PLANNING BOARD

Walpole, NH  03608

 

Regular Meeting – Tuesday,   June 9, 2009   7:00pm    Town Hall

MINUTES

This meeting was delayed until 7:30pm due to a conflict with a public hearing scheduled for the same date and time by the Selectboard to hear comments on issuing a building permit on a Class VI road proposed by Merriam Farm.  While the planning board must make a recommendation to the Selectboard in regard to the Town’s Class VI road resolution, the Selectboard must hold the public hearing and did so from 7:00 – 7:30pm.  The planning board was unable to make a recommendation due to lack of sufficient information discussed under New Business later in these minutes.

 

Presiding:  Jeff Miller, Ch.  Members Present:  Ben Daviss, Dave DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Bob Miller, Eric Merklein, Sheldon Sawyer, Donn Lounsbury, alt.

Recording:  Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the July 14, 2009 meeting for errors, corrections and omissions.  There were 50 persons in attendance.

I.          Meeting Opened at 7:30pm

            A.  Roll Call – All regular members were present, no alternates were designated.

            B.  Minutes – Sec. Aslinger noted a change to the work session minutes requested by Mr. Daviss to clarify that the website was being purged of a large quantity of old spam.  Mr. DeCoste made a motion to approve the minutes of the 5/12 and 5/26 minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Merklein, all were in favor, motion carried.

            C.  Alternate openings – passed over

 

II.        Review Applications Submitted:

            A.  Mervyn(Eric) & Lilo Frink (Lot 50) and Merriam Farm, Inc. (Lot 54) – Lot Line Adjustment located on Merriam Rd. Map 3 Lots 54 and 50 in the rural agricultural and timberland zones.  Purpose is to annex 59.4 acres from Lot 50 to Lot 54 resulting in Lot 54 of 77.5 acres and Lot 50 of 122.6 acres. 

            Ch. Miller asked Mr. Thomas Flavin, land surveyor to describe the proposal.  Mr. Flavin referred to the map indicating the parcels and the changes with a colored map.  He showed the existing Frink property and what portion of the Merriam Farm parcel was being added.

III.       Close Meeting – Open Public Hearing

            A.  Frink/Merriam Farm LLA – Ch. Miller opened the public hearing and called for comments.  Mr. Edward C. Goodrich, Jr. NH licensed land surveyor spoke to the boundary dispute as a representative for Mr. & Mrs. John Faulkner, abutters. He agreed and verified that the lot line proposal was in no way connected to the boundary dispute that remains unresolved.  They are in the process of doing a new survey to update Mr. Faulkner’s survey from the late 1870’s.  He assured the board that the contested boundary dispute does not infringe upon the conveyance of property to the Frink’s shown in the lot line adjustment proposal.  He added that Mr. Flavin has indicated on the plat a reference to the lines in question.  The Faulkner’s do not have a claim on the southerly portion being conveyed to the Frink’s. 

Ch. Miller asked Mr. Keurulainen/Merriam Farms if the lot line proposal or the actual land (3 lots) is affected by the Class VI road resolution that is being discussed by Merriam Farms and the Selectboard or if it is connected to the boundary dispute and pending survey?  Mr. Keurelainen answered no and Mr. Goodrich said that the dispute is actually at the furthest point away from the Frink/Merriam proposal. 

Mr. Flavin confirmed that prior planning board discussions in regard to a boundary dispute between Merriam Farm and Mr. Faulkner is not related to this proposal. His research indicates that a surveyor error occurred in 1934 when the Merriam Farm parcel was surveyed. He

 

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 6/09/09 page 2

provided the board with a copy of a colored and detailed map indicating the location of the boundary dispute and his research notes.  It will be included in the permanent file.

 

IV.       7:36pm Ch. Miller hearing no further comments closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting.  Out of agenda order, Ch. Miller asked for a secretary’s report as to the completeness of the application and called for a motion of acceptance.  Sec. Aslinger reported that the application materials, fees, abutter notifications and postings were in order the application is complete.  Mr. DeCoste moved to accept the application as complete, seconded, vtoe called, all were in favor, motion carried.  Ch. Miller called for board action.  Without further discussion Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Frink/Merriam Farm lot line adjustment as presented, seconded by Mr. Daviss.  Vote called, all were in favor, motion carried.  The maps and mylar were signed with Mr. Flavin agreeing to record the mylar at the Registry of deeds and report the recording data back to Sec. Aslinger as proof of recording.

 

The hall cleared during the signing of the maps and with the meeting resuming at 7:45pm.

 

II.        B.  Aumand Realty Corp./Aumand’s Furniture Store Site Plan Review located on 2 Church St., North Walpole, Map 28, Lot 2 in the commercial district.  New construction of

14, 000 sq. ft. replacing a legally non-conforming building destroyed by fire on 7/10/08 and being totally within the previous footprint.  A list of waivers were requested due to non-applicable status and existing conditions.  (18 persons remained for this hearing)

            Ch. Miller called for a secretary’s report as to the completeness of the application.  Sec. Aslinger reported that all application materials had been presented in timely manner, abutter’s notified and notices properly posted. In addition to the application she had received a letter from the Police, Fire, Water and conservation departments earlier in the day.  There were no concerns from any of the departments and the letters were passed to the Chairman.  Ch. Miller called for a motion to accept the application as complete.  It was so moved and seconded.  The vote was called after no further discussion, all were in favor, motion passed.

III.       Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing.

            Ch. Miller asked Attorney Thomas Hanna, Aumand’s representative to describe the proposal.  Mr. Hanna introduced Bob Furlone building engineer, Ted Fellows, site engineer, and Joe Dibernardo, land surveyor who will speak to the details of the plan.  He acknowledged the Aumand’s family members that were in attendance.  Attorney Hanna began with a brief overview noting that in the 1920’s it was a residence that morphed over several decades into various commercial businesses finally resulting in the furniture store that was destroyed by fire in July of 2008.  Their proposal replaces the building and improves the site by conforming to existing zoning setbacks and has been designed at a standard that emphasizes safety for the neighborhood.  He stated they hoped for an approval at tonight’s meeting due to the long permitting process and construction timeframes.  He said the previous retail floor area was 15,398 sq. feet according to the town records.  The new proposal reduces the footprint to 14,000 sq. feet of floor area.  The footprint was 11,667 sq. feet and is being reduced to 9,450 sq. feet.  The result allows for additional landscaping and permeable surface on a site that had little or no permeable surface.  No part of the building will be outside of the existing footprint. The building is sprinkled and made of masonry to address the concerns of Mrs. Shaugnessey who’s home was nearly destroyed by the fire.  The new set back on the west side ranges from 19-24 ft. from her home as opposed to the prior setback of 5 feet.  In addition there will be additional landscaping on the west side and a buried propane tank.  The building height at the west end will be much lower than before, there is a second floor but it’s on the Church St. side of the building, half of the building will be one story.  Improved site distances have been made for West St. along with new sidewalks on the north and east perimeters.  The drainage as originally planned is being changed in order to use the

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 6/9/09 page 3

existing West Street drains as agreed to by Mr. Terrell and water officials instead of applying for difficult to obtain permits from Trans Canada Hydro at this time. Since they are a rather large corporation it may not be a priority.  They will still pursue the State permits, permission and deeded easements but in order to move the construction forward they have determined the existing Town drainage on West Street is fully functional and equally effective for the site.  He asked the board to consider a conditional approval to perhaps include an either/or scenario.  He said Mr. Fellows had tested the system with Mr. Terrell and it has been referred to in the letter from Mr. Hanna. (on file)   Mr. Hanna has received confirmation of their agreement with Mr. Terrell.  He asked Mr. Dibernardo to expand on the site plan. 

Mr. DiBernardo provided corrected copies showing the changes to the drainage.  He pointed to the map to orient the board and public to the site pointing out streets, the old vs. new footprint, landscaping, drainage, buried tank, sidewalks and setbacks.  The primary roof drain will now run from the north side with a straight shot to the corner of West St. that goes into the river.  There will be landscaping on the east, west and north sides with removal of the old pavement on the south side and grassed.  All water mains are existing and fire department connections are laid out.  Parking will remain as it was off West St. across from the building.  Handicap access is provided with drop off allowing for two cars to pass on West St.   No additional drainage will affect Trans Canada’s property or Mrs. Shaughnessey.

            Mr. Tom Greathead abutter asked about the distance between the building and Trans Canada and the curb on West St.  Mr. Dibernardo said the curb to the building was roughly 15 feet from about 3 feet before.  The curb on West St. is also improved by about 5 feet.

            Ch. Miller said the change to the Town’s drainage system was acceptable along with the option of them pursuing an agreement with Trans Canada at a later date. 

            Mr. Tom Greathead asked if the new construction was required to meet the current zoning requirements.  Ch. Miller answered that the board had questioned and discussed whether they were to meet current zoning requirements and determined that they were legally within their rights to replace the building on the existing footprint without conforming to the current zoning.  He mentioned that they had worked to improve the site taking into consideration the abutters and setback requirements, he commended them for working with the neighborhood and town requirements.

            Mr. Merklein asked about exterior lighting and concern for the Shaughnessey’s regarding the buried gas tank.  He thought locating the tank on the west side might be a concern, is there another option?  Mr. Hanna said the tank is very safe and buried and also at the previous meeting that Mr. Merklein did not attend, there were no objections to its placement.  Mr. Dibernardo said the lighting would be minimal, with only two downcast exterior lights over the West Street entrances and reuse of the existing street lights on existing poles.  They have submitted lighting descriptions that are included in the application materials.  Mr. Daviss asked about the lighted “AUMAND’S” sign, where was it being located?  Mr. Hanna said it would now be building mounted instead of roof mounted on the South side. (note:  this sign has been allowed for in the zoning ordinance specifically and may be legally reused)

            Attorney Rob Kasper representing Mary Shaughnessey spoke on her behalf stating that they have worked very closely with Mr. Hanna and the engineers offering input on the design and final result.  He said Mrs. Shaughessey couldn’t be happier with what has been proposed.  The reduction in the building size, building it of masonry, sprinklers and alarming it plus building it 19 feet away has made them very pleased. 

            Mr. Bob Furlone, from American Construction handed out reduced versions of the building design for each of the members.  He pointed out the elevations and provided a sample of the masonry and colors.  He said the construction is load bearing masonry, very few windows due to fade factor on the furniture and the building is all non-combustible.  He showed fire escapes, egresses, an office window and details on each of the elevations.  The roof will be flat with a

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 6/9/09 page 4

slight pitch for drainage and covered with a membrane.  The top portion of the walls is a stucco styrofoam with masonry behind it.  It is all steel framed inside, with a fire alarm system and sprinkler system using a 6” water main.  It is an open concept without ceilings but rather painted bar joists with lighting, carpeted floors, fully handicap accessible with a lift inside for all three levels of the building.  He located the two exterior lights with the existing streetlights.  He emphasized that all the side walks will be replaced with concrete and granite curbing with an allowance to add beds for landscaping.  There will be two air handlers on the roof for heating and air conditioning and they are bringing three-phase electricity into the property.  There is no chimney or boiler.   The mechanical room will handle the sprinkler system, communications and power.  He explained the three interior levels showing the locations of stairs and what each level will contain.  They have complied with baseflood elevations and are about 1 ½ feet above it. 

            Mr.Greathead asked if the Church St. side includes both the street level and second level?  Answer was yes.  He commented on the plain look of the Church St. side especially without windows, he thought it was ugly and looked like the back of an industrial park building. 

Mr. Furlone said the south side would include the old sign as an added interest to the building and he provided a sample of the actual masonry siding and it’s color, a brownish cement color with the top portion of the walls being a darker rusty brown.

Ms. Aslinger asked why windows weren’t included in the design and weren’t there windows before? Mr. Hannah said they would cause fading of the furniture and the windows were there from previous businesses.  Mr. Greathead thought low UV glass could be used to prevent fading.

IV.  Ch. Miller called for comments, hearing none closed the public hearing (8:15) and reopened the meeting.  He called for board comments and discussion.  Ms. Aslinger asked about the specific plant materials being used on the east side.  She was referred to the plans and thought the rosa rugosa and spirea would provide some flowering materials along with the evergreen yews to help soften the facade.  Mr. Dibernardo said all of the materials are salt tolerant.  Ms. Aslinger thought the larger size of the materials would also help for an instant effect.  She thought the plain facade of the building without windows does give it an industrial look but for the reasons given understandable, the landscaping will help to soften the building.  She asked if Mr. Hanna had any comments on the list of waivers that were requested with the application.  He referred to page 2 of the waivers noting that  #17 was fulfilled and  #24 related to the drainage and a possible conditional approval with the option of the TransCanada permitting.  Ms. Aslinger remembered that for past site plans where minor changes have occurred an applicant simply notifies the board, the change is discussed and a public hearing or re-notification is not required.  She thought it was better to take final action on what they have presented which is the West St. drainage and if it were to change to return to the board for an amendment to the plan.  Ch. Miller agreed saying it was a simpler approach, Mr. Hanna understood. 

Mr. Merklein asked if white siding was considered since it is in a residential area?  Mr. Furlone said it was not a matter of economics but functionality, the R value of the product around the building is an additional 10 with the roof being R37, an R19 wall inside and a R value of 5 ½ on the walls, it is a super insulated building.  The decision to use the masonry was to have flexibility on color and maintenance free, not to avoid wood.  The product does not need painting but perhaps in 15 years it made need recoating.

Ch. Miller called for a motion to approve the site plan as presented with the bulk of the drainage being directed into the town’s West St. system.  He said if the drainage option should change they must notify the board and amend the approved plans.  Mr. Fellows said that both of the drainage exits have been used and will continue to be used, both are in working order.  Not all the drainage on the site goes to West St., it was split before and will remain as such.  Mr. Sawyer moved the chairman’s motion, seconded by Mr. Daviss.  Vote was called without further discussion, all were in favor, motion carried.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 6/09/09 page 5

V.        New Business

            A.        Judy Northcott submitted an application and plan for a two lot subdivision on behalf of her mother Roxanna Damaziak located on the south side of Cheney Hill Rd. and east side of Valley Rd. in the rural agricultural district.  Lot 1 with the existing house will be 1.73 acres and lot 2 will be 44.57 acres of wood and farm lot.  Both lots have adequate road frontage and no new construction is being proposed at this time.  She noted that the abutters are few due to the subdivision being almost surrounded by the Damaziak trust.  Sec. Aslinger will check the abutter list, notify her via e-mail and request an additional check for the notification.  The board agreed to place the application on its July 14, 2009 meeting for review.  New maps and a corrected mylar will be needed due to an address change on one of the abutters, they may be submitted at the meeting.

            B.         Merriam Farm Class VI road resolution – Ch. Miller said the board may give a recommendation on the proposal and called for discussion.  Mr. Fletcher thought the board should give a favorable recommendation to the selectboard and finally allow Mr. Keurulainen to build on his land.  Ms. Aslinger commented on issuing building permits on Class VI roads in general.  She is not in favor at any time to allow building on a Class VI road despite the resolution, she feels it creates scattered and premature development and creates hazards to the property owners, public and safety response departments.  Even though a waiver of liability is signed for fire and rescue they still would make an attempt putting them at risk. Allowing building on Class VI roads removes the planning board’s ability to plan for growth in areas of the town where services can be provided.  She would like to see the town adopt a policy of not issuing building permits on Class VI roads.  Ch. Miller said he is concerned about the 2300 feet of road with a bridge, it seems like other proposals have had a much shorter distance of a few hundred feet and been in areas that are much less remote.   He said basically they would be constructing a long driveway.  He said even though there is a liability waiver the Selectboard must set certain criteria for the condition of the road to insure safety, he thought it was a scattered and premature development.  Mr. DeCoste said once the first permit is issued the other two will likely follow and may create safety issues for future owners.  He questions whether the town actually will be held harmless even with a signed waiver.  Mr. Sawyer said even at this time the town could be sued, it might be less likely with a signed waiver.  Ms. Aslinger read aloud from the resolution criteria that the Selectboard must consider before issuing a permit.  1.  Does the condition of the road have adequate drainage, width and grade to handle increased development?  She asked if their site visit confirmed the condition of the road?  2.  Are the connecting roads leading to the Class VI road adequate to handle the increased traffic?  3.  Will the contemplated development increase the need for police, fire, water, sewer and electric services? 4.  Is the issuance of the permit likely to result in an occasion to lay out the road to a Class V?  She thought this was highly likely with the addition of three more buildable lots.  Mr. Sawyer said the Selectboard denies laying out of Class V roads without the vote of the entire Town.  Ch. Miller reminded that the current Selectboard may have that policy but in the future a different board may decide differently so why create a situation that may lead to a remote Class V road and an expense to the town.  He mentioned that on Whipple Hill Rd. because of the need to create a turn around they extended the Class V road without a vote of the Town.  Ms. Mansouri researched the road and found that the road was built to Class V standards.  Mr. Fletcher asked if the Selectboard could require Mr. Keurulainen to upgrade the road to Class V standards?  Mr. Sawyer said they have the authority but they would rather not make that requirement to prevent additional development because there are a potential of 8 more houses that could be allowed on the road.  Ms. Aslinger read the two final criteria to be considered – 5. How will the property affect the neighboring property and how well does it fit into the growth and development plans of the town?  She thought it did not fit well into the development plans of the town because it is so far removed from town services and isn’t a targeted area for development.  

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 6/9/09 page 6

6.  Will the issuance of said permit tend to distort the Town’s street map or Master Plan?  She thought it would distort the street map and master plan.  Ch. Miller thought most who lived out there were more inclined to use Keene’s services rather than coming to Walpole village.  He thought Mr. Keurulainen and his engineer may have been unprepared and thought it was better to have them return to the selectboard to explain their exact intentions before the planning board makes a recommendation.  He wasn’t sure of which lot they were requesting the building permit on.  Mr. Sawyer agreed but noted there may have been some miscommunication, they may have needed to check in with Mr. Terrell. 

Ch. Miller asked the board to decide on how to proceed.  Ms. Aslinger thought the board should always deny favorable recommendations on Class VI roads to prevent scattered and premature development.  Mr. Sawyer thought only elected members of the planning board should comment as recommended by the local government center.  Ch. Miller said it is the policy of the planning board to allow alternates to comment on board matters.  Mr DeCoste asked if the board should ask for clarification on the number of permits that may result?  Mr. Sawyer thought it might be possible to declare the road as an emergency lane and make it passable for fire protection.  He said Merriam Farm planned to improve the road all on their own, increasing the gravel up to Crehore Rd.  He said there are some benefits to the town if the road is brought up.  He has brushhogged some of the land and returned it to productive food producing acreage which is encouraged in the Master Plan as an agricultural use.  It was determined to have Merriam Farm return to both the selectboard and planning board at the planning board’s meeting July 14, 2009 as an agenda item “Joint Discussion” without an additional public hearing.  They will be able to make their case and perhaps offer more information to alternatives on the road including access from Surry.  And offer ways in to meet the criteria of the Class VI road resolution adopted by the planning board and selectboard several years ago to address property owners rights and recently relaxed State laws on the subject.  Mr. Merklein asked if each recommendation is on a case by case basis without the risk of setting a precedence, answer was yes. 

Mr. Sawyer apologized for not coordinating better with the planning board on the public hearing and presentation.  Sec. Aslinger thought formalizing the joint discussion at the next meeting would properly inform the public and interested parties.

 

VI.       C ommunications and Miscellanous

            A.  Master Plan SWRPC proposal.  Mr. Daviss reported having e-mailed a copy of Lisa Murphy’s proposal to complete the land use section to Ch. Miller, Bob Miller and Sec. Aslinger.  Sec. Aslinger did not bring copies to the meeting but will forward the e-mail to all of the members.  The cost is $1500.00. 

            B.  Website update – Mr. Daviss said the site is up and running but old spam is periodically being removed. 

            C.  Work session  - Ch. Miller asked if a work session was needed.  Sec. Aslinger suggested (with Mr. Daviss’s input) combining the work session items with the regular meeting due to a sparse attendance at the work sessions.  A new agenda item could be added called “Planning Discussion” where various planning subjects such as the economic development plan could be formulated with full board participation.  She suggested keeping the 4th Tuesday open for possible subcommittee meetings that result from the discussions.  Ch. Miller said it might be dependent on how full the agenda is.  Mr. Sawyer suggested placing it on the regular agenda with the option to recess it to the 4th Tuesday if needed. 

            Ch. Miller said the priority is to complete the Land Use section by fall, the economic development plan can be moved forward with the help of SWRPC instead of trying to create it on our own, to get an outline, present it to the Town for funding in 2010 and hire SWRPC to create the document with the Board’s input by fall of 2010.  Mr. Daviss said the board could continue with their outline of an economic plan to aid in proposing the project to the town.  Ch. Miller

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 6/09/09 page 7

thought inviting Ms. Murphy to the planning board meeting in July or August to discuss the economic development plan might be helpful. 

            Sec. Aslinger offered to bring coffee, tea and cookies to fuel the discussions beyond the main meeting items especially if they run beyond 8:30pm.  The board thought it was a good suggestion.  The refreshments cost can come from the petty cash or supplies account.

            E.  Other – Selectmen Sawyer mentioned that the group proposing the new playground at the Whitcomb Park have reconsidered the location and have discussed placing it on the south end of the common.  Most were not in favor of overcrowding the common and adding to the already imposing bandstand and memorial, that the common has historically been an open space and should be preserved.  It was noted that the bandstand has been a useful addition but is being vandalized more than expected.

           

VII.     Meeting adjourned at 9:15pm.

 

cc:  file, PB, ZBA, WCC, BOS, Town Offices

T. Hanna, R. Kasper, Tom Flavin, Merriam Farm, D. Morgan

posted:  Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.walpoleplanningboard.org and

www.thewalpolean.com