Rezoning Proposal is Unfair to Residents, Future of Winchester

Dear Neighbors,

As a Winchester native and longtime resident, I wanted to provide you with a personal overview of the area that would be affected by the proposed rezoning with Article 11 at Town Meeting on November 8th. I am the owner of 8-10 Water Street, which is one of the affected properties. In recent weeks, I have spent many hours examining the maps pertaining to the rezoning of North Main Street and meeting with my neighbors to better understand the purpose and impacts of this proposal.

This has been an enlightening experience, both factually and interpersonally. For example, I recently learned that Article 11 originally called for 40 properties to be rezoned, however, in recent weeks Verizon’s property was removed from consideration. I also learned that, dating back to the 1940s, there has always been a 150 feet beltway of commercial designation back from the road along Main Street. The Bylaw of 1924 states that two family homes could only be built in a commercial or industrial zone, which is why we have a mixture of businesses and houses on North Main Street itself, and explains why my home is zoned as dual use. These decisions were strategically made to allow Winchester to grow and thrive. As a resident sandwiched between commercial properties, I know that my section of North Main Street remains a commercial area for Winchester.

The 39 properties included within Article 11 are unique- you cannot compare apples to oranges. Some of the properties are appropriately being rezoned because they are clearly residential homes. However, these properties are greatly removed from Main Street and are not “elbow to elbow” with commercial businesses, such as a pizza shop or an optician, like myself. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the reaction and frustration among property owners will vary as this article moves to Town Meeting. Some owners will naturally not be as concerned as myself and half a dozen others because they do not have to face the potential reality of devastating declines in property value, a potential new buyer reacting to the exhaust from an autobody shop, the rumble of truck deliveries throughout the day, or the dangers of parking lot traffic for children. We simply live in different types of neighborhoods and should be accordingly zoned that way. This is why for at least seven properties, this proposed downzoning is a drastic and flawed change which is unfair, particularly in light of the fact that no analysis or impact study on the neighborhood has been completed to support what is happening to the property of those individuals.

I believe all of us want what is best for the Town and its residents- be that tax relief, traffic control, safe places for our children to play, and structures that fit their highest and best use, thereby creating a well maintained and beautiful Town that serves residents in a practical manner. What we deserve and should demand of our government is that it take the time to study and analyze this initiative while making zoning part of the already initiated Master Plan process. That way, when it is all said and done, all of us know that our various voices and concerns have been heard and that the Town has, through thought and examination, come to a decision that is based on strong analysis and long-term planning that serves all of us best.

Thank you for your consideration of this letter and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Pierce

8-10 Water Street