PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 12, 2008 at 7:30pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Bob Miller, V-Ch.
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Henry Fletcher, Dave DeCoste, Charles Miller BOS, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff
White, alt.
Members Absent: Jeff Miller, Fred Dill (in audience)
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved
and will be reviewed at the March 11, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and
corrections. There were 35 +/- persons
in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm
A. V-Ch. B. Miller designated
P. Aslinger as alternate for J. Miller.
B. Minutes from January 8 and 22, 2008 were
approved as presented by unanimous vote.
II. Review application submitted:
A. Chamberlain Machine Inc. - Site Plan Review
and Conditional Use Permit under Well Source Protection Ordinance Section 4
A. Project is located on Rte. 12, Map 12,
V-Ch. B. Miller asked Chamberlain’s
representative Attny. Gary Kinyon to present the application
for the Board to determine completeness so it can be accepted as such. Attny. Kinyon
reviewed the status of the applications stating they had been properly
submitted at the prior meeting and were now being officially considered by the
Board. He understood the next step is
for the Board to accept the applications and hold the public hearing. He said the engineer would make a quick
presentation of the application materials, adding they would provide a more
detailed presentation during the public hearing phase if the Chairman
agreed. V-Ch. Miller agreed. Attny. Kinyon stated
that the Conditional Use Permit consideration would fall under the Well Source
Protection Ordinance and taken up in more detail once the Board accepted the
main Site Plan Review application.
Mr. Robert Hitchcock from SVE Associates Engineering
in
A. Submission
Requirements:
1-7 were submitted with 4. not applicable and 8. no waivers being
requested, not applicable.
B. Plat Submission Items:
-
Items 1-7 were submitted, item 8. road profiles, not
applicable.
-
Items 9-13 were submitted.
-
Item 14. signs, have not yet been finalized until the
building has been completely designed however any signs will placed be on the building.
-
Items 15 & 16 were submitted although the site does not have wetlands or
rock ledges.
-
Item 17. “Size and location of existing
and proposed water mains, sewers, culverts connections or alternative mean of
providing water supply and disposal of sewage and surface drainage” were
submitted noting an on site septic system is being proposed rather than hooking
up to the Town system. Mr. Hitchcock
said although there is a main sewer line across Rte. 12, they are not able to
tie into it because it is a “forced main”.
-
Items 18 & 19 were submitted.
-
Item 20. wetlands portion, not applicable.
-
Item 21. location of perc tests and results; design is not complete or submitted, test
pits have been done and are shown.
-
Item 22. location of well is not applicable because they will tie into the Town
system.
-
Item 23. is pending regarding septic design.
Mr. DeCoste asked why they were not connecting to the Town’s sewer
system? Mr. Hitchcock said in order to
reach the Town sewer system they would need a pump station and a force main out
to Rte. 12 and then all the way to the top of the hill to the gravity main at
the shopping center. Mr. DeCoste said he
thought one of the main reasons Chamberlain picked the site was because they
could hook up to Town water, sewer and have three-phase power. Mr. Hitchcock said when they started the
project everyone assumed there was a gravity line available, which is true but it
is a forced main and most municipalities do not allow tying into it, because it
can be problematic. He said one of his
engineers met with Mark Houghton, the Town’s water and sewer commissioner, he
said if they wanted to tie into the sewer they would have to pump it all the
way to the gravity station. Mr. DeCoste
asked if the three houses along Rte. 12 had their own systems, no answer. Mr. Merklien suggested since the area has
other development potential that should be included in the Town’s sewer system,
they work together to defray some of the costs involved. Mr. Chick Miller agreed and suggested they
“join hands”.
-
Item 24. deed restrictions etc., not applicable.
-
Item 25. base flood elevations and hazard areas, not applicable.
-
Item 26. DES permits and approvals have been applied for. They have shown a concrete slab to house a
propane tank for fuel. There will be no
underground storage for fuel oil.
Propane will be used only.
C. Other plat submission items -Note: most of these items
come later in the review, he touched on those applicable at this point.
-
Item 1. has been submitted.
-
Item 2. state subdivision approval, not
applicable because the lot is greater than 5 acres. Mr. O’Keefe asked if the State would approve
the septic system? Answer was yes. Mr. C. Miller pointed out rather than
shipping all the waste water to the sewer plant why not see the benefit of
eventually returning it to the aquifer by way of an on site septic system.
-
Item 3. alteration of terrain permit is
pending and has been applied with NH DES. Initial comments have raised some issues to be
addressed.
-
Item 4. State driveway permit has been
granted, DOT letter on file.
-
Item 5. Reports from Town
officials; Mr. Hitchcock said they have
not contacted all officials and assume they have been made aware of the project
and plans by the Board. Sec. Aslinger
said with the application just now being
formally submitted requesting Town official’s comment would result from the
review and possibly from tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Chris Miller provided the Board with a letter
from Fire Chief Hurlburt regarding flammable liquids storage. V-Ch. Miller read
the letter into the record dated 2/7/08 (on file). The letter stated Fire Inspector Herb
Hurlburt toured the current facility in Bellows Falls finding the present
storage and use of flammable coolants and oils pose no risk to the future
building or occupants in his opinion, the amount that is on site and used is
well below any danger levels. According
to the MSDS sheets the flammability levels for “Crystal clean” are 103 degrees
farh. the quantity of 105 gallons in a
closed system is a minor amount for this facility. He observed containment products close to the
machine so any accidental spill could be handled quickly. The oil supply company has an active contract
to change and dispose of the product monthly plus cleans and filters the
products off site so no materials are disposed on site. Storage and use of other water based coolants
looked consistent with acceptable practices for this type of product.
Selectman Sheldon Sawyer asked if Chamberlain’s
plans had been posted for interested parties to view? Sec. Aslinger said yes, the plans have been
posted for over 3 weeks in the Lobby
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 3
of
the Town Hall. Selectman Chick Miller
thought if Town committees wanted to comment on the proposal the plans were
available, perhaps Chamberlain could have encouraged their comments. V-Ch. Miller thought the availability of the
plans was adequate but it is the responsibility of the Planning Board to ask
for specific comments on the application from various Town officials, it could
be discussed later in the review as concerns arise.
-
Item 6. approval for municipal
water/sewer connections, they have verbal approval for the water connection,
written approval is pending. V-Ch.
Miller stressed the importance of written agreements; any communications should
be submitted in writing.
-
Item 7. deed restrictions etc, not
applicable, there are none.
-
Item 8. State and Federal permits; the
site specific permit, septic permit and stormwater retention plan are all
pending.
-
Item 9. impact analysis studies; a
traffic impact study has been provided, Sec. Aslinger noted she has copies for
Board members wishing to review it.
-
Item 10. & 11. additional reports or
studies are pending and may result from the review or not.
Mr. Hitchcock
completed his presentation at 8:30pm.
Sec. Aslinger made her report on the completeness of
the application noting that signs, sewer/septic issues and various permits were
pending. She said the application for
the purpose of acceptance by the Board was complete.
V-Ch. Miller asked members what other committees
they thought should be contacted to look over the plans?
Mr. Mel Schupack asked if the site was located in
the flood zone, thinking he saw a map showing it within the flood plain
zone. Mr. Hitchcock said he did not
check on it mainly because of the high elevation. He didn’t think it could possibly be in the
flood zone. Sheldon Sawyer agreed noting
where the lower portions along the river are in the flood plain, but
Chamberlain’s site is 20 to 30 feet higher so doubted it is. The board will verify it.
Sec. Aslinger reminded the Board
they were at a point where they need to accept the application as complete
first. The necessary items such as the
application, fees, abutter list, four paper copies of the plans have been
received in a timely manner, the public hearing notice was properly published
and abutters notified.
Mr. Merklein asked if by accepting
the application as complete means nothing can be changed on the plans? Sec. Aslinger answered the board only accepts
the basic documents to begin the formal review process, changes may occur
anytime during the review process. Mr.
Chick Miller asked if letters from various Town officials need to be received
first, whether accepting the application prevents the Board from asking for
further information. Sec. Aslinger said
letters or other information the Board might request during the Site Plan
Review is not required at this time to accept the application. The Board will decide later to approve,
disapprove or delay action on the application once the public hearing has been
held, this is only accepting it to begin the process. Mr. DeCoste tried to clarify saying he
thought the applicant had addressed all the issues on the checklist in order to
submit a complete application, discussion and detail would continue. Mr. Chick thought all items needed to be in
hand before the Board accepted the application.
Sec. Aslinger reiterated they were not handling this application
differently from any other application that comes before the Board, the
application is taken in at a regular planning board meeting, it includes an
application, fees, abutter list and four sets of plans which constitutes a
completed application. She said the
Board then votes to accept the application and begins the formal review by
holding a public hearing and deliberating on the merits of the proposal,
reaching a final decision. She said to
refer to the order of the agenda that begins with accepting the application,
without accepting it first the Board can’t open the public hearing. Mr. C. Miller remained concerned as to how
complete the application needed to be in order to accept it and was not sure a
Secretary’s report was adequate. Mr.
O’Keefe asked if there were any request for waivers? Answer was no.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 4
Mr.
Dave DeCoste made a motion to accept the application as presented, Mr. Eric
Merklein seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Merklein asked to have all other agencies notified for their input
on the application. V- Ch. Miller so
noted, instructing the Secretary to make contact and report to the Board.
III. V-Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened (8:45) the public
hearing reminding this was the time to take public comment and discussion. He asked Mr. Kinyon to make their
presentation.
Attny. Kinyon said he would now
present the substance of the Site Plan Review application as well as
information in support of the Conditional Use Permit under the Well Source
Protection Ordinance. He turned the
presentation back to Mr. Hitchcock to go into more detail and answer any questions
from the public or Board on the overall Site Plan.
Mr. Donald Lansbury, an audience
member and recognized by the Chairman asked about the SW corner of the building
specifically the shipping dock, how is it accessed, what is the elevation and
how does it drain? Mr. Hitchcock pointed
to the building map layout showing the dock;
it is depressed 4 feet, noted the gradients allowing the depression that
drains into a detention basin containing a dry well. The elevation is 3.3. Mr. Lansbury asked if they shipped goods on a
standard 4 x 6 pallet/skid or larger?
Chris Miller answered they use 4 x 6 pallets, nothing larger. Mr. Hitchcock showed how a truck would access
the dock.
Mr. Hitchcock began by showing the
overall site, locating the proposed buildings on the survey map. He said the site sits back 400 feet back from
Rte. 12 and is in the Rural Ag. zone, the frontage is in the Commercial
zone. He said the lot size is 12.15
acres the building is 49,000 sq. feet with approximately 74,000 sq. feet of
asphalt on the site. There are currently
50 employees. They are providing 84 parking spaces allowing for visitors,
guests and deliveries. Set backs are 20
feet, with 30 feet on the north side of the building, the lot is level with the
loading dock area sloping down. The Main
entry is on the NE corner, a secondary access for the employees and a second
area for a truck unloading directly into the office area. They have included two concrete pads, one for
the dumpster and one for the propane tank.
They are using propane because of the well source protection area
requirement. He showed an existing
building to be saved used for miscellaneous storage. He said everything was designed to handle a
WB50 truck a standard tractortrailer.
The existing road will be reconstructed making Chamberlain’s turn off
from it to access the building. They are
going to tie in the existing driveways to the two homes serviced by the
entrance road.
Mr. Miller asked if it was considered a road or
driveway? Mr. Hitchcock said it is laid
out as being 24 feet wide and paved so for all practical purposes it is a road
but will not be taken over by the Town.
He said the road is private and will remain private but constructed to
Town standards. He said the existing
farmhouse will be connected to the new road, but it is owned by Mr. Tousley and
for him to decide. Sec. Aslinger asked
about the length of the private road?
Mr. Hitchcock answered from Rte. 12 to the end is 860 feet. Mr. C. Miller asked where the 200 ft. of
frontage is? It was pointed out on the
map as being 219 feet. Mr. Hitchcock
stated they are allowed up to 30% coverage of impermeable surface according to
the regulations they have 23% including the building and asphalt. Six catch basins are located and shown on the
site specific application filed with DES.
Mr. Merklein asked if permeable
surface had been considered? He provided
a handout and supported the idea of either permeable concrete or asphalt
despite the initial expense or scale. He
asked while the Board can’t require it, have they considered it? Mr. Hitchcock replied he is very familiar
with the surfaces known as either pervious concrete of porous asphalt. While he
likes both surfaces he has concluded the expense is it’s biggest drawback. He said in concept both surfaces are great
and pointed to UNH’s stormwater center that is leading the way across the
country
by actually studying their own installed examples of both surfaces. They have built
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 5
parking
lots made of the materials and it is very impressive. The concrete requires 3 feet of aggregate as
a base and the concrete is 6 inches thick.
He recently contacted Carroll Concrete for pricing, they are the only
certified installer, as of eight weeks ago they would not quote a price.
Mr. Merklien asked about the New
London Hospital porous asphalt parking lot.
Mr. Hitchcock being somewhat knowledgeable about the project and concept
said Pike construction determined they could not provide porous asphalt and
stand behind the product. The Hospital
because they had committed to the surface turned to Carroll Concrete who
installed the concrete surface. The
asphalt industry must retool in order to create the product. He said the lot was not a huge so it didn’t make
sense for the asphalt company to retool for one day, it is an industry problem
noting both surfaces would not be widely used until the industries come up with
a way to make it affordable and competitive.
He added that another obstacle is being the first one on the block to
try it, if it fails it is a huge expense to replace it if something goes
wrong. Both surfaces would require
vacuuming after sanding about 3-4 times per year. Supposedly the concrete people feel it is
equitable because of the high cost of commercial land. When there are regulated
lot surface coverage requirements the permeability factor is not an issue. He questions whether it is a true cost
savings if the land is already owned. He
said it would not be a part of this proposal although he would support it if it
were cost effective and proven in the long term in the Northeast. He said Keene has a parking lot going in as a
test case.
Selectman Sawyer asked about salt on
concrete. Mr. Hitchcock said typically
salt is corrosive to concrete, however they have come up with formulas and
additives to address that issue. They
have documentation from England showing once salt passes through the concrete
and aggregate base the hydrocarbons have been eliminated. He wasn’t certain if asphalt would do the
same. He said even under ideal
conditions as a design engineer he is reluctant to recommend either surface at
this time. Mr. Merklein thanked him for
his knowledgeable explanations.
Mr. Hitchcock indicated where the
utilities and water lines would be located.
He said the sprinkler contactor would dictate what size of line would be
needed; being at least a six or eight inches depending on the pressure needs
and flow. He said the septic system was
being designed for 70 persons. The DES
standard for persons in a manufacturing facility is 25 gallons per day per
person, equaling 1750 gallons per day.
He said in reality they would probably generate 750 gallons per
day. As a general rule the “real flows”
are 50% of the “book flows” in part due to new low water toilets.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if there would be any process waste? Answer was no, none whatsoever.
Mr. Mel
Schupack asked if the septic would be “enviroseptic”, answer was yes. Mr. Hitchcock said preliminary plans are to
install two septic tanks with “enviroseptic pipe” made of polyethylene wrapped
with a type of fabric because there is a 40% reduction in bed size. Because these systems are also used in
commercial operations stone companies don’t sell as much stone meaning they
don’t wash their stone as well which leads to clogged bed bottoms. He no longer designs or installs stone pipe
systems.
Mr. O’Keefe asked about process waste and what
happens to it? Mr. Hitchcock said all
solvents and oils being used are collected and recycled. Mr. Chris Miller confirmed that some
water-based materials are used but are separated and reused. Mr. O’Keefe asked then there are no process
wastes going down the drain? Answer was
none, it would be illegal in NH. Mr.
O’Keefe agreed but cautioned it had happened before in Walpole. Mr. Hitchcock said you cannot have floor drains
and they are not planning any floor drains.
If they were to incorporate floor drains they would have to be run into
a holding tank and have it pumped out periodically such as a similar situation
with Fed-Ex in Keene using a system allowing them to wash their trucks inside
at their facility. Mr. Merklein asked
about cleaning the machinery? Mr. Chris
Miller said all the cleaning materials are in separate components. The waste is picked up by a local contractor
and the material has been tested and is approved to be disposed of in a
municipal sewer treatment
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 6
plant,
however they elect to remain with their handler in Bellows Falls, who takes it
to the waste treatment plant. Mr.
Hitchcock pointed out the location of the 5 test pits on the plan.
Mr. Hitchcock turned to the lighting
plan, showing 9 light poles, 30 feet tall, type 400 block metal halide. The contours are 1/4 foot candle which is
about as low as any programs will go.
The light load is 4.8 max, min. 0.8, ave 2.4 foot candles throughout the
parking lot. There are 7 follow up
lights 3 feet tall to light walkways.
There are some wall packs for security and safety by the entrances. He said Chamberlain runs one shift although
they have a flex schedule but everyone is gone by 5 or 6pm, the lights will be
out by 7pm. He said a minimum amount of
security lights would be left on.
Mr. Merklein asked if the plans conform to the
regulations for lighting standards. Answer was yes although the regs are
lacking specifics. Mr. Merklein wants to
make certain light pollution is addressed.
Mr. Hitchock said all the lights are shoebox type and full cut off, so
the light goes down rather than up to prevent light pollution. Mr. O’Keefe said 30 feet is high and can be
seen by passing vehicles. Mr. Hitchcock
agreed but said the higher the light the fewer required, going shorter means
more lights. Mr. O’Keefe asked for a cut
sheet showing luminaries. Mr. Hitchcock
provided three copies for the files. Mr.
Hitchcock noted the site remains 400 feet from the highway. V-Ch. Bob Miller asked how the residences
would be affected? The very dense
evergreen buffer will shield the residences, he will make certain they will be
at least 20 feet tall or they will reduce the height of the poles. In addition they are adding 8 evergreen trees to the already dense buffer
to prevent headlight penetration onto the residences. Ms. Aslinger asked if the Malnati’s be
looking up into the lights? Answer was
not likely but Mr. Hitchcock was not certain it would require further
study.
Mr. Merklein asked if there were plans for safety
lighting onto Rte. 12. Mr. Hitchcock did
not see the necessity but would comply with what the Board wants. Mr. Sheldon Sawyer noted that NH Dept. of
Transportation would generally make the recommendation if needed. DOT has not made a recommendation for a
safety or traffic light and they have given their approval. Mr. Hitchcock said the traffic study
presented to the Zoning Board at the special exception hearing showed where DOT
rated the area as a level of service A being one of the lowest ratings
possible. He explained “level of
service” is rated like a report card A - F with A being the best and F the
worst. The DOT will design intersections
with a level of service D. He said even
with the Chamberlain project in place the level of service rating will remain
at A for all turning movements. He said
the level of service is a function of how long you have to wait to turn onto
Rte. 12. Selectman Chick Miller noting
more development was likely asked how would that change it? Mr. Hitchcock said DOT does not want lights,
comparing a site in Keene at Smith Plaxco and C & S on Rte. 12 with higher
commercial traffic without a light. He
guarantees they will not suggest a light unless requested by the Town for
documented reasons ie; accidents.
Mr.
Hitchcock switched over to the landscape plan.
He said the landscaping regulations were somewhat unclear but they have
complied as recommended and made additions where needed. There are 22 trees 2 1/2 - 3” in caliper when
planted and evenly distributed around the site.
There are 81 shrubs in a 3 gallon size.
Mr. Daviss asked how the four varieties were chosen were they chosen for
aesthetics and/or hardiness? Mr.
Hitchcock thought they were chosen for both reasons. They were picked by the
landscape architect who was not present to whom he suggested keeping the selection down for
simplicity although they would be willing to add varieties or substitutes if
required by the Board. Ms. Aslinger
noted that it seemed most of the landscaping revolved around the parking lot
standards where the screening is specified in the regulations. He agreed saying they looked at the parking
lot standards in order to provide 1 shrub for each 1.6 parking space, they went
over the required number to 81. Mr.
Chick Miller asked if they would be maintained, answer was yes. Mr. Hitchcock said the standard for plantings
is based on the parking lot standards and asphalt. They would be glad to remove or add as the
Board decides.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 7
Mr. Chick Miller asked if the parking lot
configurations were going to interfere with snowplowing? Answer was yes, for snowplowing it is best to
have no plantings and no curbing. The
plan shows sloped granite curbing. He
said if it isn’t curbed however the landscaping cannot be maintained.
Mr. Ben Daviss said when Chamberlain
first came in with their proposal they talked about expansion, he wondered where
they plan to expand and if it would effect the 30% undeveloped open space
requirement? Mr. Hitchcock referred to
the plans showing an area on the east face of the building where the offices
are proposed. They have allowed for a
small 70 foot office expansion and also at the back of the building on the west
side for expansion of manufacturing if needed.
He felt the expansion would not go beyond the 30% requirement noting 7%
remainder of 12.15 acres is quite a bit of land. He said history would tell them if they need
additional parking spaces but he did not think it was likely.
(9:10pm) V. Ch. Miller called for additional questions
from the public or board members.
Mr. O’Keefe asked about the entrances on sheet C-3
and pedestrian traffic to clarify
where employees and visitors would enter and
exit. He also asked about the building
height. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out the
entrances and exits. The building height
will be 18 feet with a flat roof and screened roof mounted ventilation.
Mr. Merklein asked if the building
design plans were available so the Board could see what it will look like as
well as what it is made of? He remarked
that generally in all of the past projects the actual building design and elevations
are part of the plan, not just the footprint.
Mr. Chris Miller provided the Board with very
preliminary drawings showing a single story building. The architect has not been finalized for the
actual building. Mr. Chris Miller said
they are still deciding on the exterior ribbing/siding but they have decided to
use masonry on the front and across the office area. The rest of the manufacturing building is
shown with vertical ribbed metal siding; the color has not been finalized but
will be chosen to blend in with the surroundings. There are some lights shown across the full
length on the top of the building called “calwall” to provide natural lighting
and cut down on interior lighting fixtures and costs also making it a much
nicer interior environment. He said the
purpose of the masonry is to provide a low key building style to fit in with
the site. He said there would be some
roof mounted HVAC equipment and it has been pushed back so it won’t be as
visible and it will be screened. Mr.
Merklein asked if they had considered “green” alternatives for fuel and
building materials. Mr. Miller said yes
they have considered choosing environmental design elements. They are currently in the process of choosing
the engineering firm to construct the building and will look into recapture of
radiant heat from the building as well as other ideas.
V-Ch.
Bob Miller asked if Mr. Kinyon had anything else to present? He said no, but they were willing to go into
their presentation on the Conditional Use Permit. V-Ch. Miller agreed.
Mr. Kinyon reminded that the Conditional Use Permit
was to be reviewed under the Town of Walpole Well Source Protection Ordinance,
not the Site Plan Review regulations. He
said the map included in the WSP Ordinance shows their site within the well
source protection area but they are not convinced they are truly within the
district based on research Steve Brackett the geologist for Chamberlain Machine
has done. In his professional opinion
regarding the ordinance it appears the property may not be properly designated
as being within the wellhead district because of the relationship of that
district geographically to the actual well.
Mr. Kinyon stated that under the WSPO there is a provision under Section
2 that allows for an applicant to seek a change to the boundaries if they think
their lot is not properly within the protection area. He said they were not going to seek to change
the boundary because even assuming they are in the wellhead protection district
they will be able to qualify pretty easily for a conditional use permit. However he wanted to bring the issue up to
the Board in order to provide some background.
He said he wanted to be clear they are not here tonight with their
application under
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 8
the
Well Source Protection Ordinance to change the boundary, but they do somewhat
question whether the boundary is accurate.
He said what they are applying for is under Section 4 of the ordinance
stating: if a development is within the
protection district then a conditional use permit must be obtained from the
Planning Board including industrial, commercial, institutional and governmental
uses not prohibited by the ordinance.
Chamberlain falls under an industrial use. He said under Section 4. B. there are 5
standards are to be met. He said 2-5
have been met, he will address them briefly, Mr. Brackett will address item
1.
With respect to #2. - there
will be no long term reduction to the aquifer because it will be on Town water.
With respect to #3, - the
site plan presentation made clear the sewage disposal system will be designed
to handle standard effluent only.
With respect to #4, - since
the water use will be minimal they will not have any effect on the aquifer
recharging, the proposed use will not cover more than 20% of the lot, however
they have submitted a stormwater management plan with the Board.
With respect to #5, - they
have obtained a special exception from the ZBA this being the only other
relevant ordinance referred to in #5.
He concluded saying those standards
have been met, however standard #1 requires the benefit of Steve Brackett’s
insight. He read #1: “The proposed use will not detrimentally
affect the quality of the ground water contained in the aquifir by directly
contributing to pollution or by increasing long term susceptibility of the
aquifer to potential pollutants.” He
said in the original application materials he provided a letter from Mr.
Brackett to address the standard (on file).
Mr. Kinyon asked Mr. Brackett to make a brief presentation on his
findings.
Mr. Brackett provided handouts for
the Board (copy on file). He is a State
of NH licensed geologist and has practiced geology for 28 years with the last
18 in Cheshire County. His office is in
Keene. He has practiced in MA, RI, CT,
NH and VT. He said a little over a year
ago he was contacted by Chamberlain Machine to provide preliminary studies on
their proposal. He has visited the
existing Chamberlain operation for a complete understanding of what they do,
visited the proposed site and has gotten the DES file for the Walpole River
Well. Based on all the information it is
his contention the fundamental reason this site does not pose a threat to the
River Well and aquifir is geological. He
referred to the handout map showing the site, the source protection district
and the well. He said in order for
contamination to go from Chamberlain’s site to the well it would need to be
carried in the groundwater for a long distance.
He said the groundwater would have to be flowing in the direction of the
river well which is W-NW. He showed on
the 2nd page a groundwater contour map developed by USGS in the 1990’s from a
regional study done on the entire southern portion of NH. He said the map was derived out of this
study. It shows the groundwater surface
elevations under the ground. In addition
the same map was used in 2001 by Doug Heath of EPA when he delineated the
source protection area for the Walpole River well. He said the map is used by geologists to
determine groundwater flow and it is his intent to convince the Board that
water flows downhill. He asked members
to look at the contour map stating the water flow is going to be perpendicular
to the contours/elevations. He said in
the center of the map he has indicated where Chamberlain’s building is
located. As shown there are two closely
spaced contours to the south, those indicate the slope that is steep to the
south of the building, meaning the direction of the water flow underneath the
Chamberlain building is to the south.
Based the study he prepared, the 18 years of experience and working in
the Connecticut River Valley, he cannot imagine how the water would go from
south to north against the direction of flow.
Ultimately this site will not impact the River Well because the
groundwater flows to the South, not to the Northwest.
He said two other arguments prove the site will not
pose a threat to the River well. First
taking into consideration the current regulatory environment - which is to say
businesses like Chamberlain Machine are very heavily regulated on their use of
process fluids plus given the fact
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 9
construction
of the building lacks any floor drains or breaks in the floors, any spills
would be extremely obvious and cleaned up.
Based on his experience and review of data-bases maintained by NH DES
and VT DEC, operations such as this do not pose even a very minimal risk of
contamination. In fact based on a review
of NH DES database he did for this review he could not find any similar
facility causing contamination within the last 15 years. He said 30
or 50 years ago machine shops were terrible contributors to pollution
all over the nation, those being within a whole different business environment
compared to today. He said the last
argument in favor of his position as now all know the facility is sitting on a
large glacial terrace, the drop of topography is in excess of 40 feet to the
Malnati farm. The water table under the
site is greater than 35 feet deep, so if there were somehow a release at the
facility and it somehow got outside the building before it was addressed it
would have to saturate a 35 foot thick bed of fine sand before the material
ever made it to the water table flowing south - not to the northwest.
Mr. O’Keefe noted there was possibly a greater
chance of contamination from the parking lot than from the facility. Mr. Brackett agreed noting there is a greater
risk of housing development contamination. In fact the NH DES database shows
most contamination incidences in the last 5 years resulting from fuel oil spill
at residences. He said a 20 home
residential development would pose a greater risk to the well than
Chamberlain’s operation.
Mr. Kinyon
wrapped up their presentation on the Conditional Use permit stating they were
prepared to answer member or audience questions. V-Ch. B. Miller called for questions from the
audience, there were none.
Mr. O’Keefe asked for further clarification on item
#3 regarding the on site storage of hazardous or toxic materials. Mr. Brackett stated the materials being used
are being used in a manner that while they could be potentially hazardous they
are exempt from Federal RECRA and State regulation. RECRA (Resource Conservation Recovery Act of
1976) regulates and was written specifically to address and identify how
hazardous materials are to be properly stored and used. The reason they are exempt from RECRA
regulation is because the materials they are using are recycled. He said they have process fluids on site but
none are regulated.
V-Ch. Bob Miller referred to an attachment to Mr.
Brackett’s letter listing all the process fluids by manufacturer, trade name,
use, gallons on site, hazard class, flammability rating and waste stream. He read the notation: “No process fluids used at CMI are, or have
ingredients that are, considered hazardous according to EPA RECRA Sect. 2001
40CFR Sect. 261.31-261.33.”
Mr. Ben Daviss said in the WSP ordinance under
Prohibited Uses J. it states “all onsite handling, disposal, storage or recycling
of hazardous or toxic materials”(are prohibited). He said the ordinance defines things that are
hazardous as being things that are flammables such as solvents and oils. The letter from the Fire Chief stated
flammable materials were being used, which is prohibited. He asked if the WSP ordinance is overridden
by State law, so it doesn’t pertain to them?
Mr. Brackett said generally the Federal Govt.
determines what is hazardous or not. As
far as what is flammable one of the solids used is a low grade flammable if he
remembers correctly. However under federal and state hazardous materials laws,
which have been piggybacked on the federal laws there is an allowance for
methods of use, storage and disposal of materials that are exempt from those
laws. Their position is that because
they are doing what they are supposed to do in properly handling the process
fluids by recycling, they do not use, store or dispose of any hazardous
materials as defined by the federal or state regulations. He said some of the materials do have the
characteristics prohibited in the ordinance but they are using, storing and
disposing of them in the proper manner that exempts them from Federal and State
regulation. Mr. Daviss asked even though
it (a fluid) is flammable and prohibited from being used in the source
protection area, it does not apply to Chamberlain? Mr. Brackett said unless the Town of Walpole
wants to invest in a new set of definitions different from the State and
Federal definitions of hazardous and toxic materials they must go by the State
and Federal definitions.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 10
Mr. Daviss read the definition within the WSP
ordinance for hazardous or toxic materials:
“Material which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly stored, transported or disposed of or
otherwise managed including without exception hazardous materials identified
and listed in accordance with Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976. Examples
include: 1) Toxic (poisonous), 2)
flammable (paint, varnish remover, solvents and oils) 3) Reactive, 4) Corrosive
(acids)”. He said it’s not saying when
you misuse them, it’s saying when materials that if they are misused will have
these effects.
Mr. Brackett said when you continue on the same
section “when improperly …in accordance with RECRA…” RECRA is the government agency that regulates
the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and NH has additional
laws. He said under RECRA they have the
exemption, if they have the exemption under the federal and state agencies it
seems they should have the same exemption under the Well Source Protection
Ordinance.
Mr. Daviss thought the word “including” meant not
just the things listed in RECRA, rather “any” material. He said he was struggling with the
interpretation and how to apply the ordinance.
He understood what Mr. Brackett was saying about being exempt under RECRA
but did not understand how they were exempt from Walpole’s ordinance.
Attny. Kinyon interjected stating whenever you read
an ordinance, federal or state law you have to apply different “rules of
construction”. One rule is being able to
look at it so the different provisions of the ordinance all fit together and
make sense. He doesn’t disagree that a
literal reading of hazardous and toxic materials in the ordinance if looked at
in isolation and in part is capable of a meaning of hazardous materials that is
broader than RECRA. He thinks when
reasonably read and construed with the rest of the ordinance, in reference to
hazardous materials, the very recognition that industrial, commercial,
institutional, and governmental uses can qualify for conditional use permits -
you can’t help but conclude industrial uses dealing with potentially hazardous
materials in a reasonable way are meant to be able to qualify for a conditional
use permit. Rather than being
disqualified per se because they might have an on site material if used
improperly could harm the environment.
He said every home has materials in it if used improperly could damage
the environment but obviously the ordinance it is not trying to prevent single
family residences in the area. He said
when read together in context with the rest of the ordinance the Board can and
should reasonably make the ordinance apply in an overall fashion and context by
saying we could interpret it that way (more restrictive) or a more reasonable
interpretation is to piggyback on RECRA and follow its lead to say that if used
properly these things won’t be a hazard to the well.
Mr. Schupack said even if the materials are handled
properly if they are outside of the building at times and if they are in the
flood zone there is a potential for contamination, hypothetically. V-Ch. Miller thought it was irrelevant to
this situation. He mentioned Pinnacle
View as being a huge potential contaminant, however it was grand-fathered and
not subject to the ordinance at all.
V-Ch. Miller said fortunately they are reputable people who use care in
their facility.
Ms. Aslinger said she reviewed in detail the Well
Source Protection ordinance from beginning to end to fully understand it’s
intent. She obtained a copy of RECRA
section 3001 on-line and read the extensive description of what constituted
hazardous materials under the section.
She said the ordinance obviously was put in place to protect the water
supply, which is very important but she can’t imagine it was designed to be so
restrictive a person couldn’t have a container of insect spray on their
property. She thought “J.” under Prohibited Uses was overly broad agreeing that
it is difficult to interpret. She
thanked Mr. Daviss for questioning the ordinance in order to help the Board
make an accurate interpretation.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 11
(9:50pm) V-Ch. Bob Miller called for further comments,
being none asked if the Board preferred to close or continue the Public Hearing
until the next meeting. A motion was
made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing until the March 11, 2008
meeting at 7:30pm in the upstairs of the Town Hall. Motion carried. Sec. Aslinger suggested continuing the review until
the next meeting due to the late hour and pending agenda items, members agreed.
VI. Unfinished Business
A. Walpole D &
D, LLC - Review
revised deed restrictions, members received mailed copy’s of the revised
document prior to the meeting. Mr. Dill
was present to answer questions.
Secretary Aslinger reported the revision adequately reflected what the
Board requested at the prior meeting, members agreed. Mr, Dill said the
wetlands have been staked out and recorded on a map for State subdivision
approval. Sec. Aslinger will send a follow up letter to Mr. Dill stating
receipt and compliance with the deed restrictions condition. She will leave D & D on the agenda for
the March meeting.
VII. New Business
A. Toby Tousley -
Preliminary Consultation - Minor 3 lot subdivision located on Rte. 12, former Huntington Farm,
remaining parcel. Mr. Tousley submitted
an application, fees, abutter list and maps for a 3 lot minor subdivision Map
12 Lot 4-1 in the Commercial and Rural Agricultural districts. Lot 1 is 23.81 ac, Lot 2 is 5.67 ac, Lot 3 is
1.98 ac. All lots meet the frontage
requirements of 200 ft. with all fronting on Rte. 12. The purpose is to sell Lot 1 and 2 to
Bensonwood, a local manufacturing business.
Mr. Tousley pointed out the lot configuration with Lot 3 to the South
all within the commercial district, Lot 2 will consist of a piece on the
northerly side to include the buildings Hubbard is leasing from him and Lot 1
will be “u” shaped with combined frontage along Rte. 12 to be sold to
Bensonwood, He explained the reason there are two separate lots is to avoid
having two separate businesses on one lot which is prohibited in the Zoning
Ordinance. He said Bensonwood would come
to the Board with their site plan.
Eventually when the Hubbard lease is up in 10 years they will likely
merge Lot 1 & 2 back together. It
was noted Lot 1 includes the ROW for the Chamberlain parcel. He said when the lots are merged the front of
Lot 2 could be returned to a commercial lot.
The access for Bensonwood would be on Huntington Lane because Hubbard
discourages the use of Edwards Lane due to potential disease issues. Mr. DeCoste reminded that Bensonwood would be
required to go through the same special exception process as Chamberlain for a
manufacturing facility in the Rural Ag. zone. Ms. Aslinger made a motion to place the application on the March 11,
2008 agenda and to schedule the Public Hearing.
Seconded, motion carried unanimously.
B. NH Trust for
Public Lands - Josh Kelly, Lot Line Adjustment on Henry Cabot Land Rte. 12 aka
Ballam Farm project. Mr. Joe DiBernardo was unable
to present the proposal instead instructed the Secretary to make the
presentation. Sec. Aslinger asked member
Ben Daviss to explain the proposal. Mr.
Daviss referred to the survey map prepared for the Henry Cabot Trust to benefit
the Town of Walpole by giving them an 8 acre piece of land as an addition to
their “River Well” property Map 12, Lot 3.
The Walpole Selectmen in consultation with Mark Houghton, Water Supt.
Requested this additional land as a site for the Town to locate a new well
should it be needed in the future. The
Henry Cabot Trust will not deed this land to the Town until they are paid in
full by TPL at the closing of their property Map 23, Lots 12-1thru 12-4. The closing is estimated to occur in late
March at which time TPL and Henry Cabot Trust will seek to record the survey
mylar of the Lot Line Adjustment if approved by the Planning Board at their
March 11, 2008 meeting. Mr. Sheldon
Sawyer said the BOS have yet to determine whether the Water Dept. or Town will
be accepting the land on behalf of the Town there are benefits if the Water
Dept. acquires it vs. the Town. Mr.
Fletcher asked about missing road frontage.
Ms. Aslinger said since no new lot is being created, road frontage is
not an issue, it is not a subdivision which would require frontage. A lot can be created without frontage as long
as it is
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 12
designated
non-buildable but it does not apply to this application. She said a motion was needed to place the
application on the agenda for the March 11, 2008 meeting and schedule the
public hearing. She noted the fees,
application and abutter list has not been submitted tonight but is promised by
Mr. DiBernardo within the deadline. A motion was made and seconded to place the
application for the lot line adjustment on the agenda for the March 11, 2008
meeting and schedule the public hearing pending receipt of additional
application materials prior to the deadline.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if the map could be configured
showing North as up? Sec. Aslinger will
relay that request to Mr. DiBernardo.
C. Dick Fraser for Whitcomb excavation project
on Old Drewsville Rd. He explained that the ZBA has
requested they seek a special exception recommendation and site plan review by
the Planning Board. Mr. Fraser
introduced himself as a representative of Frank Whitcomb. They started a year ago on a project speaking
with Sec. Aslinger about procedures to follow.
Initially they were instructed to go through the special exception/site
plan process by the Secretary but former planning board member Dave Edkins and
Chairman Jeff Miller concluded the project would only need review under the
zoning ordinance under Article IV - General Provisions E. as an allowed
use in the district. After applying to the
Zoning Board under Article IV the ZBA has determined a special exception
and site plan is required on advice from the Town’s attorney. Mr. Fraser understands the Board would make a
recommendation to the Zoning Board for the special exception and then he would
return to the Board for a site plan review.
He would like a determination by the Planning Board as to whether Site Plan
Review can be waived according to Section IV of the Site Plan Review
regulations stating if it is non-residential and if the cost remains under
$10,000.00. They want to develop a small
pond with the excavation materials to be used in personal construction projects
to fulfill State contracts as part of Whitcomb’s commercial road construction
business. The new proposal is 2.7 acres
to be excavated with a site disturbance of 3.63 acres in total, there are no
buildings being proposed. Members questioned
whether the site could be excavated for under $10,000.00 and questioned the
“personal use” of the materials qualifying as a non-commercial enterprise. Mr.
Fraser thought they could develop the property for under $10,000.00.
ZBA Chairman Myra Mansouri was present adding some
background: in 1998 the same site was
granted a special exception and site plan review for a 40 x 60 pole barn and
storage area. The pole barn was never
built nor was the Site Plan approval conformed to. With their new proposal a change in use
triggers the Site Plan Review and because it is a commercial operation in the
Rural Agricultural zone a special exception is required.
Selectman Sawyer disagreed reading from the Zoning
Ordinance directing an excavation project to be reviewed under RSA 155E only
and read a court case stating RSA 155E preempts attempt to “frustrate” by more
restrictive review. He did note the case
referred to a blasting operation. He
supported the idea of excavations being reviewed under Article IV. General
Provisions E. only as an allowed use and permitting process through the ZBA
and provisions of State RSA 155E. He
does not agree a special exception or site plan review is necessary.
Selectman Chick Miller thought there were benefits
of requiring the site plan review to address landscaping and traffic issues.
Members were unsure of how to advise Mr. Fraser
without a set of plans or details to look at.
Mr. Daviss asked how long a period of time would the project operate? Answer was 5 years. Mr. Ben Daviss recused himself from
commenting because he lives near the project.
Mr.
Fraser tried verbally to explain the scope and location of the project but
members were reluctant to offer advice without specific plans. Mr. Merklein expressed concern over traffic
issues.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 13
Selectman Sawyer said during the ZBA excavation
review, the ZBA on the advice of the Town Lawyer have determined a site plan
and special exception is required but he believes the ordinance does not
require it.
V-Ch. Bob Miller said he would agree with the ZBA
that a site plan and special exception is required. Mr. DeCoste said the special exception is
only a recommendation by the Planning Board to the ZBA. He questioned whether the Board can advise
when they do not have specific plans to review.
Mr. Chick Miller suggested contacting legal advice on who has the
greater authority. Mr. Fraser said the
State requirements are very clear, as far as who has the authority over this
the Town has appointed the ZBA as the regulator so they have the most say.
Mr.
Fraser said the ZBA could be more restrictive than the State.
Chairman Mansouri is concerned about
the Site Plan approval not conformed to that remains in place. The ZBA will require a special exception
recommendation from the Planning Board for the excavation but also needs
clarification on the existing site plan review and subsequent new site plan
review due to the change in use.
Mr. O’Keefe asked what is on the
site? Answer was storage of culverts and
road construction materials. Mr. O’Keefe
tried to determine whether there was a change in use to trigger a site plan
such as an increase in traffic. Members
agreed there would be a change in use and subject to site plan review and
agreed more detail was necessary.
Mr. Fraser offered a set of plans for the Board to
review however due to the late hour V-Ch. Miller asked to have him return to
the next meeting better prepared. Mr.
Fraser then asked if he was dismissing his request to determine whether the
proposal was exempt for Site Plan Review due to it’s development value being
less than $10,000.00? Members thought it
was unlikely but they would need proof of costs along with specific plans.
Sec. Aslinger thought because it is a commercial use
within the rural agricultural district the special exception recommendation
requested by the ZBA is valid. She
pointed out the new project is not what has been presented to the ZBA, Mr.
Fraser agreed. She said Mr. Fraser last
met two weeks ago to go through the files to re-construct a history on the
parcel. She said originally he contacted
her about a small excavation project asking her to define a procedure. She wrote him a rather lengthy letter
describing the process for an excavation project in the rural agricultural
district since it would be a change in use to an industrial use, he would need
to obtain a special exception from the ZBA and site plan review. She based the procedures on Chamberlains
similar situation. Within a few days
Jeff and Dave determined the Zoning Ordinance specified an excavation project
needed only to follow what is outlined in E.
Removal of Sand and Gravel Article IV. General Provisions following
RSA 155 E and permitting through the ZBA.
Ch. Miller asked her to send a correction letter. When Mr. Fraser appeared before the ZBA, (she
suggested members go back and read the past several months of Zoning minutes),
the ZBA questioned whether a special exception was required and contacted the
Town Lawyer for advice. Because a
special exception and site plan had been granted on the site before precedence
had been set. It was in the ZBA’s and Legal Counsel’s
opinion it should be reviewed under the special exception process. She said as
side note she believed she had instructed Mr. Fraser on the correct procedure originally
and that the regulations shouldn’t disallow any industrial or commercial use by
special exception in the rural agricultural zone. She said one of the Board’s proposed 2008
zoning amendments clarifies and reinforces what is already present in the
ordinance. Since precedence has been set
by requiring a special exception and site plan on the original project it seems
to be the correct direction to take on the new proposal. She said if Mr. Fraser wants a specific
determination, he would need to provide plans for the Board to determine a cost
valuation. Mr. Fraser asked why Mr.
Whitcomb was originally required to undergo Site Plan Review for a simple pole
barn, why didn’t the dollar value apply especially since he never constructed
the building? Ms. Aslinger speculated if
he had come before the Board without the pole barn chances are he would have
possibly qualified for the $10,000.00 exemption. He asked
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 2/12/08 page 14
how
to nullify the original special exception and site plan. Sec. Aslinger said the Board has a revocation
procedure that can be initiated by an applicant.
Mr. Fraser submitted a preliminary
set of plans and asked the Board to direct his next application steps. He said the Town attorney stated in a letter
to the ZBA in regard to the special exception the Planning Board would waive
requirements C. 1 a and b and recommend it to the Zoning Board. In the Attorney’s view the sections are
approved and given the preamble that expressly permits gravel extraction as a
use in the district. He asked when they
come before the Planning Board for the site plan review could the special
exception recommendation take place at the same time? Sec. Aslinger said it is done in two steps
with one application for the special exception recommendation and it’s public
hearing, sending the recommendation to the ZBA who will then decides on the
special exception after holding their public hearing. If
the special exception is granted he would then return to the Planning Board
with an application for Site Plan Review.
She asked him to review the original letter for procedures. He asked if he were to be placed on the
agenda for the March meeting and obtain the special exception recommendation he
could appear before the Zoning Board in March and if granted the special
exception return to the Planning Board in April for the site plan review. Answer was because he needs to file an
application with fees, abutter list and four sets of plans at tonight’s meeting
the Board could not schedule him for the March meeting. He asks when the RSA 155E permitting process
takes place. Ch. Mansouri said it would
be attached to the special exception application and site specific plans
submitted to the ZBA.
Mr. Merklein asked where to begin reading
the minutes from the ZBA for background? Answer was begin with May of
2006. Mr. Fraser asked if the Secretary
could to review the site specific plans? She said giving a set of plans to her does not
constitute an application filing, he must fill out an application provide fees,
an abutter list and 4 sets of plans for the special exception recommendation as
well as for the site plan review if the ZBA grants the special exception. He asked to have an application e-mailed to
him. Sec. Aslinger said the Board only takes in applications for review at it’s
regular meetings to allow all members to verify whether it can be scheduled for
acceptance and a public hearing, so he would not be able to do that tonight. She
will e-mail the application and suggested he re-read the 4/2006 letter
describing the procedures.
Mr. Merklein asked how deep the pond
would be? Mr. Fraser said average depth
would be 11 - 12 feet.
Mr. Chick Miller moved to adjourn the meeting - it was seconded.
Other: Selectman Sawyer made an announcement that the BOS
had received a petitioned amendment to go to a non-Town meeting vote referred
to as “SB-2”, similar to what the School district does. He said the BOS is not in favor of it, they
prefer to have Town participation. A
public hearing will be held on it Thursday February 21, 2008 in the Selectman’s
Office.
V-Ch. Bob Miller called the
vote to adjourn the meeting, failing he moved forward with the remainder agenda
items.
VIII. Communications and Miscellanous
A.
A work session was scheduled for February 26th at 7pm in the basement
office.
B. Subdivision
Regs update - passed over
C. Meeting time
change - Sec.
Aslinger announced it was a perfect time to mention changing the meeting time
from 7:30pm to 7:00pm to prevent late meetings.
All agreed - to be discussed at the next meeting. Budget
fees increase - passed over
D. Other - none
IX. Motion
(10:45pm) to adjourn the meeting was made and seconded, motion carried.
cc: PB, MP, ZBA, Town Offices, BOS, Fire, Water/Sewer,
Hwy, WCC
posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market