Town
of
PLANNING
BOARD MEETING
December
12, 2006 7:30pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Ch.
Jeffrey Miller
Members Present: Bob Miller, V-Ch., Dave
DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Eric Merklein, Ben Daviss, Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman, Fred
Dill, alt. Absent: David Edkins, alt.
Recording: Pamela
Aslinger, alt. and Secretary
These minutes are unaproved and will be reviewed at
the January 9, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections. (There were 20 people in attendance)
I.
Meeting opened at 7:35pm
A. No
alternates were designated, due to a full attendance.
B. Minutes were passed over until later in
the meeting.
II. Ch. Miller closed the regular meeting
and opened the Public Hearing on:
A. Proposed Zoning Amendment #1 to change
Dearborn Circle and Burrows Lane
Zoning district designation from
Commercial to Residential B by amending Article VI
Commercial District Section F. and Article V
Residential District Section E: Lots affected are within the residential
development that are existing residential use only. Sec. Aslinger read the list of affected lots
of record. Ch. Miller said the
proposal had been originally presented to the Board of Selectmen by Mr. Jeffrey
White along with 25 signatures from persons within the development. Ch. Miller said the Board of Selectmen and
the Planning Board were in full agreement with Mr. White on changing the zoning
desig-nation to Residential B. Mr. and
Mrs. White were present. Mr. White
commented, the 17 plus lots in the development are all under current protective
covenants which are due to begin expiring in 2008. Ch. Miller asked if all lots were
residential? Answer was yes, only one
empty lot remains. Ch. Miller pointed
out that two lots within the development are remaining commercial because they
are commercially developed.
Mr. Sawyer asked if the
covenants would remain in place even after the change occurs? Ch. Miller thought the covenants would run
out but instead of reverting to commercial, they would go to Residential B if the change is approved by
the Town. Mr. Miller called for further
comments, Sec. Aslinger asked those present to confirm whether the lot numbers
were correct. Mr. White thought the lots
were accurate including the two lots remaining in commercial district. Sec. Aslinger said she took the information
from the tax map, confirmed with the tax cards and Elaine. Mr. Dill asked if each of the residents had
been notified personally. The Board did
not make a specific notice to each of the residents, only by the required
published notice, proper posting and holding the public hearing. Mr. White acknowledged he had gone door to
door with the original petition, he is certain all were aware of the change and
hearing. Members agreed the notification
process could be improved on in the future, and was satisfied required
notification had been met.
Ch. Miller closed the Hearing on
Amendment #1 and opened the Hearing on:
Proposed
Amendment #2 to clarify intent in Article VI Commercial District and Article
VIII Rural Agricultural District: establishment vs. building. Ch. Miller
read the hearing notice. He said the
intent of the wording would be clarified and would support the Board’s
position. Mr. Schupack commented in
favor of the amendment because “building” is defined in the ordinance whereas
“establishment” is not. Mr. Hansel
commented the amendment would support the Board’s June resolution and would
prevent any misunderstanding on the part of future applicants regarding the
size limits of retail buildings within the Commercial and Rural Agricultural
zones.
Ch. Miller called for other comments,
being none,
III.
Closed the Public Hearings and re-opened the meeting.
IV.
Ch. Miller called for Board Action on the proposed amendments:
#1 - A motion to approve placing Amendment #1 as
proposed Changing Dearborn Circle and Burrows Lane from Commercial District to
Residential B on the Warrant for March 2007 was made and seconded. Motion carried.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 12/12/06
page 2
#2 - A motion to approve placing Amendment #2 as
proposed Clarifying intent in Article VI Commercial District and Article VIII
Rural Agricultural District: establishment vs. building on the
Warrant for March 2007 was made and seconded.
Mr. Dill asked if he was considered an alternate at this meeting. The Board confirmed, he is a non-voting alternate. Vote was called, with 5 in favor 2 against,
motion carried.
Ch. Miller asked to pass over B. Discuss and Review additional amendments and V. Unfinished Business. He asked to move directly to VI. New Business, because some audience members may not want to stay
through other discussions.
VI.
New Business: Preliminary
Conceptual Consultations
A. Hearne - not present
B. Chamberlain Machines of Rockingham, VT represented
by Attorney Thomas Hanna. He distributed
copies of Town tax map 12, showing the Huntington Farm owned by Hubbard Farms,
off Rte. 12, Lot 4. He explained they
have submitted a petitioned zoning amendment to the Board of Selectmen asking
to have the Rural Agricultural portion of the entire Lot 4 changed to Industrial
zone. The 250 feet at the front of the
lot is in the Commercial zone and will remain as Commercial zone. He read the petition. He said the two roads within Lot 4 are
private. He said Chamberlain Machine
would be the “anchor” of an industrial park.
He introduced Toby Tousle the property buyer and Chris Miller, the
Manager of Chamberlain. He said if the
lots are subdivided or developed in the future, they would return to the
Planning Board for the required reviews and approvals. Mr. Chris Miller explained their current
facility is 33,000 sq. ft. They produce high precision CNC machining with
about 45 employees including office staff.
They build pumps for power generation, aviation and many other fields. They have been consistently growing over the
past 10 years. The NH Dept. of Economic Development has approached them about
coming across the River and they are at capacity in their current location with
no expansion possibility. They have been
looking at many areas and find the Walpole location to be the best. It offers the size, location and services
needed for a new facility, their employees would benefit from the short
relocation. They would be looking for
only a back portion of the lot (about 8 acres) with Mr. Tousle developing the
remainder of the lot at some point. Ch.
Miller asked about their timeframe. Mr.
Chris Miller said they would be looking at 2007, 2008 occupancy. Mr. Tousle sees this as a win-win for
everyone. He thought Chamberlain was a
great company to begin with. He said
there are no definite plans for the property, but if the zoning goes through,
the back portion would be industrially developed as opposed to commercial or
residential. The remaining 250ft. of
Commercial zoned property is to be developed with professional buildings and
retail shops in keeping with the area.
He doesn’t see a rampant retail development however. He said the SW corner is reserved for
Chamberlain, about 1/5th of the property.
He said maybe three additional companies could be located. Mr. Hansel asked if they had considered the
existing Industrial area? Mr. Hanna said
there are no municipal services and it is a poor location. Mr. Schupack said Map 12 Lot 4 is part of the
aquafir protection area and wonders if it should be re-zoned? Mr. Tausle felt the water table was fairly
level through the lot. Ch. Miller said
the Site Plan Review process would address the issue. Mr. Daviss asked how the tax base would be
affected would the tax rate increase going from Rural Ag to Industrial? Ch. Miller said if the building goes up and
is productive then it could increase the tax base as opposed to residential
development. He thought having a small company like Chamberlain come to Walpole
was desirable for the Town and for the site specifically. Mr. Daviss asked Mr. Sawyer if the tax rate
would increase at an Industrial Zone vs. Commercial. Mr. Sawyer said no, the rates are very
similar but better than residential. Mr.
Dill said the property has been looked at for as many as 21 single-family
homes. Mr. Daviss asked if what was being proposed was a small industrial
park? Mr. Tausle said he wasn’t able to
say exactly what would be proposed at this stage, but if re-zoned, it would be
developed for strictly industrial uses.
Ms. Aslinger asked how they planned to subdivide the industrial property
since the industrial zone does not have lot size or frontage requirements,
would the Board simply approve whatever the applicant proposed? Mr. Hanna thought Chamberlain would want to
own their property and would be subdividing.
He said in some cases industrial park properties are sold as
condominiums, there are many different possible configurations including laying
out a road system however it is premature to say how the property will develop
without knowing if the re-zoning will pass.
He said the property is highly suitable for this proposal, noting some
of its physical characteristics. He said
from his perspective the property has been used industrially for years not for
manufacturing but more for
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 12/12/06
page 3
warehousing activity. Mr. Bob Miller asked if Huntington Lane was
the present access? Mr. Hanna said yes,
along with an entrance at Diamond Pizza.
Mr. Bob Miller asked what size building they would be anticipating? Mr. Chris Miller answered a 40,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Schupack asked what was beyond the RR
track to the river? A cornfield, not
part of Lot 4, was answered. Ch.
Miller instructed them to file their petition with the Selectmen, the
Planning Board will schedule and hold a Public Hearing on it at the January 9,
2007 meeting. Mr. Hannah said the
petition had been filed earlier in the day. Mr. DeCoste requested that a special effort
be made to notify the residential property owners abutting Map 12 Lot 4 of the
re-zoning. Ms. Aslinger read in the
Zoning Ordinance under Industrial Zone that upon recommendation of the Planning
Board the Zoning Board could allow an Industrial Use in the Rural Agricultural
or Commercial Zone by special exception.
She asked if the re-zoning did not pass, would they apply instead for a
special exception and continue with their plans? Mr. Hanna, said they would consider it, but
they feel it is more important to have it re-zoned. Otherwise he felt they would be coming before
the Zoning Board with one small part, 1/5th, they wouldn’t be able to tell the
Zoning Board about the whole project.
Ch. Miller said they would be seeking Special Exception after Special
Exception as the project phased in. Mr.
Hanna agreed saying the re-zoning was the appropriate way to handle the
development. Mr. Hansel asked again specifically
why the current industrial park wasn’t being considered. Mr. Hanna said because the current park does
not have three phase electrical, does not have Town water and sewer and does
not have space left and is not in the right location. Mr. Schupak asked if the Town would vote on
the re-zoning? Ch. Miller said the
Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on the petition as presented, the
Board would vote to recommend it or not recommend it after the Hearing and then
it would be placed on the Warrant for a Town vote. Sec. Aslinger said she will begin the process
by creating the hearing notice and publishing it within the required deadlines
for the January 9th meeting. Mr. DeCoste
reminded he would like the residential properties notified. Sec. Aslinger suggested she could mail them
their own private copy of the hearing notice created for the Public
Hearing. She added it could become a
permanent way of notifying persons directly affected by zoning changes in the
future. However, the Board agrees the
required notification is adequate.
Other New Business:
Mr. Jim Dockham presented an application for a Lot Line Adjustment on 145 Upper Walpole
Rd. to annex a small pie shaped piece (.1 acres) of property owned by Mr.
Dill. It is zoned Commercial. A
motion to place Mr. Dockham’s application on the agenda for the January 9, 2007
meeting and schedule the Public Hearing was made, seconded, carried. Mr. Dill said this was a case in point about
notification, they are notifying 29 people whereas if it were a zoning change,
no one would be notified.
IV. Board
Discussion B. Discuss and
Review additional amendments, schedule Public Hearing, Ch. Miller asked Mr.
Hansel to comment.
Mr. Hansel
presented the Board with photo’s of 3 and 2 story apartment buildings both in
Keene as examples of how each could affect Walpole. He argued that 3 story as is presently
allowed, has a much larger density impact, much greater than Walpole could
handle in the Commercial District just in terms of traffic onto Rte. 12. He said the ordinances require the Board to
protect the aesthetics of the Town, he didn’t feel the 3 story was
suitable. He said reducing from 3 to 2
reduces density and is in keeping with Walpole’s scale. Sec. Aslinger directed the Board to review
the draft hearing notice and wording for Amendment
# 4 to: Reduce the number of stories
allowed (3) for a Multifamily dwelling to (2) by amending Article VI Commercial
District.
Mr. DeCoste asked, if we
already have three story buildings why change it? Mr. Sawyer said the change is in the
commercial zone only, therefore it would not change the use of existing three
stories in the Residential districts.
Mr. Dill thought the 3 story examples were less in keeping with the
character of Walpole. Mr. Merklein asked
how many multifamily units with a high density could Rte. 12 accommodate? He agreed that while there are many 3 story
apartments in Town, most are conversions of old buildings, he is most concerned
with the density of 3 story vs. 2 story, less with the aesthetics, more with
providing this kind of housing alternative.
He worries about how many people could be crammed into these types of
developments. He feels 3 story creates density inappropriate for
Walpole. Ch. Miller agreed with the density
issue, saying a 2 story creates impacts but a 3 story creates development at a
faster rate than Walpole is accustomed too.
He said it accommodates the need for housing but he prefers the slower
rate of growth the 2 story offers. He
pointed out Walpole has given opportunities for varied growth
over the years but thankfully
the rate of growth has been gradual, he did not think 3 stories promotes
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 12/12/06
page 4
gradual growth. Mr. Schupack asked, if square foot per lot
could be considered rather than limiting the stories? Mr. Merklein referred to the density and open
space wording Mr. Edkins came up with last year, praising the balance that was achieved. Mr. Sawyer said the rural agricultural land
is being lost due to single-family homes, he is in favor of higher density
development to preserve agriculture, although he is aware of how Walpole is changing. Mr. Merklein and Ch. Miller agreed, changing
from 3 story to 2 story wasn’t going to impact the loss of farmland or prevent
a large tract of land from being developed into $500,000.00 homes. Mr. Sawyer said he wasn’t convinced large-scale
multifamily developments were something developers would want to build in
Walpole. Mr. Fletcher said preventing
apartment houses, no building on Class VI roads and the 200 ft. of road
frontage does not protect the farmland. He said he and other farmers in Town could
retire immediately if they decided to divide their land every 200 feet because
of the demand. He thought a 3 story
building in the right place would not be harmful. Mr. Schupack suggested the Board hold a work
session with the Conservation Commission to try and preserve the farms left in
Walpole. Ch. Miller remembered hearing,
if farming was profitable there wouldn’t be concern over loss of farmland or
open space, and no matter how much we, who don’t farm, want to see others farm,
it’s a tough business. Mr. DeCoste
thought having 3 story buildings might make it more affordable, because cost of
building would be less. Mr. Daviss said,
you can buy a house for 1/2 or 1/3rd the cost of renting in this area,
affordable housing is something specified by law, you don’t zone it, build and
hope they can afford it. He said
affordable housing is a very different discussion from the 3 story vs. 2 story
issue. Mr. Merklein suggested the Board
reconsider the conservation subdivision to preserve open space. Mr. Hansel said, Walpole is gratefully what
it is, and to try to be everything to everyone in the future is not
necessary. He feels the 3 story monstrosity is not appropriate for
Walpole, nor what it stands for. He does
not agree Walpole should accommodate every situation that threatens to change
the character of Walpole. He said if Mr.
Sawyer is concerned about preserving agricultural land, why support the prior
proposal to change a tract of rural agricultural land into industrial?
Ch. Miller called for Board action to approve the draft
amendment #4 as presented and to hold the Public Hearing on January 9,
2007. It was so moved, seconded and
carried by 4 in favor, 3 opposed.
Sec. Aslinger presented draft amendment #3 Proposed by
the Zoning Board. She said the Zoning Board had recently processed three
variances for home businesses in the Rural Agricultural Zone. The Zoning Board felt, since home businesses
were allowed in all of the other zones, why not allow them in the Rural
Agricultural zone and specifically use the same wording as in the other
districts. Ch. Miller and others felt it
should still be a requirement to seek a variance on the recommendation of the
Planning Board, that each case should be scrutinized closely. He added, problems had occurred in the past
where home businesses had grown into full-scale commercial operations. Sec. Aslinger read the letter from the Zoning
Board requesting the amendment and the reasoning. She agreed with the Zoning Board’s request,
stating she supports home businesses and feels it is a burden for someone to
seek a variance to have a home business in the rural agricultural zone when it
is permitted in all other zones. Mr.
Sawyer reminded that Hubbard Farms and RN Johnson’s both started out as home
businesses in the Rural Agricultural zone.
Mr. Dill said Alysson’s Orchard’s was another example of a home business
that has grown into a commercial operation now manufacturing wine and holding
banquets. He thought having the variance
requirement gave the Boards some control on what is allowed. Ch. Miller agreed, that in the past the
Planning Board has been very accommodating, but should have the power to
oversee how a home operation develops.
Mr. Dill said if your in a residential area and someone wants to open a
snowmobile shop, they would have to go through the variance process, unlike a
recent operation on Wentworth Rd. that did not go through the proper
channels. Ch. Miller advised that the
amendment was not necessary at this time and to move over it. Mr. Merklein asked why home business is
allowed in the Residential districts without a variance but not in the Rural
Agricultural district? Ms. Aslinger
agreed asking if you can have a snowmobile business in the Residential, Commercial
or Industrial districts, why not in the Rural Agricultural? Ch. Miller said they are allowed by special
exception in those districts. He said if
they don’t go through the process there is a greater chance for
misunderstandings and problems after the fact.
Ms. Aslinger asked if the Rural Agricultural district was more
vulnerable than Residential? Ch. Miller
and others agreed that some of the Rural Agricultural districts were more
remote, made up of larger parcels and are a larger zone within the Town. Ms. Aslinger asked if they would still need
to be granted a special exception if the amendment was made? Answer was yes. She said she was trying to understand the
opposition so she could accurately
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 12/12/06
page 5
report back to the Zoning
Board. Ch. Miller said to report that
the Planning Board was not enthusiastic and would like to learn more, pass over
and consider it at a later time, possibly for 2008. Members agreed they needed further
investigation before making the change.
Mr. Daviss felt the word “customary”(in the proposed wording) was a mile
wide. Mr. Sawyer agreed it should be
looked at further. A motion to pass over the draft amendment #3 to add home business as a
permitted use in the Rural Agricultural district was made and seconded, being
no further discussion the vote taken.
Motion carried unan.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Merklein to present his amendment
to the Site Plan Review Regulations regarding open space: Mr. Merklein
used the 30% open space derived from Mr. Edkins’ wording in the 2006 zoning
amendment regarding multifamily housing.
He said currently there is no open space provision in the zoning
ordinance for commercial retail buildings but a provision could be made in the
Site Plan Review Regulations as he stated in his e-mail to the Planning Board. He asked if the Board would review, hold a
Public Hearing on the amendment and see it adopted as soon as possible. Ch.
Miller suggested it be put on the agenda for review at the January meeting and
a public hearing scheduled if the wording and placement is agreed to. Ms. Aslinger stated she had compared the
language and the suggested placement in the regulations and thought it needed
to be reconfigured to organize it better within the existing document. She said she gave “open space” its own
heading, while preserving the rest of the existing language. Mr. Merklein asked her to e-mail the changes
to him for review.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Schupack to
present his request from the Conservation Commission:
Mr. Schupack presented the
Board with copies of a Sept. 2006 “Farms, Forest, Streams and Wetlands: Walpole’s Conservation Plan” prepared by
a citizen task force from Walpole, chaired by Peter Palmiotto and commissioned
by the Walpole Conservation Commission.
He asked members to review the document and to schedule a work session with
the Task Force for comments. He said
they are hoping to have this incorporated into the Master Plan. Ch. Miller said they could coordinate it with
the update of the land use section of the Master Plan in 2007. Mr. Schupack said the Conservation Commission
was hoping to have better coordination with the Planning Board in the
future. Ch. Miller thought scheduling a
work session in January or February could be timed with SWRPC and the Master
Plan update.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Bob Miller and Mr. Daviss for a report
on their meeting with SWRPC: Mr. Daviss handed out a letter, proposal and estimate
for updating not only the Land Use section but for other services they
offer. He said they met with Jeff
Porter, explaining what the Board was budgeting for in 2007, mainly an update
of the Land Use Section for about $3000.00 or less. Mr. Porter quoted $2700.00 up to $15,000.00. Mr. Porter said in the past most plans have
been reviewed every 10 years, but now the courts are suggesting some portion updated
every 5 years, leading to an ongoing review of the document. Mr. Miller said the Planning Board should be
constantly reviewing a portion of the plan every year. Mr. Porter suggested having some meetings
throughout the year dedicated to Master Plan review.
Mr. Sawyer cautioned against
having SWRPC “overdo” for the Town. He
suggested including an amount in the budget for 2007. Sec. Aslinger said the budget was submitted
with a $3000.00 line for the Master Plan update. Ch. Miller asked if they discussed maps? Mr. Daviss said as part of their service they
can update the maps. He said, a set of
good maps for the Boards to use is critical.
It would be helpful to have a full set of overlays as well. Mr. Schupack said some mapping has already
been done and incorporated into their documents. He said they were in hopes to eventually have
a map that could be used to assign conservation values, this is one of the
discussions the Conservation Commission hopes to have with the Planning Board,
and it is possible some the Conservation Maps could be used for the type of map
Ch. Miller was looking for. All agreed
about the need for an accurate mapping.
Ch. Miller suggested the Board coordinate work sessions in January, February
and March with the Conservation Commission and SWRPC to begin work on the
update in April. Mr. Daviss suggested we
specifically decide on what to “buy” with the allotted $3000.00.
Ch. Miller said to add the discussion to the next agendas for PB
review. Mr. Daviss added he asked Mr.
Porter about business recruitment and economic development, because like most
small Towns, we wait until someone brings us a plan and then we don’t like
it. Mr. Porter did not advise economic
recruitment for small towns, finding the right person and developing a plan is
a task too large for a small town. He
said the best approach is to try to think about how the town fits into the economic
region. He suggested trying to put
together a local committee to address the issue and make suggestions back to
the Board. The Board would then adjust
the regulations to reflect the suggestions, such as encouraging the use of old
buildings or home businesses. Ch. Miller
said the biggest impact of economic development for Walpole is the loss of
agricultural land, like the Hubbard Farms.
Mr. Sawyer
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 12/12/06
page 6
asked about putting a big
grocery store on good agricultural land, it will never revert back to
agricultural land. Mr. Dill said the Hubbard buildings sit empty even though
they are quite a bit less cost to develop than in Keene, but the climate in
Walpole is not favorable to business. He
said he thought Chamberlain would eventually be discouraged from re-locating to
Walpole. Mr. Sawyer said they just
dropped $1million from the tax rolls due to the closing of a Hubbard Farms
facility. Ch. Miller said he hoped the
Board would support the zoning change proposed by Chamberlain, it is a good use
of the land and location for the Town.
Mr. Daviss said Mr. Porter suggested the Board incorporate an economic
development plan within the Master Plan. The Town of Jaffrey just added a section to
there Master Plan that was well written, Mr. Daviss has an e-mailable copy for
anyone interested. The Board agreed to add discussion beginning with the January
meeting and work session. Mr. Schupack
will notify the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Daviss announced he had heard there are plans for a Dunkin Donuts
for Rte. 12. He cautioned the Board that
the “snooze alarm” had gone off three times at tonights meeting, we’re looking
at an industrial park, a Dunkin Donuts, apartment buildings etc. He said the Master Plan asks the Board to
plan for the Town, we need to think in context, to think of all the proposals
as one along Rte. 12. Mr. Fletcher
thought the Town forefathers did a good job of placing the Commercial zone away
from the Village, why stop the growth there?
Ch. Miller thought Ben’s comments were ones of caution not an attempt to
stop or promote commercial development, to consider the Master Plan’s
recommendation to prevent Rte. 12 from being a stop and go commercial
strip.
Continuation with the agenda:
I.
B. Minutes from 11/14/06 were
approved as amended.
V. Unfinished Business
A. Frink Class
VI Rd. resolution. Sec. Aslinger stated she attended the Board of Selectmen’s
meeting/hearing. She read the Board’s
letter to the Board of Selectmen based on the minutes of the 11/14
meeting. She said the Selectmen would “entertain”
allowing a building permit even with the Board’s concerns and without an actual
building permit. Ch. Miller asked when
building on a Class VI roads be stopped.
Mr. Sawyer felt the resolution allowed building on a Class VI road. He said sometimes they deny the permit if the
road is too steep. Ch. Miller said
frontage on a Class V or better road is required. No building is permitted on a Class VI
road. Sec. Aslinger said the Class VI
road resolution has restrictive criteria that must be met. She said it has become very arbitrary as to
who gets to build and who doesn’t. She
said there are lots between the Frink property and the end of the Class V
portion of the road, how do you say no to them when they want a building
permit, then petition the Town to upgrade the road. Ch. Miller read the definition of “frontage”
that requires it to be on a public street, classified as a Town maintained
road, ie; Class V or better. He would
like an official statement made to the Board of Selectmen discouraging building
permits issued on Class VI roads.
VI. New
Business: B. Other Cellco - Telecommunications Tower on 88
Scovill Rd. Sec. Aslinger received a call from Keenan Brinn of C.
Davis Associates, Milton, MA notifying the Board they were going to be changing
out 3 antennas on the existing tower from Nextel arrays to Sprint arrays. The change-out is a maintenance issue. No other changes would take place. Sec. Aslinger said the Town’s ordinance does
not make review provisions for maintenance issues such as applying for a site
plan review when they occur. Per Ch.
Miller, she asked Mr. Brinn to write a letter of explanation to the Board that
could be signed and placed on file for future reference. She had the Board sign four copies, with the
original returned to Mr. Brinn. Mr. Dill
wanted to make certain no other changes would be made, Sec. Aslinger said the
antennas are the only change. He asked
why they would come to the Planning Board for a scheduled maintenance? Answer was as a courtesy and inquiry since
all Town’s have different requirements.
Members agreed it was proper for Mr. Brinn to notify the Board.
Sec. Aslinger announced the Town of Dublin notified
the Planning Board of a Cell Tower Site located on 47 Valley Rd. in Dublin, the
Public Hearing is being scheduled. All Town’s within a 20 mile radius must be notified.
Ch. Miller and V-Ch. Miller signed maps
for Whitcomb, Benson Woodworking and Cray prior
approvals.
Handouts were distributed.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30pm
Cc: file, PB, ZBA, BOS, CC, Town Offices
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, Town
website, www.thewalpolean.com