Windham Taxpayers

May 17, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — The owner of an Indian Rock Road strip mall and the town are at odds over the property’s assessed value, with their projections millions of dollars apart.

A tax abatement was requested for The Commons at Windham Inc., an 11.7-acre site with two buildings of retail businesses. An appeal is being considered by the state Board of Tax and Land Appeals, which has about a 1,000-case backlog.

On March 28, the board ordered the two parties to try to settle their differences without a hearing.

The differences rest on the town’s $7,585,780 current assessment for the property, and the owner’s estimation of the property’s assessed value, $4,230,000.

Town Assessor Rex Norman said he arrived at the town’s figure for the 2006 tax year, from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007, based on measurements and other information received for the property at 25 Indian Rock Road.

The owner arrived at its figure based, in part, on size calculations, rents and vacancies and the capitalization rate. The rate is related to the property’s annual income stream, and would be taken into account by a potential investor, Norman said.

Both sides agree the property’s value should have increased between the 2005 and 2006 tax years.

That is because in 2006, the town conducted a revaluation of all property, bringing them to full market value. The average increase in assessed value was 43 percent, Norman said.

The Commons at Windham rose to $7.5 million from an assessed value of $3.7 million in 2005. The owner paid $72,101 in taxes in 2005, $116,285 in 2006 and $122,128 in 2007.

On Monday, the two sides appeared before selectmen to work out their differences. The Commons was represented by lawyer Mark Lutter.

Selectmen, however, stopped public discussion of the matter after board members complained they did not have current information.

Selectmen asked the two parties to sit down together and compare notes before returning to the board.

The Commons at Windham features a variety of stores, including jewelry, accounting, fitness and fence businesses.

May 15, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — Tinkering with rules that regulate signs for adult businesses is a slippery proposition. But that’s just what some people in town would like to happen.

Some people are looking for action after a controversial sign for the XXXPosed adult video store, featuring a silhouette of a scantily clad woman, was installed on Rockingham Road last month.

Planning Board member Ruth-Ellen Post said she wants to at least consider changes to the town sign ordinance.

She said she understands how the sign would disturb a mother with young children. In fact, she said, she would avoid it if she were transporting a young child.

But Planning Board Chairman Phil LoChiatto said there is little the town can do if a sign meets the letter of the law.

“It’s a slippery slope, legislating (good) taste,” he said.

And an author of the town sign ordinance said a change to the ordinance wouldn’t stand up to a legal challenge. The American Civil Liberties Union agrees.

Ross McLeod, a former Planning Board member, said a change to the ordinance could be challenged in court on free speech rights grounds, rights guaranteed by the Constitution. McLeod, a lawyer, was heavily involved in the rewrite of the town sign ordinance in 2002-03.

He said if the Planning Board wanted to deny a sign on the grounds of obscenity, it would have to meet case law standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, he said, the sign would have to be found to have a predominant appeal to a prurient interest in sex when applying community standards, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner and lack any cultural value.

Claire Ebel, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, said state statute governing obscene material mirrors federal case law.

The state reference to community standards applies to the county where the supposed obscene material is found, Ebel said. “Prurient interest” effectively means causing sexual arousal, she said.

A silhouette of a scantily-clad woman does not come close to being considered obscene under either state statute or the obscenity decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, she said.

If you can go to a store anywhere in the county and find material that is more suggestive than this sign, then the argument that it violates community standards fails, Ebel said.

She recalled a case in 1988 when Hampton police confiscated Captain Condom T-shirts from a store. Police claimed the shirts were obscene.

The prosecutor made the wise decision not go forward with the case, she said, and police had to return shirts and drop charges against the store owner.

In Windham, the Planning Board unanimously approved the XXXPosed sign in February. After its installation in April, it drew numerous complaints from passers-by. Seven or eight people called the town Planning Department and complained about the sign.

The department did not release the names of those who complained, but several residents who live by the sign and pass by it regularly said they found it too racy and inappropriate for children to see.

Post realizes nothing can be done about the current sign, but wants to see if local regulations can be adjusted in case a proposal similar to the one at 53 Rockingham Road crops up in the future.

“I think we can try to do better,” Post said.

She has asked for a workshop on the topic and the Windham Planning Board will schedule one, although no date has been set.

Town Administrator Dave Sullivan said any change to the ordinance would have to be approved by a Town Meeting vote.

There are two ways to bring a proposal to a vote. One way is through a citizens petition, which must be signed by 25 local registered voters. The other way is for the Planning Board to propose the ordinance change.

Meanwhile, a Windham Planning Department inspection of the Rockingham Road sign found it to be set too close to the road. The owner recently moved it back an acceptable distance from the road.

May 15, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — A committee will help the Windham School District decide whether to split from the Pelham School District and hire its own superintendent.

Such a split would mean two separate administrations and two separate offices.

In March, Windham voters took the first steps toward leaving Pelham by authorizing the formation of a committee to study withdrawing from SAU 28. Windham and Pelham belong to that SAU and share a superintendent, assistant superintendent, director of special education and human resources director.

The committee will look at the pros and cons and make a recommendation on whether to split. Leaving the SAU would require a 60 percent majority vote at Town Meeting to pass.

The committee will include Superintendent Frank Bass and School Board members Michael Hatem and Mark Brockmeier. Five residents, who will be chosen by school district moderator Betty Dunn, are needed to serve on the committee. Anyone interested is asked to send a letter to the superintendent’s office or e-mail Dunn at EADunn30@aol.com.

The committee will spend a year researching the issue.

Proponents of the split say both districts have grown to the point where each one needs its own superintendent and other top administrators. Others say it will increase costs for both school districts by requiring Windham to hire its own top administrators and by forcing Pelham to find its own SAU building for Bass and the rest of his staff. Currently, the districts share an office on Route 111 in Windham.

While Windham is now building its first high school, Pelham is looking at building a new high school and turning the existing high school into a middle school.

May 15, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — The time is right for affordable housing but can residents be convinced that affordable housing is right for the town?

The public affairs director of New Hampshire Housing told Planning Board members last night that to convince people of this they need to see how good workforce or affordable housing looks.

In many cases, it looks like what is already standing, said Ben Frost, speaking at the affordable housing workshop at Town Hall.

“You don’t notice them because they look so good,” he said.

Affordable housing is also looking good in the Legislature. Two pending bills would put backbone into the seminal state Supreme Court case on affordable housing.

That case is Britton v. the town of Chester, from 1991, and it says that reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of affordable housing must be provided. It’s vague language, Frost said.

But the pending legislation would codify the Supreme Court decision by preventing towns from prohibiting affordable units or, effectively, building a moat around their towns. The legislation would also speed up the appeal process for developers.

Another piece of legislation would allow towns to create affordable housing commissions. They act much like conservation commissions do, only instead of land conservation, they would advocate for affordable housing.

Planning Board members and audience members said they recognize a need for affordable housing in town but are worried that public perception is set against it.

Board Vice Chairwoman Nancy Prendergast said the panel struggles with “not in my backyard” mentality in town.

Board member Rick Okerman recalled a meeting where abutters of a proposed residential development showed up to protest the proposal because they thought it would drive down their property values.

Board member Ruth-Ellen Post said people have told her they worry about the stigma attached to those who live in affordable housing, especially the children.

Frost said he would strongly recommend building mixed-use affordable housing that includes market housing and even retail units.

Former town officials Margaret Crisler and Ross McLeod said a public relations campaign might be in order to overcome local resistance to affordable units.

“There are a lot of positives but we need to get the word out,” McLeod said.

Crisler said many in town are concerned their grown children cannot afford to live in Windham.

The town is not without land to support multifamily units. About 353 acres are zoned for multifamily residential use. Planning Board member Walter Kolodziej said he would be pleased to work with a developer interested in building rental units in town. Windham has no apartment complexes.

The workshop, organized by Planning Department Director Al Turner at the Planning Board’s request, was attended by about 12 people.

One resident walking her grandchildren at Griffin Park earlier in the day said she would be open to having workforce housing in town.

Gail Dow said the housing’s appearance should be appropriate to the area.

“I certainly do not have a problem with it,” she said.

May 14, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — Let single-stream recycling begin — Jan. 1.

Selectmen Monday approved a timetable for the all-inclusive recycling method. They also extended the transfer station’s Saturday hours, effective in September, and set station staffing at six workers.

Under single-stream recycling, residents will dump all their recyclable materials into one chute at the transfer station. Now, residents must segregate their items. Plastic, glass and aluminum cans go with one group, cardboard in another, and paper in another. Transfer station employees must then sort the plastic, glass and cans as they roll by on a conveyor.

Looking ahead, a renovation of the Ledge Road transfer station will start Sept. 1, clearing the way for the conversion by the first of the year.

The new recycling method will save the town money by boosting the recycling rate and saving on staffing, town officials said.

Transfer station manager Dave Poulson projects single-stream will boost the recycling rate from the current 30 percent to 40 percent. With more items recycled, there will be less trash to haul to landfills and the town will save on tipping and hauling fees.

Also, the town will be paid $10 to $20 a ton for glass and plastic, items it now has to pay to get rid of.

The station is approved for eight full-time workers, although now there are six full-time and one part-time worker. Under the new plan, the part-time post will be eliminated.

Under the new alignment, staffing will consist of six full-time employees. Poulson said the smaller staff will save the town $100,000 a year.

Selectmen discussed whether to cut the staffing to five and save an additional $61,000 by not having to pay the sixth worker’s salary and benefits.

But in the end, the board opted for six workers. Selectmen Galen Stearns and Charlie McMahon said the additional worker would improve customer service.

Stearns said trash and recycling services are something just about everyone utilizes in exchange for their tax dollars. Some may not have an occasion for police or fire services, but most use the transfer station.

Additionally, the transition to single-stream recycling may not be seamless so it will be good to have the additional worker to counter any problems, board members said.

The station will be open 40 hours a week, as it has been over the last year. Previously, the station was open 50 hours per week.

The new schedule hasn’t been finalized, but the station will likely be open six hours on Tuesday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; eight hours on Wednesday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and 10 hours on Saturday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Poulson said.

Transfer station employees Ralph Parsons and Bob Dobson said Tuesday is the station’s slowest day and Saturday its busiest day.

Selectmen also endorsed the use of curbside single-stream recycling by private haulers. A small percentage of residents contract with private haulers for trash pickup.