Regarding your suggestion in #3 above for some town commission to seek buisnesses with full time employment prospects I might mention that some local towns have an Economic Development Committee made up of both ordinary citizens and business people in town. Sucn an organization could do some economic searching for types of businesses that could be consistent with our small town historic character and its existing businesses, aim primarily at serving the local community and respect our master plan. Some NH and National organizations aiming at historic preservation (like the Main St. USA program) might also be a source of information for such active searching. I believe our Southwest Region Planning Commission has an economic advisory committee that might also be of some help.

And this is why you should vote AGAINST the proposed zoning amendments. I want to respond to my friend Chuck Bingaman’s editorial which he uses to argue a positive response to some very bad zoning legislation. So as not mislead anyone, my name is Tim Traynor and I am representing several different entities which have interests in the commercial property located out on HWY 12, approximately 2 miles from the center of Walpole. My relationship to Berkshire Development, the manager of the proposed project to be built at the ball field property should be considered and accept that my response is somewhat colored by my motives and perspective. Having said that, I want to restate that the proposed zoning amendments are ill-conceived and should they pass, I believe the town would be unnecessarily hampered by their ramifications. Let’s take a look at Article 5. Chuck and Walpole Tomorrow would have you believe that this amendment would limit the size of a single commercial business use to nothing larger than a 40,000 SF building. The argument is that if a business were allowed to occupy a larger building, say 45,000 SF, it somehow would grow within that additional space and there would be no other way to restrict its growth. Of course, this premise would have to ignore current zoning which restricts such expansion. If a business would try to surreptitiously circumvent this ordinance, the zoning and or planning board would undoubtedly take the appropriate actions to remedy any infraction. If this is true, then what potential harm could the Walpole Tomorrow proposed zoning amendment do? Well for one thing, the existing North Meadow Plaza becomes non-conforming and thus subject to yet undetermined restrictions and undefined requirements. If the owner of an existing commercial piece of property in the Town wants to improve or make changes to his or her property, and the total SF of its building exceeded 40,000 SF, then these potentially onerous restrictions would apply. In the past, the courts have favored of property owners who have sought relief from such “takings” wherein a landowner looses some of the intrinsic value of his property because of new and restrictive regulations. Certainly, anyone who currently owns land in the Town affected by Article 5 as proposed would be well advised to take such action to preserve their property values. Article 6 is quite another matter. This amendment would require an owner of a parcel that supports more than a single 40,000 SF building to create multiple parking lots with separate entrances and exits for each development. The interconnection that currently allow for cross access to various retail sites would be forbidden. This will cause unsafe movements of auto and pedestrian traffic as people try to traverse between the sites by being required to drive out onto HWY 12 and then back into the next center or building. This is not only unsafe, but ridiculous. No matter how well intentioned Walpole Tomorrow and Chuck Bingaman might be, this amendment will cause perilous and dangerous activities for local residents. Chuck ponders the reason why the Planning Board voted against supporting these poorly constructed amendments. I guess it comes down to whether or not, in the Planning Board’s judgment, it makes sense to put the public at risk for lawsuits and unsafe traffic and pedestrian movements to try and stop Berkshire from developing its project within the commercially designated zone. This editorial states that if the town votes for these amendments, they will have effectively blocked Berkshire from developing a 68,000 SF building tenanted by multiple tenants, all of which would be governed under the existing 40,000 SF restriction. This is not true. Berkshire will continue to develop the ball field property, unhampered by these amendments. The current land mass under consideration can and will support two separate projects exceeding the proposed 68,000 SF multiple tenant development. Nothing will have been gained through these amendments only the compromise of safety for town residents and inconsiderate and unnecessary movements for auto and pedestrian traffic. Berkshire will not be forced to down size its planned development. Berkshire has not proposed or encouraged the establishment of a regional commercial center. The assertion that we have done so is false and irresponsible. Fanning such mistruths is a well worn tactic to elicit a characteristically emotional response founded upon rumor and innuendo. Unfortunately, I have witnessed this tactic regularly in opposition to my development since I became involved here in Walpole two years ago. It is nonsense to suggest that building one 68,000 SF building on 11 acres somehow is more intrusive than building two 40,000 SF buildings on the same amount of land. I suspect that wiser people came to the conclusion some years ago that it made sense to encourage development of commercial enterprises out on HWY 12 rather than within the pristine “village” area of Walpole. That sounds more like a master plan idea than forcing developers to build unnecessary “seas” of black asphalt and grey concrete. It should be noted that nothing within the two amendments addresses traffic or smaller scale projects. Contrarily, these amendments only go to encourage more light pollution, noise, asphalt, concrete and additional traffic movements per hour; that is their only byproduct. Although the State of New Hampshire, Department of Transportation has not given Berkshire its final design comments, it appears unlikely that it will require or allow additional traffic lights to be installed on HWY 12. Even if lights were required or encouraged by the State, I fail to see how a traffic light would turn the commercial district into a regional shopping center. Contrary to information found in this editorial, Berkshire has shown plans of its intended redevelopment of North Meadow Plaza. I agree that the town does deserve to understand how this new project would interface with the existing plaza and Berkshire has made it well known how it proposes to proceed at several public meetings. One point made in the editorial said that Berkshire has not shown an interconnection between the new and existing plaza. The new amendments proposed by Walpole Tomorrow would forbid such a connection and there remains some debate whether the proposed amendment would allow for pedestrian traffic between the projects. The editorial suggests that Berkshire does not live in New Hampshire therefore it concludes that Berkshire could not have concern about quality of life issues in Walpole. This is a silly argument that reeks of snobbery. It is difficult to acknowledge that educated people would resort to such twaddle. Fortunately, I have met some delightful people who know that I am capable of appreciating the “quality of life” premise. Please let it be known that Berkshire’s original proposal has been dramatically reworked with just those measures taken into consideration. The article goes on to tell what Berkshire’s goals are. Specifically, the writer states plainly that we are capitalists only looking to get a “targeted” return on our investment. The writer is apparently unaware of other reasons why Berkshire develops. It is true that most successful businesses need to make a profit but there are those like Berkshire that place profit in the proper context. Berkshire understands that it cannot be the only one to profit from its endeavors as there are many agendas and persons that can profit as well. There are the tradesmen and material suppliers that profit from constructing our development. There are health care and insurance providers who benefit from providing services to our development. There are contributions to the various taxation entities in New Hampshire and the Federal Government who benefit from our development. There are young mothers who would prefer not to drive the 30 or so miles every time they want to purchase quality and competitively priced food for their families that will profit from our development. There are the local newspapers and landscapers and snow plowing firms that would profit from our development. The will be those who seek part and full time work to supplement their income with the jobs that become available from our development. There are the retired and those on fixed incomes that would profit by having reasonably priced food stuffs available close to their homes; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Chuck tells us that a larger grocery store might lower prices and give a greater choice or product line. I would agree with that assertion. He also states that Shaw’s has been denigrated by Berkshire. I take exception to that statement. Berkshire has repeated what the hundreds of respondents to our survey indicated about how poorly Shaw’s was being run when I first came to town. Although, it appears that our efforts to encourage Shaw’s to improve its performance in Walpole have borne some fruit based upon Chuck’s comments, to say that we are close to an agreement with Shaw’s or their new parent is another misstatement. We have spoken to Shaw’s and other grocers over the past two years about an opportunity to open a new store in the Walpole area. As of this late date, I am not even certain that Shaw’s new parent will continue to operate a store in the Walpole market if it cannot expand. It would be most unfortunate that in the end, the area were to be left without any grocery option. This is a distinct possibility. Walpole Tomorrow would have us announce in advance of our approvals who our tenants would be for the new stores. I would love to do that, however, we have a small problem. I cannot tell the prospective tenants when we will build or what we can build or how much it will cost to build. All of this remains in limbo until we have a definitive project. You may notice that I am not rushing through the approval process in order to allow public comment and thorough research which will indicate the level of success we might expect. We have conducted several focus groups and local surveys to hear what the residents want and don’t want. We would be foolish to ignore that data. Chuck suggests that I spend my time looking for good paying, full time jobs rather than help those who seek part time or supplemental work. I suspect if I were to do as suggested and attract these types of employment, I would be chastised for creating urban blight or attracting the wrong kind of industry to this rural community. (I couldn’t resist that one, Chuck!) Let’s face it, I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. The next item speaks to our right to develop within the commercial zone. Chuck says that others have the right to limit the size and character of my development. I happen to think it is good business to listen to others, especially my clients. Walpole and its residents are part of my constituency and I have been listening to them. But giving each member of the community a veto over my plans would be insane. None of those who object to my efforts would ever allow such a thing to intervene in their personal business. However, I have done just that to some extent by soliciting opinions and then making significant changes in an effort to ameliorate those concerns. My clients purchased their individual parcels of land with the understanding that certain rights and privileges would be honored vis-à-vis the existing zoning ordinances in effect at the time of their purchases. Chuck refers to my comment that it is possible to have another developer take over the project if Berkshire is unsuccessful in getting something that makes sense approved. This is simply a reality, not a threat. Sometimes, the devil you know is better than the one you don’t. Berkshire has been very candid and open throughout this process. I have seen many examples where other developers have not been as forthcoming or flexible. Chuck says that if the amendments are approved, Berkshire could not build two 40,000 SF buildings on the ball field property. Actually, we can do this and have plans to proceed with that design in mind. Chuck wasn’t certain why the Planning Board did not approve the amendments proposed by Walpole Tomorrow. (I know he wasn’t there the evening that they vote was taken.) Chuck, they voted it down because it is defective legislation that they recognized as problematic and unsound. Chuck’s summary concludes that “we cannot stop change”. Nothing either of us could say could be any closer to the truth. Over the past two years that I have been driving up to Walpole, I have seen a fair amount of change, some for the good and others not so good. The downtown area continues its pace to appeal to the affluent among you and those tourists who have little if nothing vested in the community. Chuck and the other members of Walpole Tomorrow do not want to see a garish, noisy, “trafficky” commercial strip like West Lebanon; neither do I. Berkshire’s proposal is far from that failed image of unrestrained growth. Walpole currently has effective and sensible regulations to limit that type of development. Walpole does not have similar demographics which would even remotely consider supporting another West Lebanon as it so much hooey to suggest otherwise. Berkshire has always taken a responsible approach to its developments and has used the rules as they were intended to accomplish that through various opportunities over the past fifteen years. Despite the vote, after the town meeting is concluded, Berkshire will continue its pursuit of a sensible development designed to coexist within the commercial environment located on HWY 12. Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Tim Traynor Senior Vice-president Berkshire Development

Mr Traynor's long response seems to me to contain quite a few misconceptions. The purpose of the 40,000 sf limit is not because someone with a larger building could "grow within that additional space". It has to do with the sheer bulk of buildings that would be out of scale with the rural and historic character of the town, as indicated in our master plan. The limit is explicitly recomended in the master plan. Two tastefully done 40,000 sf buildings widely separated would be a marked improvement over the current proposal and would end up being less than the 68,000 sf huge building and the 19,000 +/-sf additional one now proposed. I fail to see why this developer can not take into consideration of the public interest as conveyed in the master plan and accomodate his design and plans accordingly.

The existing North Meadow Plaza would already be grandfathered in, as I understand it. Should someone want to improve the parking lot and the appearance of the buildings there that would probably be allowed, if necessary by special exception or variance. There are a few non-conforming conditions in any town and that is no reason for not improving the safeguards of zoning for the future.

To accuse those of us concerned about the future of our town of "snobbery" is more than insulting. It is also abusive and quite uncalled for.

Whether or not a larger grocery would in fact offer lower prices is highy questionable. We are not talking about a discount grocery. Having recently shopped at Price Chopper I'm not sure the prices are lower than Shaws, but the produce is better and the selection broader. I expect that could be obtained with proper manament of a 40,000 sf buildling. Indeed we have no idea what sort of tenants might be involved so Mr. Traynor's assertions about better serving the town beg the question.

It seems rather obvious that a development almost doubling the size of North Meadow Plaza can not be anything but a regional economic center. Already one merchant there tells me half their customers come from VT. I doubt Mr. Traynor would undertake his project without having done enough due diligence which probably includes some projection of the area from which the development would probably have to draw. At any rate, whether or not he has perhaps site review should include an independent economic impact study that might elucidate the question.

The Planning Board did not say why they did not recommend the petitioned amendments. But it may not be because they thought they were "defective", which Mr. Traynor attributes, but perhaps because they are piecemeal and not part of a more comprehensive change in the zoning ordinances. Yes, they are only a first step, raised by concerned citizens perhaps because our Board has not yet done a comprehensive review that perhaps should have been done long ago. But to exploit that is hardly something deserving of respect, in my opinion.

Incidentally, our downtown area is hardly only for the affluent. Such distortions are quite unnecessary. I gather Mr. Traynor has not eaten at Murry's?

Mel,

Thanks for the observations of my diatribe. You have to forgive me for its length, I am Irish. But I do learn a great deal from listening to others even if it is only one or two people talking.

Let’s deal with a couple of your points. The snobbery observation is founded in the comments I have heard on numerous occasions from yet identified and nameless detractors who have sent me negative mail and left wildly inaccurate hand bills about the town.

The editorial piece did contain a comment suggesting that because I don’t live in NH, I can’t be concerned about quality of life issues in Walpole. I believe that comment to be silly.

I have heard arguments that people from Vermont, and now Massachusetts, are not welcomed in Walpole because they will negatively impact the quality of life. I was told pointedly after a public meeting that children are not welcomed because they will cause taxes to rise and their parents will bring low income housing to Walpole. (This was done in front of the press) I have been told that all development was bad because it raised taxes and will only choke the streets with traffic and pollution. I would say that these arguments are a form of snobbery. I am sorry if I offended those making these comments. Let’s just say that they are silly and leave it at that.

I am pleased to hear that you will support 80,000 SF of retail on the ball field property. It is more than what we currently propose but the support is appreciated.

It has always been our intention to provide a tastefully done project. Have you seen the elevations we presented and do you have any specific ideas on how to improve upon them?

The grandfathering in of the existing plaza is news to me but I would gladly accept your representations to that end as accurate. Of course, this would be a pleasant surprise for the owners of the plaza.

The danger of the “growth of a single tenant within a building larger than 40,000 SF” was an argument made by the presenter of the petition for Articles 5 and 6 at the planning board. I was just responding to his comment.

Your comment that doubling the retail space in the commercial zone qualifies it as a regional economic center is novel. This is the first time I have encountered that formula.

My comment about the continued investment in your downtown area that has shifted to an upscale clientele, whether local or tourist traffic is an observation I have overhead on more than one occasion from town residents. I was drawing a contrast to my proposal and how that it might offer reasonably priced products in a tasteful plaza for the rest of area residents.

PS: Does Diamond Pizza count as a sampling of the local culinary treasures? :)

Tim

You don't really need to repeat "silly" comments you might have heard from unnamed people, do you? Of course I'd rather not see two 40,000 sf buildings but since our zoning is so loose at this point we may not be able to stop that. But a commercial center can be designed like a small village (even with some green) and be far less obtrusive than what I think I was able to see of your proposal. I've read lately that smaller is better for shopping centers these days, but I'm no expert. Your elevations were too small for those of us in the audience to really see well at the meeting. We should also have renditions showing more of the appearances. But from what I did see it looked formulaic and not especially in keeping with our small historic town architecture. We should have design review as some other towns do have, but it's not your fault we don't.

Have you done some economic analyses? From what area does that show your additional shopping center would probably draw? Is it mostly from the residents of Walpole?

Mel,

I see that it that my reference to silly comments is grating on you as much as the actual comments do to me. I wish I could share names with you but then they wouldn’t be anonymous. Maybe it’s just one person with a lot of time on his hands. Candidly, after all of the years of doing this type of work, this stuff still bugs me.

I will continue to research a smaller foot print. Thus far, I haven’t had much interest from tenants for this type of space but I won’t rule it out.

If you can send me your address, I will forward you copies of our elevations so you can better view our concepts. Keep in mind that at this time these are just that, concepts. Feel free to mark them up and comment on them. I welcome any thoughts you might have regarding the designs. My email address is below.

Tim

TTraynor@BerkshireUSA.com

PS I wish you would have an architectural review board. I think it is a great idea and would be very helpful to those of us trying to develop a quality product with local appeal.

Tim, my snail mail address is PO Box 546, Walpole, NH 03608. Email is melschupack@aya.yale.edu. Fax, when it's plugged in (I try to avoid some of the fax unsolicited advertising) is 603-756-3689. (Usually plugged in 9 to 5.) I also wish we had an architectural review board, among other things. I'm glad to read your recmmendation and I agree it would help all parties. Let's hope our Planning Board is reading this.

One point mentioned is the obtrusive noise caused by traffic and trucks to the residential neighbors of the plaza and new development. Most of the houses and residents in this area came long after the Plaza and Fall Mtn Building were established. Hubbard Farms also with numerous trucks and vehicles were in the area. To complain about the noise and traffic after the fact seems ridiculous. It appears that evertime, over several years, when someone wants to bring in business to the "commercial" zoned area, a handful of people(not the word I am thinking) try to change the rules. It would be great for those of us in the lower income bracket to see the plaza and surrounding area upgraded and offer better prices and even part-time jobs. I remember the days of heavy traffic, including the big trucks, traveling route 12 through the center of Walpole. If that was still happening today, can you imagine what our "pristine" Village would be like. We have an area designated as commercial, lets develope it.

Since the last comment is unsigned I don't know to whom to address this. However, I don't think the issue is whether or not that area will/can be developed since it is zoned commercial and can be. The question for me at least has to do with the scale (and design) of development that I hope would be in keepng with the scale or our small town, and with what our master plan states as guidelines. Traffic is always an issue as well and the fact there is some already is not the issue. But overloading our steets and highways would certainly impact all of our lives and that is a legitmate issue for which we do have site review. But again that also would have to do with the scale of any development for a small town like ours.

I can't help thinking the Berkshire proposal isn't quite on the level and that ultimately they want to combine the space and end up with establishments greater than the present size limit. Also I am concerned that if the new establishments, whatever they are, put the existing businesses out of business, we will end up with vacant stores that stand empty and look distressed. Basically I like Walpole the way it is. I don't believe that those of us who are living here need or want this development and wish the deep-pocket commercial interests that are pushing the scheme would go someplace where they are more welcome. Lyn Cooke

clifcooke is concerned about putting our existing business out of business if the mall is further developed. What business would be hurt. Burdicks? Walpole Inn? Walpole Tavern? Ruggles & Hunt? Burdicks Meat? I doubt it. The people that would frequent these more expensive venues are likely not the ones who would frequent the stores in the mall. Also, melschupack, how would developing the mall impact the "streets" in the Village? You really don't believe that traffic traveling north on Route 12 will come up through the Village to get to the mall do you? Entrances and exits can be established onto Dearborn Road to relieve some of the congestion everyone is concerned about on Route 12. What is the real objection of the vocal minority group? Do they fear that the working people and lower income people may have a place to shop within a reasonable distance of travel. It is sad that so many of the natives are willing to sit back and let the minority dictate what can and can not be done in Walpole and especially the vocal non natives. Tsk, tsk, tsk!!

Mel,

Regarding your comment about traffic, the premise of our research is such that the majority of the traffic will already be on the road as it makes it way to the center. Logic dictates that if people need food or other products and they already live in the area, in order to get these goods, they currently would have to drive to Keene or West Lebanon to satiate their needs. In other words, there already is traffic heading to these regional shopping centers using gas, oil and wear on the vehicles. The new plaza will simply direct some of those local people from their anointed paths to HWY 12 and away from the pristine locality of Walpole town. And how would this be a bad thing?

Tim

How could an additional large shopping center not draw additional traffic, Tim? Heck, even Ocean State Job Lot has. Do you really mean there won't be any more customers then already come to North Meadow Plaza? Doesn't sound like something I'd invest in if that were the case! The rest of what you posit makes no sense to me but I'll save that for another day. (Or we need a far more objective traffic impact study!)

Does no one remember the amount of traffic that AMES drew when it was where Ocean State is now. Far more than OSJL's does. And what about the traffic we had when Hubbard had their egg/chicken store at the corner of Rt 12 and Dearborn Road? If half the traffic now traveling Rt 12, north and south, stopped at the new store(s)imagine the income generated. And not all McD, Subway, Dunkin' Donut, Friendlys are paper strewn and shabby looking. These elitest, non native, rich folks need to stop looking down their long noses at the rest of us.

Mel,

It is getting more and more obvious that I can’t make any sense to anyone “listening” in on these discussions or at least offer plausible information that can be understood.

But let’s try this. If you have roughly 15,000 people who live in the immediate area and they need to buy food, where would they drive to for groceries, probably Keene or Springfield, VT; right? So if they travel to these places will they not have to do so by roadway? Wouldn’t some of them take HWY 12 for a portion of the trip? If this is the case, then they would already be on the highway traveling in the general vicinity of our project. How would diverting this traffic to our center have any real impact on the area traffic? You aren’t still imagining that a 39,400 SF grocery store and a few small ancillary shops are going to be tremendous tourist attractions are you? I think Burdick’s et al, has a better chance of clogging the streets, especially in the downtown area than we would.

Tim

We shop locally, mostly at Shaws for groceries. The only time we've shopped for groceries in Keene is when we were going their for some other reason. Try not to exaggerate. Who said anything about "tremendous tourist attraction"? Unless your proposed shopping mall (I'd prefer a smaller scaled shopping village) brings in enough traffic why would anyone invest in such a thing?

Tim, it is obvious that mel is stuck in one gear, reverse, and can not see any forward progress in your comments. Your comments are exactly true except that a lot of people go to Keene or Claremont and a relatively small number would go to Springfield. Mel has tunnel vision. Moved into the area and wants to tell local yokels how to run the Town. Improving the mall and building it up may make it possible to help some of us save on gas and shop locally. Wal-Mart and Hannafords in Claremont are the main reasons for shopping out of town. One example of savings is a 2 liter bottle of soda in town, $1.20, in Claremont $0.89. Take that savings times 6 bottles and I've paid for my gas and imagine the savings on $200 worth of groceries. We are not all as narrowed minded as the vocal minority as you will see at voting time!

Sorry, Bill, but I had nothing to do with writing the Master Plan for Walpole. It was done by a group of long time residents none of whom I think of as "local yokels". I have read it and recommend it. Seems to me they did a pretty good job.

I would like to understand how a 40,000 sq foot size limitation would negatively impact the Berkshire Development plan that has been presented at the focus group meetings. It seems that it would be a small modification to have a 40,000 sq foot building and a separate 28,000 sq foot building. Tim has already publicly stated that he would not have a business exceed the 40,000 sq feet so I do not understand the objection to an updated interpretation of the zoning law.

My understanding of the focus group was that most of the attendees preferred a plan for parking and traffic movement that used the existing entrance onto route 12. What are the chances of overcoming the lease holders objections and allowing this preferred flow? If this was possible, then I would oppose the parking restrictions that would prevent this single entrance solution.

bob anderson

Bob, I agree with your points. However even the parking restrictions suggested could be obtained from a single major entrance from Rte. 12 by having internal driveways connecting separate parking areas. I know of a few shoping centers designed like a village that have smaller separate parking areas within a complex connected by internal street-like driveways. That way they avoid the massive kind of wall-to-wall huge paved over parking in the current plan. The places I know about have even less total acreage than the 9.3 of the ball field property, so I don't see why it can't be scaled accordingly. (I do think it would still need two entrances for safety reasons, but only one need be from the major common one on 12.)

It always amazes me how the few always want to change the zoning/planning of the Town to suit what they want or do not want coming into the area. Keene kept doing that to keep Wal-Mart out or a supposed "wet land" area. now look at that area, several resturants, home depot, dicks, target, etc, etc... So after we vote the way those opposed to Berkshires plan want and some business "they" want comes along, will we have move amendments to ALLOW that to happen. Vote NO to amendments 6 and 7 and let the natives keep Walpole and not sell out to the minority.

You know what bothers me most about this entire process; it’s the deceit and misinformation provided by some of those opposing my project. It seems kind of ironic, if not poetic, that the very people who would have you believe that I came to destroy Walpole’s way of life are the ones who are bent on misleading the public, not me. If these are the kind of people and tactics tolerated in your community, I am not sure I want to encourage any investment there.

The signs around town that talk about saving the ball field are insensitive and the work of scoundrels; such a petty nature these contemptuous few. Do they speak of our continued support of the youth who continue to use the ball field free of charge the past two years or our pledge to build a new and imporved facility with the area? No, that would not be prudent for their purpose.

If WT is behind this, they should be ashamed of themselves. I feel badly for the good people that are being misled by this negative and blatantly untruthful campaign.

From my first meeting in your little town, I have been forthright and consistent in my openness. I have continually reinvented my offerings as the result of listening to good ideas to make the project better. Now very bad zoning is about to be passed by the misinformed and will do damage to the community they seek to “preserve”.

My motive are questioned, my honesty is in doubt, the certain destruction of your way of life lay in the balance; this is pure nonsense. If you think I am being disrespectful to those who object with false information to my project, please do me a favor and listen to what they have to say; their message commands no respect.

The Town has a right to change their rules. Land owners have rights also. A few people have tried to paint Berkshire with the Walmart brush and would have the majority believe that we are in some way the evil empire. In my opinion this is the very thing that is wrong with the world today. It may not be possible to have an fair and forthright discussion in Walpole, New Hampshire without resorting to the tactics now employed before this vote. So be it.

Tim Traynor

TTraynor@BerkshireUSA.com

PS Notice I am not hiding behind the shield of anonymity

Well, Tim, you might have avoided some of this is you had come up with a design more compatible with our small town. I know people in your focus groups advocated for a design modelled after a village center and one of our our local architects even had some drawings for an example. So far as I know you have ingored that. I can show you examples of such shopping centers where I had once lived that would not have had such an out-of-scale huge building and wall-to-wall paved over parking. Those centers I know are very succcessful both economically and in being compatible with their communities. What you propose it not compatible with our small New England town, as I've said before. You could do something that would be more to scale and compatible and not incur this emotional opposition.

Actually, I have taken the advice of local input and it has been met with disdain. That approach is reflected in the current design. We now have multiple small shops and a much more village appeal. Many of the façade treatments came from our local architect with particular elements added based upon focus input.

The Grocery is slated to be 39,400 SF well below the number that we originally proposed and below the 45,000 to 55, 000 that was discussed in our focus groups. Our local architect wanted to have a street market and condo/ apartment/ village approach. My investors are not in the condo/ apartment business. I am sure if we had pursued this design it would have brought the ire of a different group who oppose housing and in particular those who dislike children. The dynamics are such that I don’t think anyone really knows what they want. They only seem to know that they don’t want anything.

After the Town meeting, Berkshire will have a new approach, one that is consistent with your zoning and only that specific criterion. I am sure no one will be happy with the new product either. But it will give you something to talk about.

The ballfield flyers are in bad form.

Tim has stated that he will buy land and build a new ballfield. Many people have approached him and thanked him for addressing this issue which is important to many people.

Tim addressed this issue early in the process and it was seldom discussed as an issue in the focus group sessions (am group).

bob anderson.

Am I missing the point here. Mel and others keep mentioning the damage developing and cleaning up the current plaza area will do to the "quaint", "pristine" down town area of Walpole. It is a good mile from down town village which 90% of the people traveling Route 12 never see but might stop and make some purchases in some new upbeat stores at and around the plaza.

This discussion about building sizes along Route 12 hasn’t paid enough attention to three points. First, voting for or against the limitation on building size does nothing to change the size of stores permitted in Walpole. If Bill wants to see a 65,000-square-foot supermarket in Walpole as Berkshire Development first proposed, that won’t happen even if the proposal to limit building size is soundly defeated. Walpole’s zoning ordinance doesn’t permit stores bigger than 40,000 square feet and Berkshire already plans to build a supermarket of that size, as the law will permit him to do regardless of Tuesday’s vote. Defeating the amendment to limit retail buildings to 40,000 square feet doesn’t get you bigger stores, just bigger buildings. A 40,000-square-foot grocery store in a 150,000-square-foot building won’t automatically give you lower prices and better selection than a 40,000-square-foot store in a 40,000-square-foot building. It’s got nothing to do with snooty flatlanders or local yokels. It’s just a matter of what the law says. Walpole can’t support a shopping mall with indoor boulevards to stroll; there just isn’t enough of a customer base between Keene and Claremont. So permitting a bigger building won’t get us a nice mall; it only gets us a giant bunker of a building with the same size stores we’d have anyway. If we’re going to have the same size stores regardless of the vote, why not have a shopping atmosphere that’s nicer to look at and be in -— a campus of human-scale buildings with walkways and more trees instead of a monolithic building surrounded by tar? It doesn’t matter what economic class you inhabit; some landscapes just make you feel better than others. Berkshire proposed a one-building design because that’s the cheapest way to put down square footage and earn the greatest return for its investors. There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s Berkshire’s job and we need builders to put stores near where we live. But Berkshire will put up buildings that suit its purposes, not ours, unless we actively demand better. That’s OUR job. Second, this isn’t just about North Meadow Plaza. The vote to limit building size (which has no effect on store size) pertains to all of Walpole. If we permit Berkshire to build a 68,000-square-foot building in North Meadow, then we have no way to stop other builders from seeing that concentration of shoppers and building a 100,000-square-foot building next to Rite Aid with a Pier One, Circuit City, Dick’s Sporting Goods, iParty, TGIF’s, or anything else to cash in. Let me emphasize that this is not inherently evil or bad for everyone in every way. Some people love living amid that kind of choice and convenience. But are we willing to pay the costs to bring sprawl a 10-minute drive from home instead of a 30-minute drive? Think about this: Berkshire’s own traffic study for its proposed North Meadow project says that its new buildings will put 270 to 320 ADDITIONAL cars PER HOUR on Route 12 during high traffic periods. In addition, at least two developers are poised to break ground on apartment blocks that could put 200 or more apartments along Route 12 between North Meadow and Aubuchon’s. The traffic snarls, pollution and stink, additional traffic accidents, and the very real prospect of at least one (and probably more) traffic lights along that strip of Walpole is a future we could easily drift into. What would that do to our tax bills, not to mention our nerves and how we feel about living here? Is convenience worth turning Route 12 into our own version of Claremont’s Washington Street or Winchester Street in Keene? For some, yes; for others, the absence of those things, while having them a reasonably easy drive away, is the best of both worlds. Third, convenience carries a clear cost and takes away in taxes a chunk of the savings it might bring us at the cash register. A study done for the town of Barnstable, Massachusetts, by an economic consulting company called TischlerBise, put some numbers to that claim. The study found that, for every 1,000 square feet of store space, shopping centers typically cost a town $314 more in services than they generate in tax revenue. Fast food restaurants average an amazing $5,168 in service demands and other costs per thousand square feet of space. In other words, if we had 50-by-40-foot McDonald’s in Walpole (not huge by McDonald’s standards), every man, woman, and child in town would be paying McDonald’s the price of one Big Mac every year that nobody ate. Yes, there are snobs who sneer at McDonald’s and the people who eat there but, with respect, that’s not the point. The question is whether a majority of us in town are willing to tithe to McDonald’s or pay a “Big Mac tax” for the convenience of having a burger stand a five- or ten-minute drive away instead of a 30-minute drive. Walpole’s police department is already paying those costs of retail development. Since Ocean State Job Lot opened, the police have been averaging four bad-check charges a week from that store. Those crimes involve a ton of time-eating paperwork and the department has warned that if there’s much more retail growth in town, we’ll have to hire another officer —- and pay not just the salary and benefits, but for training expenses and other costs. Again, with respect, all of this isn’t about snooty flatlanders who can afford to shell out $40 a week for cheese at the Walpole Grocery or about local yokels who (like me) don’t know brie from camembert. This is about whether WE determine what kind of place we live in or whether our future is handed to us by builders and real-estate speculators do who what they please here to maximize their profit at our expense. If we put controls in place, we can lift them later or rely on our zoning board of adjustment to make necessary exceptions to the rules. It’s a lot harder to unbuild a shopping ghetto that we live to regret.

Ben Daviss

First off the "let's panic everyone" method to get us to vote yes is ludicrous. None of those big name stores or resturants are going to build in Walpole because there is not the drawing power. They already are established in Keene or Claremont. Other than one store of 40,000 SF we at best will get a half dozen specialty stores. Berkshire has reduced their plans to meet the "citizens" demands and promised landscaping that will be pleasant to everyone's eye. If the police and/or fire departments are making too many false alarm calls to certain business then those businesses should be charged a fee after a given number of false calls per year. Everyone fears that some developer is going to come into the Village center and put up some monstority of a building or condo apartments and so there is a panic of limiting development in the commercial zone. The Village already has zoned areas that can not be developed. Why do you think the Hubbard land and buildings behind Diamond Pizza have not sold. Potential buyers are waiting to see the outcome of Tuesdays vote and what Berkshire does next. If residents vote yes on Tuesday do not be surprised if Berkshire's backers sell out to an unscrupulous builder who will put in any type of crappy store that complies with your zoning and there will be nothing we can do about it. Vote NO on the zoning amendments and by the way, vote NO for Ben Daviss

Of all the people I have met in Walpole, Ben Daviss is among the most intelligent and considerate persons I have been introduced to. Much of his argument preceding my comments is well though out and articulate. I do offer some counter points to consider when reading his piece.

I understand the case about the building size limits could be smaller. If the zoning questions are carried, it is apparent that none of the new regulations will prevent a developer from building a 100,000 SF building with firewalls and zero setbacks in a contiguous format. That simply means that nothing will change from current zoning one way or the other. Yes, I will spend a little more money segregating the utilities and following other specific requirements of the building code to “separate” the buildings but their will be no practical difference from my plan to build a single 68,000 SF building. I’ll just build a 39,400 SF building and directly abutting it, I will build a 28,600 SF building. Nothing will change. So what’s the point?

The parking lots will however be required to be separate and have an integral design that affords a single entrance and exit from the parking field. This will cause a great deal of traffic and other consternation for the general public. I don’t think people are going to be particularly happy with WT and its membership for foisting a unnatural impediment to good development on your community, not to mention the lawsuit defense costs required to support this poorly thought out legislation. It seems that whenever a society tries to punish one segment of its members to the benefit of a few glad boys, it usually is overturned at some expense to the community proper. I am certain that will be the case with this anomaly.

Ben’s other points about the immigration of the national brands like Dick’s Sporting Goods, IParty and Pier One doesn’t add up. There isn’t that kind of interests coming from these national vendors to have outlets in such a tiny market. Walpole does not demand that kind of interests.

I do think the community should consider forming an architectural review board to guide the aesthetic process and encourage good development within their retail sector. Thus far, all that seems to have been accomplished is to tell the retailers that would have had an interest in providing services to your little hamlet to go away; they are not wanted. As I have said before, you might get your wish. If driving 30 minutes each way to a reasonable market choice isn’t a problem, then buy the North Meadow Plaza and the ball field and the old Ames, the bank, the drug store and the video store, knock ‘em all down and raise sheep. I’ve got to admit, I can picture it.

Tim Traynor

Move the question! Will Tuesday ever come?

And after Tuesday will 51% of the people be happy?

A correction---- But first, thank you, Tim, for your nice words. As I said at the February planning board meeting, I have no reason to doubt your integrity, sincerity, or good intentions. Sorry I wasn't more clear in my previous message. I cited Dick's and Pier One only as examples. We could have a 100,000-square-foot building with Sally's Dress Shop, Fred's Snowmobile Emporium, Dan's Hobby Shop, and so on, and it would be no better. My issue isn't with the name on the stores, but with the fact that we would leave the door open for any builder to put up any size of retail building he thinks he can fill -- and with the consequences of turning Walpole's business plan and traffic plan over the builders who may live elsewhere and are motivated primarly by profit and not our quality of life -- which is not the same as the size and quantity of our stores. Pardon the civics lecture, but by state law Walpole's voters have created a master plan that was accepted by our planning board. State law also gives a town's planning board the legal duty to to protect, promote, and carry out that master plan. Berkshire’s proposal – and any commercial building of that size – fits within our current zoning ordinance but violates our master plan. Just as judges have no right to legislate from the bench, I believe our planning board risks running afoul of state law when it approves projects that violate our master plan. If you want a commercial carnival on Route 12, we are legally obligated to change the master plan to permit it. We do not have the legal right to violate the master plan just because we want to. And Bill, if you don't like the idea of "smart growth" but want to sit back and turn Walpole's future over to profit-motivated property developers and see what they surprise us with, by all means you should not vote for me to sit on the planning board. I don’t oppose growth; I just want us to be in charge of it. Since you don’t like my approach, instead of just saying “no”, why don’t you give us a few details about the kind of town planning process, if any, you DO approve of? Signed with my full name--- Ben Daviss

Ben,

I don't believe that the Master plan is the same as a zoni ng ordinance. Don't confuse the two. The zoning regs dictate here not a mission statement by visionaries.

Tim

Tim--- You're entirely correct that the master plan and zoning ordinance are different. However, I believe that New Hampshire state law 674:1 legally obligates the planning board to "protect, promote, and carry out" a town's master plan. Our zoning and site-plan review regs don't adequately and specifically reflect the goals and objectives of the master plan, which is why your proposed building fits entirely within our regs but violates the town's master plan. That's not your fault; it's ours and one we need to do something about. Otherwise, we'll be stuck in this gray area where the planning board may be violating its legal duty by approving projects that comport entirely with our regs. Hope to see you Tuesday evening. Ben

I won't make the meeting as I am on my way to visit my sister who is dying from lung cancer. I hope my team is being forthright and answering the publics questions as best as possible.

There is a great deal of confision about what a master plan binds a planign and zoning board to do. Many people feel like you that this is some sacred document to used instead of zoning. In reality it is just a guideline. I have spent a fortune being educated over the years to gain that perspective. I do think the PB is acting in the best interests of the community. I think they are doing a pretty good job balancing the master plan, zoning, and the cry from the angry mob, all the while trying to preserve everyone's rights. I have been impressed with their fairness. You actually are represented very well when it comes to these matters. Their would be a big down side to them being arbritrary; the lawsuits that are sure to follow by the commercial real estate owners would have been enhanced in the courts if they had acted any differently. I know you may not like to hear that but I believe it is true. In the end, the people will be heard and we will see where it leads. If the measures don't survive, then I would recommend that your group invest in a good zoing attorney and work with the State to accomplish a cohesive and intelligent renovation to you zoning. I would not mind giving the group a hand in doing if they are interested. Good clean zoning is good for everyone, not just a small group of owners or a few well meaning patriots.

Tim

I didn't recieve notices of all of this discssion but am glad I at least finally caught up with it. I am impressed with Ben's commentary and will be much relieved to see him on the Board. I also think Tim's repeated comments about the utility of a good design or architecture review process would help both developers and the town and hope our planning board is reading that. I also hope our planning board will hear Tim's suggestion of the need for a good zoining attorney and a comprehensive renovation of our zoning. It supposedly is the duty of the planning board do what is needed for "protecting and carrying out the master plan" according to RSA 674. (That may be far more important than what happens with Tim's project, although I still think it's out of scale for our small town.) Tim is right that the master plan is a guildine and not law until the Planning Board does that needed comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance. But a guideline is still important and I think Ben suggested that the fault here is that of our own Planning Board and not Tim. I agree with that. I for one would love to have us take Tim up on his offer to give us a hand in that revision. Tim, maybe you should consider moving here so you would be on both sides of such issues? I am sorry to hear about your sister's cancer, Tim. It's a lousy disease but I hope she has a some remission.

Thanks Mel. The offer stands if either I or Berkshire can help consider us your staff.