PLANNING BOARD
MEETING March 11, 2008 at
7:30pm Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Chairman
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Henry Fletcher, Dave DeCoste, Charles Miller BOS,
Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt.
Members Absent: Jeff White, alt., Fred Dill (in audience)
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved
and will be reviewed at the April 8, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and
corrections. There were 25 +/- persons
in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:35pm
A. All regular members were
present, no alternates designated.
B. Minutes from 2/12/08 were approved as
presented by unanimous vote.
II. Review applications submitted:
Ch. Miller tabled the new applications until later in the meeting to
allow for Mr. DiBernardo to arrive for the presentation and deliver survey
maps. Ch. Miller called for:
VI. Unfinished Business
A. Walpole D &
D, LLC -
update. Mr. Dill reported they were
still waiting on the State subdivision approval.
B. Chamberlain Machine Inc. - Conditional
Use Permit - Well Source Protection and Site Plan Review for a machine shop
located on Rte. 12 Map 12,
Mr. Hitchcock said they had contacted the Police Department for a written
comment on traffic safety. They only
were able to obtain a verbal response.
The Police said they had never had a problem at the intersection and did
not foresee any problems resulting from Chamberlain’s proposal. He said they spoke with the Water and Sewer
Dept. they commented via e-mail (on file) that Chamberlain should connect t o
the sewer line. The Water department
would like more time to review the details of the water/sewer line. Mr. Hitchcock said it is a technical issue,
they sent copies of the plans to the Water Dept. three weeks ago by e-mail and
apparently they were not received and were not made aware until today. He said Chamberlain would accommodate
whatever Mr. Houghton wants. He said in
doing more research, he had been told by his staff the sewer line was quite far
away but in fact the sewer line is closer but is still about 1600 ft. away. He pointed to the building and sewer main on
the map, they would come along the back of the lots to
Rte. 12 and cross Rte. 12. He said it is
an option to connect but the sewer main is about 20 feet deep, it would be a
very costly process, but it is possible.
Ch.
Miller called for questions. Mr.
DeCoste stressed that one of the reasons Chamberlain wanted this location was
because it provided Town utilities and he is very surprised they may not hook
into Town utilities. Mr. Hitchcock said
it is a very costly alternative to a septic system when the flow for 60-70
employees is about 600 gallons per day.
He said a septic system could be built for $8 - $10,000.00 versus
$120,000.00 to do the sewer line. He
said because it is so deep and the need for six manholes and to cross Rte. 12
by cutting the pavement - which DOT may not allow additionally they would need
to drill under the highway.
Selectman Miller asked if they would
be hooking up to the pump or sewer line? Mr. Hitchcock said not the pump it would be
the sewer line where it starts the gravity run.
Ch. Miller asked if Pinnacle View was hooked in? Ch. Miller asked
Mark Houghton Walpole’s Water Commissioner present in the audience to
speak.
Mr. Houghton said because the plans
were not received and they have not had time to review the plans together he
thought there could be some solutions to the sewer and water hook up that
hadn’t been previously considered. He
said there is a lateral across Rte. 12 at Pinnacle View and that the whole
scope of all development should be considered.
He cautioned against allowing one operation to put in a private sewer
system setting a precedent for the next project. He said the entire area is in the Well Source
Protection District and one thing they don’t want are private industrial septic
systems, although there are some, they don’t want to add to them.
Ch. Miller said on another matter
the Board would be reviewing an abutting parcel for Bensonwood’s Site Plan
Review, he asked if they would be tying in and if the costs could be
shared? Have there been communications
between them?
Peter Wotowiecz introduced himself
as the representative for Bensonwood Homes.
He said it is premature to be discussing the issue but they have been in
contact with Chamberlain Machine on specifics related to the Town
utilities. He said it was their intention
to work together with them and not do things separately. Ch. Miller thanked Mr. Wotowiecz noting there
did seem to be some viable options for connecting to water and sewer for both
projects.
Ch. Miller
called for further questions from the public stating the Board could ask their
questions once the public hearing was closed.
There were none. He then asked
Mr. Kinyon for other comments.
Mr. Kinyon said they would take questions based on
the February presentation and he said if the Board would agree to make a final
decision at tonight’s meeting they would like to have an approval. If there is some uncertainty about the water
and sewer hook up he could suggest some language that would allow the Board to vote
tonight to protect those concerns, but he would like to wait until the review
is over before offering them. Ch. Miller
agreed and reminded him the Board has an additional 30 days to go before making
their final decision. He called for further public questions.
Mary Lou Montgomery from the
Conservation Commission asked to comment on the letter they sent to the Board
when asked to comment after the February 12th meeting. She said she thought the letter had been
circulated to all of the Board members.
Sec. Aslinger confirmed it had been.
She asked to present a summary so all present could be made aware of the
WCC’s concerns. She said they believed
in the interest of the Town, the Planning Board should undertake an in depth
independent review of the methodology and data presented with this
application. This is a momentous
decision environmentally, politically, economically even legally with
significant impact on our communal sources.
They recommend there be further communication with the following from
independent consultants working for the Town, not for the developer:
#1. A hydrologist to provide advice on
procedures testing for the local flow of the water in the aquifer to access the
need to install 3-5 monitoring wells on the site.
#2, That representatives from the DES and EPA be
contacted to provide historical data on establishment of the boundaries for
inclusion in the WSPO and to provide technical review of the studies and data.
#3. That an expert in storm water management be
consulted to advise on particular practices that promote protection of
underlying aquifer and soils.
#4. In the interest of having safety connected to
the chemicals we have someone investigate fully the potential toxicity of all
the chemicals used in the proposed manufacturing process and recommend procedures
and requirements for cradle to grave handling of said chemicals.
#5. That a legal adviser be consulted to review
the NH statutes and decisions regarding the alleged supremacy of the federal
RCRA law over our stronger local ordinance.
She
noted that they have provided some suggested consultants attached to the
letter.
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes page 3
Ch. Miller asked if the WCC would have the same
concerns if it were only the Bensonwood project? Mrs. Montgomery said they would have the same
concerns on any and all projects within the well source protection area. He called for other questions.
Mr. DeCoste asked where the 3-5
monitoring wells would be placed? Mr.
Schupack of the WCC said it would be for a hydrologist to determine. It would be insurance against any toxicity
getting toward the well. Any
contamination would be very detrimental to the well source protection
area. Mr. DeCoste said a hydrologist had
addressed contamination and believed there would be an incredibly small
chance. Mr. Schupack said it is a
hydrologist hired by the
developer. Mr. DeCoste asked if he thought they weren’t
telling the truth? Mr. Schupack said he
was only repeating what was told to him by EPA and DES they questioned the
information provided, he doesn’t know if they are telling the truth or not
because he is not a hydrologist. He said
according to DES you couldn’t determine local flow by using just the plate
shown. You have to put in test wells to
measure it, it’s a very complicated procedure and with the well on the property
you can suck water from many feet away.
Ch. Miller said if that is the case shouldn’t Hubbard Farm have test
wells for their current operation and Pinnacle View and the farmers spreading
manure? Some agreed but Mr. O’Keefe said
present operations are exempt and grandfathered. Ch. Miller disagreed saying in order to fully
protect the well everyone in the area should be involved, how could it be
determined which business was responsible for contamination? He said the same issue was raised when
Berkshire had plans to expand North Meadow Plaza, they were able to satisfy it
with their stormwater management plan in the long term. Mr. Schupack said the plaza was not within
the source protection area, Mr. Miller said it was in the aquifer and barely 20
feet away. Mr. Schupack disagreed.
Mr. Sawyer asked if the monitoring
wells would include everyone in the source protection area? Ch. Miller said why should Malnati’s farm be
able to spread manure within the area?
Mr. Schupack said talk to DES but as long as farmers are practicing best
management they are allowed to spread manure.
Ch. Miller thought common sense should be used.
Mr. Merklein asked if WCC’s
recommendations pertained only to Chamberlain?
Mr. Schupack said he thought anyone developing in the source protection
area should be studied but reiterated the need for the Planning Board to
consult with it’s own independent technical expert. Mrs. Montgomery said there is no desire on
their part to look at past projects but only the one before the Board now
because of setting precedent with whatever decision is made in this
situation. She said what WCC is saying
that the process by which the developer’s specialist’s are the ones on which
the Board rely in an area that is so essential to the entire community that there
may need to be some consulting with a non-developer provided specialist to
review the proposal.
Mr. Bob Miller said he could not
recall such in-depth discussions taking place when Pinnacle View moved into
their location and questioned why - when they have a potential for
contamination on a greater scale with all the diesel fuel and solvents for
cleaning parts. He realizes the Board
can’t go back but asked why not? Ch.
Miller said he thought the issue was brought up and answered to the Board’s
satisfaction at the time of Pinnacle’s site plan review.
Mr. Ben Daviss asked if the WSPO was
in place at the time? Ch. Miller said no
it wasn’t but the well was there and the same concerns were still
considered. He referred to a storage
site across from the Creamery, saying when it was presented a hot issue because
of a possible spillage from electrical transformers and other equipment storage. They asked for containment and drainage
because it was lower and further north of the well so it had a greater
potential for contamination. He said
over the years on all the projects such as Rite Aid the Board included the well
protection as an issue.
Mr. Sawyer asked about the biased
against the hydrologist Chamberlain used.
He said the same hydrologist has done extensive work for the Town, if
he’s biased in this case then the Town should be looking for someone else. He asked if there was any reason not to trust
Mr.
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 4
Brackett’s
assessment and questioned if another hydrologist was needed. He is flabbergasted at the suggestion he is
considered biased.
Mr. Daviss said; as a general
statement raising questions about looking for another opinion isn’t about who’s
telling the truth or who’s biased. He
likened it to seeking a second opinion from a physician; it isn’t about
accusing the first doctor of lying or being incompetent or biased. It’s about making certain you have the best
information to make a decision. He said
he thought the Board did require interpretation and a professional opinion
because it is complex. He thinks it is
perfectly in line to ask for a second opinion, it does not imply anything but
competence and honesty of anyone involved.
It is simply prudence for a Board that’s charged with protecting the
public water and with applying the ordinance and setting precedent. He didn’t think it isn’t necessarily
something the Board couldn’t go ahead without but he thinks the Board can ask
these questions without bias and without thinking they are trying to sink or
promote Chamberlain. What should be done
is to apply the ordinance earnestly and setting a precedent that we can all
rely on into the future.
Ch. Miller agreed with Mr. Daviss,
saying it is well within the Board’s rights to ask for a different opinion or
follow up with concerns. He said the
Board has used this in the past and feels it is very important for the Board to
retain that right. He noted the Board had
asked for an independent study on a recent application. It was very helpful to the Board and it had a
positive result.
Mr. Merklein asked if the monitoring
wells were appropriate and asked even though it is Chamberlain specific should
they be considering the other development potential? Ch. Miller said monitoring wells could be revisited once the public
hearing was closed and called for public comments or concerns.
Mr. Kinyon asked to respond to the
Conservation Commission’s comments. He
said what they presented at the February meeting was very detailed and costly
because Chamberlain felt it was their obligation to put before the Board
competent expert evidence that their proposed facility will not pose a threat
to the well source protection area.
While he agrees with everything that’s been said about the Board asking
for more review, he thinks applying common sense and fairness; also keep in
mind that Chamberlain is a business operating on a need to get this facility
started at some point. Applying
practicality and common sense to the evidence that’s been presented means a
fair conclusion to draw is that last month the testimony of Steve Brackett
because of the way it is regulated by the Federal Government does not pose a
threat of contamination and even if it did the contamination is not going to
move toward the well source. He said
there was nothing presented at the last meeting to contradict or dispute
Steve’s findings. Does that mean the
Board has to accept it, no - but if the Board takes issue with the findings,
they don’t have to be accepted on their face.
He thought the Board found that his findings were very compelling. He said he didn’t think second opinions
should be sought just for the sake of second opinions. But if the Board should look at the evidence,
if there is enough there and it doesn’t pose a threat to the well source
protection area, then in fairness the Board should vote in favor of the Site
Plan and conditional use permit.
Ch. Miller called for comments.
Mr. Schupack, said he did speak to DES, they said
the local flow cannot be determined from the information they provided; local
flow is far more complicated than what was presented. He said a well could draw from several
thousand feet and that DES will consult and will review the information for the
Board; he thinks the Board should have it reviewed.
Ch. Miller asked how far the new facility is from
the well. Mr. Kinyon asked Mr. Brackett
to answer. Mr. Brackett said the well is
approximately 1600 feet from the back west side of the building. He said he has no problem with being
questioned or having a second opinion but he thought it was unnecessary. He said the information he presented was not
his information but the information from USGS maps that is used in the
WSPO. He does not think it
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes page 5
is
fair that the information the Town used to develop the protection area that suggests
the groundwater flow in the area is to the South - away from the well now does
not serve the purposes of other people. That being asked for additional work doesn’t
seem to be fair. He said if the WSPO map
didn’t support his findings that would be a different circumstance. He said the way the source protection area
was put together is exactly the way they are in the rest of the State. He said there is a DES file giving the steps
to follow to base protection areas. He
said you could not disagree with what DES says but there could be much more
detailed information rather than just following reconnaissance data from
USGS. He said when he came in over a
year ago, he suggested to Chamberlain to do a hydrogeological study and
monitoring wells because he thinks the source protection area delineation is
bizarre. He said it is wrong, it should
extend a significant distance up the river and there is a big area of influence
that is missing. But at this stage in
the game to have Chamberlain come in to redefine the well source protection
area against the USGS maps - supports his contention that it is unfair.
Selectmen Miller said he thought Mr.
Brackett’s impartiality was for the Town, not anyone else.
Ch. Miller said he remembered the
map and delineation was hurried and not well prepared but they (ZBA) were
trying to meet a legal deadline set by DES for aquifer protection so he thought
Mr. Brackett’s logic was in line with the map being unclear. He
called for further comments.
Mr. Schupack said he spoke with Doug Heath in Boston
who developed the USGS map, he did not think it was as casual as Ch. Miller
thought. He said he didn’t know the
technical details but he thought the Board should get an expert opinion. Ch. Miller said his point was they used only
a map and didn’t do the actual physical location in Walpole. Mr. Schupack said that wasn’t the impression
he got from Mr. Heath at all.
Ch. Miller
called for further comments or concerns, being none, closed the public hearing
and re-opened the meeting for Board deliberations.
Eric Merklein asked about the lighting plan
Chamberlain presented. He thought the lighting
in the parking lot used a 35 foot pole height thinking it was too high. He asked if they would consider a smaller
version to avoid light pollution. Mr.
Hitchcock answered with a new lighting plan submission showing more poles but at
a lower 25 foot pole height. He said
they would accommodate what ever the Board required. The new plan results in less light poles. Mr. Merklein asked about the previously
discussed timer on the lights. Mr.
Hitchcock said yes they would have the lights turned off at 7PM as agreed. He said the lights around the building for security
would stay on.
Mr. Merklein
asked about traffic concerns. He thought
as the area develops the traffic increase may create problems. He made a point of driving in and out of the
Shaw’s center and in both directions to study traffic paths. His concern is about employees leaving at
night especially during rain and fog, that there isn’t any lit warning to Rte.
12 travelers of exiting traffic from Huntington Lane. He thought the added Bensonwood project would
make it even worse. The most difficult
turn is to the north across Rte. 12. He
said speed is an issue also although the Police didn’t have concern. He asked if there could be lighting at the
corner. Mr. Hitchcock asked if he was
suggesting a traffic light or a street light?
Mr. Merklein said lighting on the corner to illuminate it. He said he’s not demanding traffic light just
some sort of safety lighting.
Ch. Miller
asked Mr. Wotowiecz if Bensonwood was planning to use the same entrance and
exit? Mr. Woteoweicz said yes but truck
traffic would be restricted to Edwards Lane further North.
Mr. Hitchcock said in preparation for the Zoning
Board’s special exception VHB had prepared a traffic study and copies were
presented to the Planning Board with the Site Plan application. He said the State DOT rated the intersection
as a category level of service A, the best available. Mr. O’Keefe asked if that was for all turning
movements, he didn’t think a level of
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 6
service
A would be for all turning movements.
Mr. Hitchcock said he thought it was although he had not studied the
report. Mr. O’Keefe said both
Chamberlain and Bensonwood are good companies but it bothers him to have the
property dealt with piecemeal and it should be planned out in a way that takes
into consideration all the potential traffic on this site, a series of curbcuts
one more dangerous than the next, it bothers him about the whole process.
Selectman Miller said because it wasn’t a
specifically zoned an industrial park each project must be taken
separately. Others disagreed thinking
all the developments should be considered.
Mr. Merklein asked how to address it.
Ch. Miller said two things need to be addressed in
unison with Chamberlain and Bensonwood’s proposals being they are so close to
one another and how they impact each other - one being the traffic and the
other being the water and sewer hook up.
He said another determination for the Board to consider are the concerns
the Conservation Commission brought up.
He mentioned the Board did not need to make it’s final decision at
tonight’s meeting having 30 more days out of the 65 days to decide. He asked if the Board wanted to pursue the CC
concerns, if so how and to what degree.
He thought waiting until Bensonwood submitted their plans would help and
to see how the two of them will work together.
He said the Board could if they wanted to make a decision on the
Chamberlain site plan could with conditions but felt the additional information
pending to move forward was important.
He agreed there was little contradicting information offered at the last
meeting in regard to the conditional use permit required in the WSPO but if the
Board wanted to ask for an additional independent opinion of what was presented
-it should be considered by the Board. He asked the Board how they wanted to proceed.
Mr. O’Keefe asked to speak on a procedural matter
and if he was on as a voting member. The answer was no to his status, all
regular members were present. He thought
according to the Well Source Protection Ordinance under Prohibited Uses J. it
states no toxic or hazardous materials are allowed on the site. He said there is an appeal provision in the
ordinance by way of variance to the ZBA, he asked if they had sought a variance
from that prohibited use? Mr. Kinyon
said the provision if read in context is not a provision that prohibits any
hazardous waste being on the site. He
said it prohibits a business whose primary use is the handling of the
waste. Mr. O’Keefe disagreed and read
“All on site handling, disposal, storage, processing, recycling of hazardous or
toxic materials”. He said he’s not
trying to put up road blocks he just wanted a resolution. Mr. Kinyon said it had been discussed at the
last meeting as well, Mr. O’Keefe agreed but did not think it had been
adequately resolved. He said he would
like to get over it somehow maybe by appealing to the Zoning Board by variance,
he thought the provision was problematic.
Mr. Kinyon reiterated what was said at the prior meeting. He said if you read J. as prohibiting any use
on the site which handles hazardous or toxic materials, you can’t do
anything. Mr. O’Keefe said he didn’t
disagree with him. Mr. Kinyon said a
single-family residence would be excluded or a perfectly benign office or
retail use. He said if looking at
permitted uses in Section 4 the ordinance’s intent is not to prohibit all uses,
it’s to prohibit uses whose primary and overriding use is going to be a threat
to the Well Source Protection. Mr.
O’Keefe said the ordinance didn’t actually say that. Ch. Miller said one member of the Well Source
Committee’s interpretation was that it meant a business that handles, stores
etc. hazardous material’s as it’s primary use, agreeing with Mr. Kinyon. Mr. O’Keefe said the ordinance wording was
very clear although there could be many interpretations. Mr. Kinyon suggested reading
the other sections of prohibited uses, such as solid waste disposal, it would
make sense for a use devoted to that might be a threat to the well head
protection area. Mr. O’Keefe said he
didn’t need to have him go over everything he was simply concerned with the
literal wording in the ordinance and how to get over the way it is written in
the ordinance. Mr. Kinyon said remedy it
by interpreting it reasonably within the context of the ordinance to understand
it couldn’t possibly be construed in a reasonable manner to prohibit everything
- it is not the intent of the ordinance when taken in context. Mr.
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 7
O’Keefe
said he thought there was a problem with the ordinance and there is an appeal
process. Mr. Kinyon said no it’s a
problem with how literally Mr. O’Keefe is construing that one section out of
context and in isolation of the entire ordinance. Mr. O’Keefe said he disagreed. Mr. Kinyon acknowledged his disagreement.
Mr. DeCoste said he was satisfied with what was
presented to the Board at the last meeting in regard to how and what materials
were used in their processes. He
reiterated there are no floor drains anywhere in the building, Mr. Kinyon
confirmed. He said he understands
because of where they are located is of concern and it is very important to be
careful but to think under normal circumstances they are going to loose
something outside of the building to contaminate the aquifer is unlikely. But he thinks it might be worthwhile to
install monitoring wells to insure nothing is going into the ground. He said if historically Chamberlain has not
had issues and if the building is constructed properly and the fact they don’t
dispose of hazardous materials, he doesn’t think it is as big an issue. He said there is no way for it to get out of
the building in the event of a spill. He
does think there should be monitoring wells especially to cover potential
changes in ownership in the future. He
also expressed concern on the sewer line stating it was very important to him
to have them connect because when they approached the Board with their plans
one of the main reasons for picking the site was because it had utilities. He thought with the added development they
should all be on Town services.
Mr. Merklein agreed and thought the monitoring wells
should be taken into consideration especially with the added development. He did not know how they would be located but
thought they should encompass the entire parcel.
Mr. O’Keefe said he thought Chamberlain most likely
runs a very good operation but is concerned about truck deliveries or other
outside parties.
Ch. Miller said if there were an incident such as
that there are statutes in place that must be followed for reporting and clean
up. He said a monitoring well isn’t
likely to pick up that type of contamination.
Mr. Fletcher asked if Chamberlain should have to pay
for monitoring the other lots too?
Ch.
Miller said he did not personally think the monitoring wells were necessary,
nor did Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher
thought it would be unfair to have them pay for it when others benefit from
it. Ch. Miller said however, if other members of the Board are unsure they
should have the information that was presented independently reviewed and a
recommendation made. He said before
monitoring wells are requested the information presented needs to support the
request.
Selectman Miller asked if the monitoring wells would
just be set for Chamberlain Machine or for the entire aquifer? He said when the Board has approved projects
in the past and been uncertain perhaps the monitoring wells should be placed
throughout the entire aquifer so it can be monitored entirely so they could see
where it any contamination was coming from.
Ch. Miller thought the intent of the monitoring wells would be to see
any contamination from Chamberlain, designed specifically for them not the
entire aquifer. He said at Putney paper
where he works, when they closed the landfill the monitoring wells were placed
where the flow would go and every so often they are tested. Selectmen Miller said the solid waste
facility also has monitoring wells in place.
Mr. Merklein agreed with having the
presented information reviewed before deciding on monitoring wells and whether
they are needed. Mr. Daviss said the
wells are related to prudence, true if a spill happens there are regulations in
place to expedite it’s handling but there can be problems that go unknown, a
monitoring well checked periodically might be a good assurance. He thinks it’s erring on the side of caution
when it’s right on top of the water supply; it is a valid need.
Ch. Miller recognized Mr. Steve
Brackett. Mr. Brackett said the purpose
of a monitoring well is to determine the direction of flow. It has nothing to do with determining contamination
or future contamination. He said there
is no way he would recommend his clients install monitoring
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 8
wells.
He said they are a conduit from the
surface directly into the aquifer, they breakdown over time and will more
likely draw contaminants from the parking lot into the wells. He said on site’s he has been involved in
once the site no longer needs monitoring they fill the wells in immediately
because they make him nervous just sitting around. To think they would install monitoring wells
and leave them in place indefinitely is not an industry practice nor will he
recommend it to his clients. If they are
needed to determine ground water flow, that’s different.
Mr. Daviss spoke to Mr. Kinyon
directly stating that at the last meeting the Board was told the RCRA federal
law superceded the Town’s own local ordinance, and because the Board doesn’t
have a lot of experience with the ordinance we are tying to figure out what it
does and doesn’t apply too. He asked Mr.
Kinyon if he would be able to substantiate by using explicit language or case
law indicating where the Federal or State law superceded the Town’s
ordinance? He said he had spoken to a
lawyer at the Local Gov’t Center who suggested the Board make this request to
establish which law takes precedence so it completes the record and is part of
the application. Mr. Kinyon was not
clear on what portion of the ordinance is superceded by Federal Law. Mr. Daviss said he believed Mr. Brackett said
because Chamberlain recycles they are excluded through RCRA from all State and
local control. Mr. Brackett spoke to
what he remember saying which was that the Town’s ordinance relies on RCRA
which is a common practice among well source protection ordinances. He said the State of NH does not do toxicity
studies on their own. They rely on the
technical data that’s within the RCRA; he presumed Walpole does the same
thing. It is RCRA that gives exemption
through federal law for chemicals that are processed in certain ways; commonly
State’s and Town’s follow the same lead.
He did not say they supercede the Town’s ordinance. Mr. Kinyon said he thought Mr. Brackett was
focusing on the definitions section of the ordinance that defines hazardous and
toxic materials which refers to RCRA.
Mr. Daviss contacted DES about the
reach of RCRA specifically about the difference in hazardous waste being RCRA’s
purvue and hazardous materials. DES
regulates hazardous waste and DOT hazardous materials so he is even more
confused about RESTRA and RCRA. Mr.
Brackett said DES under State hazardous waste laws follow federal RCRA hazardous
waste laws for use, storage and disposal.
The State laws regulate use, storage and disposal of hazardous
materials. DOT regulates the
transportation of hazardous wastes.
Mr. Daviss said that was not his
understanding from the person he spoke with, he will contact him again for
clarification.
Ch. Miller asked the Board if they
wanted to think about a final decision for another 30 days? Members agreed. Mr.
Fletcher moved to delay final decision for an additional 30 days. Ch. Miller said a motion was not in
order. Mr. Fletcher withdrew his motion. Ch. Miller said the matter would be taken up
at the April meeting. Sec. Aslinger
asked if the Board could follow up on
how the sewer connection is to be addressed with Mark Houghton. Ch. Miller agreed saying he thought
Chamberlain understood the need for them to hook up and to work on an
alternative. Mr. Daviss asked if
Bensonwood had a timeframe of when they would be presenting their plans. Mr. Wotowiecz said he was submitting their
plans tonight.
8:35pm Ch. Miller returned
to New Business at the beginning of the agenda.
II. Review Application Submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay
A. Toby Tousley -
Minor 3 lot subdivision located on 14 Darling Lane aka “Huntington Farm” off Rte. 12, Map 12,
Lot 4-1 in the Commercial and Rural Ag. Districts. Purposed is to create Lot 1 of 23.81 acres,
Lot 2 of 5.67 acres with existing leased business and Lot 3 of 1.98 acres. All lots meet frontage, acreage and setbacks
for the zones. Mr. DiBernardo presented
new maps with Lot 1 amended to 24.48 acres.
Mr. Tousley presented the subdivision.
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 9
He
indicated how the remaining lot was divided explaining Bensonwood would like to
purchase all of it except for one small commercial lot near Chamberlain with
the existing farm house Lot 3 Mr. Tousley plans to retain the lot. He said Bensonwood will purchase Lot 1 and 2,
Lot 2 will be occupied by Hubbard with a 10 year long term lease with three of
the buildings. Once the lease is up Lot
1 and 2 will be merged. Lot 2 allows
Hubbard to operate on their own legal lot.
Lot 1 is “u” shaped with frontage non-continuous but meets more than
what is required.
Ch. Miller thought frontage had to be continuous;
upon checking the ordinance the definition of frontage does not require it to
be continuous, nor does the State definition.
Mr. Tousley said he had brought up the question a few months earlier and
continuous was not required. There was
some discussion as to how much frontage is required with the lots being in two
zones. The commercial zone frontage
requirement is 150 feet, rural agricultural is 200 feet. All of the lots have 200 feet or more. The Secretary’s report indicated one
discrepancy on Lot 1 shown as 23.81 acres was amended to 24.48 acres because
the surveyor forgot to add in .6 acres.
All abutters were properly notified the application and fees submitted,
notices posted and hearing notice appeared in the Keene Sentinel.
A motion to accept the
application as complete was made by Mr. Fletcher, it was seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
8:45 pm Ch. Miller closed
the meeting and opened the public hearing. He called for questions or comments from
the audience. Being none closed the
public hearing at 8:50pm and re-opened the meeting. He called for Board question or comments.
Mr. DeCoste asked for further
explanation of the frontage issue. Ch.
Miller said he thought frontage had to be continuous but understands that is
not as it is defined. He said the
frontage is all on one road, which is a plus.
Mr. Dill added that at the preliminary hearing Ch. Miller was absent so
that could have been why he doesn’t remember already addressing the
question. Ch. Miller was relieved to
find out his memory had not completely failed him. Mr. Tousley said Ch. Miller might not have
been aware that Bensonwood is planning to recombine Lot 1 and 2 so eventually
the frontage will be continuous.
Mr. O’Keefe asked why Lot 1 and 2
were separated? Mr. Tousley explained
that the ordinance does not allow two separate businesses to operate on one lot
in two separate buildings. Mr. O’Keefe
thought it had happened in the past such as the Plaza. Ch. Miller said the plaza buildings are
separate lots of record.
A motion to approve the
application for a 3 Lot subdivision as presented was made by Mr. Daviss. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Further discussion: Mr. O’Keefe thought it was a shame the developments
weren’t being looked at all together instead of piecemeal. Mr. Daviss said when Bensonwood submits their
plans tonight it will be helpful. Mr. O’Keefe
said it could have been a master planned site and it was not -
unfortunately. Mr. DeCoste said the
difficulty was each entity has to go through the special exception process to
have their allowed use, so it separates the proposals. Mr. Bob Miller asked what was left after
Chamberlain and Bensonwood present their plans?
Mr. Tousley said only Lot 3 of 1.98 acres would be left in the
commercial district. Ch. Miller called for the vote, motion
carried unanimously.
The
maps and mylar were signed with Mr. Tousley agreeing to record the mylar and
report back to the Secretary with the book and page numbers.
B. Henry B.
Cabot Trust - Lot Line Adjustment located on Rte. 12, Map 12, Lot 12-4 in the
Commercial and Rural Ag. Districts aka “Ballam Farm”. Purpose is to remove the western boundary
line between Town of Walpole to the east by 8 acres. The 8 acres will be annexed as a gift to the
Town of Walpole parcel Map 12, Lot 3 to protect the “River Well”.
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 10
Mr.
DiBernardo presented additional copies of the map. Secretary Aslinger reported the application
was complete all abutters were notified, fees collected, notices posted and the
public hearing notice published in the Keene Sentinel.
A motion to accept the
application as complete was made by Mr. Daviss and seconded by Mr. Bob
Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
9:05pm Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing, he called
for questions and comments. Mr.
DiBernardo explained that the intent of the lot line adjustment is to give the
Town 8 acres to protect the well. It
leaves the farm with 60.97 acres.
Mr. DeCoste asked where the well was in relation to
the 8 acres. Mr. DiBernardo said it was
approximately under the location map but not shown on these plans.
With no
further comments Ch. Miller closed the Public Hearing at 9:10pm and re-opened
the meeting. He
called for Board discussion and action.
A motion to
approve the application for Lot Line Adjustment as presented was made by Henry
Fletcher and seconded by Ben Daviss.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. DiBernardo will record the mylar and report back
to the Secretary as proof.
VII. New Business
A. Bensonwood
Homes -
Preliminary discussion and application submission for a special exception
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Peter Wotowiecz a timber-framer and part
of the management team for the company presented a completed application,
abutter list and fees to the Secretary to be processed for the April 8, 2008
meeting and Public Hearing. The application
was signed by the owner Mr. Tousley. He
noted that some of the addresses are incorrect on the abutter list but he will
forward the changes by e-mail tomorrow.
He explained they have built out their present location on Blackjack
Crossing Road so are planning to expand to the Huntington Farm parcel. He noted it is the same “u” shaped property
as previously subdivided. He said the
plans show their intent to expand over the next 3-5 years. He said they would begin with an existing
chicken house in the center. They would
renovate it immediately. They are
planning to build modules to the base over the next 3-5 years for
production. The total square footage for
all is 70,109 sq. ft. They have looked
around Town for an adequate site, have spoken with the owners of the Industrial
Park and are very interested in staying in Walpole, but this time around want
Town utilities. He said at Blackjack Crossing
they do have a generator - in fact they are on the second one apparently they
only last 10,000 hours so it’s turned out to be a costly endeavor. This time
they felt it was vital to have Town water/sewer and three phase power. He said it is not available at the current
industrial park so they have decided on the Huntington Farm property because it
is offered although the parcel is not zoned industrial therefore they are
applying for a special exception to grant the allowed use in the rural agricultural
zone.
Mr. Daviss asked if the new location
would be like the operation at Blackjack Crossing. Mr. Wotowiecz said the offices would remain
at the Blackjack location and they will continue using that facility as is. They are planning to move some of their more
carpentry based production facilities to the new site. The engineers and offices will remain at
Blackjack.
Ch. Miller asked about the number of
employees for the first year. Mr.
Wotowiecz said they would be phasing in the project so the first year would be
10 - 15 employees, the total concept over 3-5 years would be 40 people with 20
already employed at Blackjack and the rest to be hired. Ch. Miller noted that would mean about adding
10 more employees per year for traffic consideration. He asked about entrances and exits. Mr. Wotowiecz said they would use both
locations, Hunting Lane for employee traffic and Edwards Lane for truck
traffic. He said they hired a traffic engineer who may have some
recommendations on best flows for the traffic.
Ch. Miller asked if they had contacted DOT yet, answer was not yet - but
they will be doing so once the traffic study is prepared. Sec. Aslinger said she had been contacted by
VBH, Nick Sanders earlier in the week regarding the study, he was interested in
knowing about any other
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 11
development
in the area to include in his projections.
Mr. Wotowiecz said they purposely used VBH because Chamberlain had used
them, so they will be building off the Chamberlain report. He said they do understand the importance of
comprehensive planning. He said they are
residents and taxpayers in the Town and they want to do the right thing for the
Town. Mr. Merklein asked if the traffic
study could be based on the maximum build out for the site. Mr. Wotowiecz said he spoke with the engineer
earlier in the day and they decided to do just that. Sec. Aslinger reminded members that copies of
the Chamberlain traffic study are available to review.
Ch. Miller asked if it was their
intent to hook into Town sewer? Mr.
Wotowiecz said yes it is their intent.
Mr. DeCoste asked if he thought they could work something out with
Chamberlain? Mr. Wotowiecz said they had
been discussing the idea with Chamberlain but haven’t gotten very far because
of what they thought existed before tonight’s meeting, but it is feasible. He said Chamberlain’s hook up plans would
pass over their parcels so it make sense to work together rather than having
two pipes running along side by side.
Mr. DeCoste asked if the buildings
would be placed on a concrete slab. He
asked what kind of materials might be handled that are toxic or hazardous
because of the well protection area? Mr.
Wotowiecz said they will be production facilities, they’ll be building
pre-assembled wall, floor and brick units.
Part of the strategy is to build large pieces and to put it together
quickly. They will also have a millwork
production woodworking shop for fine quality millworks. He said in reality there would be none
(hazardous or toxic materials) but they will use wood finishing products such
as citrus oil. He said he contacted the
Fire Department to do a walk through of their current facility; a letter will
follow. He said the Fire Department has
been to their facility over the years to do inspections. He has asked them to make an inspection
particularly looking for hazardous materials and compiling a report to become
part of the public record. He thought it
was a good idea to have them look over the operation and make a report.
Ch. Miller read from the ordinance
regarding a special exception recommendation specifically the two criteria the
Board is to consider at the public hearing for April. He asked the Board to look back at the
Chamberlain proposal and consider asking for related information such as
traffic, the sewage, lighting etc. Mr.
Merklein reminded they would need a conditional use permit under the well
source protection ordinance. Mr.
Wotoweicz agreed they would be applying for that along with the Site Plan
Review if the special exception is granted.
Mr. Wotowiecz said if anything is missing from the application he will
respond to it immediately.
Mr. O’Keefe said the traffic
analysis should reflect information for five years into the future rather than
what is immediate. Ch. Miller agreed the
total buildout is what should be considered for review to include Chamberlain’s
60-70 employees and Bensonwood’s 40-50.
A motion to place the
application on the agenda and hold a public hearing in April for a special
exception recommendation was made and seconded, motion carried unanimously.
B. Larry Burdick -
Village
renovations, Hubbard brick hatchery building on Upper Walpole Rd. Mr. Burdick asked the Board if the brick
hatchery building on Rte. 23 could be used for processing and making
chocolate. He buys chocolate and makes
things from the chocolate, what he is proposing would be to bring in cocoa
beans in from the Carribean, roast them and make chocolate from them. He would then use it in the other building to
make chocolate items. He said he would
know more by the end of April but wants first to determine if it is allowed and
whether the Town would favor the use and if it is permitted. He described the building as being about
30,000 sq. ft. on about 12 acres. He
might need to add on to it. Ch. Miller
said part of the land is in commercial and also in rural agricultural so he
would need to go through a similar process as Chamberlain and Bensonwood. He would need a special exception and site
plan review, but it is a permitted use by special exception. Selectmen Miller questioned whether he needed
a special exception because it is an agricultural product. Members felt even though it is an
agricultural pod the processing use is industrial so would not be exempt from
special
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 12
exception. Selectmen Miller was concerned about the
fumes, some thought it would be better than dead chickens and cow manure. Mr. Burdick said it is a very clean process
basically creating a paste and adding sugar and vanilla. The beans come directly from farmers in
burlap bags. The shells are re-useable
as animal bedding. Sec. Aslinger will
send him a letter outlining the procedures.
D. Other - Joe DiBernardo from DiBernardo
Associates presented the Board with a minor 2 lot subdivision for Mark Silbey
located on 676 County Rd. There is a
total of 30.188 acres on Lot 1 and Lot 2 is 13.58, both have 200 ft. of
frontage, was formerly the Piazza property.
Mr. DiBernardo requested the Board allow him to submit the application
prior to the 15 day deadline instead of at tonight’s meeting. Sec. Aslinger said the Board is being asked
to divert from its usual requirement to take in applications, fees and maps
only at it’s regular meeting. She noted
that it has been done on occasion and where this is a minor subdivision it
would be acceptable if the Board agrees.
A motion to place the application
on the agenda for the April 8, 2008 meeting and to schedule the public hearing
providing the application materials are received prior to the 15 day deadline
was made and seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. Other -
Telecommunications on Scovill Rd. - Sec. Aslinger referred to a request from Mr. Ken
Kazera of AT&T to place 6 new antennas on the existing tower and build an 8
x 12 foot equipment shed at the existing Scovill Rd. UNH telecommunications tower. Mr. Kazera contacted her by phone and e-mail,
she e-mailed the members a copy of his request.
He asked how to proceed because he had gone through some of the folders
of past telecommunications operations finding that in some instances general
maintenance did not require a new site plan review. Sec. Aslinger said because he is a brand new
user on the tower and will be building an equipment shed she thought he would
need to file an application for site plan review and the conditional use permit
under the telecommunications tower ordinance.
The Board agreed and asked the Secretary to notify Mr. Kazera on how to
proceed.
C. Fraser/Whitcomb - Special Exception
recommendation, Site Plan Review
Sec.
Aslinger reported she had spoken with Mr. Fraser in regard to his filing with
the Board on Mr. Whitcomb’s gravel excavation on Old Drewsville Rd. She said he will be coming in at the April
meeting, the reason being that the ordinance requires they get all of their
State approvals in place first. He has
submitted a plan to the State based on his first application with the zoning
board but plans to amend it since he is proposing a larger site. She said he would come back to the Planning
Board with an amended plan because he did not want to begin again with the
State permits since they have been severely backlogged. She said he would come back to the Board for
a special exception recommendation for an industrial use in the rural agricultural
district. She said the other issue is
whether he will need to file for a Site Plan Review perhaps it needs further
study. She said at the very least the
present Site Plan Review approval in place on the site needs to be revoked by
his request. Ch. Miller said he would
need to remove everything off the property in order to revoke the Site Plan
approval. He said currently he still
thought they didn’t need a special exception since it is a permitted use in the
ordinance but he understood the Zoning Board could require it according to Town
legal counsel and the amendment to the zoning ordinance requiring a special
exception is pending a Town vote. If the
vote passes it additionally supports the need for a special exception, but he
questions whether a site plan review is needed since there will be no buildings
costing greater than $10,000.00.
Mr. DeCoste and others thought he
was coming in because he was building a pond as described at the prior
meeting. Members said it wasn’t entirely
the whole picture and agreed to wait and see what is presented. Sec. Aslinger noted the parcel might include
some documented wetlands. Ch. Miller
said although he didn’t completely agree a special exception was required it is
a good idea since there are a lot of residential abutters, traffic and safety issues
that should be addressed in these types of operations in the rural agricultural
district. Selectman Sawyer asked if
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 13
the
Board had consulted with the ZBA because the Town Attorney had written them a
letter saying they would need a Site Plan Review as well as the special
exception. Sec. Aslinger said she has a
copy of the letter and it says “may” need a Site Plan Review, leaving the
Planning Board to decide. Mr. Sawyer
agreed that in the past a special exception didn’t appear to be required. Ch. Miller agreed but with the new amendment
if passed the conditions change.
VIII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A. Master Plan
Update: A work session was scheduled
for March 25, 2008 at 7pm in the basement office. Mr. Daviss said drafts of goals and
objectives and vision statement will be discussed. Sec. Aslinger said each member was e-mailed a
copy.
B. Budget - Fees Increase - Ch. Miller said
Sec. Aslinger proposes a fee increase of $25.00 per application to cover the
processing expenses. She reported the
Board was short by about $25.00 per application once she calculated what was
taken in against the items included in actual application processing fees. She asked to increase the postage to $7.00
per abutter due to the fact postage has increased three times since the fees
were adjusted last time. Ch. Miller said
but the postage is only the actual cost.
Sec. Aslinger said no - fees need to cover the envelope, notice and
Secretary’s time for addressing and mailing in addition to the postage. Sheldon Sawyer asked if she was trying to
cover the entire Planning Board budget with the fees. She said no, there are only a few specific
categories such as Secretary’s time, advertising and postage for application
processing that are to be covered.
Selectman Sawyer asked if the Secretary’s time was just considered for
the applications or did it include the Master Plan work and miscellaneous
research and filing. She said the Board
does try to cover the Secretary’s entire wage because the time spent on the
Master Plan is negligible compared to the time spent on the applications, as
much as 95% of the secretary’s position is still application related. Ch. Miller said it was never the intent of
the Board to cover the entire budget.
Sec. Aslinger agreed saying the Board isn’t trying to make money on the
fees just cover specific expenses. Mr.
Sawyer said he thought the budget was $14,000.00 for 2007 and the Board took in
$10,000.00 in fees. Sec. Aslinger said
that was incorrect because $5000.00 got added into the fees that was for D
& D’s hyrdogeological study it was not collected as a fee. Selectman Sawyer stood corrected but asked
how Walpole’s fees compared to other Town’s.
Sec. Aslinger said they were comparable and on target, having reviewed
Charlestown’s fees as a comparison. Ch.
Miller thought our fees were a lot lower than most Town’s, Sec. Aslinger agreed
saying Walpole was in the lower tier of fees charged. Mr. O’Keefe said but they reflect the costs
that should be covered. Sec. Aslinger
said State law requires the Board to cover their reasonable expenses. Selectman Sawyer said most other Town’s don’t
have as high a Secretarial expense so that causes the fee increase. Sec. Aslinger disagreed noting she pulled the
same report from OEP that the Selectmen used to make a comparison, infact
Walpole is in the lower tier for Secretarial wages compared to surrounding and
similar sized Town’s. She said most Town’s
do have secretarial positions that run from $8,000.00 - $14,000.00 per year she
added that Walpole was doing well and should be able to cover their expenses
with their fees. Mr. Sawyer reminded the
Board that the position went from $700.00 for both planning and zoning 4 years
ago when Ms. Trow had the position to
$4000.00 just for planning for 2008.
Mr. O’Keefe said if the position is paid for by the fees what’s the
concern?
Mr.
Dill added if Pam is doing a lot of work for someone coming into the Town to
develop land, then it’s better for them to pay than someone from Town just
building a house or the taxpayers. Mr.
Sawyer thought the fees were high, having just been through the subdivision
process he wasn’t sure it could be recouped when the lots are sold. Ch. Miller said it was brought up for
discussion and would appear on the next agenda before the Board makes a final
decision.
Time
Change: Ch. Miller asked for
discussion, no final decision would be made until it appears on the agenda at
least twice. Sec. Aslinger asked if
anyone was opposed to changing the meeting time to 7:00pm, especially Mr.
Fletcher because of his farming activities.
Mr. Fletcher
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 14
said
he had no problem but 8:00pm would be best for him. Mr. Sawyer noted the ZBA decided to stay at
7:30pm. Sec. Aslinger said it was not
changed because one member Larry Britton who farms could not make it at 7:00
and the entire Zoning Board agreed he was too important not to consider. The Board will continue discussion at the
next meeting.
C. Subdivision/Site Plan Review Regulations - Sec. Aslinger reported that
the subcommittee members Eric, Ben, Shane and she have made good progress after
one meeting. She presented them with a
draft of half of the document they will meet again in the next few weeks to go
over the remainder to complete the draft for the entire Board’s review. She said Bob Miller also showed an interest
in being on the committee so would include him in the next meeting. Mr. Dill suggested someone should be on the
committee that had gone through the subdivision process. Sec. Aslinger said the draft would be
presented to the entire Board for review so every member will have input. Ch. Miller thought if Mr. Dill as an
alternate wanted to be on the subcommittee he could participate. Sec. Aslinger said every member will have to
participate because it isn’t something presented to the Board for approval
without it’s review. Ch. Miller said
anyone wanting to be on the subcommittee could participate. Mr.Sawyer said the Selectmen should be kept
up to date also. Ch. Miller said he
thought the information should be disseminated and if the Selectmen wanted to
participate in the draft they could. Sec.
Aslinger said everyone would have copies once the subcommittee has a draft to
present but currently they are only half way through the document. Mr. Dill said if they aren’t included in the drafting
it will go through without input noting most members don’t review materials
when they are available in the office.
Mr. Dill asked if anyone when offered plans on Chamberlain every looked
at them. Sec. Aslinger said every member
was provided with their own copy of the plans.
Ch. Miller thought anyone wanting to be a part of the subcommittee could
be, he asked and they ignored him but he doesn’t take any offense. Sec. Aslinger agreed but stated the
importance of getting a draft quickly prepared so all members could begin participating
on writing the final document. He said
anyone that wanted to see it in the preliminary stages should be able to so
later on they would support it. He said
he hopes if Fred wants to attend the next subcommittee meeting he could. Sec. Aslinger said if any member wants a copy
of what has been done so far she could e-mail it to them. Selectman Sawyer asked to have it sent to the
BOS also. (side note: Sec. Aslinger gave Mr. Dill a draft copy
after the meeting with an explanation of how the committee was coming up with
the draft by using SWRPC’s model primarily and following Walpole’s regulation
closely to maintain the Town’s identity.
She said OEP recommended Jackson NH’s regulations and the subcommittee
also chose Charlestown’s regulations as two comparison ordinances, so
essentially they are using all four regulations to derive the new Walpole
regulation. There is a strong emphasis
on following SWRPC’s model that is used throughout the State because it
incorporates explicitly the RSA’s and brings us up to date by 25 years. The intent on the committee is to present the
Board with a very good basic regulation heavy on statute requirements based on
the model without eliminating any Walpole specifics. This approach was used when Mr. Edkins, Ms.
Aslinger and Mr. Merklein drafted the Site Plan Review regs for Board review in
2004 that took almost a year for the Board to adopt.)
Site Plan Regs
- Sec.
Aslinger said Chris Miller at Chamberlain Machine mentioned to her that the
Site Plan Review regulations do not specifically require any building
specifications or design. She was
surprised to find he was correct thinking that all past proposals usually
contain building design and elevations.
She said they are called “design review standards” and suggested adding
a very small amount of wording requesting that applicants show us what they are
building with elevations etc. Selectman
Miller reminded since the Town does not have a building code the State code
applies. Ch. Miller said when the Site
Plan Regs were first adopted they discussed adding the provision but decided
against it. Sec. Aslinger was surprised
they did not want to at least see what a building was going to look like. Mr. Merklein remembered Berkshire commenting
that they wished Walpole had some guidance in the regulations as to what they
Walpole
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 15
might
want to see for building design, that it would be easier than guessing. Mr. Dill said he thought putting it in would
lead to restrictive measures such as requiring 9 over 6 windows facing the
street. Sec. Aslinger disagreed saying
it would be a simple statement asking to see what their building looks
like. Mr. Dill said if the Board looks
at it then they will start to change it, he thinks it will lead to
problems. Ch. Miller said all the years
he’s been on the Board and doing Site Plan Review they’ve been able to look the
applicant in the eye and changed designs in order work it out. Mr. Sawyer noted it’s only been 25 years
since they were enacted, with a chuckle.
Mr. Fletcher said when Ames came in they were all mellow with them and
no one ever asked them what the building was going to look like. He said that’s why they built just a box, it’s
the only Ames store that looked like that, all the others were nicer, Walpole
got the worst one. Ch. Miller wasn’t
certain if Site Plan was adopted then.
Ch. Miller suggested that the Board could review some wording and it
might be helpful. Sec. Aslinger said she
would e-mail some wording she’s found from another similar NH Town that is very
simple.
D. Handouts - Sec. Aslinger handed out registration forms
for OEP annual planning and zoning conference to be held 4/26/08 and an
announcement for a Smart Growth meeting being held in Keene at the College
3/18/08. She mentioned receiving a
grants source from OEP for housing provided to the Board by Mel Schupack. She gave it to Ch. Miller to review.
E. Other - Mr. Merklein announced that tonight’s meeting
was Chick Miller’s last meeting with the Board, he has been serving the Town
for many years and he wanted to thank him for all of his time and effort noting
that his advice has always been correct, when he didn’t follow it, he was
usually clobbered. He thanked him very
much for sitting with the Board. All
agreed and clapped in appreciation.
IX. Motion to adjourn was made and seconded, all
were in favor - meeting adjourned at 9:50pm
Cc: PB, MP, ZBA, Town Offices, BOS, Fire,
Water/Sewer, Hwy, WCC
Posted:
Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market