Town of
PLANNING BOARD
MEETING August
14, 2007 7:30pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller,
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Dave DeCoste, Bob Miller, V-Ch.,
Henry Fletcher, Selectman Charles Miller. Jeff
White, alt., Fred Dill present but recused and in audience.
Members Absent: Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt. Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved
and will be reviewed at the September 11, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions,
and corrections. There were over 50
persons in attendance.
I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm.
A. Alternate Jeff White was
appointed for Ben Daviss.
B. Minutes were passed over until 9/11/2007
meeting.
II. Review applications submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay
In order to speed up the
meeting, Ch. Miller announced he would like to accept all the applications as
complete in one motion, provided the Secretary’s report was favorable on
each. Sec. Aslinger reported all applications were
complete with fees, abutter lists, maps, all notices posted, abutters
notified. No application had pending
issues. The applications were:
A. UNH Sprint-Nextel Corp. Site
Plan Review
B. Hubbard Farms LLC Minor 2 lot subdivision
C. Martha Kingsbury Minor 2 lot subdivision
D. Sheldon Sawyer Minor 4 lot subdivision
E. Flessa, Laroche/Pratt Minor 2 lot subdivision
F. Richard S. Francis Minor 2 lot subdivision
A motion to accept
applications A-F as complete was made and seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ch. Miller
said the public hearing for each application would be held separately, with the
Board taking action on each after the public hearing was closed
III. Meeting was closed the public hearing
opened for:
A. UNH
Sprint-Nextel Corp. - Site Plan Review for additional antennas to existing
telecommunications facility located at
B. Hubbard Farms
LLC - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Rte. 12 North Map 12 Lot 4 in the
Commercial and Rural Agricultural zones.
Joe DiBernardo presented the proposal whose purpose was to created Lot 1 of 31.13 acres and
Barbara Dretzin asked if the zoning uses were being
changed? Ch. Miller said this was a
simple subdivision of the land under the existing commercial and rural
agricultural zones. Mr. DiBernardo
pointed out that Lot 1 did include all the commercial area and it was partially
used as a boundary line. He pointed out existing
buildings designated to be removed or relocated. Ch. Miller noted Chamberlain Machine was
interested in Lot 2. Hearing no other questions he closed the
public hearing and called for Board action.
A motion to approve the proposal
as presented was seconded, motion carried unanimously. The maps and mylar were signed. Mr. DiBernardo will record the mylar and
report to the Secretary the cabinet and drawer number as proof.
C. Martha Kingsbury - Minor 2 lot subdivision located
on Kingsbury Road, Map 8 Lot 118 in the Rural Agricultural zone. Ms. Virginia Foote, of Lawrence Associates
presented revised plans to the Board noting the proposal results in Lot 1 of
71.02 acres and Lot 1 of 1.11 acres. The
lots meet the frontages, size and setback requirements. Ch.
Miller called for questions or comments, hearing none he closed the public
hearing and called for board action.
Jeff White made a motion to
approve the proposal as presented, Dave DeCoste seconded, motion carried
unanimously. Ms. Foote agreed to
record the mylar and report recording information to the Secretary as proof,
the maps and mylar were signed.
D. Sheldon Sawyer
- Minor 4 lot Subdivision located on County, Wentworth and Meetinghouse Roads, Map 5 Lot 4 in
the Rural Agricultural zone. Ms. Foote
presented noting the purpose is to create Lot 1 of 5.62 acres, Lot 2 of 6.36
acres and Lot 3 of 5.02 acres and Lot 4 of 55.52 acres remaining. Mr. Blount asked where the remaining 55.52
acres are, Ms. Foote showed on the insert where the remainder is. Ch. Miller called for questions. Nancy Houge asked for clarification of where
she was in relation to the proposal. Ch.
Miller described to her satisfaction where she was in relation to the
proposal. He noted the frontage is on
County Road but the ROW is off Wentworth Road just before the cornfield. Ms. Steisel asked why the access was off of
Wentworth not County. Ch. Miller said
Mr. Sawyer was allowed to give the ROW over his land for access, noting the
steep terrain off of County Road. A
question was asked if the subdivision was for housing? Answer was the lots met the requirements for
housing. Charles Miller asked if the ROW
would serve all three new lots? Mr.
Sawyer said if the lots were sold or given away the ROW would be better determined,
he said he had no immediate plans to sell the lots but was planning for the
future. Hearing no further questions, Ch. Miller closed the public hearing and
called for Board action. Henry Fletcher moved to approve the plan as
presented, seconded by Eric Merklein, motion carried unanimously. The maps and mylar were signed, Ms. Foote
agreed to record the mylar and report recording information to the Secretary as
proof.
E. Steven Flessa, Barbara Laroche/John McKee
Pratt Revocable Trust - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Reservoir Road,
Map 11, Lot 1 in the Rural Agricultural zone.
Mr.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 3
DiBernardo
presented noting the proposal results in Lot 1 of 41.51 acres and Lot 2 41.83
acres, the lots meet the frontage requirements and lot sizes. Charles Miller asked if Mr. Pratt’s house was
on any of the new lots. The lots are at
the end of the road and north of the reservoir with Mr. Pratts house on the
opposite side of the road. Ch. Miller called for further questions,
being none, closed the public hearing and called for Board action. Mr.
Merklein made a motion to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by Henry
Fletcher, motion carried unanimously. Maps
and mylar were signed, Mr. DiBernardo agreed to record the mylar and report
recording information to the Secretary as proof.
F. Richard S. Francis III - Minor 2 lot subdivision
located on Ramsay Hill Rd. in the Rural Agricultural zone, Map 11, Lot
7-1-1. Mr. DiBernardo presented noting
the proposal results in Lot 1 of 57 acres and Lot 2 of 3.1 acres. He said test pits have been done. Ted Fellows is handling the State subdivision
application. Ch. Miller called for
questions. Sue Bingaman asked if the
small lot was where he was building his new house, answer was no, he is
building on the larger lot. Charles
Miller asked about a Hatfield view easement.
Mr. DiBernardo said it was an easement granted to Ms. Hatfield to
protect her view. Hearing no further comments, Ch. Miller
called for Board action. Ms.
Aslinger noted a condition of approval would be to obtain State subdivision
approval prior to recording. Ch. Miller called for a motion to approve the
proposal with the condition State subdivision is granted. Motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Maps and mylar were signed, with Mr.
DiBernardo agreeing to record the mylar, once the state subdivision approval was
granted. A copy of the approval will be
forwarded to the Planning Board, the mylar can then be recorded, Mr. DiBernardo
will contact the Secretary with the recording information as proof.
V. Unfinished Business
A. 1834 “Griswold
Place” - Site Plan Review pending revision. Mr. Smith was
not available, Mr. John Blair presented.
He noted in order to satisfy the abutters Mr. and Mrs. Fred Ernst, the
building in the back would be moved 5 feet from the property line with the
basement area and actual foundation area to be removed and relocated. He said windows are to be removed from the
west side rear, less two and reducing the size, the center section will have
four windows removed as well. Sec.
Aslinger read a letter from Mr. Ernst describing their agreement after a
meeting held on 7/25th with Mr. Smith and the architect. The letter confirmed the changes described
above and is on size. Ch. Miller asked
the Board to approve the revisions as requested. A
motion to approve the revisions was made by Mr. DeCoste, seconded, motion
carried unanimously. The newly
revised plans will be filed as approved.
B. Walpole D & D, LLC - Major 8 lot
subdivision - Review water study, Brian Goetz presented. Mr. Goetz provided a power point presentation
following the written study. (A copy of
the written study is available for review in the Selectmen’s Office during
regular business hours.)
Ch.
Miller recognized Mr. Goetz of Weston Sampson in Portsmouth. He said he was hired to do a desktop analysis
using the existing data to determine the hydro-geological conditions and water
balance of the area to determine the projected water demands and to query the
abutting properties to gather additional data regarding wells, water use and
other pertinent information and to determine the need for conservation measures
and deed restrictions for future and other site recommendations. He pointed to USGS maps within the study
showing conditions from the 1930’s and 50’s.
He said they met with DES hydro-geologist discussing the geology of the
area, saying everything around the areas surface is less than 2 meters thick
till overlying bedrock. He said the
DiBernardo plans show the test pits, noting the same conditions apply. He said NHGRANIT on-line showed soil paths,
confirmation of the rock and till. He
showed a bedrock map, Littleton, Fitch.
He moved to a lineament map showing the actual fractures where water is
present, it is an aerial map. He pointed
out where the roads were as reference.
He said based on the above information, they determined the recharge
rate, according to a recent USGS 2004 report
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 4
in
Vermont and NH, the recharge rate is 20% for precipitation or 7” of rainfall
will actually penetrate and recharge the aquafirs. With that rate at 43 acres, each acre has a
little over 200,000 gallons per year recharging, the caveat is once you get to
the bedrock it is a bit less, the existing slope on the property effects the
recharge. NHGRANIT has information on
the sites land use, he and Mr. Dill walked the land before the meeting, noting
the data was accurate. He noted the type
of trees on the land/site, the hayfield, barns and wetlands. He said they took the USGS maps and reviewed
the concerns of the abutters and the effect of drainage on the site. He pointed out where the drainage moves, the
major part of the subdivision drains on the southerly portion. He said they looked at the large drainage
area of 22 acres and taking the worst case storm event, 2.8” per day, a
magnitude flow rate of would be 76,000 gallons per hour. He said the next step was to incorporate the
23 returned abutter surveys and their information. They were able to locate each of them on a
tax map, and he reviewed each in the report, see report. He said they gave
a good overview of the types and yields of the wells. Some wells were hydro-fractured, drilled, dug
or pounded. The surveys provided a cross
section of ages of wells, with an overall drop in yields over the past 10
years. He cautioned the numbers were not
scientifically calculated but a good indicator.
He discussed the depth of wells and static. He noticed the newer wells provide highest
yield, this is not unusual, the older wells do not recharge as quickly. One 100 year old dug well provides 10
gallons/minute. He said one abutter
reported drainage and runoff problems located at the bottom of the largest
drainage area. He said 30 wells were
reported, the newer and deeper wells provide the higher yields. He said the DES provides a report on wells,
the methods and how yields are affected by the age of the well. He said most of the surveys indicated current
conservation methods being used. He said
there is present water use on the site, ie; the trees. A mature oak tree can draw 50 gallons of water
a day. He said there isn’t clay to hold
the water. He took the subdivision plan
and overlaid it on the use map. He said
DES has no rules about wells other than the 75 foot radius requirement. They calculated each single family home
proposed in the subdivision would use approximately 600 gallons per day based
on projected square footage of 2000. He
showed existing homes and water uses and the variable ranges. He said factoring in the information on the subdivision
and the resulting changes basically some forest would be removed for the
houses, the wetlands would remain, using the 300 gallons per day per unit comes
to 2400 gallons per day or 86,000 gallons per year. He discussed some conservation measures
noting 86,000 gallons per year does not exceed the potential resource for the
area, but the bedrock wells do have a limited ability to capture the recharge
unless they are hydrofractured or pounded.
He noted septics are on-site, there is return flow of 85-90% return to
the general area. He reviewed the
recommended deed restrictions of all plumbing would be high efficiency and low
flow. Irrigated areas very limited,
pools not filled from on-site wells. As
things are built some recharge could be incorporated such as roof drains,
drainage swales, run-off to slow the water.
To determine the adequacy of the surrounding water levels, he suggested
a non-pumping well that would give ambient water level. He gave Mr. Dill and Ch. Miller a copy of the
report and asked to take questions.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Mr. Dance asked if Mr. Goetz could tell where
the aquifer comes from noting the area is along a spine of land, was there a
tie in to the Connecticut River? Mr.
Goetz said it was coming from the fractures as outlined on the first map,
re-charge comes directly from rainfall, there are no other sources of water for
the area.
Ken Walsh said since the recharge
comes from surface and rainfall, where does the water come from and where does
it go? Mr. Goetz said basically the well
sites as shown on the plans may not be the perfect location for the well, the
smaller lots would be more limited to finding a higher yield fracture. He asked
how many years it takes to recharge? Mr.
Goetz said 7” per year per acre would recharge the area. Mr. Walsh asked to correlate it to
static. Mr. Goetz said an ambient well
would show the seasonal changes. He said
a pumping well would not reflect true
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 5
static
unless it is unused for a period of time.
He said an older well could be crusted up and not pumping properly. He said static is a relative term at times. He said a drop in static could indicate a
drop in the water table.
Mr. Dance said when the pond goes
dry the surrounding area wells go dry.
He asked what would happen if a drought persisted for a few years, what
impact would the new proposed wells have on the area water? Mr. Goetz thought there are more wells, but
the existing use based on the trees alone could affect the overall water. Mr. Dance mentioned some of the better
producing wells. Due to the direction of
the runoff, if the weather took a turn for the worse, the persons along the
spine would have water shortage and adding another 8 wells to the watershed
would be a concern.
Mr. Blount, Ms. Steisel and others
asked if the 8 additional wells would affect the abutters water? Mr. Goetz said in order to answer the
question a more detailed study would be required. Mr. Dance thought the more
water drawn on an already limited watershed the more likely there would be less
available for everyone. Mr. Goetz
referred to the recommendations for conservation to aid the recharge. Ms. Steisel felt the recommendations were
viable but there was no insurance the measures would be enforced. Mr. Goetz said it could be added as a deed
restriction. Mr. Hunter said he had a
hard time believing those recommendations would alleviate the extra water use
by the 8 new lots.
Mr. Sawyer asked if the recharge
would increase by removing trees. Mr.
Goetz said it would reduce the water taken out but may not help the
recharge.
Ms. Houge said there is a historic
water shortage for not only her parent’s home on Meetinghouse Road but many of
the abutters and she was concerned the added lots would add to the existing
water problems in the area.
Ch. Miller asked if all the abutters
were drawing from the same fracture? He
said no matter how many wells are added, it is hard to determine exactly where
the water comes from. He said over the
years as it has grown, perhaps that has affected the water. He asked if there was a way to allow only 4
wells, have it monitored before more wells are added based on the history of
the 4 new wells? Mr. Goetz said the only
way would be to drill the wells and monitor them. He said the well locations on the maps might
not be the best place to locate the wells.
Ch. Miller asked if the 8 lots would have a greater impact within the 8
lots rather than the abutters asking if the abutters may be affecting one
another even without the additional wells?
Mr. Goetz said yes it could be the case.
Mr. Dave Howell asked about the age
of the existing water? Mr. Goetz said
they can carbon date the water. Mr. Hunt
asked to look at the fracture map asking how the fractures were
determined? Mr. Goetz said USGS studies
were done a couple of years ago, they take the previous studies and formulate
the data, aerial photos in black and white, satellite and field surveys showing
the fractures that are eons old. Mr.
Hunt asked if fracture lines could be built like the oil companies do? Mr. Goetz said no, oil extraction is a
different technique. He asked about
other techniques to capture water. Mr.
Goetz said hydro-fracturing is the newest technique.
Ms. Steisel asked if
hydro-fracturing could ruin a fracture.
Mr. Goetz said an earthquake could cause a problem but not residential
well drilling. Mr. Walsh said a person
could be a distance away from the fracture and still be drawing from the
fracture. Mr. Goetz agreed some bedrock
wells could draw from a mile away.
Ch. Miller
asked how the well dates affect the water, wondering if the newer wells were
better producers and had created problems for the older wells.
Mr.
Dance said it seemed wells off the Wentworth spine seem to have more water the new
wells were going to draw off that single spine.
Mr. Blount said the principal area of stressed wells are depending on
the one fault line, the new lots appear to be drawing off the same fault. Mrs. Daniels asked to see where Wentworth
Road was on the fracture map.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 6
Mr. Goetz said field data might show a more
realistic idea of where the wells would be located. He said the drainage map shows a divide that
might be questionable. Ch. Miller asked
if he had experienced a situation like this?
Mr. Goetz said he sat on the groundwater commission at the State house
and grappled with the issue. He said the
State regulations are site specific to insure water availability but some of
the specifics would require more detailed studies.
Mr. Merklein asked based on what Mr.
Goetz has seen in the past what is the actual bottom line on the effect on the
abutters? Mr. Goetz said at present the
results are a general overview of the conditions for this level of study. He said more detailed investigations could
answer the question but the information gathered is useable to determine a
general overview. He said a suggestion
to do a fracture trace of the area was made but is only good down to 500 ft,
many of the wells are 600 feet and beyond.
He said physically drilling the wells would give additional information.
Mr. Merklein asked about a sample well to measure
the effect. Mr. Goetz said a large groundwater
withdrawal well is done with monitoring wells.
Mr. Merklein said the monitoring wells could be the existing wells. Mr. Goetz agreed saying if you were trying to
get the effect of a withdrawal and future conditions the large well would need
to be located where the withdrawal would take place as opposed to a surrounding
area. Mr. Merklein asked, one well super
pumped within the subdivision and measure it there for additional
information? Mr. Goetz said that’s what
has been done in the past for large groundwater withdrawals. Mr. Dill and Mr. Kasper said large
groundwater withdrawals are for 40,000 gallons an hour, this subdivision would
not warrant that type of study. Mr.
Goetz agreed.
Attny. Kasper observed most of the problem lies
within the north up hill part of the property.
The abutters in the worst shape are to the right of Wentworth Road and
the fracture is to the left of Wentworth Road.
The data also shows the drainage is north of Hooper Rd. He said the surface flow appeared to flow north
of the subdivision. Mr. Goetz clarified
the elevation drops to the south. Mr.
Kasper said it is pure speculation on Mr. Goetz’s part unless all 8 wells were
drilled and monitored for a number of years what and if any impact those wells
would have on the water supply that there is no way to determine the
impact. Mr. Goetz said the desktop study
gives adequate information based on the level of the study and existing
conditions they are not doing a large groundwater withdrawal so it is beyond
the desktop study results to determine the actual effect on the surrounding
water supply. Mr. Kasper said by cutting
down 4 or 5 trees per lot it would reduce the withdrawal. Mr. Goetz agreed noting his
recommendations. Mr. Kasper said if the
Planning board puts in the recommended restrictions everything possible would
be done to recapture the water including the septics, roof flows, restrictions
on irrigations, no pool filling, it appears there is almost a zero impact. Mr. Goetz agreed if the Board implements the
conservation restrictions it would significantly reduce the impact.
Mr. Dance asked if D & D would pay to have his
well replaced if it ran dry in the next 10 years? The answer was no. Mr. Carignan said in regard to speculation,
his first well was pounded, it ran dry, the second hydro-fractured yielding 1.5
gallons.
Mr. DeCoste asked how to determine the direction of
the flows from the fractures? Mr. Goetz
said it could not be determined but likely flowed towards the Connecticut
River. He said without a pump test he
couldn’t determine where or which fracture was being utilized. Ch. Miller thought the 4 or 5 houses built in
the past 4 years could have affected the previous wells. He said it seemed the weather played the most
important role in recharging and available water supply. Mr. Goetz agreed saying dug wells would run
dry first the bedrock wells take a longer time to go dry but take longer to
recover from a drought.
Ms. Aslinger asked in addition to his
recommendations would it be recommended to reduce the number of lots based on
the density to 4 or 6 lots noting he had mentioned the density of some of the
lots limited acreage didn’t allow for more than one 75 ft. radius. Mr. Goetz said the State requires the 75 ft.
radius but some of the smaller lots have less area for moving it
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 7
around. Ms. Aslinger said he had mentioned the maps
don’t necessarily show exactly where the wells would be rather showing where
they would fit in. Mr. Kasper objected
to the question saying Mr. Goetz wasn’t an expert on where the wells should be
located. Ms. Aslinger said she had heard
Mr. Goetz mention the density earlier and wondered if putting 20 wells vs. 8
wells or 4 wells instead of 8 would improve the chances of the water supply
being less impacted. Mr. Goetz said without
having any of the wells drilled there is no way of knowing.
Mrs. Daniels asked if by hydro-fracting a well, does
it make things better for the surrounding properties? Mr. Goetz did not believe so.
Mr. Merklein said since we were talking serious
speculation about a very serious matter, he asked if there was another step to
take in order to alleviate the speculation that wouldn’t incur a major expense
but insure the Board a few years later wouldn’t have abutting properties
without water? He asked how to get a clearer
picture. Mr. Goetz said hydro-geological
studies range in size in scope. He said
the level of this study was to determine baseline conditions make some
recommendations to mitigate and address the fact there is a current water use
on the property ie, the trees. By taking
the trees away vs. a well use, to incorporate restrictive measures and capture
some of the surface drainage through swales.
They were trying to present some scenarios to mitigate some future
conditions but to promise what will exactly happen 5-10 years in the future is
not known.
Ch. Miller said he understood there was no way to be
certain whether 4 lots or 8 lots would make a direct impact and it is
speculative. He asked if the only
guidelines Planning Boards have in NH is to go by the 75 ft. well radius, whereas
in VT there are more restrictive guidelines. Are there no other measures the Board can take
to prevent a subdivision from impacting surrounding properties? Mr. Goetz said he was correct but more
restrictive guidelines are not on the books at this time. Mr. Merklein read from Walpole’s subdivision
regulations questioning what the wording meant by being adequate. Mr. Goetz and others thought it only referred
to the 75 ft. radius, if it were more restrictive it would have a flow rate or
another measure to go by.
Suzanne Steisel said she thought the impact on the
abutting properties had to be considered.
She is concerned about property values declining when the water becomes
less available. Ch. Miller said the
single growth houses in recent years have also affected the surrounding
areas.
Mrs. Dretzin suggested rather than the zoning being
determined on frontage or lot size why not consider the availability of
resources on a parcel. Ch. Miller said
he agreed with the idea however the current zoning does not allow for it, that
D & D’s parcel is within the Rural Agricultural and Residential zones and
meets the current requirements.
Ch. Miller thanked Mr. Goetz for the presentation, the
audience applauded him and a five minute break was called.
Meeting
resumed 9:45pm
Ch. Miller announced the conclusion
of the water study, as he thought it might be, it was inconclusive but a good
effort. He said he thought the
recommendations were appropriate, he said the Board was at its decision
deadline. He said after hearing the
report and to adequately write up the resulting conditions of a possible
approval he felt the Board needed more time.
He asked Mr. Dill for an extension until the next meeting. Mr. Dill said he needed to consult with his
partner did the Board need an answer tonight?
Ch. Miller said yes the Board would not be meeting again before the next
meeting. He said he is still very
concerned about the future of the abutters water supply, he mentioned possible
reassessment of reducing the number of lots or restrict the number of initial
lots/wells to help the concerns. He said
he is also concerned about the road design and final plans and feels the Board
needs additional time to formulate adequately written conditions. Mr. Dill said they had cut the number of lots
already but they don’t seem to make any progress with negotiations, he asked if
it was speculative to expect a decision at the
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 8
next
meeting if they grant the additional time.
Ch. Miller said he did not see a reason why the Board would go beyond
the September meeting with a decision.
Members agreed. Selectman Miller
asked if the work session could be used to finalize Board action. Sec. Aslinger said the Selectmen had on more
than one occasion felt the work sessions were to be limited to all other
business besides review of applications before the Board and she felt it was
appropriate to maintain the work sessions as non application review meetings. Selectmen Miller said they would ask this as
a favor for Planning Board members who normally do not attend the work sessions
to come for the review and could leave immediately after. Ch. Miller stated he would not be able to
attend the meeting and would not agree to hold the review at the work session
meeting.
Mr. Dill asked if he incorporated all the
recommendations resulting from the study, would the Board be willing to make
their final decision at tonight’s meeting?
Ch. Miller said if he wanted a final action by the Board tonight under
the circumstances he would recommend the Board deny the subdivision because
they would not being able to make an informed decision based on lack of
information. Mr. Dill asked if there
would be further delay at the next meeting?
Ch. Miller and others agreed the Board would have adequate time to
digest the information provided in the study and to come to a final
determination at the Sept. 11, 2007 meeting. Selectman Miller suggested Mr. Dill be put on
as the first agenda item. Members asked
if they could have copies of the studies.
Sec. Aslinger said she would make copies.
Mr. Blount asked if a copy of the deed restrictions
would be available for review prior to the next meeting, answer was probably
not. Ch. Miller said they would be
available after the next meeting.
Ch. Miller
decided to officially close the Public Hearing, further discussion will be
limited to the Board’s own review. Ch. Miller recognized Mr.
Carignan. He asked if it is feasible, in
the future if Town water could be extended to the Wentworth Road area? Ch. Miller said it would be an option and
could be studied, he thought it would be paid for by the Water department and
through taxation. Selectman Miller said
it was a viable possibility and would protect property values.
Mr. Dill asked how the Board would proceed on his
proposal? Ch. Miller said the road
information was basically agreed to, the recommendations from the study would
be incorporated and he would suggest limiting the number of lots to allow for
an interim point as a safety net for everyone.
Mr. Dill said he would not agree with such a restriction they would not
be able to go into it knowing half of the land would be given up. Attny. Kasper agreed saying they would not
abide by that restriction, they are coming before the Board with an 8 lot
subdivision, it can be approved or not, the Board cannot say you have 4 lots
for a while and see what happens.
Henry Fletcher asked if citizens could petition the Town
to have the water brought up to the area?
Answer was yes by a warrant article. Selectman Miller thought the impact
to the tax rate would be little, it would add to property values and there is
plenty of water. It would be whether a
water line could be brought up there.
Secretary Aslinger said she would send a follow up
letter to D & D outlining the information discussed at the meeting as a
reference for the members so they would be prepared for the September meeting.
C. Site Plan
Revocation North Meadow Plaza - Hockensmith comment (This item was passed over until the Sept. meeting, noting Sec. Alsinger
did received an opinion from Attny. Hockesmith too late to be adequately reviewed
for tonight’s meeting and an invoicel to be signed.)
VI. New Business: Preliminary Conceptual Consultations
A. Richard Drew surveyor, Hearns Lot Line
Adjustment on Church St. North Walpole.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 9
Matt
Drew was present. He submitted the
application, fees, abutters list and made a brief description of the proposal
it is in the Residential B zone. A
motion was made by Mr. Merklein and seconded by Bob Miller to place the
application on the agenda for the Sept. 11, 2007 meeting, motion carried
unanimously.
B. Chamberlain
Machine -
Special Exception recommendation, Site Plan Review. Attny. Gary Kinyon presented the Board with
the application, fees and abutters list.
He asked for feedback. He said he
understood they would need to get a special exception recommendation from the
Planning Board prior to applying for the special exception from the Zoning
Board, and if granted a special exception return to the Planning Board for a
site plan review for Chamberlain Machine on Lot 2 of tonight’s approved Hubbard
subdivision. He asked if they could
submit additional materials prior to the Sept. 11th deadline as noted by the
Secretary in order to be placed on the agenda for a public hearing for that
meeting date. He wanted to know if there
was other information needed besides what is required in the zoning ordinance
under Rural Agricultural Article VIII. I a-g.
Sec. Aslinger referred to a letter sent to Mr. Tousley in March
reviewing the procedures for special exception recommendation. She said the letter referred to the Zoning
Ordinance Article VIII. Rural Ag. District, Special Exception I. a-g as
criteria the Board would use in order to make a recommendation. Attny. Kinyon agreed but questioned whether
the Board according to the regulations would consider anything beyond a. i) and
ii). Members agreed those two criteria
would be the only required. Attny.
Kinyon said they would be providing the Board with the zoning application and
other supporting information prior to the Sept. 11th final deadline but would
want the Board to address the two criteria above at the public hearing if the
Board agrees.
Ch.
Miller questioned whether a public hearing was necessary, his thinking in the
past the Board would make a non-binding review but usually not held a public
hearing. Sec. Aslinger said it is only
required for this particular zone and use change but it is required. Sec. Aslinger asked for clarification under
Section C. only a. i. and ii. would be reviewed by the Planning Board? Answer was yes, remaining criteria would be
reviewed by the Zoning Board.
C. Jack Franks - Minor 2 lot subdivision on
Ramsay Hill Rd. Not present.
D. Joe DiBernardo surveyor presented the Board
with preliminary plans for two minor 2 lot subdivision located on Barnett Hill
Rd. for Chris Monahan. On the first plan
it shows a 30 foot driveway that should be a 50 foot ROW, Joe will confer with
the road agent about the driveway. He
will be presenting both plans for the October meeting. The second plan was similar. Ch. Miller asked about restrictions on the
Webb Farm. Henry Fletcher said the restrictions were no longer in effect they
had a time limit on them that has expired.
VII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A.
The work session was cancelled for August.
B. Other
VIII. Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm
cc: All PB members, ZBA, BOS, Town Clerk, Fire,
Water, Road Dept.
Attny.
Kasper, Attny. Hockensmith
Posted: Town Hall, Burdick’s Market, www.walpoleplanningboard.org,,
www.thewalpolean.com