Comments offered via email...
"We...reside in Chester for about 1-2 months in the year and rent out the property when not in residence. There are two very important factors which have not been addressed at your Q and A session which I have just perused.
1] The properties that do NOT have a well and water supply were FULLY aware of this when purchasing and there is no doubt the lack of well water was reflected in the asking price for that property at the time ...basically those that had well water paid more and those that did not have well water paid less [for the same spec on similar properties]
This would appear to be grossly unfair to those who paid more for their well when purchasing and there is no doubt with the extra compulsory sums involved for those who have adequate well water that there will be a legal challenge to the poll if it is deemed that those with wells MUST pay about $18500 over 25 years [unknown exact sum !?] and then have to pay to connect on top of that.....straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak.
2] Chester depends to a great deal on those coming into the area in the summer months . With the added burden of water charges on property, rental charges will rise exponentialy and again there is no doubt that a significant proportion of holiday/sailing rentals will go elswhere which could have devastating consequences to the community that commercially relies on these people.
Both these important questions do not seem to have been addressed ..the "sponsorship of the wells against the non wells" and the rental impact on the community.
I look forward to hearing from you and give permission for the above two points to be raised at the public meeting on January 15th"
Anonymous
Consultation has concluded