PLANNING BOARD
MEETING January 8, 2008
at 7:30pm Town Hall Up
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller,
Members Present: Bob Miller, V-Ch., Eric Merklein, Charles Miller,
BOS, Bennett Daviss, David DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff
White, alt.
(Fred Dill was present in
the audience, but not as an alternate member)
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved
and will be reviewed at the Feb. 12, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and
corrections. There were 20 persons in
the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:35pm
A. All regular members were
present, no alternates designated.
B. Minutes of 11/13/07 and 12/11/07 were
approved as presented.
II. Close Meeting/Open Public Hearing on
seventh proposed Zoning Amendment for 2008 Town vote.
Chairman
Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing on amendment #7 adding
the following new provision to:
Article
VI - Commercial District E. Land Standards: “Undeveloped Open Space Standards: Not less than thirty (30%) of the entire lot
to be developed shall be retained as “undeveloped” open space, unencumbered by
buildings, parking lots, accessory structures, other impervious surfaces or
other manmade improvements except those improvements that protect natural
features and/or support undeveloped open space that can be used for lawns,
gardens, landscaping, and human recreation.
Said undeveloped open space may include setback areas as defined I the
zoning ordinance for each zoning district.”
Purpose is to match the exact
wording as appears in the Site Plan Review regulations to create a balance of
Undeveloped Open Space in the Commercial District.
Chairman
Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing at 7:40pm and asked Mr.
Merklein to present the explanation.
Mr. Merklein said the presentation
of the amendment is based on a recommendation by legal council from the Local
Gov’t Center’s attorney when the Board queried whether it should be put in the
Site Plan Review regs or the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board did adopt the exact wording and placed it in the Site Plan
Review regulations in April of 2007 but with the intention of eventually
placing it in the Zoning Ordinance. The
attorney suggested it was appropriate in the Site Plan regs but would be
undeniably enforceable in the Zoning Ordinance unless a variance was
granted. Mr. Merklein explained placing
it in the Site Plan Review regs was only a stopgap measure until it could be
added to the Zoning Ordinance within the following year. He said it is exactly the same amount of
allowable open space that was approved by the Town regarding multi-family
dwellings. He thought the voters would
support the same amount for commercial developments. He said it fits in with the Master Plan and
recent survey. He thought if left in the
Site Plan regs it would be more legally challengeable than it would be in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman commented
saying he thought the amendment as proposed would seriously limit incoming
businesses that might be good for the Town’s economic base. He sited Burdick’s reuse of a building, Fall
Mountain Building Supply and Bensonwood.
He thought it would lower the value of commercial land in the Town by
restricting 30% of the land as un-useable.
He thought the way it is being addressed in the Site Plan regs and at
the discretion of the Planning Board was far better than placing the discretion
by variance through the Zoning Board. He
did not think the past policy was not working.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/8/08 page 2
Mr. Merklein disagreed that creating open space
devalues land, instead increases the value by adding to aesthetically pleasing
development plus narrows the amount of developable land, which causes an
increase in prices for the remaining land.
He said a developer can come in for a variance by proving economic
hardship at the Zoning Board, he didn’t believe it would stop any development.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if there was an
inventory of available commercial space to determine whether 30% was a figure
based on availability. He asked where
the 30% came from. Mr. Merklein said
there was not an inventory, the 30% came about from the multifamily
restriction, trying to parallel that requirement. He said it was to prevent sprawl and building
after building without buffers. He said
the same wording appears in the Site Plan Review regs. The
idea was to put it in the Zoning Ordinance so it would be less likely to be
challenged legally.
Mr. Sawyer thought the value of a 10
acre parcel minus 3 acres would lower the value of the property, even in terms
of farming if he had to reduce a crop by 3 acres.
Mr. Fletcher asked what was
considered a setback? Answer was whatever
setback is required within the zone. The
setbacks were added during deliberations on the wording for the Site Plan regs
and thought to be a fair approach. Ch.
Miller re-read the wording.
Ms. Susan Steisel asked if
agricultural uses would fall under this restriction? Answer was no, only commercial operations in
the commercial district/land.
Mr. Mel Shupack noted the operations
Mr. Sawyer mentioned are existing and would be grandfathered. He said there is a great deal of concern in
Town for avoiding the commercial sprawl issue, he thought it was better to
clarify the restriction in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jeff White agreed with it being
placed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Eric Merklein said 30% sounds
large but including the setbacks and other uses it shrinks the limited area.
Mr. Don Lansbury asked if septic
systems would be excluded or included in the 30% open space. Ch. Miller answered most, if not all
available commercial lands are served by Town water and sewer so it may not be
a concern.
Mr. Ben Daviss reminded in the
recent survey, persons ranked land preservation and land conservation more
highly than commercial or industrial development. He thought Mr. Merklein’s proposed amendment
expressed the wishes of the Town.
III. Close Public Hearing/Re-open Meeting -
Action on amendment #7: Approve -
Disapprove- Edit, hold a second hearing.
Recommend or Not Recommend.
Ch. Miller
called for further comments, being none, closed the Public Hearing (7:55pm) and
re-opened the meeting. He explained even though the
Planning Board was submitting the amendment the Board was required to vote to
recommend passing it to the Town or not recommend passing it. He called for a motion to recommend or not
recommend this article as it appears on the warrant. Mr.
Ben Daviss moved to recommend. Seconded
by Mr. Merklein.
Further
discussion: Mr. Dave DeCoste asked what number amendment
would it be? Answer was #7. Ch. Miller said his main concern about the
intent of the amendment is if the Board decides to pass it, is that he thinks
because it already exists in the Site Plan Review regs it’s enough and because
the amount of commercial land is very limited, each situation may have special
circumstances that flexibility in the Site Plan Review regs would be better
able to address without having an exact restriction if placed in the Zoning
Ordinance. He doesn’t agree it is
appropriate to create an amendment that may cause persons to seek a variance
they should not be given out easily. He
said he doubts a variance could be granted especially given the very limited
amount of commercial land. He disagreed
the Town would be open to lawsuits and disagrees the
Planning
Board would not uphold the Site Plan provision as it is written now. He hoped the
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/8/08 page 3
Board
would not favorably recommend the amendment like it had been voted down last
month and to keep the provision in the Site Plan where it belongs.
Mr. Merklein said SWRPC commented on the fact that
for the population Walpole has a larger commercial and industrial district than
other Towns in the region. He said yes
it does make it harder for a developer but it is good planning for the
Town. Ch. Miller said he thought the
Planning Board has a reasonable amount of control over open space with the
restriction in the Site Plan and feels the Board would uphold it in most
circumstances but has the ability to meet the needs of property owners and the
Town. He still thinks it is unnecessary
in the Zoning Ordinance. He said the
Board has flexibility to reduce it to 25% but an applicant must submit their
proposal based on the 30% requirement and prove to the Planning Board why they
would need a reduction. It would be up
to the Planning Board to decide, not the Zoning Board. He thinks the Planning Board has better
ability to decide design issues rather than the Zoning Board.
Mr. DeCoste asked how much harder would it be to
seek a variance vs. a waiver in the Site Plan?
Mr. Merklein said the ZBA has set criteria that must be met in order to
grant a variance. Mr. DeCoste said the
Planning Board can also ask for set criteria in granting a waiver, so it could
be just as hard as proving variance criteria.
Mr. Merklein disagreed saying the ZBA criteria is more difficult but the
Planning Board is more discretionary.
Mr. DeCoste and Ch. Miller thought the Planning Board could be just as
stringent in its review. Ch. Miller said
the Planning Board had the ability in the Site Plan Review to determine an
adequate amount of open space up to 30% to be able to work with each site
individually rather than having a set 30% in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. O’Keefe asked to clarify where it appears in the
Site Plan? Sec. Aslinger located it on
page 9. General Standards. He asked as
of now it only appears in the Site Plan Review Regulations? Answer was yes.
Ms. Aslinger offered a comment on behalf of ZBA Ch.
Mansouri who was not present but had expressed concern over the amendment
appearing in the Zoning Ordinance. She
does not agree a person applying for a variance would automatically receive one
based on the very restrictive criteria they would have to meet. Ms. Aslinger thought economic hardship would
not be an acceptable reason for granting a variance as it would run with the
land. She said if a developer came in
and wanted to seek a variance for the Undeveloped Open Space they would not be
able to ask for a portion less than 30%, the variance would be granted on the
full amount thereby leaving the Town and Planning Board with much less or no
open space than if it were addressed under the Site Plan regs. She said having the provision in the Site
Plan regs gives the Planning Board the flexibility to work with the
developer. Another concern is on a large
parcel 30% would not be monumental but on a one acre lot it could be prohibitive.
She thought the amendment could be
reconsidered at another time but should take into account that the 30% figure
might be deemed unreasonable.
Mr. Bob Miller asked if the Board was comfortable
with the possibility that only setback requirements would be adhered to with the
rest of the property developed? Members thought
the Site Plan regs offered many other restrictions such as parking lot
standards, landscaping and buffering etc. plus the 30% open space.
Ch. Miller thought variances have been granted in
the past fairly easily if there is a sympathy factor vs. an economic hardship
unless it is because of the land. He
thought it would be hard to prove enough money couldn’t be made by taking away
30% of the land questioning whether it is viable reasoning for seeking a
variance.
He restated
the motion to recommend the amendment as proposed and called for a vote. 1 was in favor, 6 were against. Motion failed.
Ch. Miller noted in order to move the question in
the affirmative another motion to not recommend the passing of the amendment
would need to be made. Mr. Dave Decoste moved to not recommend the
amendment #7. Seconded by Henry
Fletcher. Mr. O’Keefe asked to
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 4
clarify
the motion? Ch. Miller said #7 would
appear before the voters but it would state whether the Planning Board
recommended it or not, so a motion needed to be made in the affirmative. Ch.
Miller called for the vote, 6 were in favor, 1 opposed, motion carried. Ch. Miller said the amendment would
appear as #7 on the warrant for March.
Sec. Aslinger asked the Board if they would
authorize her to have Town legal counsel review the 7 amendments for legality
in order to avoid challenges to them after the Town vote? She said the building vs. establishment
article from 2007 was being challenged because of how it was worded.
Selectmen Sawyer questioned why the Board would vote
not to recommend amendment #7 and whether
the Board had voted to approve it to be put on the warrant? Members stated it had been approved at the
last meeting and it was proper for the Board to recommend or not recommend an
article. (Note: Ch. Miller and Sec.
Aslinger determined after the meeting by reviewing the prior minutes that a
vote to approve #7 for placement on the warrant was not made, therefore
amendment #7 will not appear on the warrant for 2008 due to a procedural error.)
Sec. Aslinger restated her request to have legal
counsel review the final abbreviated version for the warrant to avoid legal
challenge. Ch. Miller said because the
amendments were already clear and straightforward he does not think it is
necessary to have legal counsel review them.
Sec. Aslinger said she would make sure the Board members had copies of
the amendments prior to placing them on the warrant. Mr. Daviss cautioned any substantial changes
would require an additional public hearing and the deadline would be past.
IV. Old Business
A.
Walpole D & D, LLC - Update on conditions pending.
Ch. Miller announced receipt of a road approval
agreement, a sign off from the Road Agent, except for a Spring inspection,
resulting in delaying signing of the final plat. Sec. Aslinger provided copies of Road Agent Jim Terrell’s sign off letter.
Mr. Daviss asked if the Board set
the requirements for the road specs or did Mr. Terrell? Ch. Miller answered the Board did not specify
specs but relied on Mr. Terrell to set them according to the Town’s needs. Mr. Dill verified the agreement, saying he
and Mr. Terrell verbally agreed and put the specs on paper. Selectman Sawyer asked if the Planning Board
overruled the Selectboard on how Class V roads are done? Ch. Miller said no but the Board had placed a
condition on the approval based on the Road Agent’s needs to bring the road up
to a better quality according to the Town’s specs in order to service the additional
lots. Mr. Sawyer asked if it included
input from the BOS? Ch. Miller said he
assumed it would, they would be working together for the Town. Ch. Miller said the Board’s request for a
performance bond was to insure the work was done, however the work got done
without it. Mr. Sawyer said the
Subdivision Regulations state a bond is not required on a Town improved road,
so they felt it was not necessary. Ch.
Miller said a condition of approval was to provide the bond and the applicant
had agreed. Mr. Sawyer said that was wrong according to
the regulations. Ch. Miller said it was
needed to insure the work was done and the Board had asked for it in the past
referring to the Sand Hill subdivision.
Mr. Sawyer disagreed saying he couldn’t remember ever asking for a bond
on a Class V road only on newly laid out road.
Ch. Miller said it was appropriate for the Board to ask for the bond to
insure the work was started and completed, if something was left undone the
Town would not have to pay for it. He
said in this case the work was done so far to the Road Agent’s satisfaction but
it might not be the case in the future with another developer. Mr. Sawyer argued the Board did not have the
right to ask for it based on it’s regulations, asking if the Board had read the
regulations, asking if they were ignoring it.
Ch. Miller said the Board wasn’t ignoring the regulations and felt they
were within their authority to ask for it to insure the
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 5
work
was done. He said despite the lack of
performance bond the work has been done with the exception of final approval in
the Spring.
Mr. Dill clarified one other point, the Board had
not given final approval of the plans, so the Board has the power to withdraw
its approval. He did not think they had
done something without that in consideration.
Ch. Miller agreed, saying the conditions were not addressed the way he
thought they would be. He said the work
got done to the specifications required by the Road Agent.
Mr. Merklein asked about the letter
from the BOS stating why they did not require the performance bond based on the
Sub. Reg. “N.” disallowing bonding on existing Town roads. He asked if all lots fronted on a Town
improved road? Answer was yes, either on Hooper, Wentworth or
Old Keene roads. He voiced his concern
over the BOS power to go against a Planning Board condition for posting of the
bond.
Ms. Susanne Steisel an abutter asked
if the performance bond was required, yes or no? Ch. Miller said yes although the Selectboard said
no. He said the rationale for the bond
was to make sure the work was done according to the Town road agent’s specs,
the work has been done pending a Spring inspection so the bond would have been
released anyway. She asked about future
developers, how would the Board be able to enforce bond posting in the
future. Ch. Miller said the Board would
address future applications as they appeared.
Ms. Steisel asked about the drainage plans?
Mrs. Krystyna Marcom an audience
member asked if the Board had required a performance bond and the applicant
agreed to it but the Selectboard didn’t think it washed, who is right? Ch. Miller said the roadwork was done and
updated at no cost to the Town, thereby meeting the condition. She stressed the importance of having the
Planning Board’s approvals upheld.
Sec. Aslinger noted Walpole D & D,
LLC had submitted a written formal request for waiver of the performance bond
(on file) due to the Subdivision Regulation “N.” disallowing a bond on an
improved Town road. She said while it
was after the fact, having it voted on and agreed to would prevent setting a
precedence on future developments that may involve a similar situation and the
regulations do allow for waivers by the Board.
She read the letter into the record, (each member was mailed a copy
prior to the meeting). Mr. O’Keefe asked
if the warning procedure for the public was proper for the Board to reconsider
a condition. Ch. Miller said it appeared
on the agenda and it was properly posted.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if the abutters had not been notified and if it hasn’t
been properly warned the applicant can be adversely affected. Ch. Miller said as long as it appears on the
agenda, the public and abutters are properly warned.
Mr. Daviss asked if the Board agreed
to waive the condition, does the Board need to site a specific reason besides
the applicant simply requesting it? Ch.
Miller said yes, there should be rationale.
Mr. Dill asked if his daughter
Attny. Cynthia Dill representing him could speak.
Ch.
Miller agreed to have her speak. Ms.
Dill said the reasoning would be because the Subdivision Regulations General
Requirements “N.” does not require bond posting on a Town improved road.
Mr. DeCoste said whether it is in
the regulations or not, the Board made the request and it was agreed to by D
& D. For whatever reason instead of
coming back to the Planning Board, they went to the Selectboard who incorrectly
waived the bond based on how they perceived the situation. He said the problem lies in the fact D &
D should have come back to the Planning Board to have the condition addressed,
instead the Board did not know about the BOS action and the road was done
without a bond. Again he didn’t think
anything was done intentionally, but the procedure was not adhered to and it
made it very difficult on the Planning Board because the Selectboard had given
D & D approval not to post a bond without the Board’s input on a condition
it had placed on an approval.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 6
Ms. Dill said looking at it from fresh eyes and re-reading
the condition it appeared the Road Agent didn’t require a bond. Mr. DeCoste said except D & D agreed to
it and the Board placed it on as a condition.
She thought it might have been a misunderstanding but if the Board was looking
for a reason to grant the waiver they could use the regulations not requiring
it and the road agent not requiring it.
Mr. Dill thought the waiver set a procedure to insure future applicants
did not fall under a set precedence.
Selectman Sawyer asked if the Board
was going to change the regulations, he read the regulation stating no bond
required on an existing improved Town road.
He thought the Board wasn’t aware of the regulation and set a bond
anyway. Mr. DeCoste asked Mr. Dill if he
agreed to posting the bond, Mr. Dill said yes.
Mr. Sawyer argued the BOS sets the amount and decided not to set one at
all based on the Subdivision Regulations.
Ch. Miller said the procedure was
wrong, D & D should have come back to the Planning Board to request waiver
of the condition, not the Selectboard. They
have no authority to waive a condition set by the Planning Board and the Board
should not have found out about it by driving by to see the road was already
done. He said it is not going through
the proper channels and all are elected officials of the Town to uphold
decisions. The Board had an agreement
with the developer the process would have been taken care of if it had gone
through the Planning Board.
Ms. Aslinger added the regulations
provide for the Board to protect the health, safety and welfare of the Town. In this case where a project is proposed on a
road that is barely improved and as the Road Agent stated in the minutes only
up to the standard to maintain the traffic for two houses, when the developer
came in with 8 or 10 houses it created more traffic and the road was not able
to handle it. That is the reasoning
behind having the developer pay for the improvements and to post a bond to
insure the work was done to the Road Agents specs. The Planning Board knew the regulations exempted
bond posting on a Town road, but because the road was in such poor condition
the Board had the right to impose the condition. Mr. Sawyer disagreed.
Mr. Daviss asked if Town Counsel
should be consulted? Ch. Miller said in
order to go forward and prevent future problems, waiving the bond requirement
based on a technicality that the work had been done and the regulations exempt
bond posting on lots that front on an improved Town road would be adequate
reasoning.
Mr. Daviss said he would like the
record to show it does not set a precedent that someone can come in with a
waiver after the fact because it has already happened without a condition being
met. He said rather the waiver in this
case was considered because this is a unique set of circumstances coming
together at a certain time, not to set a precedence for someone in the future
to ask for a waiver after the condition has been set.
Mr.
DeCoste said with Mr. Daviss’ s comments on the record, he moved to grant the
waiver. Mr. Fletcher seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bob Miller regarding the performance bond issue asked Mr. Sawyer to
look at “N.” stating “an improved Town road”, he asked if he thought Hooper
Road was actually an existing “improved” Town road before the Board asked D
& D to bring it up to Class V standards?
Mr. Sawyer said it is a Class V road that had some improvement on it in
the past, the work done did not come out the way they wanted it to but it is a
Class V road. He said the regulations
require 250 ft. of frontage on Class V roads in order to subdivide, so it
qualifies. Mr. Miller asked if it meets
the Class V standards. Mr. Sawyer said
there are a lot of roads in Town that do not meet the standards for newly built
Class V roads, the Old Drewsville Road is an example, Carpenter, Whipple
Hill. He said even with substantial
improvements made by the Town, they wouldn’t meet the specs for someone
building a new road.
Mrs. Marcom asked if infact Hooper
road was improved enough for 12 house lots?
Mr. Sawyer answered yes according to what the Road agent and D & D
agreed to.
To determine Condition #1: Ch. Miller asked if all were
in agreement that the first condition has been met pending a Spring inspection
by the Road agent? Answer was yes.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 7
To determine Condition #2: Ch. Miller asked for the
Stormwater Drainage plan requested in condition #2. Mr. Warren Stevens provided additional copies
of the plan showing existing conditions. Sec. Aslinger had received a copy
prior. Mr. Stevens said they showed
existing paths, three primary culverts across Hooper Rd. No changes are proposed for any of the
drainage, the culverts are all new plastic pvc, they did replace one, all are
15” culverts. He showed the direction of
the drainage. He said existing lot with
house has no changes, water from that lot drains onto lot 4 through a culvert
on the westerly side, across 5 to a brook.
Lot 2 and 5 have a wetlands, they outlet across the road, the subdivision
is not impacting the wetland and houses would be sited to the west of the
wetlands. Once a house is sited, they
will have to conform to the Town’s regulations for drainage. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 will not have a need for a
culvert to access the lots except lot 6.
He said it was hard to do a drainage plan when they weren’t developing
the lots. He questioned the requirement
in the regulations. He said they do them
on site plans, but not on subdivision unless a new road is involved. Mr. DeCoste asked if the Road Agent was aware
of the culverts, answer was yes.
Mr. Daviss referred to the regulations
under “K.” reading it asked how the condition was being met under the
requirement. Mr. Dill thought it
pertained only to building a new road.
Mr. Daviss said roads were not mentioned in the requirement. Ms. Aslinger thought it was to prevent site
grading from creating run-off onto abutting properties similar to what happened
to Mr. Steisel’s property when a neighbor built a house and her property was badly
affected. She added mentioned in the State
Planning Board handbook even though a developer isn’t planning to build on the
lots the Board cannot ignore they are created to build houses on. In order to protect everyone this type of plan
indicating existing and potential changes must show the entire subdivision can
support 8 - 12 new sites before they are built.
She said the current plans show only what’s existing and asked if any of
the lots would not support a house or would create a drainage problem?
Mr. Stevens said all of the lots could support a
house site and mentioned that EPA has further requirements to be met once a
site is disturbed, adding an additional review to protect abutting
properties. He thought it triggered at
40K sq. feet. They would need to file a
stormwater plan at that time. Ms.
Steisel asked if someone began building a house on one of the lots would the
abutters be notified? Answer was no but
the owner would need to file with the EPA once they applied for a building
permit. Mr. Stevens said the permit
would be filed on the site once a contractor or engineer is ready to do the
site work. He said they are currently
waiting on State subdivision approval on a couple of the lots, but due to
weather they are not able to reset the markers.
Ms. Aslinger said she was satisfied Mr. Stevens had
addressed whether each lot could support a building site without creating a
stormwater drainage issue on abutting properties. Mr. Daviss said the regulation leaves the
developer responsible for any stormwater drainage problems affecting abutting
properties by obtaining easements. He
questioned whether D & D was aware of the liability when the houses are
built, 10 - 12 lots of 40,000 sq. feet each is a large amount of disturbed
surface drainage. Mr. Dill said it was
impossible to make a provision for every situation it’s better to rely on some
people to use better judgment and to be able to give and take. He pointed to the 25 year old subdivision in
the area, how it is still being built on with success. Mr. Daviss said his concern was how the Board
can apply the regulation properly. Mr.
Dill said sometimes the regulations are difficult to apply to every situation. Attorney Dill suggested the Board decide
based on whether they met the terms outlined in the condition.
To determine Condition #3: Ch. Miller moved on to
Condition #3 regarding the deed restrictions, members were mailed copies of the
deed restrictions submitted by D & D.
Sec. Aslinger read the condition - “approval of submitted plans to
increase recharge, conservation and water recapture drainage as recommended in
the Weston Sampson report and criteria”.
She said
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 8
Weston
Sampson report asked for all plumbing fixtures and appliances shall be in high
efficiency and low flow, any swimming pools installed on any lot cannot be
filled from onsite wells, the irrigated area on any lot cannot exceed 2.5
acres. She said D & D deed
restrictions do include the recommendations.
Ch. Miller read from the Weston Sampson report page 5 about the plumbing
fixtures, swimming pools and irrigation.
Roof drains to be directed to separate leachfields, drainage swails
installed to induce recapture and install a separate non-pumping bedrock well
to monitor ambient groundwater levels in the area.
Mr. Daviss asked if the deed shows all restrictions
mentioned? Answer was not all. Mr. DeCoste said the recharging was not
addressed. Ch. Miller asked if they were
going to include the other three criteria.
Mr. Dill said they did not know how to address them since they weren’t
doing the building. Ch. Miller said he
thought a general statement could be added to the deed restrictions. He thought the recommendations were very
important. Mr. Stevens said most of the
water usage once a house is built would go back into the ground. Ch. Miller agreed but thought because of the
sensitivity of the area, a general comment to increase recharge was highly
recommended and should be incorporated into the deed restrictions. Mr. Daviss asked if all were
incorporated? Answer was not the non-pumping
well. Ch. Miller said the monitoring
well was talked about but he did not think it was going to be helpful. Mr. Dill questioned who would monitor it and
one of the reasons they went from 13 lots to 8 to address the water issue. He questioned what it would yield for
information. Members thought the well
would give a trend for use up or down and the Town water department could
monitor it. Ms. Steisel asked if the
purpose of the monitoring well would show if the water goes down after the
subdivision, would the Town bring water up to the area? Ch. Miller said no it is a separate
issue. He questioned whether the
information would be useful. He thought
the restrictions protect future buyers so they are aware of the water issue,
unlike many people who have recently built on Wentworth Rd. Mr. Daviss thought the purpose would be for
an early warning system so water could be brought up although he wasn’t insisting
Mr. Dill provide the well. Ms. Aslinger
read from the minutes of the power point presentation meeting where Mr. Goetz
mentioned an ambient well could be used to show adequate and seasonal water
supply.
Ch. Miller asked to have drainage swails added to
the deed restrictions to induce recharge perhaps addressed when the sites are
laid out and landscaping plans designed.
He also asked about roof drains. Mr. Dill thought the roof itself acted
as a collection surface directing the water back into the ground, members agreed. Mr. Daviss asked if the condition states
everything recommended in the Weston Sampson report the well would be part of
it or are they doing it selectively? Ch. Miller said the condition was for them to
provide the deed restrictions it was for the Board to decide if the condition
is met so far. Attny. Dill asked if the
Board would accept the exact wording regarding the drainage swails incorporated
into the deed restrictions? Answer was
yes.
Selectman Miller asked Mr. Dill if putting something
in his deeds to help a buyer if their well goes dry, to protect their
investment. Mr. Dill said he didn’t
think persons purchasing a lot would be first time buyers and would thoroughly
research it prior to buying it. Mrs.
Marcom asked if the Town would consider bringing water to the area if wells
went dry and is the Town liable for not providing water? Ch. Miller said it was up to the Town, he
said many areas in Town have water issues, if for some reason several homes
were without water they could approach the Town and see what happens. Ch. Miller said there is no liability to the
Town. He said there is no protection or
requirement by the State that Planning Boards have to guarantee water, there is
in Vermont but not in NH at this time.
Mrs. Marcom said any potential buyer would be aware of the water issue
because of the discussions at the Planning Board meetings, the record will show
the area has water issues.
Ch. Miller
said condition #4 regarding fees has been met.
Condition #5 State subdivision approval is still in process. He said still pending, is another draft of
the deed
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/8/08 page 9
restrictions, asap. The final signing off on the road by the Road
agent after his Spring inspection and State subdivision approval. The plans cannot be signed until the latter
two are complete. A follow up letter will be
sent.
V. New Business
A.
Chamberlain Machine - Preliminary Consultation
Mr. Gary Kinyon, Attorney
presented an application for the Board’s review at the February meeting. Mr. Kinyon stated Chris Miller, Scott and Bob
Boynton were present. He submitted two
applications, first being Site Plan Review, second a conditional use permit for
the Well Source Protection Ordinance. He
reminded the Board about its special exception recommendation and granting of
the special exception by the Zoning Board in November. The site plan application includes 12 pages
with extra sets for the Board. He said
the conditional use permit is required because the site is within the well
source protection area. Their thought
was to take up both applications together.
Along with the conditional use permit they have included information
from Steve Brackett of Brackett Geosciences, a geologist commenting on the
standards in the well source protection ordinance as applied to the site and
also provided an inventory list of the chemicals used at the present facility
in Rockingham that will be similar to the list used at the new site. Fees were also presented.
Mr. Daviss noted the DOT driveway
permit described the intersection at Dearborn Circle Rd. as incorrect, assuming
it meant Upper Walpole Rd. All were in
agreement.
Ch. Miller asked if there would be
drawings? Yes, 12 pages. Members asked if they could have their own
copies of the miniature versions prior to the meeting. Mr. Kinyon said they would have them made and
will contact Ms. Aslinger once they are prepared, she will make arrangements to
get them to the members. She asked to
have 3 large sets for the files. Mr.
Kinyon will check with SVE, Ms. Aslinger said she would need them prior to
1/28/08 in order to stay within the deadlines.
Ch.
Miller called for a motion to place the applications on the agenda for the February
12, 2008 meeting and schedule the public hearing, so moved and seconded.
Motion
carried.
VI. Communications and Miscellaneous
A. Master Plan
Update - Survey Results - Sec. Aslinger handed out copies of the graphs prepared by Mel
Schupack. Ch. Miller announced in order
to help the Board stay within its budget, the Secretary will no longer do
minutes of the work sessions. He said if
the Board schedules the work sessions, other arrangements would be made. He said the money left over in the budget for
the update of the master plan was rolled over into the general fund. He said in order to get monies added into the
2008 budget he assigned Ben to contact SWRPC to write a contract showing what
the cost will be by 1/10/08 Selectmen’s meeting. Ben mentioned SWRPC had quoted $3500.00 to
provide some extra services to revamp the regulations and master plan. Ch. Miller thought SWRPC should quote for
completion in 2008. He thought asking
them draft the update from suggestions made by a small subcommittee would be
best. Mr. Daviss said the normal process would be to have SWRPC write a
vision statement, set of goals and draft an update of the land use
section. Ch. Miller agreed. Mr. Daviss
said the next step would be to hold the public hearings once the draft is
prepared. Ch. Miller thought the
Planning Board would review the initial draft and then present it for the
public hearing. Ben will confirm with
SWRPC if $1000.00 would cover those services and let the secretary know so it
can be presented to the BOS by Thursday evening. Mr. Sawyer said the BOS has had a difficult
time with keeping the taxes down for the Town, they are trying to maintain only
a 3% overall increase.
Mr. Schupack asked if the work
session is scheduled for 1/22/08? Ch.
Miller said yes as long as members agree and without minute taking. Sec. Aslinger asked if the Master Plan update
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 10
items
could be added to the regular meeting agenda?
Ch. Miller said he didn’t think it was reasonable because of the
meetings being too busy. Sec. Aslinger
said a work session is an official meeting and agenda still needs to be posted
and minutes taken. A member suggested
taping the work sessions and storing the tapes.
Mr. Sawyer said what Ms. Aslinger was suggesting to drop the work
sessions was because the Zoning and Planning secretary budget has gone from
1500.00 to over 6000.00 for both in just three years. Sec. Aslinger said infact the Boards’ business
has tripled in 3 years resulting in the increase, she offered to put some
figures together, Mr. Sawyer asked her not to spend more time doing that. Sec. Aslinger said half of what she does is
on a volunteer basis like all of the members because of her alternate member status
and she only bills for the secretarial duties, period. She said she didn’t like being excluded from
doing what is legally and procedurally correct and forcing her to do more
volunteer work when the Board’s fees cover it’s budget and can be increased
when the budget increases due to its workload.
C. Other - Ch. Miller called for other
business: Mr. O’Keefe said because of
the performance bond matter and the subdivision regulations ambiguity he
suggested rewriting it to reflect the Board’s preference, in order to prevent
future confusion. Sec. Aslinger asked if
he would like to be on a subcommittee to update the entire Subdivision
Regulations, bringing them in to conformance with the State RSA
requirements. The Regulations are 20
years old and she would make every effort to see they are completed this year. Mr. O’Keefe agreed as well as Mr. Daviss and
Mr. Merklein.
VII. Meeting
Adjourned 9:45pm. Work session scheduled
for Jan. 22, 2008 at 7PM.
Next regular meeting February 12,
2008, 7:30pm Town Hall
Cc: file, PB, ZBA, Town Offices
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.walpoleplanningboard.com.,
www.thewalpolean.com