Whatever the leaglities invovled, it is clear that Mr. Traynor is pushing something that is in violation of our Master Plan. To me that shows a significant disrespect for this community. The Master Plan states the purpose to "discourage the development of Walpole into a regional economic center. Rather Walpole should continue to support the types of businesses whose scale is consistent with the rural and historic character of the town, and whose services meet the needs of local residents”. Indeed, on p29 of the land-use section the Master Plans states:" Restrict the size of commercial buildings – for instance not permit any building area to be larger than 40,000 square feet." I hope all of you will got to Town Hall and read the Master Plan, which is an important document whose purpose is to guide the growth and development of Walpole. RSA 674:1 (b) states "it is the duty of the planning board to ....consult with citizens, for the purpose of protecting or carrying out of the master paln as well as for making recomendations relating to the development of the municipality". You can find the oridnance on line at the Webster web site. Mel Schupack

Although I respect everyone’s right to form an opinion, I would hope in this case one would take the time to consider all of the facts before jumping into wild assertions of impending disaster and ruination. I am a developer who represents various individuals who have an interest in providing a quality retail product for the citizens of the Walpole area. I am not the boogey man, nor do I play a flute which will lure your children into truancy. There are select members of my family who find me funny and on occasion, I have been told I can be charming; that comment is usually reserved for my wife who envisions me to be equal measures of Sean Connery and Bill Murray.

I arrived in your community a little over a year ago and immediately stuck my foot in to my generously proportioned mouth. I had it in mind that the community would welcome a new, clean 65,000 SF grocery store that would provide convenience and competitive prices for its residents. That idiotic notion evaporated once I chaired a public meeting at the Town Hall for the purpose of discussing my plans. Reason argued that people respond better if you take the time to explain your ideas to them rather than sneaking around the back fence and plop down your enterprise from out of the blue. Many of my colleagues in the development business have a nasty time doing that and it frustrates me and many others when they use stealth rather than candor. So I held that public meeting.

Well, at the conclusion of my little infomercial and with a newly gained perspective, I promptly removed as much tar and feathers as possible and went back to the drawing board. Berkshire then held a series of six meetings with members of the public; small groups almost equally divided by those who would like to heat more tar and the ones who wanted to have a voice in Berkshire’s plans. By the end of those gatherings, we had vetted many of the key concerns held by Walpoleans while reinventing a plaza that would still have enough economic synergy to make our efforts viable.

Key changes from the first design included and significant reduction of the grocery store from 65,000 SF to 39,400 SF. The size of the grocery was the most contentious item brought to my attention throughout our process and we listened. In addition, the need to mitigate the large expanse of asphalt our parking lot would require; providing safe ingress and egress onto Route 12 to and from the new stores; and making the reoccurring pledge to relocate, at Berkshire’s expense, the Little League field currently occupying the future development land were all core requirements of acceptance. I liked this approach and as a bonus I made a couple of new friends along the way; a much more pleasant way to spend our time together.

But now we are approaching what appears early as something of a less friendly atmosphere in which to “talk” to one another, maybe even a little angry. There is a group who would rather not discuss my ideas or even offer any of their own. Without as much as a telephone conversation, they would have everyone believe they know what my plans, my motives and even my character has in store for their town. I have read that my proposed plan violates current zoning. Yet, there is a move to change zoning to make my plan non-conforming. These two statements seem to be in direct contradiction to each other. Which is it, I don’t conform so let’s change the rules so I don’t conform? I have heard it said that because I wish to build something that does or doesn’t conform to zoning, I show disrespect for the community. This is equally baffling. What the speaker is saying is that if you own property in Walpole it would be disrespectful for you to try to use it even if it conforms to the rules as long as the speaker deems it disrespectful. Somehow this seems un-American or at a minimum, unfair.

Some people quote the Master Plan as a map to discourage development of Walpole into a regional economic center. I hardly can see how part time grocery jobs would bring the hordes from the great north flocking to Walpole’s new “regional economic center” (a small grocery store and a few small shops) with the promise of prosperity and a better way of life. And the argument that such a development would be inconsistent with the character of the area doesn’t ring true either. We are not proposing to knock down historic structures or decimate hallowed ground. We want to build a small center that has good and valued services to offer; with pleasant looking architecture (we are not using the guys that came up with the historically sensitive design used for North Meadow Plaza) and all of this will be done in an area that has been designated the Walpole commercial zone, several miles away from the very pristine and delightful buildings found in the old town proper. All this to be constructed on a road that by-passes this “Rockwellean” portrait insuring peace and tranquility for all that dwell there.

And one last thing, for those who think that the planned development will bring Berkshire mercurial profits; consider this. If I can get enough people in the area who would rather not drive 15 miles to purchase the evening meal to support the project, and if I meet all the stringencies found in your existing zoning rules, and if I can attract a grocer and the other 5 or 6 businesses that would be needed to fill out the space, and if I can keep construction costs and schedules in line with the pro forma, and if the New Hampshire winter is kind to my builder, we may make a profit that will be used grow Berkshire Development, feed its employees, provide their health care and manage the future that allows us to build good projects in cooperation with the communities in which we develop.

Please turn out for what will be undoubtedly a lively debate about my project, my character, my intentions, and my right to build a project that has been shaped by the people who will use it. This will take place rain or shine on February 14th. And John, I already bought you your Valentine’s gift.

TTraynor@BerkshireUSA.com

Having read Mr. Traynor's response it seems to me he is confusing the zoning ordinance with the master plan for Walpole. The petition article is an effort to have the ordinance "carry out" the master plan, as mentioned in RSA 674:1. The master plan was the work of many people in our community, with the help of expert consultation from the Southwest Regional Planning Commission. It was accepted, with some enthusiasm I am told, at a public meeting on May 9, 2000. It's purpose, as I mentioned, is to serve as a guide for growth and development of Walpole. I don't know if Mr Traynor has read that master plan but his proposal is in defiance of that master plan. If the petition warrant article passes then it will also be against the zoning ordinance, as I understand it, and he would have to alter his plan if he was to comply with the ordinance. I think the point has to do with this being a small historic New England town and the master plan specifically calls for businesses to be of a "scope and whose scale is consistent with the rural and historic character of the town, and whose services meet the needs of local residents". It later specifies that scope to mean no building over 40,000 s.f. I stand by my statement that Mr. Traynor's proposal is not adhering the pubic interest of this town as expressed in the master plan.

As new residents of Walpole, my husband and I truly appeciate access to this exchange of information. We still have many questions regarding this proposal and would like to know where we can get information for the 3 ammendments on the agenda for Jan. 24.

I often wonder where are the majority of the residents of Walpole (which includes Drewsville and North Walpole) are that I have talked to that are in favor of developing the plaza area. The closest "super" market (grocery story) of any size is at least 20 miles from the plaza. To offer us a larger store than Shaw's current provides is to offer us better prices because the store could stock and purchase larger volumes. Some of the people who are complaining the loudest are living in houses that were built years after the plaza and Fall Mtn Supply were in business. The balance of the complainers are people who care less about the low income residents that would/could benefit from some stores and even a resturant. Yes we have four resturants, three that you can go to for dinner; but very few of us natives can afford $75 to $100 dinners more than once in a lifetime. We have a designated commercial zone to protect the beauty of our secluded downtown, let's use it for something beside an eyesore. Let Berkshire improve and build the plaza that they have promised us.