PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting Tuesday November 11, 2008 at 7:00pm
in Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller,
Members Present: Bob Miller, Ben Daviss, Dave
DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Eric Merklien, Jeff White, alt., Donn Lounsbury,
alt. Absent: Sheldon
Sawyer, Sel., Shane O’Keefe, alt.
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes
are unapproved and will be reviewed at the December 9, 2008 meeting for errors,
omissions, and corrections. There were 6
persons in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at
7:04pm
A.
Roll call - All regular members were present, no alternates designated.
B.
Minutes - Sec. Aslinger reported a correction to “lean”
manufacturing from “lead” manufacturing in the Bensonwood presentation. B.
Miller moved to approve the 10/14/08 minutes as corrected and the 10/28 minutes
as presented. Mr. Daviss seconded, vote
called, all were in favor, motion carried.
II. Review Applications
Submitted:
A.
Lee Kitchen, Michael Kemp, Duane & Jean Wetherby and Michael and
Mary Kemp - Lot line adjustment located in N. Walpole on Spruce and Church Sts. Map
28, Lots 75 and 77 in the Residential B. district. Proposal results in vacant Lot 75 of .42
acres and
III. Close Meeting/Open
Public Hearing
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Royce to describe the
plan. Mr. Royce noted one change on the
maps showing a metes and bounds measurement missing from the original
submission on the Wetherby lot’s frontage.
He described the proposal and submitted corrected maps.
Ch. Miller called for
comments, hearing none closed the public hearing at 7:10pm
IV. Close public hearing
and re-open the meeting
Ch. Miller called for board comment and
action. Mr. Daviss moved to approve the application as presented, Mr. Bob
Miller seconded. Without further
discussion, Ch. Miller called for the vote, all were in favor, motion carried. The maps and mylar
were signed, Mr. Royce will record the mylar at the registry of deeds and
notify the Secretary of the recording numbers as proof of recording.
II. B.
Dorothy Anderson-Galloway -
III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened
the public hearing. (Ch. Miller stepped out
V-Ch. Miller took over due to play rehearsal) Mr. Dibernardo referred to the maps and
described removing acreage from parcel 1 to parcel 2 resulting in Lot 1 and Lot
2.
Tamar Moyer, abutter did not
understand the line movements, Mr. Dibernardo re-explained it in greater detail
pointing to the maps and noting that originally the two parcels were
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 11/11/08 page 2
deeded parcels not individual lots. In order to move the line to account for
sloping terrain issues it requires a lot line adjustment that will result in
legally renaming the parcels as Lot 1 and Lot 2, there were no new lots
created. He explained the owners wanted
to include all the useable level land to the lot that has an access.
Marsha Galloway asked where
Derry Hill Rd. was on the plans? Mr.
Dibernardo showed her on the inset where the roads were indicated. Due to the large size of the lots an inset
was used to show the entire holdings.
Mr. Chuck Bingaman asked if the public notice
was correct taking into account the parcel acreage adjustments. It was determined based on Mr. DiBernardo’s
comment that the notice was correct.
Tamar Moyer asked about the
purpose of the line adjustment, was it to create lots to be sold? Mr. DiBernardo said there were no plans to
put in house lots. The board noted that
part of the land is in the Timberland district, without frontage it is not
subdividable. The Timberland district has a width of Rural Agricultural land in
front of it to allow access but Timberland districts have no direct
frontage. Ms. Moyer thought the land was
going into conservancy but Mr. DiBernardo did not know. V-Ch. Miller noted the only thing before the
board was the lot line adjustment, not subdivision or conservation plans.
IV. V-Ch. B. Miller called for further
comments, hearing none closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting at
7:20pm. He called for board comments and
action. Mr. Fletcher moved to approve
the application as presented, Mr. Daviss seconded. Without further discussion the vote was
called, all were in favor, motion carried. Maps
and mylar were signed with Mr. DiBernardo agreeing to record the mylar and
notify the Secretary of the recording numbers as proof. (Ch. Miller
returned to the meeting)
V. New Business:
A.
Mr.
Joe DiBernardo submitted an application for a Lot Line Adjustment for Peter and
Theodora Berg located off Valley Rd. in the Rural Agricultural and Timberland
districts. Lot #2 results in 95.55 acres
and Lot #3 of 161.83 acres. He said
current Town records did not show the entire parcel as divided into 3
lots. He showed on an old subdivision
plan from 1978 signed by the Planning Board as approved but not reflected in
the Town tax maps. All three parcels are
owned by the Berg’s and have frontage on Valley Rd. Their intent is to remove a part of Lot 1
with buildings onto Lot 3. Sec. Aslinger
asked if the 1978 plan had not been recorded?
Mr. DiBernardo said he was unable to check the registry today because of
the holiday, but will and also inform the board. A
motion to place the application for lot line adjustment on the agenda and
schedule a public hearing for the December 9th meeting was made and seconded,
all were in favor, motion carried.
B. Other - Aumand’s Furniture
update: Sec. Aslinger reported that Attny.
Kasper’s office had contacted her on Nov. 10th to say they would not attend
tonight’s meeting. The Board questions
whether their project has a one year deadline for reconstruction and if simply
filing an application would vest their interests? It was noted if the one year deadline passes
they would have to conform to current zoning restrictions rather than remaining
a grandfathered non-conforming use.
VI. Communications and Miscellaneous
A.
Master Plan Update - Ch. Miller said Mr. Daviss was working with SWRPC on
blending the old plan with the new information.
He asked Mr. Daviss to inquire if more funds were going to be needed
beyond what is covered in the dues and the 350.00 leftover amount, if so to
notify the board so the budget can be adjusted.
Sec. Aslinger said the budget had been filed on November 3rd as
requested and as discussed at the work session.
She said it was agreed to request $1500.00 for continued master plan
updating for 2009. Ch. Miller said he
would like to have SWRPC attend the Selectmen’s meeting that discusses the
board’s budget and asked to be notified of the date as soon as possible.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 11/11/08 page 3
C. Zoning amendment proposals - Ch. Miller referred to a
memo from the Secretary listing several items for consideration. Sec. Aslinger said a request was made at the
work session for her to glean possible amendments from the 2008 meeting minutes
while preparing the Master List for 2008. Last year she presented 11 amendments but was
not intending to propose any this year unless the board chose some from the
list provided or had others. Ch. Miller suggested members look over the list
and if they have ideas to present them to the board at the December meeting. (Ch. Miller was called to rehearsals and
left, V-Ch. Miller took over). Members
chose to review the items due to the early hour rather than waiting until
December.
- Consider
water availability requirements as a zoning requirement or as a subdivision
regulation: Mr. Merklien reported that he thought the
State was in process of proposing water protection rights and possibly within
the next year they would suggest guidelines for towns. He said it was a very complicated subject. Sec. Aslinger thought in order to restrict
water rights through zoning a study would need to be done to identify areas
needing protection. She thought it would
be premature to propose an amendment at this time. She suggested clarifying present wording in
the subdivision regulations to address present concerns - something to the
effect that “land with limited water is unsuitable for subdivision unless
re-capture measures are incorporated and lot sizes are increased”.
- Existing
Town road improvements and upgrading costs to be borne by a developer and
performance bond requirements and specific road lay out standards:
Mr. Merklien thought it was premature to propose an amendment on road
restrictions at this time but that in the near future it should be
considered. Ms. Aslinger said the key to
this item is an “existing” road. Presently the regulations address new road
construction but not when an existing road needs improvement. The recent issue with Hooper Road was
sketchy, maybe out of the Board’s purvue since the Selectboard is the authority
on maintaining existing roadways along with the road agents input. V-Ch. Miller thought the board did their best
and used common sense to achieve a good result by working with the developer,
selectboard and road agent. (Ch. Miller returned to the meeting)
Ms. Aslinger suggested
amending the subdivision regulations rather than a zoning amendment or write a “Resolution”
with the BOS stating “whenever an existing road needs improvement as a result
of a development the Planning Board needs to be involved”. Members talked about who has the ultimate
authority on roads and the need to protect the town from upgrading a road for the
sole benefit of a developer and whether the sub regs already take existing
roads into account. Ch. Miller said the
main issue is on dirt or unimproved Town road upgrades because unplanned
development is taking place and the property owners desire a paved road for
their tax dollars. He feels the
developer should bear the cost. He
thought the same requirement for a new road in a subdivision should be applied
to improving an inadequate Town road. He
gave the example of Old Drewsville Rd. Ms.
Aslinger thought the road standards should be the same as well. Mr. Fletcher said Old Drewsville Rd. was
improved because the Town sheds are out there but agrees it is vulnerable to
development. Mr. Merklien asked if it
would be better to make it a zoning amendment rather than amending the
subdivision regs. Sec. Aslinger said the
only way to make it a zoning amendment would be to create an overlay district
encompassing all existing
town roadways and applying standards to be met but is more appropriately
addressed in the subdivision regulations. Mr. DeCoste asked how it would be
handled if it were only individuals building houses piecemeal. Ch. Miller said each individual would have to
petition the Selectboard to do the upgrade.
He reminded in years past the Selectboard has tried to throw up some
roads and met with great resistance by property owners through town vote
support. Mr. Lounsbury cautioned it
would be better to address vulnerable areas before a developer or a number of
individuals come forward with proposals - to plan ahead. Ch. Miller thought it was something that
could be addressed but not at this time.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 11/11/08 page 4
-
Extend regular meeting application work-loads
into work sessions to expedite application processing: Sec.
Aslinger noted the suggestion was made by Selectman Sawyer when the board was
holding very long meetings earlier in the year he thought to aid applicants
with time delays. She knows this wouldn’t
be a zoning amendment but should be included on the list. Members thought the
level of activity for planning applications in 2009 would be substantially less
than it has been so the need to have an additional meeting was not warranted.
-
Preserve southern part of Walpole rural
agricultural lands from currently allowed special exceptions for commercial and
industrial uses: Ms. Aslinger said the current allowance
of a blanket commercial and industrial use in the entire rural agricultural
district by special exception had been discussed several times at meetings and
work sessions. She said it would require
a zoning amendment to possibly exclude certain areas such as River Rd. Ch. Miller had mentioned that an asphalt
plant and pulp mill had been proposed in that area, but stopped. Mr. DeCoste asked if there would be a new
zone designation for the area? Ch.
Miller said a light industrial overlay might work. He said much of the discussion about Rte. 12
talked about setting industrial uses to the rear of properties with retail or
commercial forward. Mr. Daviss asked why
the southern part of Walpole as opposed to other areas? Ms. Aslinger said it’s an area that is still
pristine and untouched so should be protected before development pressure
arrives. She said the zoning could be
amended with wording to alter the boundaries of the rural ag district such as “commercial
and industrial uses allowed by special exception except for River Rd.” etc, by
defining the actual boundaries within the district and by light or heavy
commercial or industrial. Mr. DeCoste
asked about the landowners - would it be a taking? Ch. Miller thought it could be addressed
without be considered a taking but it might be viewed as such by some. Members did not think an amendment was needed
at this time, but possibly in the near future.
-
Create ore restrictive wetland and
shoreland protective buffers: Ms.
Aslinger said buffers were discussed at several meetings and could be included
in the zoning as a general provision if the board chose. No comments followed.
-
Create a Historic Overlay district for
individual sites throughout the villages: Ms. Aslinger said the
issue that had come up at a few meetings and could be enacted by a zoning
change. Mr. Merklien asked if an overlay
district could be created that was voluntary because it’s been tried before
with restrictive measures and has not passed.
Ch. Miller asked if it was voluntary why have it at all? Mr. Daviss said drawing a boundary or doing
an inventory to identify historic buildings was a better alternative to a
specific restrictive district and thought making it voluntary would be of
benefit. Mr. Merklien said there are a
number of monetary benefits of having a historic registry. Ch. Miller said when the grocery store went
out of Town and the center of commercial activity was gone, the village was
preserved, it happened naturally without setting aside a specific district. He also
attributed Les Hubbard’s purchases of some significant properties as a gift to
the town that has helped preservation. And, having the Burdick’s building
purchased by local people instead of two out of town lawyers helped to define
and preserve the village center. He said
things change but the village is preserved for awhile, the restorations and the character of the buildings, plus the
regulations that are in place have kept it intact. For some time there was concern over what would
happen to some big buildings that were in bad repair, but those have been taken
care of too because of being restored by individuals despite the efforts to
make them more attractive by allowing multifamily and bed and breakfasts. The way the village has naturally been
preserved without a specific historic district is beneficial and perhaps long
lasting. Ch. Miller thought it was good
to explore all options however.
- Refer
to 5/27/08 Work session minutes regarding special exceptions and zoning district
changes and other good suggestions: Ms.
Aslinger said the discussion at that meeting was in regard to Mr. Daviss’s
concern that some areas in town had changed their face simply by the special
exception process such as the Old Drewsville Rd. area being termed “industrial
zone” when it is still predominantly rural agricultural. She said the zoning ordinance recommends that
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 11/11/08 page 5
the planning board change a zoning designation
permanently once a property use is allowed by special exception and has been converted
to an industrial use from a rural agriculture use. She said in a couple of areas such as
Huntington Farm and Whitcomb construction the board may want to consider
reviewing the zoning map and proposing changes to reflect the actual industrial
uses. Ch. Miller thought the economic
development master plan work planned for 2009 would address the issue and it
should be a top priority. Mr. Daviss
agreed saying one impetus for doing an economic development plan happens when
one industrial use is allowed in the rural agricultural district, it grows like
a fungus such as the Whitcomb area. It’s
now being described as “industrial” because of 11 or so industrial uses that
have a foothold. A plan would draw the
line and prevent the spread into residential rural agricultural areas where persons
are invested in a residential use. Ch.
Miller agreed noting Bensonwood’s proposal was hard to limit when they located
so closely to Chamberlain although it worked out to everyone’s benefit. Mr. Daviss thought part of the economic
development plan process would not only identify targeted areas but open discussion
on the hard issues instead of reacting to an application or proposal before the
board. It makes it much more difficult
to enact limitations during the application process. With a plan in place the planning board has a
guide to follow. The zoning board, when
special exceptions are applied for, would be in a position to refer to the master
plan for guidance and not feel pressured to grant based on surrounding property
uses. Mr. DeCoste was concerned that the
criteria is lax in what is required to obtain a special exception, his thought
is to add more restrictions such as infrastructure requirements. Ch. Miller agreed siting an example of
someone wanting develop in the southern section of town, if the plan excluded
that area because of inadequate roads there would already be a mechanism for
denial based on the lack of infrastructure.
Ms. Aslinger noted in the minutes from 5/27 there was discussion
regarding putting more restrictions on the special exception review process
such as requiring infrastructure for large scale industrial or commercial
uses. Mr. DeCoste asked if Ch. Mansouri
had considered or had suggestions. Ms.
Aslinger said she thought she would be in attendance and brought an extra copy
but will e-mail it to her with the minutes for her comments.
Ch. Miller stressed the importance of developing the
economic plan and to address these issues specifically during the 2009 work
sessions. Mr. Daviss said Lisa Murphy at
SWRPC is gathering some sample plans as requested and will send them by e-mail
when available. Ch. Miller said further
discussion will take place at the January work session and announced work
session for the balance of 2008 are cancelled due to the holidays.
- Consider allowing
2 single family dwellings on one family homestead lot: Ms.
Aslinger thought more research is needed on how other towns handle allowing two
single family dwellings on one lot without subdivision in an instance where
family members are attempting to care for one another such as the Frost’s
request earlier in the year. She asked
if the board wanted to pursue making an allowance in the zoning or regulations? Mr. Daviss asked how it was resolved for the
Frost’s? Sec. Aslinger reported they
were able to take the handicapped apartment in the Griswold Building on
Westminster St. They knew they could
only seek a variance because of lack of frontage. Members felt the current zoning addresses the
issue by allowing a two family dwelling on a lot provided they have a common
foundation and did not see the need to make any changes at this time.
- In conclusion,
Sec. Aslinger said if the board has no other suggestions and does not want to
pursue items on the list then there will be no proposed amendments by the board
for 2009. She noted a copy of the
official calendar was attached, just in case something should need presenting
in December.
D. Other -
Mr. Merklien announced the
passing of Mr. Bob Jasse last week. He
said he had been the board’s ally and loved Walpole - referring to it as “the
center of the universe”. He will be greatly
missed but always appreciated for attending meetings and participating in the
work sessions. Members reminisced for a
few moments about some of Bob’s spirited but caring ways.
VII. Ch.
Miller closed the meeting 8:20pm and wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Next
meeting 12/9/08 7PM.
Cc: file, PB,
ZBA, BOS, WCC, MP, all related applicants and agents Posted:
Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s, www.thewalpolean.com