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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.

 

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: 476

Trump may be crude, but he’s for America, first, last and always

To The Daily Sun,

I confess, I too am a deplorable, like Jim Mayotte of Sanbornton, because I will vote for Trump.

I am a deplorable because I worked all my adult life got and education, obeyed the laws, paid my taxes, got an honorable discharge from the Army, and believe the Constitution means what it says in spite of all those leftists lawyers trying to "reinterpret" its meaning.

Oh, the horror, I didn't vote for Obama, either time. So they call me a racist in spite of Obama's long long list of lies and failures to protect American people, failure to improve the lives of blacks and minorities, releasing hundreds of felony drug dealers from prisons to again prey on our young, and well, the list continues on and on. Doesn't matter that my judgment about him proved right, I'm still deplorable.

Not only am I deplorable I'm a recidivist deplorable. I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Trump may be crude and rude but he is for America first last and always. I'll be labeled a chauvinist. I believe abortion on demand is a bad idea, so I'll be called anti-women in spite of loving the same woman for 48 years, having two daughters and four granddaughters.

I'm a deplorable because I fear attacks from Muslim terrorists who kill for the love of killing for their false god.

There is just no hope for me because I refuse to fall on my knees to the liberals' god of socialism which has never worked to raise people to higher standards of living or advanced human rights. I am deplorable.

OK, now that that's out of the way, just a note to the two Veverka/Vervaeke ideological twins. I just have to ask where do you two get off trying to smear and slander good people because they believe differently from you? You two are always trying to shut down opposing thoughts and speech because it doesn't line up with your leftist views.

Who are you to tell anyone they have no right to express their opinions whether it's on abortion, the Second Amendment, their free speech, religion or anything else. Who are you two to judge anyone else's ethics or moral standings? Why don't you try honestly debating ideas absent the name-calling, smears and slanders. Or is that beyond your capabilities?

Steve Earle

Gilford

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 795