PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 13, 2008 at 7:00pm Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller,
Members Present: Bob Miller, V-Ch., Dave
DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Sheldon Sawyer, BOS, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe,alt.,
Jeff White, alt., Donn Lounsbury, alt., Fred Dill alt.
Members Absent: Eric Merklein Recording:
Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes
are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 10, 2008 meeting for errors,
omissions and corrections. There were 12
persons in attendance. Alternates Jeff
White and Donn Lounsbury were not yet officially sworn in due to a
miscommunication.
I. Meeting opened at 7:10pm
A.
Roll Call - Ch. Miller designated Shane O’Keefe for Eric Merklein.
B.
Minutes - passed over until the end of the meeting
II. Review applications submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay before Public Hearing
A. Frank W. Whitcomb Construction Corp. -
Special Exception Recommendation
Located on
Ben
Daviss recused himself and sat in the audience, Ch. Miller appointed Fred Dill
to sit in his place. Ch. Miller reviewed
the purpose of the application and criteria to result in a non-binding
recommendation to the zoning board. Sec.
Aslinger reported the application materials had been submitted completely, abutters
were notified and the notice appeared in the newspaper within the notification
deadline. Ch. Miller called for a motion to accept the application as complete,
so moved and seconded, motion passed unanimously.
III. Ch. Miller closed the
meeting and opened the public hearing.
He asked Mr. Fraser to present the details of the proposal. Mr. Dick Fraser of One Source Properties Permitting,
LLC introduced himself and Mr. Chip Whitcomb, president. While he agreed with
the Chairman on the purpose of the meeting and criteria to be addressed he
suggested that excavations are treated differently in the zoning ordinance and
read under General Provisions stating excavations are an allowed use in the
Rural Ag. district by permit according to State RSA 155E. He said it is already deemed a permitted use,
further he read from a letter from the Town’s Attorney Hockensmith to Attny.
Lawrence Slayson dated 1/11/2008; stating Attny. Hockensmith believed the
planning board would waive the above mentioned requirements. Mr. Fraser said he thought if the Board
agreed with the Town Attorney, there would be no need to continue.
Ch.
Miller read from the recently passed March 2008 zoning amendment stating “any
excavation as described above is to be considered an industrial, manufacturing or
commercial operation subject to a special exception review as outlined in
Article VIII Rural Ag. District - Special Exception and may be subject to a
site plan review with the Planning Board.”
He said if the amendment had not passed in March, then Mr. Fraser would
be correct. The Board is operating under
the newly adopted amendment and its requirements. Ch. Miller asked Mr. Fraser to present his
evidence.
Mr. O’Keefe noted that an
engineer’s stamp was not present on the plans.
Mr. Sawyer asked for clarification on whether the amendment passed after
they had applied to the planning board, answer was no, they had been before the
zoning board only.
Mr. Fraser said they were
celebrating one year before the Town on their proposal, they had received instructions
on how to proceed from the planning board via a letter dated May 4, 2007 saying
it was an allowed use under the zoning ordinance and to apply for a permit
under
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 2
RSA 155E with the zoning board, which they did. He said they had four public hearings and a
site visit. Mr. Sawyer asked when had
that taken place? Answer was in 2007,
resulting in delays and in the Town Attorney’s opinion that the proposal
required a special exception review. Mr.
Fraser stated instead of fighting with the Town they are working with the Town
to go through the process beginning tonight with step 1. Sec. Aslinger reminded that they had changed
the original plan, that this was a new plan.
Mr. Fraser agreed there was a slight addition to the square footage from
the original plan. Ch. Miller reminded
that the board is proceeding as discussed at the April meeting and according to
the amendment of last March. He said the
board’s recommendation is non-binding and that the zoning board still has a
list of additional criteria to review.
Mr. Fraser began with the
first criteria regarding the availability of property in the industrial
zone. He showed a zoning map pointing
out the available industrial zone concluding there is no suitable industrially zoned
property for the proposed use.
Mr. Sawyer did not think it
was necessary for them to identify a specific industrially zoned parcel for a
gravel excavation, they weren’t proposing an industrial park, simply a gravel
excavation. Mr. Fraser said in all
fairness, the type of operation they are proposing is widely considered by most
towns in the State as an industrial use.
He reiterated there were no properties in the industrial zone available
for their use.
Mr. Fraser presented an
aerial map of the surrounding area showing the presence of many industrial uses
outside of the actual industrial zone, suggesting the board might consider
re-zoning the area to industrial in the future.
He listed businesses within 1 1/2 mile radius stating excavation was not
foreign to the area with Mr. Whitcomb’s father beginning excavations in the
40’s and 50’s and it is still an active quarry owned by Lane Construction. He showed Merrill Farm, an additional
excavation site in Langdon, a former hot mix plant site, Walpole’s transfer
station, the Whitcomb pond having been excavated for materials, the State DOT
sheds/garage, a Hubbard Farms complex, Hodgkin’s Construction, Town of Walpole
garage and salt shed in addition to the Frank Whitcomb construction storage
area granted by special exception as proof the neighborhood leans heavily towards
industrial uses and making it indigenous
to the area.
Mr. Fraser addressed the
second criteria whether the proposed use is consistent with the Master
Plan. He read about State RSA 155E
legislation from 1989 “The general court finds that the general availability of
construction material effects the cost of roads and other governmental
infrastructure. Whenever the supply
shrinks, prices increase. Although NH
has an abundance of sand and gravel in deposits suitable for construction
infrastructure aggregate, their availability is being curtailed for development
over regulation or both. Making up for
dwindling supply raises the cost of production and transportation. This in turns raises the costs of the roads
and other public infrastructure.
Additionally it is clear that the existing local regulatory scheme needs
clarification. Useful material is
available only where it is deposited if it must be transported long distances
the cost of construction increases.” He
said the legislature is smart to realize gravel is located where God put it,
sometimes within sensitive areas such as town centers. He said in this case it is in a good location
because of access on a State highway, all of the potential impacts have
mitigating remedies, so it is pretty benign project. He said according to the Master Plan there
was a lot of study regarding demographics and it’s vision, he intends to make a
link with the project to the Master Plan.
He said the application packet showed Best Management Practices plans
which as part of the Master Plan states that the planning board will rely on
contours and erosion control measures in order to review applications for
development, which has been provided. He
said under land use section goal #2 it states “to insure Walpole has diverse
mix of commerical and industrial uses” this project falls into that
category. In the natural features
analysis development capability “land from the 0-8% slope category is preferred
for all types of development”, this project meets that criteria. Under goals and objectives in the natural
features analysis it stresses the need to submit contour and erosion control
information on all development applications.
He said the townspeople wanted to insure that any development include
good
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 3
environmental stewardship, they have provided that
evidence. He said industrial uses are
mentioned in the land use analysis plan talking about mining and diverse mixed
uses and preserving the scenic elements of the natural environment. The Master Plan talks about class I highways
and using them for commerce, which they plan to do and that residential
neighborhoods with driveways are to be discouraged along those highways. In addition Drewsville Road is classified as
a class II highway. Taking this
information into account it shows they are in a good location and they clearly
meet the criteria. He concluded, asking
the board to grant a favorable recommendation for special exception to the
zoning board of adjustment.
Ch. Miller called for questions
recognizing Ben Daviss a resident in the area of the proposal. Mr. Daviss asked why a new site was being
developed when there is an existing operation for excavation? Mr. Fraser answered, first - it is desirable
to use the resource from a site already owned rather than buying from someone
else and secondly, Lane Construction is a quarry and provides mostly quarry
stone or ledge.
Mr. Daviss speaking as a
resident of the neighborhood, said by the aerial photograph and Mr. Fraser’s
description it appears to be an industrial area, in fact it is not. It is a very quiet residential area settled
with 15 -20 houses within earshot and diesel smelling range of the proposed
site. Despite Drewsville Road’s
classification and his road, Valley Rd. both were not in very good condition
for 5 plus years of additional heavy gravel truck traffic. He said in terms of the Master Plan, the idea
it is appropriate does not make sense, the wording of the criteria “is appropriate
to the Master Plan”. He stated the recent
Master Plan update shows a lot of concern about protecting existing land uses
and preserving open land, he does not see where this project is consistent with
protecting existing land uses and preserving open land. He added adequate documentation has not been
presented showing other available areas for excavations besides in the middle
of a residential neighborhood. He does
not feel the case has been made on either of the points addressing the Master
Plan criteria. He asked the board to
consider that putting an open pit gravel mine in the middle of a residential
neighborhood for at least 5 years could have a very serious effect on
surrounding property values.
Abutter Sue Hunkler said she
has no objections at all, the roads are bad and have been bad and they are not
concerned.
Mr. Fraser said it was clear
from the plans that Valley Road won’t be traveled the trucks would come out of
the site and turn right. He said he
thought Whitcomb’s owned all the property along Rte. 123 so it wasn’t correct
to portray it as a residential neighborhood.
He said it could not be ignored that the area has a heavy concentration
of commercial and industrial uses.
Mr. Daviss agreed within the
immediate area, but by having an open pit gravel operation noise and fumes do
not stay in the area, there is a much larger area affected especially any
residences. Mr. Fraser said that issue
would be discussed in the next step of the special exception review but thought
the amount of equipment and duration may be less of an impact.
Mr. Jeff White said he lives
within site of Rte. 123 and because of the truck traffic due to the Cold River
bridge demise, the southbound lane of the highway has become deeply indented as
opposed to the northbound lane because they return empty. He said chunks of the road have been thrown
15 feet onto person’s lawns, the State tells them to wait. He wants a guarantee their proposals truck
traffic would travel the new bridge once it is completed, he understands they
will have varying numbers of trucks per day but is concerned about the impact
to the roads and the need for the new bridge to be used instead of Upper
Walpole Rd.
Mr. Fraser said to keep in
mind this is a very small project and what they add to the traffic flow is
minimal and added he thought everyone would be happy to see the bridge back in
place.
Tom Fitzgerald, abutter
realizes each operation is there by special exception, one by one until his
property is worth nothing, it needs to be taken into account, either it’s
industrial or residential. Mr. Sawyer
corrected saying it is rural agricultural not residential, residences are
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 4
allowed in the rural agricultural zone along with
other uses, it’s not exclusively residential with the added protections, by
building a house in the rural agricultural district he knew there would be
other uses. Mr. Fitzgerald said he expected
rural agricultural uses - not rural industrial.
Mr. Fraser added it was the nature of the beast recalling the discussion
from the last meeting about allowing industrial and commercial operations in the
rural agricultural district. Mr. Sawyer
noted when Mr. Fitzgerald built his house a gravel operation was allowed
without special exception. Mr.
Fitzgerald said the area has changed due to the new operations that have been
allowed and it has changed substantially in the last 20 years.
Mr. Sawyer referred to two
new bridge projects that will require gravel, while it’s nice to get it from
someone else’s backyard it is also good to have it available within the Town,
it’s good to share in the projects.
Ms. Aslinger commented that
after re-reading the Master Plan she could not find any reference where it
encourages this type of development, only commercial and industrial not
specifically gravel pits. While the
State requires towns to allow gravel pits it does not seem to be a focus or
development in the Town. Her second
concern is its location within the aquifer.
The Master Plan states “certain industrial uses over an aquifer are not
appropriate due to the potential for groundwater contamination”. She asked if their plans took into account
that it is within the aquifer and does the State have further requirements and
protections to allow excavations within the aquifer? Mr. Fraser answered that the hearing tonight
was only to address the two criteria, as far as the aquifer it should be
addressed by the zoning board and subsequent site plan review.
Ch. Miller asked what the
previously mentioned mitigating remedies were for the abutters? Mr. Fraser said one concern dealt with
wetlands, they had the entire site inspected by a wetland soils scientist
Jonathan Siskel who believed they were not included in the site being
disturbed. He asked the board to look at
map 3 showing impacts. Mr. O’Keefe asked
if there was a written report? Mr.
Fraser said no it was delineated by a GPS system.
Mr. William Lundgren,
abutter said if the board was allowed to take a site visit they would see it is
very poorly taken care of, containers. rusted materials and other stuff,
probably leaking into their wells. By starting
another excavation site 5 -10 years down the road and being given very elusive
answers he cautions that the big picture should be taken into
consideration. It’s a little rural area
in Drewsville NH, the impact is worth trying to protect their homes.
Mr. Fraser said what is
allowed on the site is a permitted use.
Rusted cans are what they are. He
said he has heard enough from the zoning board hearings and prefers to deal in
facts. It is a construction equipment
storage are, if culverts rust, they do, if steel decking rusts, it does also,
it’s a permitted use. A Keene transfer
station person was in attendance at the site visit, he made no comments in
regard to leaking petroleum products.
Mr. Lundgren clarified he did not mean to say containers were rusted, he
thinks the board should see what’s there.
Mr. Fraser said having been
before the Town on the project for over a year and listened to the ownice being
placed on Whitcomb Construction and how they manage their properties, as
regulators, the Town has the responsibility to insure permittees operate as
they should. Perhaps the Town should
consider stepping it up a bit to avoid Mr. Lundgren’s and other’s concerns.
Mr. O’Keefe, referring to
the plans asked if the existing storage area was going to continue to be used,
answer was yes it is permitted. He then
asked about the existing sand and gravel
stockpile area and a second auxiliary stockpile area, if they were
permitted? Answer was no, they would
fall under the new request for special exception for both. He asked if the proposal needed to be revised
to show both needed special exception, it appeared the existing construction
storage/stockpile area was not included in the special exception request. Mr. Fraser said he would have to read over
the original special exception and what it included. Ch. Miller said it was for storage only, not
stockpiling gravel. Mr. O’Keefe said he
was trying to avoid missing information that should be included in the special
exception. Ch. Miller asked if the
existing
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 5
berm would be removed, answer was no. Mr. Fraser said the plans were not being
revised what is shown is what is being submitted.
III. and
IV. Ch. Miller called for additional
comments, being none closed the public hearing at 7:50pm and re-opened the
meeting asking for board comments and action.
Mr. O’Keefe said there are two proposed areas
for stockpiling. Mr. Sawyer and DeCoste
concurred. Mr. O’Keefe said he is
concerned about the area changing from rural residential to rural industrial
little by little and whether the board intends for the area to change
considering its planning process. He
also questions why the plans do not show what else is happening on the entire
parcel - just the site disturbed area, what will happen with the storage area and
construction materials?
Ch.
Miller reminded that the board was reviewing this project for the first time
and under the new amendment, only the two criteria can be considered for a
recommendation to the zoning board, similar to what has been done on the
Chamberlain site. He thought the availability
of other industrial zoned land that had deposits could be possible and in a
better location. He said he thought it
would be hard to say the proposal is consistent and appropriate to the Master
Plan especially in light of the recent survey and resulting comments specifying
what a rural agriculture use is. A
gravel pit despite it’s size has a very large impact on the rural agricultural
zone and surrounding residences and the use is not consistent with what the
survey deemed appropriate for the zone.
He did not think it was appropriate and consistent with the Master Plan
and was uncertain if there were other sites available that would cause less of
an impact to surrounding residences.
Selectman
Sawyer said if there were other deposits they would have probably been
identified by a large outfit such as Whitcomb and the Town itself has looked
for possible sites.
Mr.
Dill thought the proposed use was pre-existing in the area because of Lane
Construction and the truck traffic. Ch.
Miller disagreed and thought the residences have been tolerant but will this
put it over the limit, he reminded that the zoning board has several criteria
to review regarding property values and living conditions. He thinks it will have an impact and is
inconsistent with what the Town is and changes the rural agricultural district
there. He said the prior granting of the
special exception for the construction storage has become not what was
expected, nor did the board envision such an expansion. Mr. Dill said if there is to be a gravel pit
in Walpole, here seems a likely place despite “not in my backyard”, he knows of
persons looking for good gravel in nearby Westmoreland, so he agrees with
Sheldon about it being a limited resource.
Ch. Miller said he can understand but it is zoned rural agricultural and
allowed by special exception, its hard to justify the impact of the use. Mr. Dill said while he wouldn’t want it next
to him, but he feels that people that own property have individual property
rights and it is permitted by special exception so the owner has the
right. Ch. Miller said but, criteria
must be met. Mr. Dill said then it is
important for the land use boards to add restrictions in the ordinances to
protect neighbors as it’s being done. Mr.
Sawyer reminded that once buildings and houses are built they there forever,
whereas once the gravel is taken out that’s the end of the project, he knows
because they took gravel out of his dooryard for Rte. 12, it is a short lived
project. Mr. O’Keefe asked how the pond would
be fed resulting from the excavation.
Answer was from the groundwater just like the pond across the road.
Mr.
Fraser submitted a letter from the planning board to the zoning board dated
4/15/98 acknowledging the site plan review approval for Frank Whitcomb
Construction on 4/14/98. The approval
was for “ 40 x 100 pole barn, and contractor’s equipment, gravel storage yard
on Old Drewsville Rd. Map 15, Lot 35”, so it appears the prior special
exception included the gravel storage yard as part of the 1998 approval. Ch. Miller said the pole barn wasn’t
constructed. Sec. Aslinger said the
Selectmen also submitted a letter dated 5/15/01 noting the Planning Board
requested the BOS to oversee the return of the property to its original
condition, indicating there were some problems on the site and approvals. She
said Whitcomb
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 6
submitted a response on July 10, 2001 saying they
were removing the request for the pole barn from the special exception and site
plan review, that it would include supplies, storage/parking of construction
equipment. Mr. Sawyer said the berm was
the result of the BOS letter and meeting plus they had to post a bond for it.
Mr.
Lounsbury asked about two abutters to the NE of the berm, the secretary said
all abutters were notified of the meeting and hearing, those were included.
Mr. Fred Dill moved to favorably recommend
the Frank Whitcomb Construction gravel excavation proposal to the zoning board
of adjustment, and that the two criteria have been met for special
exception. Mr. Sawyer seconded. Mr. Dill asked to insure that they would
return for site plan review. Mr. O’Keefe
questioned Mr. Dill’s original wording that included “approval”. Ch. Miller clarified saying “approval” was
not to be included in the motion. Mr.
Bob Miller asked if both criteria needed to be met for a favorable vote. Answer was yes. Without further discussion
Ch. Miller called for the vote. The motion passed with four in favor and
three opposed.
8:10pm Mr. Dill stepped down and Mr. Daviss resumed
as a voting member.
II. B. Jane P. Skofield - Minor 2 Lot Subdivision located on Old Drewsville
Rd. Map 10, Lot 29-1 in the Rural Ag. district.
Purpose is to divide the parcel into Lot 1 of 27-9 ac. and Lot 2 of 91.1
ac. Lot sizes, setbacks and frontages
are met for the zone. Sec. Aslinger
reported all fees, application materials; abutter and public notices were
complete. Mr. Joe DiBernardo of
DiBernardo Associates presented the final mylar and showed where the Class V
and Class VI frontage on Phipps Rd. began and ended. Lot 2 has frontage on Phipps Rd. and Old Drewsville
Rd. and confirmed by Jim Terrell that up to the driveway on Phipps Rd. is Class
V and partially paved.
Ch. Miller called for a motion to accept
the application as complete, so moved and seconded, motion carried
unanimously. Ch. Miller closed the
meeting and opened the public hearing. Ch.
Miller called for comments. Mr. O’Keefe
asked about the road delineation on the paper maps, Mr. DiBernardo said only
the mylar showed the delineation. Sec.
Aslinger asked him to provide new paper maps because the recorded mylar and
maps must be the same. He will drop
copies off at the Town Hall and the secretary will sign them in absence of the
Ch. and V-Ch. who will sign the mylar if approved.
Ch. Miller closed the public hearing and
re-opened the meeting and called for board action. Ben Daviss made a motion to approve the
subdivision as presented and was seconded by Shane O’Keefe. With no further discussion, Ch. Miller called
for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr.
DiBernardo agreed to record the mylar and report the information to the
Secretary.
V. Unfinished
Business/Pending application: Board
Action
A.
Walpole D & D, LLC - road status and State subdivision approval. Mr. Dill presented the board with a copy of
the State subdivision approval and said Jim Terrell had signed off on the road. He brought the final mylar for signatures
also. Ch. Miller said it was his
understanding Walpole D & D had met all the criteria so the board would be
able to sign the final mylar for recording.
He said he had just driven the road before the meeting seeing it had
been recently graded but asked about the section off of Old Keene Rd. up - that
seemed rough. Selectman Sawyer said Mr.
Dill did not own that section, it belongs to Mr. Jeffrey’s. Ch. Miller said he remains concerned with
that section because it may lead to future problems with run-off and that the
Town would end up paying for future upgrades to the road, contrary to what the
board intended. Selectmen Sawyer said
the road would be asphalted per the highway superintendent after the houses are
built. At the expense of the Town, noted
Ch. Miller, which is
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 7
what the Board was trying to prevent. Ch. Miller and V-Ch. Miller signed the mylar
and maps. The second sheet mylar showing
wetlands etc. was not signed but it is referenced to page 1.
VI. New Business: Preliminary Conceptual Consultations
A.
Attny. Kasper for Ramen Patel - N. Walpole Site Plan Review 988 Main St.
Convenience Store. Attny. Kasper and
Paul Grazewicz, engineer were present representing Mr. Patel. Mr. Grazewicz presented the board several
missing items to be submitted with the site plan application. Attny. Kasper said he was brought in late on
the project. He has a meeting with the
N. Walpole Village Commissioner’s on Thursday May 15th to determine what
permits need to be granted from the zoning commission toward the project. Any and all required hearings will be held
prior to the June 10th planning board meeting so zoning issues will be in place
prior to the planning board’s hearing.
They are submitting the site plan application at this meeting pending
the zoning issues. The new zoning
administrator is Ken Farcus.
Ch. Miller said it is in the
Residential zone for N. Walpole, he read in their ordinance that it was a
non-conforming use and may need to have a change in a non-conforming use. Attny. Kasper said they are actually reducing
the use and questions what will be required.
Mr. Grazewicz submitted
additional fees, maps, checklist, letter requesting waivers and supplemental
information from prior meetings with NWVC and DOT, and a cd with technical
information showing access and landscaping photos. He also submitted trip generation collection
data. Sec. Aslinger reported she had
spoken earlier in the day with Mr. Grazewicz about missing application materials;
the application had been dropped off at the planning board office a few days
ahead of the meeting so she had a chance to see what was submitted. Mr. Grazewicz’s submissions made it
complete. She also spoke with Jackie
Ronning, of the NWVillage Commissioner’s, before the meeting to verify whether
they would be able to hold their deliberations ahead of the planning board
review, being that most applications before the planning board already have
zoning approvals in place. Ms. Ronning
will call Sec. Aslinger and let her know the outcome of Thursday’s meeting to
insure processing the application and holding the public hearing in June is
proper procedure. Sec. Aslinger pointed out there has been a one-bedroom
apartment added to the plans from the prior meeting.
Mr. DeCoste asked about the
parking lot and if it is shared? Mr.
Grazewicz said he created a separated entrance/exit for the abutting
property. Mr. DeCoste asked if he had
spoken with the abutters, answer was no but thought they would be addressed at
the zoning meeting. Mr. DeCoste asked
about the entrances and removal of the loading docks and how they would buffer
and protect the abutters. Mr. Grazewicz
said there would be two entrances/exits and they are proposing a healthy
screening for the abutters with plantings and/or fencing depending on what the
board requests. Mr. DeCoste stressed the
need for those abutters to be included.
Mr. Sheldon Sawyer moved to place the
application on the agenda and schedule the public hearing for the June 10, 2008
meeting. Ben Daviss seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ch. Miller said of course, it would
depend on the outcome of the NW zoning commissioners hearing, if it is
required.
Zoning
board Chairman Myra Mansouri asked if a State highway permit was needed, answer
was yes, they have made their application.
8:30pm B.
Hick’s Machine - Mr. Randy Hicks presented the board with a partially completed
application for a site plan review proposal to make a 28 ft x 88 ft, 2462 sq.
ft. back addition to his building on Main Street in the industrial zone. It will be used for light prototype assembly
work. He said the sq. footage was under
the 2500 sq.ft. limit for an expedited review.
Sec. Aslinger had spoken to the applicant earlier confirming the site
plan review regs make a provision for an expedited review. This application if the board agrees, appears
to meet the criteria shown under Scope of Review page 4, stating the board may
make provisions for review of minor site plans if it qualifies for no new
construction greater than 2500 sq. ft. and if the site impacts are not expected
to be significant. The board may waive
certain requirements such as an
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 8
engineered plan, all waivers must be included as
part of the application. She suggested
filling out the checklist and submitting it with the application, it makes a
provision for waiver requests. Ch.
Miller thought it met the criteria and called for a board consensus by vote.
Sheldon Sawyer moved to designate the application
as meeting the requirements for an expedited review under the site plan review
regulations. Mr. O’Keefe seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr.
Hicks and his engineer Jerry Swain submitted most of the application materials,
but because they had not filled out the checklist Ch. Miller read through the
items indicating which ones would not be required due to the expedited review: Sec. Aslinger said additional materials would
be submitted after the meeting but prior to the deadline if the board
agreed. The board agreed and reviewed
the checklist with Ch. Miller listing the following items to be excluded by
waiver request: A. Submission Requirements - all are to be included. B.
Plat Submission Items - exclude 8. - 17., 19. -23. C. Other Plat Submission Items - all
excluded. Sec. Aslinger said she would
follow up with a list for the applicants in a few days. Fees were collected and the board agreed to
review the application and hold the hearing for the June meeting.
C.
Other - none
VII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A.
Master Plan Update - Mr. Daviss reported the goals and objectives have
been circulated and asked for board comments. Sec. Aslinger asked if the vision
statement was being included. Answer was
no, it had not been discussed by the board yet, only drafted from the last work
session. Sec. Aslinger said she thought
the draft had been e-mailed to everyone prior to tonight’s meeting although some
had not received it including Mr. Sawyer (was given a copy at the end of the
meeting). Mr. Daviss said if the draft
goals and objectives and vision statement are ok’d, then they will go to SWRPC
and a public hearing can be held, all agreed.
Ch. Miller thought the board could review the vision statement and make
comments prior to the May 27, 2008 work session being held at 7:00pm in the
basement office. Sec. Aslinger asked the
board about adopting the Conservation Commission’s town-wide conservation plan
into the Master Plan, Ben Daviss had asked her whether it required a public
hearing. It is considered an amendment to
the Master Plan and needs a public hearing along with the new Conservation
Commission’s “Natural Resources Land Conservation Values Plan”, she asked if
the board would like to schedule those items for a hearing at the same time as
the other items. Members asked if they
could have copies to review prior to deciding.
Sec. Aslinger will find out if hard copies or digital copies are
available from the Conservation Commission.
B.
Fees comparison - Sec. Aslinger provided a draft report from all but
18 towns in the SW regional planning commission area. She said all towns and OEP are interested in
the final report as well. Ch. Miller
thanked Sec. Aslinger for making the effort.
She said each town has it’s own way of setting fees, some by lot, square
footage, with and without postage, flat fees.
Some site plans charge for each square foot of disturbed area. She said most felt they were not covering
their expenses, it is too hard to tell from year to year because the volume and
type changes, secretarial expenses vary also, some with office hours, some
not. Walpole is not unusual. Some towns charge for preliminary and design
reviews and some charge $50./hour for the board’s time. She thought the way she’s determined
Walpole’s expenses and fees was somewhat simplified by adding up the
administrative costs and dividing them by the annual number of applications to
yield fees. Having spent three years as
secretary she has a good consistent history of what the expenses are and how
much time is required to process applications.
She thought the proposed per application $25.00 increase was reasonable
to cover last years shortfalls. She said she would update the rest of the
information and present it to the board. Mr.
Sawyer asked her if she thought the information provided was enough of a
comparison? She said yes but has been
encouraged by SWRPC to make a comprehensive report
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 9
that could be circulated to the other towns as well
as Office of Energy and Planning. She
said since she has already contacted each town she would volunteer the rest of
the preparation.
Mr.
Bob Miller commented about Marlow not charging at all. Mr. O’Keefe asked about notification
fees. Sec. Aslinger reported that the
abutter fee is covered by the applicants, however the legal notice that is
published is paid for by the board costing about $35.00 divided by the number
of applicants. There was additional
discussion about procedures, recordings, end of the year reports etc., avoiding
mistakes and legal requirements.
Comment: Mr. O’Keefe asked if it was
possible for each member to receive application materials on proposals by mail
ahead of the meetings. Sec. Aslinger
said as secretary to another planning board she did provide miniature copies of
application materials to board members two weeks ahead of the meetings but it
is costly both in time and postage. Ch.
Miller said the reason they require applicants to submit applications at their
meetings is so the members are aware of what will be before the board at the
following meetings. The maps and documents
are posted in the lobby not just for public review but for the board members
and Sec. Aslinger offered that she can always meet members at the office, so
long as its not more than 1 or 2 at a time to avoid a quorum, for their
inspection of the application materials.
D. Handout - OEP Innovative Land Use
workshop 5/22/08 Henniker 6:30-8pm
Fred Dill, Shane O’Keefe and Ben Daviss reported
they had an informative time at the Spring OEP confenence they attended in
April. Each attended different sessions
and came away with good information.
Fred reported on age discrimination within 55 and older housing.
B. Site Plan Review building
design standards - Sec. Aslinger asked if the board had a chance to review the draft for
possible adoption. Mr. Dill thought
making design standards would be limiting and stepping out of planning board bounds. He thought a more cooperative approach was
better and that it was encouraged in one of the OEP sessions he attended. Mr. Bob Miller thought the board had been
cooperative by working positively with developers and by making suggestions
based on each individual proposal rather than having set standards. Ch. Miller agreed saying the approach had
worked well in the past.
Sec. Aslinger asked if the
board would at least consider adding the simplified requirement to provide
elevations and plans without any required design standards, she said at least
the board could see what the building looks like, not tell them what it is
supposed to look like. Ch. Miller agreed
saying he always thought it was a part of the requirements. Ms. Aslinger said it was not a part of the
old regs and was left out of the model they used to create them although it is
a legal request and other towns do have it. Mr. O’Keefe said one of the comments made at
the conference was by a developer that implored boards to just point out
exactly what they want, instead of making him decide and provide something the
board or town doesn’t want.
Mr. Sawyer thought it wiser
to keep things less complicated to prevent smaller persons trying to realize
the American dream from selling out to larger developers because of difficult
regulations and requirements. Ms. Aslinger
spoke favorably about using the site plan expedited review, designed
specifically for smaller scale proposals as an example of cooperative
regulations. She reminded that in the
subdivision and site plan review regs any requirement may be waived by the
planning board to allow for flexibility, the applicant needs to ask. Ms. Aslinger said she agrees with the Board
and is not proposing Walpole adopt strict design standards such as those
provided in the example she prepared, however, she thought having a plan of
what the building would look like was very important.
Mr. Sawyer was concerned
that the board would be commenting on a building without the expertise. Ch. Miller disagreed that the board would use
the information to possibly critique not disapprove. Instead it would offer the board an insight
as to what was being proposed, changes could be suggested if there was
something glaring and if need be the applicant could request a waiver. Mr. O’Keefe thought for the most part
applicants know immediately what their building will look like, so it’s not
asking them for something new to prepare, but good
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/13/08 page 10
information to complete the site plan review. Mr. DeCoste said Ames implied the building
was going to be better than it turned out as an example. Ch. Miller said it would not be possible to
deny an application based on what the building looked like. Mr. Sawyer said Keene is an example of poor
design and traffic it’s difficult to shop in some of the plazas whether someone
thought they were attractive or not. Ch.
Miller said requiring elevations, as part of the plat submission items was not the
board designing but rather being able to see what the building will look
like.
Mr. Dill thought it was too
overwhelming to developers to consider façade materials etc., he thought it was
too difficult already with lighting design and parking lot design standards
that can be changed by an untrained board member. Ms. Aslinger reminded the board must consider
safety issues some of the design standards are there for protection. Mr. Sawyer disagreed saying the curbs and
plantings are for beauty not safety. Mr.
O’Keefe disagreed that board members are untrained, he has training in lighting
areas and Mr. White has first hand experience with commercial lighting poles
shining in his windows at 4 am because of poor design.
Ch. Miller returned the
conversation to the issue of requesting elevations be part of the plat
submission items versus adding design standards. Members agreed to request only the elevations
at this time. Sec. Aslinger said the
amendment would require a public hearing and she asked the board if they agreed
with the draft wording: Add
new: page 7 B. Plat Submission Items
#27. The location, type and design of
all buildings including an elevation view or photograph indicating their
height, width and surface treatment.
The
board discussed presenting it at the June meeting for a public hearing, whether
anyone had an objection to the wording, being none Mr. O’Keefe and Mr. Sawyer
suggested the hearing could be held in June.
Mr. Sawyer moved to schedule the
amendment to the site plan review regulations as read for a public hearing at
the June 10, 2008 meeting. Mr. O’Keefe
seconded. Motion carried
unanimously. Sec. Aslinger thanked
the board for moving forward on the amendment.
VIII. Mr. Sawyer moved to close the meeting,
seconded. He
noted the minutes from April had been passed over. Mr.
DeCoste moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded, motion passed
unanimously. The vote to close the
meeting carried unanimously at 9:15pm.
Cc: PB, ZBA,
WCC, BOS, NWVC, Town Offices, applicants and engineers
Posted: Town
Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.walpoleplanningboard.org