WALPOLE PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION
Tuesday March 23, 2010 7:00pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Members Present: Ben Daviss,
Bob Miller, V-Ch., Sheldon Sawyer, Sel., Donn Lounsbury, alt., Steve Dalessio, alt.
Presiding: Ch. Jeff Miller
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec. alt.,
Regina Borden, Sec. in training
These minutes are unapproved
and will be reviewed at the April 13, 2010 meeting for errors, corrections and
omissions. There were 8 persons in the
audience.
The meeting opened at 7:10pm with
Ch. Miller welcoming Eric Smith, AICP, Planner from SW Regional Planning
Commission who was present to give a presentation on and Introduction to the
“Creative Economy”. Mr. Smith
accompanied his presentation with a slide show and hand out (attached to
minutes). Mr. Smith talked briefly on
each slide and took questions during the presentation and after the
presentation. He also provided several
projects as examples in Providence, RI, Bellows Falls, VT, Pittsfield, MA,
North Adams, MA and Claremont, NH. He
referred to several websites and publications dedicated to the concept.
What is the Creative Economy? Creative workers by traditional notions have
included artists, musicians, writers and teachers. Recently this worker group has expanded to
include computer programmers, publishers, web designers, architects and other
idea-driven professions. This group and
their transactions collectively are now referred to as the “Creative
Economy”. The Creative Economy is
important to communities because new ideas are at the foundation of economic
growth. Within New England this industry
employs a workforce of 250K and contributes annual payroll of $4.3B. In New England = ¼ million jobs, higher than software
jobs. Much of the Creative Economy
activity is export-based and not dependent on tourism and creates markets for
other businesses. It supports and
enriches other economic sectors, enhances quality of life and helps attract
businesses. It is used as a tool for
local and regional economic development.
In order to attract and support creative industries there are a number
of policies, regulations and incentives a community may consider, but should
not be viewed as the sole solution, but an important piece of an overall
strategy for economic health. Supporting
Creative Economy requires providing affordable living and workspace for artists
and entrepreneurs, ensuring compact, human scale, pedestrian-oriented
communities, preserving historic and cultural facilities and open space. Designing for a “sense of place” and upgrading
infrastructure and telecommunications for creative and entrepreneurial
workspaces is required as is providing space for arts and culture in the
community and its public property, support principles and stakeholders in the
master planning process and providing quality educational opportunities for
children and adults.
In order to get started develop a Cultural Plan by
inventorying and mapping assets, documenting idea-based enterprises, provide
framework to assess current and future conditions by available data or
survey. Develop strategies to implement
a shared vision. Once the plan is
developed integrate it into zoning via mixed use in downtowns and village
centers, avail live/work artist spaces, make allowances in the building codes,
parking, created a heritage commission/arts council and expand exhibit,
rehearsal and performance spaces.
Finally create a marketing plan.
Questions/Comments:
Attendees discussed Walpole’s existing amenities, functions and
shortcomings. A handout was reviewed called “Arts Alive” Monadnock
Arts Alive report on non-profit arts and culture organizations, (attached to
minutes).
Walpole
Planning Board Work Session Minutes 3/23/10 page 2
Ms. Cynthia Reeves, former gallery owner in Walpole
and currently located in Hanover, NH and NYC discussed being “head hunted” by a
non-profit Hanover improvement group formed to enhance the area’s offerings to
attract employees, tourists and to serve the community. They identified the existing businesses and
determined what was needed to complete Hanover’s overall offerings. She mentioned her hopes for the Potato Barn
project and plans to begin this summer with a print shop.
David (Walpole Artisans) discussed the need for more
affordable rental spaces in Walpole and was interested in Ms. Reeves
experiences. He is concerned that while
artisans work from home and bring their products to a cooperative the cost of
rent causes most artisans to barely “break even”. He’s concerned as is Barbara Schupack of Saxton’s River Arts Guild that the interest in
Walpole products is down and the cost of rents are going up. Ms. Reeves suggested creating a non-profit to
address some funding issues.
Mr. Sawyer asked about “buy local” is that
considered “creative economy”? Most
agreed that agricultural buy local movement is perfectly matched to the
creative economy concept. Ms. Reeves
commented that Walpole is distinguished by its agricultural heritage and its
pool of talented artisans. Ms. Schupack suggested Walpole citizens make an effort to buy
local and bring Walpole products when they visit friends and family as a way to
support area farmers and artisans. Ideas
on marketing were discussed such as featuring farmers and artisans on town
websites, town reports and at town meeting.
Ch. Miller thanked Mr. Smith for his
presentation and the attendees representing some of Walpole’s creative
economists.
8:10pm
break
8:20
Meeting resumed.
- Funds for webmaster? Ch.
Miller asked Mr. Daviss for an explanation. Mr. Daviss said
Harry Bernard voluntarily created the board’s website a couple of years ago and
is willing to recreate it in a new format so the board can maintain the
information and site however Mr. Bernard would to recoup some of his labor
costs by submitting a fee of $150.00.
Mr. Daviss and others thought it was a
reasonable amount but wondered if the amount was available in the budget. Sec. Aslinger thought the funds could be
taken from the budget although they were not specifically allocated there is a printing
amount of $200.00 that could be used.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Daviss to have Mr.
Bernard submit a bill. Mr. Dalessio and Mr. Sawyer and others questioned whether the
board needed it’s own separate website.
Mr. Daviss and Ms. Aslinger said the need was
due to the limited amount of information that can be placed on the Town’s
website because of Teresa’s time and the fact the board is prohibited from
putting information on the site themselves.
The current PB site is defunct because the software was spammed so a new
site needs to be created with updated software to prevent spamming.
- Comments for Lisa Murphy re: Master Plan Draft - Sec. Aslinger spoke
with Ms. Murphy earlier in the day, she was able to finally obtain the data
from the Town’s assessment information to complete the draft charts. She asked about suggestions to the draft to
be forwarded to her. Mr. Schupack and Mr. Bob Miller
had comments. Mr. Schupack
thought an expanded description was needed in the agricultural portion, such
adding as the vineyard. Sec. Aslinger
apologized for not completing her assignment to read through the building
permits for the past 10 years in order to create a list of businesses to add to
the update, but the permits are not in a convenient location to be viewed. She noted that the data from 2007 to present
showed a significant amount of agriculturally related building such as sheds,
barns and the winery, many more than houses.
Mr. Sawyer said there’s only been about 3 or 4
houses per year. He said if the
statement was broad it would cover all aspects of agriculture, becoming too
specific is limiting. Mr. Schupack reconsidered and agreed that the statement might
be better if its more generalized, he
does
not have a specific rewording to offer.
He also thought the recreation facilities section could
Walpole
Planning Board Work Session 3/23/10 page 3
be
more specific. Mr. Dalessio
thought again it was better if it was more generic, because it could change
every year. Most agreed.
Mr. Miller submitted: Pg. 12 # 3.
delete “A manufacturer of platform
tennis courts....” Add: “A light metal manufacturer (light industry)”
and Add: “A timber frame home design and manufacturer”
Pg. 13 # 7. Add: “Hooper Golf Club”, “Snowmobile Trails”,
“Walking Paths and Trails”
Mr. Schupack
submitted: Pg. 14 # 8. “The goal for
conservation lands....... Conservation Plan, 2006 which is supported in this
Master Plan.” Add: “(see appendix A?)”
because it was decided by the board to reference the conservation plan but it
is not actually a part of the Master Plan.
Mr. Schupack questioned whether Ms. Murphy has
a copy of the plan he may have an e-mailable version
or a copy may have been sent to them.
- Design standards wording will be added to
the agenda for 4/13 for further discussion, the wording needs to be distributed
to members. Sec. Aslinger reminded
the board to consider updating the subdivision regulations once the master plan
update is complete. She spoke with Lisa
Murphy about helping the board to bring them up to date with the state
requirements and to apply the model SWRPC created that is being used statewide
to update regulations. Mr. Sawyer
objected saying people come to Walpole because they like it the way it is and
the regulations in place are fine the way they are and have been applied.
- Zoning amendment handout - Sec. Aslinger has added
the amendment into the zoning ordinance and will need to reprint the document
because it created a substantial shift in the pages. She will have them prepared for the next
meeting and asked if some members preferred having them e-mailed. Members agreed to have an e-mailed
version. She noted that when she was
inserting the amendment she noticed three items were not included or “the same”
in the special exception process that are included in the commercial use in the
rural agricultural district instructions.
She was concerned they were accidentally overlooked since the wording
referred to “the same”. Not finding a
reference in the ZBA’s minutes she spoke with Ch. ZBA
Myra Mansouri who reported the ZBA discussed the
items and purposely excluded them because they were considered not applicable
to the industrial zone. Sec. Aslinger
urged the board to carefully read through the amended ordinance and consider
how to interpret it if an application for a special exception recommendation
for a commercial use in the industrial zone comes before the board. Especially
in regard to the 40,000 sq. foot building size limitation, parking requirements
and setbacks and boundaries which are the three items deemed not applicable by
the zoning board when they presented the amendment to establish lot sizes and
add the special exception process for a commercial use in the industrial
zone. It’s not exactly the same special
exception process used for a commercial use in the rural agricultural
zone. She confirmed the wording and ZBA’s intent with the NH Legal Gov’t
Center in regard to the “same” reference and was advised to make the amendment
exactly as it was posted and voted on.
Ch. Miller said if the board has issues they can refine it for 2011 and
that it was the planning board’s fault for not seeing how the amendment would
apply in actual context during its presentation.
- RSA pertaining to new
roads within new subdivisions and how Walpole’s frontage definition
relates. Sec. Aslinger asked the NH
Legal Gov’t center a few questions that the board may
find helpful. Walpole’s current
definition of “frontage” is more restrictive than the states definition that
prevents new road construction in major subdivisions. The board discussed the ramifications of
changing the definition to the state’s definition. A change would need to go through the
amendment process since the definition is in the zoning ordinance. It’s been suggested also to remove
definitions from zoning ordinances and place them in the subdivision
Walpole
Planning Board Work Session 3/23/10 page 4
regulations
in order to more easily make additions or deletions. Regulations can be amended by planning board
discussions and through the public hearing process.
- RSA pertaining to
condominium projects in NH towns without specific ordinances
and non-defined uses. Sec. Aslinger asked the NH Legal Gov’t
center attorney whether the town could refuse a project based on it not being
defined or regulated in its town ordinances and regulations. The attorney said about 95% of the time if a
use is proposed and its not addressed in the town’s ordinances or regulations
it is allowed and can be regulated by whatever state RSA applies. She referred to the new wind turbine sites
that are being proposed in the state, most towns have not adopted regulations
or ordinances but cannot refuse them but fortunately they do fall under site
plan review regulations. She suggested
the board consider RSA 356-B:5 Municipal Ordinances in regard to prohibiting
condominiums based on the form of ownership.
Sec.
Aslinger said while its good to get the Master Plan updated, not to forget the
regulations they are what have the teeth.
If they are not kept up to date the town is missing out on good quality
creative development projects that could make a difference in the town and
address the needs of its citizens.
Ch.
Miller called for further discussion, hearing none closed the meeting at
8:45pm.
cc: PB, Town Offices, ZBA, WCC, SWRPC, attendees
posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, websites