Home

Letters

Video

Cases

News Coverage

HDC info

October 11th, 2009
To The Editor:

A few weeks ago, a friend of ours offered to help us put up a woodshed. He builds lovely sheds milled from local wood. Shoveling our extensive woodpile out of the ever-deeper drifts of the last few winters has taken a toll on our aging backs and shoulders. We want to get our 4 cords stacked under a solid roof.

"That sounds great," we told our friend. "Just one problem: we live in the Historic District."

"What architectural guidelines must the woodshed meet?" he asked. "Can you send them to me?"

"There is nothing that we can lay hands on that specifically applies to this. Please send detailed scale drawings, and we'll apply for approval."

He sent the plans, I spent the better part of an afternoon preparing the application, and our project was placed on the agenda for the next Historic District Commission meeting. I had a conflict with the meeting time. Fortunately Seth was able to make it. Unfortunately, Seth apparently needn't have bothered attending the meeting at all.

Our application was reviewed and voted complete. Chairman Fichter would not allow Seth to speak in favor of our application. Vice Chair Suzanne Ryan immediately moved that our application required a public hearing. Todd Fichter seconded her motion, which was passed without any discussion. The public hearing was set for November 3rd. No one asked if we would be able to make that date.

Only after this vote was taken did Chairman Fichter reluctantly allow Seth to speak to the reasons that granting approval without requiring a public hearing should at least be considered. The commission had no apparent interest in our needs, nor as far as we can tell in the woodshed itself, or its historical appropriateness (although some of them did as an afterthought compliment us on a well done and informative application.) Their one focus was on making certain that we had to have the public hearing.

The scheduled hearing date is not going to work for us. If it did, we would still have no confidence in a worthwhile result.

First, it can take a week after HDC approval to get a building permit. Then the new procedures recommend waiting 20 days after approval before beginning to build. There are 30 days during which someone may appeal the granting of approval in the Historic District. (Why it is 20 days you should wait, when the appeal period is 30 days, no one seems able to explain.)

So we would be looking at late November, or if waiting the full 30 days to be certain we could not be forced to demolish our woodshed after putting it up, early December. Not very good, weather wise. But things could be even more difficult.

The HDC has scheduled a public meeting on the new Rules of Procedure on October 22nd, after which there is supposed to be a vote on whether to adopt them. But in the tape of the 10/6 meeting, there are several mentions of the new procedures being implemented already. I was told by Chairman Fichter when I got there (after the meeting, because of my work schedule) that a public hearing was necessary in our case "because of the new procedures."

These procedures include substantial delays of many applications that once would have been quickly approved. The HDC also appears poised to assert that it can and should oversee landscaping and fencing choices. In the new procedures, many relatively minor projects require public hearings. But what is the purpose of these hearings?

In most hearings with other boards, there is a set of laws or guidelines, to which the case at hand is compared. But in the Historic District, guidelines have not yet been drafted for what is acceptable. If the new procedures took this long to generate, we can be certain that the Guidelines will take even longer.

So at this time, what is acceptable is completely up to the preferences, biases or whims of the HDC. Four HDC members make up a majority and can approve or reject anything. They can decide that they don't have enough information and delay your application further while they spend taxpayer money to ask a lawyer if your windows are acceptable. They can tell you to change something because they believe it will look more "historic". (I use the quotes because what is actually historic and what is acceptable to the HDC are demonstrably different.) They can tell you to submit new drawings, come back in another month, or that you can't build what you want at all.

At the moment that we turned in our application, the HDC had all the information that I believe they are likely to use to make their decision. I think it unlikely that anyone would show up to a hearing to object to our having a basic 8x12 woodshed, 60 feet back from the road, and not visible from anyone else's house. Frankly I think it would be difficult to argue that our proposed woodshed could possibly disturb the historic character of the neighborhood. But if someone did argue that - on what basis is the HDC going to make a decision? There are no guidelines. It appears that the current leadership and their partners in majority are likely to approve or disapprove whatever they like, regardless of public input, or input from HDC members who have differing opinions, for that matter. (If this sounds extreme, please watch some of the footage of recent HDC meetings before you decide I am going too far.)

And if the HDC arbitrarily requires a hearing unlikely to yield new information, why should one expect that the decision then made will be fair or reasonable? For myself, I no longer have any such expectation. So it doesn't make sense to cancel our professional commitments, and pay over $100 besides (which is a lot of money for us, though it may not be to Mr. Fichter) for the public hearing. In many places with historic districts, tax credits and other financial support are available to the residents that make up for some of the inconvenience and extra expense incurred in conforming with historic district regulations; in some cases up to 45% of the cost of a repair or improvement. Here we have no such compensating assistance.

I worked to keep the the Historic District last year. Historic preservation is a worthy goal, and having a Historic District should be a good way to accomplish it. But the current HDC is no longer a good steward of our history, nor of the interests of the citizens of Wolfeboro. Enough is enough.

I am afraid that the current leadership of the HDC believes that inflexible adherence to rigid procedures will solve all problems for the HDC. While I believe that Mr. Fichter and Ms. Ryan have good intentions, it now appears clear that the road to neighborhood hell is paved with these. And it is the encounter with that realization that has cost me and other residents of the district so much sleep, caused so much stress in our lives and our bodies, and taken so much of our time - time and energy I would rather have spent putting up our new shed and stacking the wood in it, as any Wolfeboro homeowner outside the Historic District would have been allowed to do by now.

I ask the public to please attend the HDC meeting on October 22, and to contact the Wolfeboro selectmen, and insist that a stop be put to this nonsense. Our case is but one example. The HDC has reached the point where its activities are preventing people from working in a timely fashion to preserve historic homes and barns, and thwarting residents' wishes to live safely and happily in our homes. If you would like to sign the petition to change the leadership of the HDC, please email me at petition@beverlywoods.net. Thank you.

Beverly Woods

Enough is Enough

"Animosity" and "Personality Problems" - Historic District Commission members were described with these very words by their own lawyer Rick Sager at the January 12th meeting. The Atty. Bernie Waugh report (a study commissioned by the BoS into the problems on the commission) was reviewed. This Waugh report was not on the agenda and no members of the public were present. One member observed that the Waugh report concludes that "lack of courtesy and respect" are problematic on this commission. Sager, who had only been to one other HDC meeting was, nevertheless, able to state that he sees "personality problems" and "animosity" evident on the HDC. Residents have been well aware of this for years.

A motion was made that, if the HDC survives after the town vote on March 9, the HDC members should have a non-public mediation session with a lawyer present - Sager noted he is a court certified mediator. Certain commission members made it clear they did not want to meet with Atty. Bernie Waugh. In fact, before any discussion took place, the vice-chairman made a motion that Atty. Waugh should not be invited to meet with the commission. Why? After being paid by the town to review minutes and watch videos of all the meetings, we can only surmise that Waugh must understand the source of the personality problems and animosity. The motion for a town-paid mediation session passed. In other words, the HDC members themselves now admit they have personality and animosity problems.

Atty. Sager said that the problems of animosity between the members of the HDC are "spilling out to the public". Yes, oh yes, we all know that. Watch the meetings on TV and DVD. Hear the nasty voices. Read the articles in the Grunter. Watch the Board of Selectmen's meetings when one HDC member makes insulting presentations about other members and another doesn't tell the truth. How do these internal HDC problems "spill out" to the residents of the Historic District who apply for building permits? Rudeness, nasty behavior towards applicants, intimidating behavior and demeaning statements, delaying tactics, controlling word games, authoritative actions, angry red faces, even threats. And these are our neighbors... .

And now, they want to spend more of our tax money to attempt to resolve their own interpersonal issues. And to pay more legal fees for treatments with a lawyer who has prior professional contacts with the chairman and vice-chairman.

Psychologists and psychiatrists work at behavior modification and group dynamics, lawyers mediate legal sessions. Ingrained angry, authoritative, controlling or bullying behavior patterns cannot be resolved by a short little session with a lawyer. Courtesy and respect are learned at home when we are young, in school, or in business and should be practiced every day.

Selectman Marge Webster said at the Oct 21, 2009 BoS meeting that the members of the Historic District Commission are adults and should be able to solve their problems by themselves. Obviously they can't. Do you want your tax dollars paid out to try to resolve their personality problems? I don't. They have already spent thousands of our dollars on unnecessary legal expenses.

So much of the time and energy of the HDC is consumed playing controlling psychological games and "gotcha" tactics that they have no time left to establish building standards for the Historic District.

Enough is enough. We need to eliminate the expenses, personality problems, and animosity that characterize the Historic District Commission. Please help. Vote to abolish the HDC on the Warrant article on the March 9 ballot.

Virginia C. Panaccione
North Wolfeboro

Why the Historic District Commission MUST be Stopped

For the last couple years, the voting majority on the commission has had a clear agenda to impose their own views of what constitutes historically accurate features and materials for every home in the district. Regardless of whether new or old, near historic homes or not, 20 or 200 feet from the roadway ­ everyone is expected to conform to their arbitrary decisions. But now it's getting even worse. After years of being criticized for not having written standards, they now have a draft called "Preservation Guidelines" with draconian restrictions. Here are a few examples:

The document uses vague and arcane references that will allow HDC members to continue imposing their personal opinions on the community. For example:

"The fence should be in harmony with the style of the house and rhythm of the streetscape." Good luck interpreting that rule!

They are extending their control to landscaping ­ again using vague language to ensure they can impose their opinions. For example:

"Any alterations requiring changes to the topography of any property which shall materially change the landscape shall require an application to the HDC." What does that mean?

They make no exceptions for newer homes that are further from the road versus truly historic homes close to the road. For example, the rules prohibit the use of low maintenance, man-made materials ­ even if used on a new home in a location where you can't tell the difference from the street.

The rules cover minutia over which they should have no control. For example:

They want to prohibit newspaper holders and ensure that your mailbox is painted black.

They can tell you to hide your TV antennae or trash can.

You can't remove a tree over 5" diameter that's visible from the road without HDC approval, and even after approval you have to wait another 20 days, during which any neighbor can object.

Your needs, preferences and financial situation are not a consideration. For example:
If you want a fence, you have to include a statement of your intent for adding the fence. "The desire for privacy and/or to enclose children or pets is not an acceptable reason of itself." And you cannot be granted relief from the rules based on "The applicant's personal preference or relative cost of construction or maintenance."

No building can be demolished or moved without their approval and "Financial hardship of the owner of the property shall not constitute a hardship for this purpose."

They have consistently avoided an open and honest discussion of appropriate procedures and building standards.

When they drafted rules of procedure, did they send copies to all the residents? No.

Did they post them on the internet? No.

When they held the mandatory public comment session, did they listen and act on community feedback? No.

Now that they have been publicly criticized and are under pressure, they relented a bit and asked one of the HDC members to get comments from just 8 district property owners.

Does this constitute an open and honest review? No.

There is no reason to believe that they have any intent of honestly obtaining public opinion and drafting rules that fit the community. It's all about their personal opinion of how the Historic District should be managed.

Most people agree that preserving history is a good objective. Most people are willing to live with reasonable restrictions in order to accomplish this goal. Unfortunately, what we have with the majority of HDC members, is a group abusing the power of the Historic District Commission to accomplish their own goals. They have no respect for the opinion of district property owners and have no regard for your property rights. Now is the time to regain control of our community.

Vote Yes on Article 9 to abolish the Historic District Commission.

Signed by the following historic district property owners:

Robert Klimm
Ellen Klimm
Lawrence Clapp
Linda Clapp
Fran-Bridges Cline
Jerry Cline
Paul Panaccione
Virginia Panaccione
Seth Austen
Beverly Woods
Chuck Farrell
Dina Farrell
Susan Wrightsman

Jan. 25, 2010
To The Editor,

I write in support of Town Warrant Article #9, to abolish the Historic District Commission.

While I and many others who support this article have supported the Historic District and the Commission in the past, the unfortunate truth is that this board as presently constituted is not able to carry out its purposes. What it does accomplish is abusing the residents and other property owners under its jurisdiction, costing the town a lot of money for no good reason, and in some cases, the HDC is actively preventing the appropriate maintenance of historic structures.

The public is treated rudely, and our concerns are utterly disregarded. The Commission claims that its arbitrary actions and authoritarian stance are required by state and local laws, but in fact no such requirements exist in the relevant laws and ordinances.

If allowed to continue, the HDC plans to adopt an insanely restrictive set of regulations. Already the Commission has gone on record as favoring the requirement of a public hearing for installation of a screen door. The current draft of their proposed regulations includes provisions claiming HDC jurisdiction over minute details of construction and even landscaping decisions, requiring property owners to get HDC permission before removing a tree, or to put up a statue in a flower garden. We can look forward to public hearings on our neighbors' birdbaths and lawn chairs.

The current leadership of the board has rebuffed calls for their resignations. Any attempt to alter the composition or direction of the Commission would take years, during which the HDC could easily cost the taxpayers of Wolfeboro tens of thousands of dollars more in unnecessary legal bills, not to mention the stress needlessly inflicted on citizens.
Enough is enough. Please vote Yes on Article #9 to abolish the Historic District Commission.

Sincerely,

Beverly Woods
Dimon's Corner, North Wolfeboro

Here's a letter received by this site today, March 8th, from Mike Best:

We live in Cotton Valley with only minimal oversight/regulation and its been this way here for a few hundred years and there are still no skyscrapers here. It's not an 8*12 woodshed or the corner of someones deck visible from the road or vinyl siding that make or break a historic neighborhood, because the woodshed and vinyl siding and deck and any other building ideas can be done historically correct! It is not 'ignorance from voters' not knowing RSA's(that's an ignorant statement because that person doesn't even know who/what the voters or neighbors really want). It's frustration as a taxpayer seeing the way other rightful property owners have been treated over the years for a variety of reasons. It's the absolute total control the HDC has imposed in the most recent years, its the painstaking time-consuming permit process by which every homeowner in the HD must abide, and Congrats to Peter Roessiger for realizing it's "the shabby way, the disrespectfulness". If you look closely you can see many similarities between the current US Govt and the current HDC!

I know a few people who are trying to hold onto the HDC because they are afraid of another house in their 'view', or new construction, cul-de-sac, row housing, or any change(those same people probably voted for change in Washington last election though). I understand all of that and that is fine, but I say to them " how has cotton valley survived so long without the hd ". We live in the Agricultural Zone. People own large tracts of land around here so that keeps 'change' out. People don't just come to the valley and build something ugly. People generally want to build something that fits in to the area, there are a few new homes in cotton valley and you could hardly tell they were new if you didn't know. It would be the same way in the historic district without all of the hassle! Did Mother Nature come to the HDC to apply for a permit to destruct our beautiful woods and land and create an instant eyesore for miles with her tornado? How long did it take for the HDC to approve that? We don't want to see our neighborhood change a lot either but you cannot control everything forever! I could go on with more 'outside the hysterical district' (ooops- 'hysterical' did I type that?) ignoramous rhetoric but will wait and see how the voting turns out in a few days.