Town
of
PLANNING
BOARD MEETING
May 8,
2007 7:30pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller,
Members Present:
Chas. Miller, Select., Henry Fletcher, Eric Merklein, Robert Miller,
V-Ch., David DeCoste, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff White, alt.
F. Dill present but recused and in
audience.
Recording: Pamel Aslinger, alt. and Secretary
These minutes
are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 12, 2007 meeting for errors,
omissions and corrections. There were over
50 persons in attendance.
I. Meeting
opened at 7:30pm
A. No
alternates were designated. All members
were present.
B. Minutes from April 10 and April 24, 2007
were approved as presented.
II. Review
applications submitted:
A. Ch.
Miller announced the Lennon 2 Lot
Subdivision on High Street had been
withdrawn.
B. Alyson’s Apple Orchard, Inc./Robert Jasse - Lot Line Adjustment located on
III. Ch.
Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Joe
DiBernardo explained the purpose as stated above. With no further questions -
IV. closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the
meeting.
V. Action
on Alyson’s Orchard Inc./Robert Jasse - Ch. Miller called for Board questions and/or
action. Mr. Fletcher moved to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by
Mr. B. Miller, with no further discussion the motion carried unanimously. Maps and mylar
were signed, Mr. DiBernardo will record the plan and notify the Secretary.
C. Kimberly Bogar - Lot Line Adjustment
located on 286 Old Keene Rd. Map 7, Lot 25 and 25-1 in the Rural Ag. zone. Purpose is to reconfigure the center boundary
line creating Lot 1 of 12.1 acres and Lot 2 with the existing house of 22.2
acres. The application was in order. Mr.
Merklein motioned and Mr. DeCoste seconded to accept the application as complete,
motion carried.
III. Ch.
Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mr.
Bogar explained the purpose as stated above. Ch. Miller called for questions,
being none -
IV. closed
the Public Hearing and re-opened the meeting.
V. Action
on Kimberly Bogar - Ch. Miller
called for Board questions and/or action.
Mr. Daviss moved to approve the application as
presented, seconded by Mr. Merklein, with no further discussion the motion
carried unanimously. Maps were signed, Mr. Bogar did not bring the mylar,
he will coordinate with Sec. Aslinger for signatures.
D. Walpole D & D, LLC/Fred Dill
and Randy Daniels - Major 13 Lot Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment
located on Hooper Rd., Wentworth Rd. and Old Keene Rd. Map 8 Lots 15, 6, 16 in
the Residential A (Lots 1-3) and Rural Ag. (Lots 4-13) zones. Purpose is to create 12 new lots, 2-11 of
1.45 thru 3.34 acres and Lot 13 of 13.59 acres from a 40 acre parcel, formerly the Helff Farm. Lot 1 and 2 involve the Lot Line Adjustment
creating Lot 1 of 5 acres with the farmhouse and Lot 2 of 2.90 acres to allow
for wetlands. Lots 1-12 accessed on
Hooper Rd., Lots 10, 11 and 13 by a 50 ft. ROW over Lot 9. Mr. DiBernardo provided 2 additional sets of
new maps showing the well, septic and topography on a separate page. Sec. Aslinger reported the application was
complete except for 3 items; the plans do not show typical designs of the
on-lot water and sewerage systems, existing surface drainage, or preliminary
locations of bridges or culverts due to access areas, she noted the items could
be submitted during the
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 2
review process if the Board
agreed. Mr. DeCoste moved to accept the application as complete, seconded,
motion carried unanimously.
III. Ch.
Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Ch.
Miller called on Mr. Dill to explain the proposal. Mr. Dill said he thought the prior meeting
was a semi-public hearing where some were able to voice their concerns. He took the concerns into consideration
showing proposed well and septic locations but provided no answers on concerns
about water. He noted it is a concern in
this area, in other areas of town and in other towns. He offered no remedy, but has tried to
present a good plan with accesses for all new lots only on Hooper Rd., but he
may consider having some of the lots access on Old Keene Rd. He configured the subdivision to allow for
lots larger than the minimum to allow for houses to be more randomly placed on
the lots, making it more attractive. He stated
the road measurements are now shown on the plans and in regard to the curve, he
said he has walked the road several times in the last week and does not find
the curve a problem, saying it is a country road and feels the curve prevents
it from being a “speedway” or a “shortcut” with little traffic. He said when designing the plans they
preferred to have all the accesses from Hooper Rd. He said the lots bordering Wentworth and
Keene Rd. could be accessed onto those roads but he prefers to have them all on
Hooper Rd. He said as far as the missing
information regarding bridges or culverts it is not a concern because the
regulations apply to only newly created roads.
He said the right of way to the other lots does not require culverts or
bridges. He said the water and wet areas
are included in the plans to answer the “existing surface drainage”
requirement. He pointed out the areas on
the map, saying there are no all year round streams on the proposal.
Ch.
Miller called for questions from the public.
Mr. Gordon, abutter directed his question to the Board saying his major
concern is the water issue; some of his neighbors have two or three wells because
there’s not a lot of water. He is
concerned that 12 new wells will cause greater problems asking how the town
will protect his water rights?
Ch.
Miller thought the plans showed adequate lot space for well radius of 75’. He said it wasn’t clearly defined in the
regulations but thought the Planning Board could require a further study to
address the water issue, if they agreed.
He did not have an answer about protecting Mr. Gordon’s water rights.
Mr.
Dill said he knew of a project that incorporated a small public water system
instead of multiple wells, however if it were not managed properly it could
lead to more problems, less of a solution and possibly only a temporary plan.
Mr.
Gordon asked if town water could be brought up to the area and what the cost
would be? Ms. Suzanne Steisel, abutter
asked why the town would pay to bring water to the D & D proposal, when the
project is inappropriately placed due to the lack of water. She said everyone in the area has 2 or 3
wells or a dug well, saying if the subdivision is approved you can’t expect the
taxpayer to bring water to it.
Mr.
Dill said there is water on the property but it’s on the other side of the
property. Ms. Steisel asked if he would
tell the potential buyers they may have to drill 2 or 3 wells, again noting
everyone has at least 2 wells on their property. Mr. Dill said of the four houses he has
developed in the area, all have one well.
Ms. Steisel said she was advised from a well drilling company not to
drill a well but stay with the dug well she has because there is so little
water in the area. She asked if the
Planning Board would approve this plan without providing adequate water.
Ch.
Miller answered that part of the review criteria is to ask for a soil survey
that might address the water issue. Mr.
Dill said he didn’t think it was his responsibility to guarantee water. Ms. Steisel disagreed. Mr. Daviss asked if the Board would also
consider a hydro geological study in order to provide the information? Ch. Miller said he is concerned about whether
the 12 lots would all have water, but questioned whether the Board could
require guaranteed water. He would like
to get clarification, he said Mr. Dill has indicated the 75 ft. radius; the
Board could ask for soils survey but reminded that other approved subdivisions
including the existing abutting lots were approved without guaranteeing water
and also in other parts of town.
Mr.
Heyedenreich, abutter said his well of 700ft. ran dry, he added a second well that’s
provided little water. With the close
proximity of this subdivision how would it effect his and others wells? Ken Walsh of 206 Wentworth Rd. said he has
two wells, the front one went dry in November, he knows of 2 others around him
who have multiple wells and wells running dry.
Jeff
French of Ramsey Hill Rd. speaking on behalf of himself and Dr. Heyendenreich
asked about the Class VI road status.
The Board corrected him. Hooper
Rd. is a Class V town Rd. Ch. Miller
said he did not think the road could handle the increased usage and the town
would be forced to upgrade the road at the taxpayer’s expense, fix the
drainage, curve and add gravel. Mr.
French said as a developer himself, he
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 3
is usually expected to do all
road upgrades at his expense, he does not agree as a taxpayer he should foot
the bill for the upgrade of the road, it is the responsibility of the
developer. Ch. Miller expressed his
concern over the high density of the proposal and does not feel the town should
upgrade the road at the town’s expense.
Mr. French said secondly he knows Dr. Heyendenreich has two wells, he
thinks the aquifir/water resources should be addressed and he asked if there
were covenants as to what type of homes could be built. Mr. Dill said yes, there are covenants but
are for the persons buying the land, he said the homes would be in keeping with
the homes in the area. Mr. French said
covenants should say the homes should be in keeping and with few interpretive
statements. Ch. Miller said the Board
does not regulate covenants. He reminded
the town ordinances and regulations have no set standards for design or
architectural style. He said it is up to
the developer to keep the value of the homes high.
Ch.
Miller recognized town road agent Jim Terrell.
Mr. Terrell said he was asked for his opinion on the condition of the
road. He said the road definitely needs
upgrading, especially during the construction phase more so than the final additional
traffic. He said the reason the road is
in its present condition is to keep expenses down on a very low volume
road. He said it would require a good
bit of work to bring the road up but not impossible, who pays for it is not his
decision. Ch. Miller asked him for an
estimate. He said a rough estimate for
paving, grinding and removing 6” off to install a fabric, it doesn’t include
the use of equipment or labor would be around 50-60 thousand dollars.
He said gravel would need to
be upgraded, ditches created, widened in areas, he’s not concerned over the
curve area. He said the traffic numbers
would average 120 trips per day at 10 trips per day per house, well within
design standards for the roadway. Ch.
Miller asked about draining the curve area.
Mr. Terrell said an engineering study should be required to address the
surface drainage and runoff onto the Old Keene Road; there is a culvert
replacement. Ch. Miller asked if Hooper
Rd. should be redesigned to meet the town standards. Mr. Terrell thought the engineering study
would address the issues adequately.
Sheldon Sawyer asked if one house is built on
Wentworth Rd. or two houses or 50 houses would the town expect the road to be
upgraded by the developer? Why wouldn’t
the same apply to Hooper Rd. He said
there is a bridge on Wentworth that can’t handle two cars at once; other roads
in subdivisions haven’t been required to upgrade the road. He said it is a Class V road and it is the town’s
responsibility to upgrade the roads, he said there are many roads needing
repairs, he doesn’t agree the developer should have to pay to upgrade a Class V
town road despite its condition.
Ch. Miller answered said the impact of this major
subdivision is within the scope of the subdivision regulations. The regulations allow for upgrading existing
road at the developer’s expense, especially if the benefit is solely for the
developer, which it is in this case. He
said the quality of Wentworth Rd. couldn’t be compared to Hooper Rd. He cautioned that when a few lots are sold,
the town would end up spending the money to upgrade the road because the buyers
will want the road improved. He said it
is an obvious issue the developer is responsible for. He compared the Sand Hill
subdivision where the developer built a new road according to the town
standards and the town took over the maintenance as the lots were developed,
but until it met the standards the town did not take it over. He said common sense says the proposal
creates a direct benefit to the developer. The road has been in its present condition for
many years because it has always been a dirt road that connected two roads, not
intended for development potential. He
said it would be different if it were developed with one or two additional
houses, but what the town is being faced with is an obvious high impact
development on a poor road that shouldn’t be upgraded at the expense of the
taxpayers. He said the road should be
brought up to specs by the developer and let the town take over the maintenance
from there. Mr. Sawyer reminded that
Wentworth Rd. was also a dirt road at one point and the taxpayer’s paid to
upgrade it; he said it is town land and the town’s responsibility to pay for
it. Ch. Miller said circumstances weren’t
the same and the town has subdivision regulations that apply. He reiterated it is not the obligation of the
town to benefit the developer in this instance.
Mr. Sawyer argued it is a Class V town road, the town’s
responsibility. Ch. Miller said the road
was not designed to carry a 12 lot subdivision.
Leo Carginan abutter, expressed concerns over the
rock ledges on some of the lots, specifically the need for blasting in order to
locate septic or foundations. He noticed
some of the lots weren’t perk tested.
Mr. Dill said they were not able to get a perk test, so they would need
to be raised systems. Ch. Miller said it
is required to have state subdivision approval applied for, Mr. Dill said they
had not yet applied pending the outcome of the subdivision.
Suzanne Steisel asked about an old swale from
Wentworth Rd. existing before the Heyendenreich house was built. The swale was dug out during the construction
of the new house causing $7000.00 in
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 4
damages to her pond. She said the amount of water running through
the dug out swale has caused her trees to fall down. She submitted photos indeed showing clumps of
fallen trees. She asks the planning
board to take into account her property lies below and in line with the area to
be developed. She wants the Board to ask
that all water drained from the lots or road be directed through lot 13 or to
the swale, however it must travel through by culvert to avoid further damage to
her property. She said previous
construction has caused substantial damage to her property and her trees to
fall. Mr. Dill said many trees had come
down around town lately. She reiterated
having the Board review the drainage situation.
She said the swale had become overgrown so the water was disbursed at a
gradual rate. Once it had been cleared
it funneled a much higher volume onto her property. She wants a guarantee they will not add to
the water volume draining into the old swale.
She asked the town or developer provide adequate drainage by using
culverts where needed.
Bob Anderson asked if the road could be kept
dirt. He said as the lots are sold it
could be disclosed the road would forever remain unpaved. He and others agreed the drainage should be
addressed but preferred it to remain a dirt road. Mr. Bogar said he thought paving the road was
a disservice to persons presently using the road. Mr. Terrell said they had basically put 4
inches of regrind on the road because it is easier to maintain. A dirt road costs less but is harder to
maintain. If left dirt he would still
like to see it improved because of the amount of traffic. He suggested a base of 4 inches of gravel,
fabric and proper ditching. He said
asphalt would be easier to maintain.
Krystyna Marcom asked if the property lines would change due to widening
the road. Mr. Terrell said only a foot
or two where needed. Ch. Miller said it
would need to meet the Class V road standards.
Mr. Terrell said 20 foot width would require a substantial amount of
tree removal, he thought with the amount of proposed traffic 18 ft. would be
adequate. Ms. Marcom asked about the
traffic standard. Mr. Terrell said for
the type of development it is figured at 10 trips per day per lot, so 120 trips
per day still considered minor. No
paving is required until 400 trips per day.
Mr. Bob Miller said having driven Hooper Rd. as of
yesterday he could not see any spot where two cars could pass at the same
time. He said as he drove onto the road
from Old Keene Rd. the map looks a lot cleaner than the actual curve of the
road or the grade. An audience member
agreed saying the road as shown looks wider than Wentworth Rd.
Mr. Gordon asked if the road could be taken over as a
private road run by an association, make it a dead end. Mr. Dill said he hadn’t thought about
that. Ch. Miller said it wasn’t allowed
to have a dead end or private road greater than 600 ft.
Ms. Steisel asked again if the Board would consider
carefully her concerns on the drainage and the swale funneling water in and
onto her property. Ch. Miller said the
final plans would if the Board agrees, show water run-off and erosion and a
water study to make certain the impact would be minimal. He said he was surprised she had not spoken
to the town before about her problems.
She said she has but with no results.
Mr. Dill said she had talked to everyone several times; it hasn’t been
for lack of talking.
Mr.
Dill asked if he could rehash from the prior meeting where a person who used to
work for the road crew spoke about the road, how he had been the one to build
it and was quite critical of the process.
He said there was further discussion on the regrind etc. He points out it is a town maintained road
with some potholes as some other town roads have. He said with the present amount of traffic on
it, it certainly hasn’t been a priority.
But in the past when it has needed attention it’s gotten it. He said the comment about cars not being able
to pass is not true, it isn’t a wide road but it is passable without having to
pull in a driveway to let someone by, it’s a country road, he agrees with Bob
Miller a person must use caution coming in from Old Keene Rd. He said as far as the expense to maintain a
dirt road vs. macadam, some towns feel it’s less for a dirt road.
Ms.
Steisel asked about school children waiting for the bus on the road. Mr. Dill thought the bus wouldn’t likely
travel Hooper Rd. Ms. Steisel raised
more concern for children walking to a school bus on a narrow barely passable
road. Ch. Miller called for other
questions.
Mrs.
Jill Dance abutter thought the proposal was inappropriate for the area, sighting
the restrictions placed on their Farm resulting from the neighborhood
opposition regarding an occasional 23 cars on the road, she thought it was
unfair. In addition the proposal has
septic, well, road, drainage, safety and traffic issues. She thought homework should have been done
prior to the purchase of the property rather than forcing a square peg into a
round hole. She doesn’t understand how a
project can be approved with so many serious issues. She said she isn’t against development, but
maybe this isn’t the spot for a project of this density.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 5
Ken
Walsh asked about the road and snow removal issues, he thought Hooper Road
served to offer an important cut through during plowing, he wondered if it
would still be allowed once homes are built?
Sue
Bingaman asked about the lots showing the wetlands, asking if it were infact
buildable? Mr. Dill said they are, the
engineer said there is room to build. He
said there are a couple of ponds and just recently two mallard ducks flew
in. He said they dry up in the summer
but they could be reclaimed if someone wanted to.
Leo
Carignan asked about the perk tests, he said two lots were still un-perked. Mr. Dill said they wouldn’t perk, but the
State permitting process would address it.
Ch. Miller agreed noting any subdivision lots less than 5 acres would
require State subdivision approval prior to the approval of the
subdivision. He said it would be a very
expensive system. Mr. Dill said when
they designed the subdivision they tried to abide by every rule of the town
regarding lot sizes, frontages etc. He
said the plan conforms to all the rules of the town and just because some don’t
want any others to move into town it is not a reason to deny the plan, it meets
all the criteria. He stressed that there
are some water issues but overall it is conforming. He said its not as if the plan has driveways
coming from every road with just four on Hooper Rd. He said as Sheldon brought up would the town
rather see that or rather see the development contained within the access of
Hooper Rd. only? He said it’s a town
road and dismissed the complaint about its construction noting other roads in town
and particularly the Old Drewsville Road similarities. He said he thinks the proposal meets the
criteria better in a lot of ways and is a good situation.
Ms.
Steisel asked if he or the town would be paying for any environmental impacts occurring
from the construction phase such as damages from blasting and water
issues. Mr. Dill asked if she was
implying he should have an impact study done on the project when someone else
not bordering on her property wouldn’t be required to? She answered no but she is expressly
concerned by her personal experience relating to one simple change in the swale
and its impact. She said the proposal
has the potential of creating a much larger impact and it is not fair for the
surrounding property owner’s to suffer damages from this high impact
proposal. She suggested some type of
study to insure against potential damages.
Mr. Dill said the problem with studies often times is people’s minds are
already made up their minds; it just costs the developer to spend more money.
Mr.
Gordon asked about lot 13 not showing a well or septic and what is its
access. Mr. Dill said lots over 5 acres
are not required to be perked, it is accessed across a 50 ft. ROW across lots
10, 11, 12. He said it does have frontage
on Wentworth Rd. but because it is more buildable near the other lots, it make
sense to have access over the ROW off Hooper Rd. Mrs. Krystyna Marcom confirmed the State
subdivision approval had not yet been obtained
Ch.
Miller called for more questions. Mr.
Daviss asked if the plan were approved as is, wells dry up or there is no
water, would the town or Board be liable?
Ch. Miller said he didn’t think so.
Mr. Dill said the town wouldn’t have the liability but a court of law
would determine whether he would be liable.
Mr.
Bob Miller asked to get a legal opinion regarding the water issue. Mr. Merklein said it is the absolute
obligation of the Board to look at perceived events such as drainage or well
water going dry, these questions are serious, he suggests a geological study. An audience member asked who is responsible
for upgrading the road? It shouldn’t be the taxpayers. Mr. Miller said he couldn’t say definitively
at this time.
Ms.
Aslinger pointed out that while the well locations are shown, they are not
necessarily the exact sites, some lots look as if they have few or no
alternative sites, leading to future problems if more than one well is
required. Mr. Dill said once the house
is located then they readjust the layout to take into account the required
setbacks from the well and septic system and abutting properties.
Ch. Miller suggested continuing the
public hearing to take into account new information or changes resulting from
this meeting. He said it is important to
address the issues raised on the water and road. Hearing no objections he announced continuance
of the public hearing until the June 12, 2006 meeting and reopened the meeting.
(A large number of attendees left the
meeting although the Chairman announced the Board would discuss the proposal
later in the meeting.)
VI. New
Business
A. Cindy Westover presented a tax map showing a proposed 2 lot
subdivision on Walpole Valley Rd.
Purpose is to divide about 2 acres from the lot for her son to build a
home. Her surveyor has not yet completed
the plan and does not have the application prepared. She’s talked to Jim Terrell about the
driveway. Sec. Aslinger noted the usual
procedure is to have the complete application submitted at the
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 6
meeting, but if the Board
agrees, she can accept the application materials by the actual deadline of May
28, 2007 and process it for a public hearing for the June 12, 2007
meeting. Ch. Miller called for a motion to process the application and schedule
the public hearing providing the deadlines are met for the June 12, 2007
meeting, seconded, motion carried.
B. Joe DiBernardo presented a plan and application materials for Robert
Hubbard on Reservoir Rd. The Board
requested Mr. DiBernardo to submit clarified plans noting the way the lots were
shown was confusing. He will submit the
corrected plans by the May 28, 2007 deadline.
He stated the lot is being kept in the family. A
motion to process the application and schedule the public hearing for the June
12, 2007 meeting was made and seconded.
Motion carried.
C. Mary McMahon, Mr. DiBernardo presented a plan and application materials for a
minor 2 lot subdivision on Whipple Hill Rd.
He showed where the Class V and VI designation was clarified allowing
for adequate frontage on Class V for both lots.
A motion to process the
application and schedule the public hearing for the June 12, 2007 meeting was
made and seconded. Motion carried.
D. Red Smith/Walpole Foundation - Sec. Aslinger presented a site plan review
application given to her by Mr. Smith for the brick house formerly Westburg property
next to Murray’s Restaurant. They are
planning 5 apartments and office space.
The architectural plans show the apartments, townhouses and office space,
parking lot layout etc. She asked Mr.
Smith if they had acquired the former manufacturing building in back of the
property, they have not but are in the negotiating process. The plan is to remove the buildings and
create extra parking space. She asked if
the townhouses would be sold, Mr. Smith all space would be rented only. It is in the commercial district. A
motion to process the application and schedule the public hearing for the June
12, 2007 meeting was made and seconded.
Motion carried.
VII. Old Business
A. North Walpole Village Commissioners - 2004 Site Plan Compliance. Barbra O’Brien Commissioner acknowledged the
concerns of the Board regarding the April 27, 2007 letter (attached) In regards
to the Board’s conditional approval of June 8, 2004 for a 130,000 gallon water
reservoir and 14 x 14 foot filtration building located on Mountain View Rd.,
Map 29, Lot 22. Abutter Mrs. Anne Hill
asked to have the Planning Board address two issues that remain unresolved for drainage
and noise. Ms. O’Brien listed the dates
and results of various visits to the site to resolve the issues. She stated the Commissioners would not have
signed off on the original plans if they had known the drainage was not
addressed and stated Mrs. Hill’s comments to the contractor were never taken
into account, there is no way to go back to have it repaired by the
contractor. She and other agree the pipe
was not low enough to stop the seasonal back up and flow. She said they would fix the problem as soon
as there is money in the budget to do it.
As far as the noise, Bob McCormick and others have determined the noise
is no greater than the sound of a furnace going on, but have attempted to find
a muffler attachment to help eliminate most of the noise and again will need to
wait until there is money in the budget to address it. She noted the trains are more of a
distraction. She added they have
discussed this issue at several of their meetings. Mrs. Hill appreciated the effort of the
Planning Board and the commissioners but she is very concerned with the delay
and with the diversion of the water during runoff creates standing water in her
back yard and it would be taken care of, but it hasn’t. She said she and the Durling’s wanted to
support the filtration project to remove radon but thought the noise condition
would be addressed. She agrees it isn’t
much louder than a car idling but it is a constant noise she finds very
disturbing, especially during the months when window can be opened. Again she stressed that the issue was to be
addressed and hasn’t been. She agreed
the trains create noise but not continuously.
She asked if the filtration could be put on a timer to run during the
late night hours. She said it is hard to
enjoy her back yard with the constant noise from the plant. She said she wants the drainage resolved so
it doesn’t leave standing water. She
said because the drainage wasn’t done properly is not her fault.
Ch.
Miller asked if the drainage system ever worked properly, Mrs. Hill said it did
not but having only owned the property for 8 years she was not certain if the existing
culvert now diverting excess water into the ditch had ever worked. Ch. Miller said he remembered the site visit
to address screening and the standing water.
She wants the improvement and has offered to allow some of her own
property to used to have it corrected.
Ms. O’Brien thought she should have come to them sooner so they could
have had the contractor make the repair instead of now when they haven’t been
able to include it in their work schedule or budget. Mrs. Hill said she had not approached the
issue due to having a baby and family commitments.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 7
She thought it would have
been taken care of by now. Ch. Miller
said the Board physically looked at the project, discussed it with the Commissioners
and made it clear the conditions would be met, but they haven’t been. He thought it was reasonable to set a
timeframe regardless of the design and expenditure. He asked if it could be resolved or bring
more information back the Board by the July meeting. He thought the Commissioners should abide by
the conditions of the original approval and as soon as possible. He said it was to be addressed, if the
Commissioners prefer to hold another site plan review to get it resolved this
would be an option. He said he is flabbergasted
that it has not been addressed because at the time of approval everyone was in
agreement with the steps to be taken.
Ms. O’Brien asked what would happen if the costs become so great they
have to put it off until next year? Ch.
Miller said it should be fixed and a course of action determined so the water
doesn’t collect as agreed. Mrs. Hill
noted that a week prior electrical poles had been delivered were placed within
the standing water, she notified National Grid when she saw oils leaking into
the water, they removed them and cleaned up the leaking oils. Ms. O’Brien said they will have an estimate
and idea of how to make the repair in time for the next Board meeting and will
either attend or forward the information after being directed to do so by Ch.
Miller.
VIII. Communications
and Miscellaneous
A. Handouts
- Sec. Aslinger gave members copies of the SPR revision, Contact List and Legal
Memo of 4/26/07. She asked if the Board
would like to go through the revocation process on a 1991 Site Plan Review
located within the North Meadow Plaza Shopping Center as mentioned in the Legal
Memo. She said as indicated the
Municipal Attorney strongly suggested revoking the obviously invalid expired
approval (beyond the statutory time limits) not to let it be assumed. She said abutters would be notified at the
expense of the Board, she would determine the procedure and stressed the
importance of formally revoking the approval to avoid future misunderstandings. She mentioned when reviewing the commercial
area to determine ownership issues she ran across the plans. Mr. DeCoste, Mr. Dill and others thought it
was an unnecessary expense and effort on something so outdated and were afraid
it would stir up problems. Ch. Miller
thought it would not be challenged at such a late date. Ms. Aslinger said she was concerned and found
it surprising to see an approval for over 16 additional connected and separate
stores on one lot. She provided the map
showing the plans, the lot in question being between the old Ames building and
Fall Mountain, the lot houses the Reel to Reel video store. She said it was a substantial proposal but
certainly beyond the time limit outlined in the RSA’s and site plan review
regs, noting there had been several zoning changes granted since the approval
was granted so it no longer conforms to the zoning. She said the provision allowed in the RSA’s to
revoke an approval could apply if the Board agrees. Mr. Daviss asked if the State law already
provides for revocation. Ms. Aslinger
said yes but there is an actual process to be followed or take a chance it
would not be pursued. Mr. Daviss asked
about the costs, Ms. Aslinger said all abutters and property owners would be
notified by certified mail and a notice published in the paper, she didn’t
think it was a substantial amount. Ch.
Miller said he didn’t think it was necessary; Ms. Aslinger disagreed. Shane
O’Keefe asked couldn’t the Board just refer to the RSA’s showing it was out of
date, if they didn’t like the Board’s decision they could go through the appeal
process? Ms. Aslinger said if the Board
takes a formal action the abutters and owners must be notified ahead. She said it couldn’t just be done at a
meeting without proper notice. There is
no pubic hearing. Mr. Fletcher said
everyone on the Planning Board knows it isn’t valid. Ms. Aslinger said she thought the current
property owner (Berkshire) must be aware of the approval. Mr. DeCoste asked if on a subdivision if it
is never acted on isn’t it moot? Ms.
Aslinger said a subdivision is valid only when it has been recorded, but on a
site plan review since the plans are not recorded they fall under the time line
restrictions. Mrs. Judy Daniels present
in the audience had express knowledge that the property was sold to Berkshire
with the approved plans. Ms. Aslinger said
without asking Berkshire directly, do they realize it is an expired plan? She said it is only fair to the present
property owner to go through the revocation process and not wait for them to
come in with a proposal based on an expired approval. Mr. Bob Miller agreed with the municipal
lawyer’s recommendation to go through the revocation. Mr. DeCoste asked how to proceed, would the
Board take an action, make a statement?
Answer was yes, but not without notifying property owners and
abutters. Ch. Miller thought common
sense would prove the plan had expired.
Ms. Aslinger said if she were a property owner and had bought it
thinking it was an approved plan, she’d start working on it as such. Ch. Miller suggested going through the
process. Mr. Bob Miller moved to go through the revocation process on the site
plan review approved in 1991 in question.
Motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Ch. Miller instructed Sec. Aslinger to review
the procedure and process the revocation for the June 12,
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 8
2007 meeting. Mr. Fletcher commented that the 1991 plan
might not fit in with their intended plans anyway.
Continued review of D & D LLC - 12 lot subdivision.
Ch. Miller reminded the public hearing was continued and asked for the
Board to comment. He suggested in order
to address the issues from the public hearing, he would like to involve the SW
Regional Planning Commission by having them review the plans and make comments
and suggestions. Mr. Charles Miller
asked for exact clarification of how much land the town owns along Hooper Rd.,
specifically the width, he questioned if the actual road could have been
privately owned and deeded to the town; there may be some question as to how
much and if the road is owned by the town.
Ch. Miller asked Charles Miller to look into the clarification and noted
it was a good point, members agreed. Mr.
Dill did not think he bought the Hooper Rd.
Charles Miller thought it might be similar to the railroad beds. Shane O’Keefe asked if there was a precedent
set whereby a developer upgrades a Class V road. Charles Miller said the sub regs have set
standards for Class V road, the problem being Hooper Rd. is adequate for the
amount of existing houses, with the newly proposed 12 lots, the road becomes
inadequate for the amount of traffic and homes planned. He said as far as who pays for it is up to
the Board through its review process.
Mr. Dill said a precedent had been set by the amount of traffic
generated by the Apple Orchard development and its impact on Wentworth Rd.,
they have not had to pay to upgrade the road or fix the narrow bridge. He asks why the Apple Orchard is not paying
to upgrade the “red star” bridge?
Selectman Miller said a red star bridge is being taken over and upgraded
by the State, the Selectmen approve and the town is reimbursed. He said there are two bridges red starred at
this time although it takes a long time to be completed. Mr. Dill asks if they pay for the road, can
they put more lots in there. Ch. Miller
said not without meeting the frontage requirements. Ms. Aslinger asked why they don’t put in half
the lots. She said by reducing the lots,
they would be reducing the amount of traffic on the road to a reasonable level,
double the size lots would be “as desirable” as a purchaser, it wouldn’t effect
the surrounding area as much, the septics and wells would be less of an
impact. She said she thought the plans
show excessive density on a relatively small 40 acre parcel, on a marginal
road. If it were only 6 lots it would be
in keeping with the surrounding homes with a large buffer between them. She thought the density was excessive. Mr. Dill said much of the opposition to the
project involves the surrounding property owners not wanting to loose their own
private preserve for recreation and even deer hunting. He thought the well and road issues were not
the real issues. Mr. DeCoste asked if
the Board decides the subdivision puts pressure on the road could we require
the developer to do something about it?
Ch. Miller said his feeling this was a situation that the town hasn’t
faced but under the general requirements for subdivision L. it asks for specific
criteria related to the road. Mr. Dill
said it was for new roads only. Ch.
Miller disagreed pointing out while it is a Class V road it is not up to
standard for 12 house lots and the impact they will have on the road, therefore
the developer must pay to bring it up to town standard since the project solely
benefits the developer. He said the road
safety is questionable. Mr. Dill and
Mrs. Daniels compared Hooper Rd. to Old Drewsville Road, but Ch. Miller
disagreed, the development has been very gradual and the road maintained as
needed. Shane O’Keefe asked about
procedures and was concerned the public hearing had been opened up again; he
cautioned the discussion should be amongst the Board members only. Ch. Miller agreed. Mr. Fletcher said the Old Drewsville Rd.
would be upgraded when the town decides to upgrade it, not when it is under
pressure from a developer. Ch. Miller
noted the town does have a Capital Improvements plan so may require impact fees. Selectmen Miller noted the Road Agent is
somewhat responsible for added development, because he has the most say in how
the roads are maintained and improved.
He said he is not as concerned about the water or whether the purchaser
has water, it’s their gamble. He feels
the Board has a responsibility to protect the water of the abutting property owner
first. He said the courts might require
the town to provide water to any abutting property owner who looses their water
because of the subdivisions pressure on the water supply. He hopes if the plan is approved and water is
obtained, he does not want to see the abutter’s water taken away because of it. Mr. O’Keefe asked if it was an obligation on
the town, he thought it would be more likely the developer would be
liable. Selectmen Miller thought it was
worth clarifying. Mr. Merklein asked if
the problems of water and drainage might be addressed through an engineered
hydro-geological study paid for by the developer? Ch. Miller said one of the reasons to
continue the Public Hearing is to gather further information; raised at the
public hearing, he thought the Board would need to look into the issues by way
of certain specific studies. Mr. Dill
said there is no drainage problem within the subdivision, only Ms. Steisel’s
concerns about her own property. Mr. O’Keefe said the plans do not show drainage
so how can the Board tell? Ch. Miller
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 9
said he wants to avoid the
problem Ms. Steisel had when the new house was built next to her and has
impacted her property. The subdivision
has the same potential to effect surrounding properties and abutters in the
same way.
Mr.
Daviss asked how the Board could gather the information and how to
proceed. Sec. Aslinger said the plans
would go to SWRPC, they do a full review and make suggestions to the Board,
they charge an hourly rate that can be billed to the developer. Mr. O’Keefe asked if they would do a site
visit. Mr. Daviss asked if a copy of the
minutes and previous minutes be included.
Bob Miller asked if the issue of water rights could be addressed in
their review.
Mr.
O’Keefe expressed his concern over the prior meeting where a former road crew
person discussed the known inadequacies of the road maintenance. Ch. Miller said there weren’t doing
substandard work to the road but in fact improving it from what it has been,
basically because it has so little use.
Mr. Dill questioned the spokesman’s authority when he was a grader
operator 20 years ago; he’s not the road agent for the town. Ch. Miller said the quality of the road needs
major improvement, from tree cutting and ditching to surfacing and to address
the safety. He said it should not be upgraded
at the expense of the town; it cannot be compared to Old Drewsville Rd. or
Wentworth Rd. He said it is a one shot
development only benefiting the developer.
Mr. Bob Miller said Hooper Rd. must not be compared to Wentworth Rd.;
they are two different qualities of roads.
Ch. Miller said it was more of a gradual succession of development not a
major impact all at once like the D&D proposal. Mr. Dill said the 12 new lots would generate
a minimum of $500,000 value in taxes so it would be returned in taxes for the
Town to upgrade the road, he said they are entitled to something. Ch. Miller said yes they are entitled to
something, a road that Mr. Dill will pay to upgrade.
Ch.
Miller will call SWRPC and submit the plans for review along with the
minutes. Mr. Dill said the Board should
be careful not to try and guarantee people water, that it isn’t the
responsibility of the Board. Ch. Miller
said it is not a matter of guaranteeing water but the impact the subdivision
has on the abutters and water availability for the area that counts. Mr. Daviss said to ask for the study to
determine water available, more of an impact than a guarantee. Mr. Dill still thinks it is buyer beware on
the water. Ch. Miller cautioned and
referred to the plan Mrs. Westover submitted noting the small spaghetti lots
that were created, at the time the issue was over long small lots what was the
impact on septic, wells and runoff because of their size and configuration on a
relatively small original parcel, it has been a concern in the past.
Ms.
Aslinger asked members to review the general standards portion of the sub regs
noting under G. Characteristics of land for subdivision, it points out many of
the areas discussed and requires the Board to take into account danger to the
public, health or safety or to the environment.
She read on showing land with inadequate drainage, sewer or water should
not be subdivided. She noted Mr. Dill
had not submitted the plans for State subdivision approval, saying normally a
developer would at least have applied prior to submitting the application to
try to have the state approval to coincide with the Boards final action. She said otherwise the Board would have to
grant a conditional approval. Mr. Dill
thought the Board would just do a conditional approval because they aren’t
certain the plans will remain exactly as shown possibly due to some driveway
and access re-locations. She asked if they
are uncertain about the plans did he wish to withdraw the plans and resubmit at
a later time? He said no, it is the best
plan; they would start over if the Board disapproves the plan or if they needed
to make substantial changes. Ms.
Aslinger asked the Board to act quickly in fairness to Mr. Dill on the plan,
get it to SWRPC, get there review and be mindful of the time limitation of 60
days from acceptance, not to drag it out with costly studies and information
gathering, to be certain the review can continue at the next meeting along with
continued public input and to get on with the process. She said one of the SW Reg. planners will
compare the plans to our own regulations; make suggestions for various studies
and recommendations to the Board. The
Board will decide how to proceed. They
will not indicate how whether the Board should approve or disapprove a
plan. She said it is somewhat hard for
the Planning Board to review a project of this size and handle all of the other
monthly obligations; they will be better focused on it. Mr. Dill asked if the plan was accepted at
the prior meeting, answer was no, abutters must be notified before the plan is
accepted and the hearing held, continuing the public hearing saves having to
re-notifying abutters. The plans will be
submitted early next week once the minutes are completed. Mr. Merklein asked if the report could be
circulated to the Board prior to the June meeting.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes page 10
B.
Work Session - Mr. Daviss
asked if the work session for May was being held. Sec. Aslinger said she had discussed with Ch.
Miller the possibility of canceling the work sessions for the summer months and
to take up the Master Plan Update at the regular meetings to allow for people
to enjoy the summer. Mr. Daviss asked to
hold the May work session.
He
asked if the Conservation Commission attendees would speak about their meeting
earlier in the week regarding the Monadnock Conservancy. Mary Lou Montgomery said they discussed the
possibility of improving the mapping through a new pilot project. They are not certain Walpole is eligible yet
but offers it as a possibility.
Mr.Schupack said the intent is to do a survey of the town and rank all
the different conservation areas and types by value in the town and put that
information on a GIS map they would like to see it coordinated with the
Planning Boards land use mapping, it could be used as a tool by all Boards and
used with overlays. Mary Lou said this
is an expansion and result of the newly created conservation plan.
Work
session to be held May 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM in the basement office.
Meeting
was adjourned at 10:30pm
Cc: file, PB, ZBA, MPU, BOS, Road Agent
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.walpolenh.us,
www.the walpolean.com