Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Running for governor was absolutely worth the time I invested

To The Daily Sun,

To the voters of New Hampshire: thank you for your support in my campaign for governor! What a great experience for me — the people I have met and the friends I have made; it was all absolutely worth the time invested.

I am deeply appreciative of everything my supporters did for our campaign. From standing at the polls for hours, marching in parades, hosting house parties and licking envelopes, you were amazing. I am so very proud of the campaign we ran. I was proud to receive the endorsement of the Union Leader, conservative leader Tom Thomson, and leaders of the veterans' community.

Thank you to my husband Keith for his support and my finance committee for their work.

Thank you to Ted Gatsas and Frank Edelblut for putting themselves out there and wanting to lead our state in a positive direction. Finally, thanks to Chris Sununu for a spirited campaign — and congratulations! The voters have spoken. Now is the time for Republicans to unite behind our nominee.

I remain firm in my convictions that the politicians in Concord should work for the People, not the other way around.

That New Hampshire is worth saving from this heroin and opioid crisis ...

That veterans, just like law enforcement, deserve our respect and support ...

That the Northern Pass project should be buried along state rights-of-way ...

That Concord needs a culture change ...

And that state government should always put communities first.

I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term as State Senator for District 2 until December. As always, I want to hear from you. If you have a concern you'd like to share, an event you'd like me to attend, or a problem you think I might be able to help with–please call or email (271.4980 [o] or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Jeanie Forrester

Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 274

I would support a variance but special exception was just 'created'

To The Daily Sun,

It would seem that certain members of the Gilmanton ZBA, in respect to their decision regarding the Gilmanton Winery and Restaurant did not bend, or even break any rules for owner and selectman Marshall Bishop, after all. They simply created a new one. Which, of course, they have no authority to do, but which they did anyway (Article, Sept 17).

In the article, it is reported that the Gilmanton Table of Uses, "allows existing structures in the rural section to be converted into restaurants by special exception." On that basis, the special exception was granted. The only problem is, on Gilmanton's zoning ordinance, Table of Uses, Article IV Table1, that precise wording does not exist. Not even close. It was simply four ZBA members saying, "it is so, because we want it to be." Well, it isn't!

The outline of the ordinance on restaurants, in this case, contains only six words, with only two, one-letter designations. For the ZBA members, then, to make the case that, taken as a whole, it's "subject to interpretation or unclear," is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. There's simply no way to twist and turn six words around to get multiple meanings and interpretations. And the ZBA has no authority to add wording. The fact is, these four ZBA members ignored the total intent and purpose of the ordinance, which I have understood for years, and it's my opinion that whoever advised them that this was legal, has not done Gilmanton, Mr. Bishop or the ZBA board any favors.

The idea, as the ZBA decision suggests, that there is a difference between a 30 foot by 40 foot, Cape Cod-style structure, built specifically as a restaurant, or an existing 30 foot by 40 foot Cape Cod-style structure, remodeled into a restaurant, is absurd. There is no difference. Each would impact the physical landscape, exactly as the other.

Additionally, each would impact the integrity of the zone, in respect to abutters' ability to sell their homes (to a market that typically moves to rural areas not with the intention of having a restaurant down or across the road), the impact of public services, traffic issues, parking issues, noise issues, sensory issues and so many other considerations that make a new restaurant and an "existing with interior alterations" restaurant ... the exact same thing! Which is why the intent of Gilmanton's ordinance allows for interior expansion, with exception, should a permitted restaurant currently have existed before the ordinance was written.

Apart from that, the ordinance is clear that new restaurants, in any form, are not allowed. I'm not saying I agree with the ordinance, because, quite frankly, it dramatically deviates from what neighboring communities do. All I am saying is that the clear intent of the current Gilmanton ordinance, regarding restaurants in rural zones, is that new restaurants, regardless of how they're created, are not permitted.

I personally have and would have continued to support a variance for the Winery's restaurant, even to the point of bending a few rules, considering the town is as much at fault for the restaurant's lack of permits, as Mr. Bishop himself. Possibly, even more so.

Zoning Boards have all the authority under RSA 674:33 — Powers Of Zoning Board Of Adjustment  — to issue a variance, which allows, under special circumstances, restricted uses of land. This is exactly the Winery's issue. It is a restaurant in a rural zone. Restaurants are restricted and not subject to special exception in rural zones. Period. Yet, there are special circumstances that could have been considered, and, on that basis, the ZBA could have issued the Winery a variance. It was that simple.

Then, Mr. Bishop could have gone back to the Planning Board with at least something that made sense and a decision that aligned with the wording and intent of the current zoning ordinance.

I strongly urge Mr. Bishop, and the ZBA, to reverse the course which they have taken. It is admirable that the four members wanted to expedite this matter for the Winery. It is, after all, an asset to our community. I have, in fact, after meeting Mr. Bishop and his wife personally, changed my view, and would applaud efforts to straighten this mess out for them. But it has to be done right. And the current decision is as far from right as one could possibly get. And, in my opinion, is as close to wrong as one could get to being outside of the laws which govern ZBA powers.

Al Blake
Gilmanton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 142