

Winchester pays Keene about $13,000 per student, more for special education students. With about 200 students tuitioning in, that’s a minimum of $2.6 million the town is paying out to educate its teenagers in Keene.

For that amount, Winchester is certainly due whatever information it reasonably wants. It’s looking out for its kids. It’s plausible some of the answers Winchester officials hope to get simply can’t be gleaned from available data. But to the extent it can, the Keene district should make every effort to accommodate the request.

Looking for straight answers, by Brian Moser

On June 5, I had the chance to sit in on a meeting between School Administrative Unit 29 officials and the Winchester School Board.
Winchester has been asking for both timely and in-depth reports on our students for several years with no results, and promises were again made to bring them this time. It was no surprise that the SAU officials didn’t bring that information to this meeting either. No wonder Winchester is looking for other options for our students.

This is not about Winchester. This is about everyone who has students attending Keene High.

When Winchester asks about more information, they are told no other districts ask for it, so why should Winchester want more? Maybe Winchester is looking more closely at what its students are receiving at taxpayer expense.

We’ll move on. I was told that data is provided by Keene High guidance department that if a student at Keene High School applies to five colleges and gets accepted to all five, the guidance department counts that as five students are going to college. You might ask why. The only answer I see is that it makes Keene look like it has success rates better than they are (Book cooking 1).

Also, if a 12th-grader does not graduate, and does not come back to school, the guidance department doesn’t count that as a dropout. Why? It makes Keene look better than it is (Book cooking 2).

These two practices inflate the numbers of college-bound students and deflate the number of dropouts.

I hope someone else will see this and start asking questions.

Next up can anyone at SAU 29 explain conflict of interest?

Can anyone in the legal world explain conflict of interest?

This is about students! Why isn’t SAU 29 forthcoming with true and honest statistics involving very expensive “educations?”

Let me know what you think.

Brian Moser

168 Clark Road

Winchester

Winchester board seeks more information about its students at Keene High

 By KAITLIN MULHERE Sentinel Staff

WINCHESTER — A school board committee wants to know how Winchester’s teens feel about life at Keene High School as part of a study on whether the school is the right fit for the small town.
The decision to conduct a student survey was made at a Winchester School Board meeting Thursday. It followed a nearly three-hour discussion with Keene High School Principal Lynda C. Wagner, in which board members and residents told her repeatedly that they weren’t satisfied with the data and information the high school provides about the town’s students.
Wagner was presenting an annual report on Winchester students’ academics, involvement and behavior at Keene High during the 2012-13 school year. The school delivers the same report to each of the nine towns that pay tuition to send students to Keene.
In March 2012, Winchester voters approved a petition warrant article to study withdrawing their students from Keene High and either reopening Thayer High School, which closed in 2005, or sending the students elsewhere. Supporters said that with the price of tuition to attend Keene rising each year, Winchester should explore other options.
The withdrawal committee didn’t form until last year, though, and it only recently began meeting regularly. Committee members said in October the district wasn’t looking to breach its 20-year contract with Keene, but just wanted to research whether they were getting the best value for their money.
Winchester will pay $13,081 for each regular-education student next year and $29,000 for each special-education student.
School board Chairman Richard Horton told Wagner that Thursday’s presentation wasn’t about tuition prices or budgets. It was about how Winchester students are faring at Keene High.
And it was clear Winchester board members aren’t entirely pleased with their relationship with Keene.
They asked for more information on almost every category in the report. In several cases, Wagner said she’d have to report back to them since she didn’t compile the data.
Specifically, Winchester board members asked to see the graduation rates for Winchester students from the 2012-13 school year, the percentage of Winchester students in lower-level classes and the number of Winchester students participating in athletics, and to clarify several categories where the numbers didn’t add up or make sense.
In addition to Winchester, students from Chesterfield, Harrisville, Marlborough, Marlow, Nelson, Surry, Sullivan and Westmoreland pay tuition to attend Keene.
Wagner said she would do her best to get the information the Winchester board requested, but that this was the same format and report that every town with students at Keene High receives.
“We’re not every town,” Horton said. “We want more information. We continue to ask and we’re not getting it.”
Those at the meeting, both board and audience members, said they’re not confident in much of the report because of the questions and mistakes they found.
Still, Horton wanted to know how Wagner planned to use the data she presented. If, as the report shows, Winchester students’ grade-point average (GPA) is lower than the rest of the student body and their number of discipline infractions is higher, he asked, what is the high school going to do to remedy those situations? In 2012-13, Winchester students’ average GPA was 2.49. The school-wide average was 2.92.
Wagner said more than once that she doesn’t single out groups of students from specific towns. She looks at students on an individual basis. After a decade of Winchester students attending Keene High, there’s no distinction among students, she said.
“We’re Keene High School,” she said. “You’re a part of us.”
Horton disagreed.
“I hear what you’re saying, but I think there are still labels,” he said. “When you say you’re from Winchester, it’s a different look you get.”
Parents of Winchester students who were sitting in the audience echoed many of the board’s concerns. Their students face a stigma at Keene High simply for being from Winchester, and it comes from teachers just as much as from students, they said.
Wagner was not happy to hear those reports, calling that attitude unacceptable. She said she’d work with her administrative team about ways to improve.
She also said she thought additional late buses would help Winchester students participate in more after-school activities, which build relationships with classmates and motivate students to do better academically.
Other improvements Wagner and the board discussed included better communication between Winchester School and Keene High in terms of planning curriculum and preparing Winchester students academically for Keene High, and more regular visits between administrators from the two schools.
“I’m offering you an open door to work with me,” Wagner said.
Board members were happy to hear that.
This is Wagner’s second year as Keene High principal, and she said she can’t explain or change anything that’s happened in the past decade.
This isn’t the first time the Winchester-Keene relationship has been less than smooth. In 2009, Winchester students were singled out by some Keene officials as a cause of the school’s low test scores. Since the tuition agreement began, many in Winchester have had concerns about the pre-dawn drives to Keene putting students at a disadvantage academically, and about how students fit into a 1,500-student school after growing up in a small community. About 380 students attend Winchester’s kindergarten through 8th-grade school.
One of the biggest advantages mentioned by supporters of sending Winchester students to Keene High is all the opportunities students have there that a smaller school couldn’t provide. But, Horton asked, if they find Winchester students aren’t participating in those sports and clubs, then how is that benefiting them?
That’s where the Winchester Withdrawal Study Committee comes in. The committee has toured Keene High, looked at other high schools and examined what would be required academically to reopen a high school in Winchester. Now the committee needs to hear what Winchester students think, board member Elisha Jackson said.
Questions on the survey will ask things such as how students perform academically, what extracurricular activities they’re involved in and whether they feel accepted and happy at Keene High.
The committee is aiming to complete the survey before school ends in a couple weeks.

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.