While Hanna may have been correct procedurally, we wonder if suppressing of the letters was in the best interests of the town and its future.
Here is the letter that Sue and I submitted. The other letters, I know because I talked with many of the writers, were quite similar.
We think the letters' approach suggests a way to promote sensible and needed commercial devlopment in Walpole, to avoid the costs and divisiveness of law suits, one of which has already been filed, and to break the stalemate that the Planning Board seems to be in. And one other thing. We are convinced that Berkshire itself would much rather propose and get on with a plan that the majority of the town wants and will support than fight for a "white elephant" plan that few can support with enthusiasm. Let's help them out of the box they're in and encourage them to use their great experience and skills to offer some creative alternatives. Let's get on with guiding such a process! Chuck Bingaman
Charles and Sue Bingaman
P.O. Box 390
Walpole NH 03608
May 20, 2006
To Chairman Jeff Miller and the Walpole Planning Board Members:
We favor balanced commercial development that meets Walpole's present and future needs and does not overwhelm Walpole’s scale and rural atmosphere. And, because we have been favorably impressed with the thoroughness of Berkshire’s preparatory work here, we favor working with Berkshire for future development.
We urge you to tell Berkshire that you will not approve its current proposal under our site plan regulations and zoning law because of the oversized nature of its primary building and because of its poor siting on the property that turns its back on the existing shopping area, creates an internal traffic bottleneck and dwarfs surrounding businesses and houses.
However, if Berkshire would offer a reconfigured plan limiting the largest building to 40-42,000 square feet and otherwise fitting it in better with what is there now, as we think the majority townspeople favor, we say that it should get expedited consideration.
We remind you that, in March, the Planning Board proposed, and the voters agreed by a vote of 910 to 212, that we should add to the purposes of our zoning ordinance “to…promote balanced growth, guide the character of development with aesthetically pleasing buildings and as much open space as possible, and to protect the historic nature, the economic and aesthetic interests of the town.” You’ll also recall that, despite the Planning Board’s recommending against it and its failing to gain the required 2/3 majority, a most voters said then that they wanted to clarify the zoning ordinance to say “No” to new commercial buildings above 40,000 square feet.
Walpole has shown signs of major growth potential. We think this is a perfect opportunity for you to “guide the character of development with aesthetically pleasing buildings and as much open space as possible, and to protect the historic nature, the economic and aesthetic interests of the town” by asking Berkshire for some more acceptable options. You might even suggest some such as beginning with a thorough update of the current North Meadow Plaza, an expansion of the current Shaw's space, or a new stand alone grocery store that lines up with the current buildilngs.
Our future should be based on moderate development limits, working effectively with developers, avoiding unnecessary, expensive and divisive lawsuits, and maintaining our rural atmosphere and culture that we all enjoy. We think those results can be achieved by the approach set out above.
We hope you agree with us that our recommendations can achieve those goals.
Sincerely,
Sue and Chuck Bingaman