PLANNING BOARD MEETING
December 13, 2005 7:30PM Town Hall
Unapproved Minutes
Members Present: Dave Edkins,
Dave DeCoste, Eric Merklein, Henry Fletcher,
Sheldon Sawyer, Robert
Miller, Fred Dill, alt., Ray Boas, alt.
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch.
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec.
alt.
These minutes will be reviewed at the
January 10, 2006 meeting.
All notices were posted and abutters and public notified for all hearings.
Meeting was called to order at 7:35PM.
I. Roll call taken, all members present, minutes of Nov. 8 approved as written.
II. Review of application submitted. Edward and Katherine August, David and
Brenda Beauchamp, Lot Line Adj. High St. Map 21, Lot 23, Map 36, Map 21. Cindy Westover from Galloway Realty presented the application describing
a 5ft. x 419.19ft. sliver of land being consisting of a tree line from August to
Beauchamp referring to the
presented maps. A motion was made and seconded
to accept the application as presented, passed with all in favor.
III. Chairman Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing and called
for comments. George Jeffries, abutter stated he had no concerns over the
proposal. Being no further comments Ch. Miller closed the hearing and
reopened the meeting.
IV. Ch. Miller asked for Board questions and called for action. D. Edkins
asked how much land in acres was being transferred, was estimated to be
200 sq.
ft. A
motion was made and seconded to approve the lot line adj.
as presented, passed with all in favor. Maps were signed and mylar signed, P. Aslinger will record mylar Dec. 14th, all fees were collected.
V. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing to review the
proposed Zoning amendments. (Refer to Hearing Notice for exact wording)
#1 - Multifamily Housing - Discussion
Vice Ch. Dave Edkins gave a description and history of how the amendment
had been determined. He stated that for several years apartments have been
permitted in the Commercial Zone with no specific density criteria. The purpose
of this amendment would be to limit density, provide open space, parking standards and height restriction to 3 storys. The 2005 proposed amendment was defeated by a narrow margin because of a protest petition put forth requiring a 2/3rds vote. The amendment would have easily passed with a majority vote. The Board sought comments from the opposing group asking them to appear before the Board to express their concerns in order to reach a reasonable density level for the Commercial zone.
Page 2 PB Minutes 12/13/05
One suggestion was to determine density based on open space
minus parking and leave the rest to the creativity of the developer for either apart-
ments or condos. The developer could use the 3 criteria to create an economically feasible project. The 3 story limitation was suggested by the Fire Department, the Fire Chief stating the equipment could not go beyond a 3 story building.
Mr. John Hansel warned that a developer could purchase a new fire truck to cover
higher buildings. He preferred the 2 story, could that be amended? He said he wasn’t sure a large 3 story development was what the Town wants to see.
Dave Edkins noted some of the apartment buildings in the Town are 3 storys
and in some of the older homes, so not terribly out of keeping with the Town.
He reminded the Town needed some control, rather than none. He said this was
a way to suit the Town and reasonably accommodate the property owners, the
more restrictive approach of 2005 was successfully blocked by the 2/3rds vote petition put forth by the commercial property owners and could reoccur.
Mr. Bob Jasse asked if the Board would consider 3 story row houses under this
new amendment? He is not opposed to 3 story though it seems inconsistent with
the Town, wondered if we should perpetuate this, why not 2 story? He thought the mood may have changed regarding last years proposal.
D. Edkins repeated his warning over having nothing passed for 2006 if the commercial property owners are not considered in the proposed amendment.
Jason Munn asked what the other Board members thought.
Bob Miller said whether it is 2 story or 3 story, presently the Town is exposed to having an even larger development with no restrictions.
Ben__________asked why not state a limit based on the height of a building rather than a story.
D. Edkins said Fire Chief Hurlbutt told him no more than 3 storys. A story is
usually 9-11 feet high, allowing for a general approach rather than hard and fast
number.
Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman, said the State is short on low income housing. Towns are trying to keep it out, he said there is a need to have a good mix of housing types including low income.
Eric Merklein agreed with Sheldon to provide low income housing, he thought apartments being built are still not affordable for a low income person or even a young person starting out. He thanked Dave Edkins for adding the element of open space to the amendment, the importance of having a place for people to live and have a place for their kids to play outside. He showed a picture of what a 3 story large complex would look like, saying a 10 acre parcel could house 90
units under this proposal. He stated we need the housing but not at this high
density and scale. The 2 story limitation would be better and in keeping with the
Town’s character. With the 2 story limitation we would still be doubling the density proposed last year. He warned developers would not re-create old historic buildings, but cram the most buildings as possible on a site in the most cost effective manner.
Page 3 PB Minutes 12/13/05
Charles Montgomery said to consider Applewood, being a good example of a
2 story development.
Tom Rogers said you cannot regulate aesthetics, a 3 story can be made aesthetically pleasing, a poorly designed 2 story could be possible too. He asked how the amendment would read, and how would it be presented to the Town.
D. Edkins said tonight’s public hearing will reveal the wording, if it changes from 3 story to 2 story, a second public hearing would be held in January, would be published and posted and put forth on the warrant with the exact wording the
Board would vote on. The exact wording would not change after the January meeting. Mr. Rogers asked if the proposal allows for special exception. D. Edkins said no, a variance would be required. Mr. Rogers suggested the 2 story vs. 3 story could come back at the Town in a negative way, if a parcel is limited by the open space requirement it might force a developer to build out at 3 story’s.
Ben__________asked why the open space was at 30%, why not 25% or 40%.
Jason Munn said he appreciated the fact that the Board is getting something in place and preserving character. He was concerned the proposed amendment was weak, it couldn’t be backed up if challenged. Secondly he would rather see
a height limit in feet rather than in number of story’s.
Sheldon Sawyer reminded the proposal effects the Commercial zone only.
D. Edkins said we could spend more time on this issue, but we need to have a final proposal completed at the Jan.10 meeting in order to make the time limit for the March 2006 meeting.
John Burrows agreed the height should be in feet not story’s.
Bill Carmody remembered discussing height limitation with Herb Hurlbutt based on storys. He said he didn’t think going to 2 story guaranteed a more aesthetically pleasing building. He asked why not 2 1/2 with dormers?
Eric Merklein said he agreed with the 30% open space, making it a nice place to live, limiting the density to 2 story would be best, not for aesthetics but for density limitation.
J. Hansel asked if 2 story with a dormered roof would qualify?
D. Edkins said the intent is habitable story’s.
Tom Rogers asked if total parcel in paragraph B, means only 250 ft. in Comm.
District
D. Edkins said the development would need to remain in the Comm. zone only.
Ben____________agrees with the 2 story, but would rather see the height in feet.
He is concerned with only 30% open space, 70% developed and paved over seemed excessive.
Ch. Miller closed discussion on this amendment siting the need to allow for discussion on the other amendments.
Amendment #2 - Preamble reference to
Master Plan
Ch. Miller asked John Hansel of Walpole Tomorrow to present the amendment.
Mr. Hansel said Walpole Tomorrow felt the Zoning and Planning Boards should be concerned about the criteria for review. The preamble expansion to include the Master Plan adds to the
Page 4 PB Minutes 12/13/05
concept of planning rather than actual law. Purpose is to establish key points, establish a guideline for ZBA, PB and applicant. The preamble contains the
five most important principal’s. He hoped the ZBA, PB could use the words from the Master Plan to form a judgment to guide the community’s development.
Ch. Miller called for questions or comments from the audience, being none moved to the next amendment.
Amendment #3 - Floodplain Ordinance
revisions and maps
D. Edkins began showing the new maps as compared to the old maps. The new maps are delineations superimposed on aerial maps on a much larger scale than before, improving identification of individual properties. The existing zoning ordinance has included Floodplain Ordinances since 1981, the ordinance being a result of the National Emer. Management Associations job to minimize potential damages to private property and to allow for flood hazard insurance not covered under a homeowner’s policy.
An audience member asked for clarification of the color indications. D. Edkins said the 100 year flood is shown in blue, the 500 year in black, although the 500 year zone is not recognized for insurance purposes. The 100 year floodplain is based on a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. He said N. Walpole like
Charlestown was susceptible to ice jamming above the dam in Bellows Falls. He said the new maps will be incorporated in the ordinance May 23, 2006. In addition to the maps the Flood ordinance is undergoing some editorial revisions as noted in the posted notice, he read through them and read through a list of definitions. He said the Town must adopt the changes put forth by the Office of Energy and Planning and FEMA to remain in compliance to provide flood insurance. Mr. Hansel asked if the changes applied to the floodplain only?
Mr. Edkins answered, the floodplain and floodway, the floodway being more heavily regulated. Mr. Edkins noted one glitch was N. Walpole not having a flood ordinance as part of their zoning, the State OEP was aware and willing to work with N. Walpole for adoption. Mr. Edkins said he had been in touch with the zoning officers, extending an offer to recind Walpole’s ordinance and adopt it as a Town-wide ordinance. Without a response in time for the legal posting for the hearing, he stated they are now on their own to meet the requirements.
Mr. Jasse asked if N. Walpole had the same obligation as Walpole.
Mr. Edkins said they do, their Town meeting is later in the year so they have more time to address it. He said he was concerned if N. Walpole isn’t in compliance, could the whole Town be rejected by FEMA? N. Walpole was supposed to adopt Flood Ordinance 25 years ago. He mentioned N. Walpole adopted zoning in 1955, by special State legislation and are responsible for their own ordinance. The Walpole Planning Board has no jurisdiction, but does process their subdivision applications. N. Walpole shares other Town departments such as Highway, Police, Fire Dept. He concluded by saying the State OEP and FEMA are aware of N. Walpole’s non-compliance and will work be working with them, the Walpole Planning Board would continue to conform to OEP and FEMA’s requirements as this proposed amendment is intended to do.
Page 5 PB Minutes 12/13/05
Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the meeting.
He delayed action on the amendments until later in the meeting, passed over Old
Business and called for New Business.
Elizabeth from William Lawrence Associates presented an application for a 3 lot subdivision located on County Rd. and Stevens Lane for Grace and William Therrian. (She submitted an old application form, was given a new application form) The Board discussed the proposal noting the new lots left the original lot without frontage on a Class V road. The Board stated the proposal was not in compliance with the required zoning and not allowable. Lot 1 contains the residence of the applicant and has frontage on a private road only. The Board suggested the applicant could apply for a variance to seek relief on the frontage requirements.
Alan Johnson for RN Johnson 2 lot subdivision - located on Main St. Mr. Johnson presented his plans, the Board reviewed them noting they met the basic zoning requirements. The Board asked he have the surveyor place a locus map on the final maps showing where the new lot was coming from. A suggested was made to ask the surveyor to provide a better quality mylar than in the past, the Registry of Deeds had rejected his mylar’s in the past because they were too dark.
D. Edkins asked about a delineated wall, Mr. Johnson stated it was simply a retaining wall, not a building. A motion was made to schedule a Public Hearing for the January 10, 2006 meeting provided Mr. Johnson completed the application and submitted the fees by the deadline, seconded, passed unanimously. Sec. Aslinger asked Mr. Johnson to provide the materials no later than 12/20.
Michael Neary Lot Line Adjustment - located on March Hill involving 3 lots.
Mr. Neary provided maps of the somewhat complicated reconfiguration of boundary lines to follow existing and new stonewalls. The Board determined the application is for one single boundary line adjustment, Mr. Neary submitted the application, including abutter list and fees. The Board voted in favor to schedule a Public Hearing for the January 10, 2006 meeting.
Mr. Jeff White of Dearborn Circle - presented his concerns over the excessive noise of an abutting property owner’s new house construction, mainly at very early or very late hours. He asked the Board to clarify the zoning district for the Dearborn Circle area. Board members agreed the development is in the Commercial Zone, although it is being taxed as Residential B. Mr. Edkins stated when the project came before the Planning Board, the developer had included convenants that the parcels could only be used as residential, thereby explaining the tax status. Mr. White said the covenants vary in terms of years of expiration, that he felt if the zoning could be changed to Res. B, the property owners would have better protection regarding, noise and nuisances such as trash and traffic and be entitled to “quiet use and enjoyment of their property”.
He described some of the actions he has taken to address the noise including calling the Police on several occasions and meeting with the Selectmen. He asked if the Board would consider adding a Noise ordinance.
Page 6 PB Minutes 12/12/05
Mr. Edkins encouraged Mr. White to consider petitioning the Town to change the Zoning from Commercial to Residential B, the Board would support the change, although they are too late for this year. He stated the Planning Board could not enforce the covenants, the property owner has the right authority to uphold the terms of the covenants. He said the Town ordinance does not provide for noise, but the Selectmen would have the authority to adopt a noise ordinance under general police power if they choose. Sheldon Sawyer said it is very hard to decide who disturbs who when it comes to construction or even lawn mowing.
Mr. Carmody a resident and property owner adjacent to the Dearborn Circle development lives in one of the apartments in his commercial building so he is aware of what it is like to have a residence within a commercial district. He said in the summer especially the noise from the traffic on the Upper Walpole Rd. can become excessive especially when Cold River gravel pit is opened late at night for night paving. He proposed the Town set a weight restriction on the road from dusk until 7am. The Board reiterated the suggestion to Mr. White to consider a petition to re-zone the area. He agreed and stated he and his wife would be working on it for next year, and appreciated the Board’s consideration. Jeff Miller suggested Mr. White contact the owner’s of Reel to Reel about their late evening lawn mowing and hoped the neighboring construction project would be a temporary situation. Mr. White reminded the Board of the possible Berkshire Development’s impact on Dearborn Circle, to keep them in mind.
Scott Smith 2 lot subdivision - located on County Rd. Mr. Smith explained in 1975 the original lot
was developed into 4 lots, his 2 lots were annexed in 1995, he would like to
return it back to 2 lots, the line being in the same exact place. The lots meet frontage, setback and frontage
requirements, and the new lot will need State subdivision approval since it is
under 5 acres, the lot with the existing house would not need state sub. approval.
A suggestion was made to Mr. Smith to
check back in the old records to see if an existing approval is on file. He asked if a shared driveway would be
ok. The board agreed, being less curb
cuts as long as the deed includes the shared driveway and maintenance
responsibility clearly spelled out. Mr.
Smith said Mr. DiBernardo would be revising the plans but new plans were not
available yet. Mr. Smith submitted the
application and fees, he expected the maps before the next meeting
deadline. A motion was made and seconded to schedule the proposal for a Public
Hearing at the January 10, 2006 meeting pending receipt of the maps by Dec.
26th. Vote was unanimously in favor.
John Hansel handed out a copy of the exact wording from the Master Plan stating “in order to limit the possibility of the Town becoming a regional economic center, limit building sizes to 40,000 sq. ft.” Mr. Hansel said this information may be useful at the Public Hearing to be held on the petitioned amendment submitted by Walpole Tomorrow to the Selectmen on Monday.
P. Aslinger asked if the wording in the Master Plan had led to the present article in the current zoning ordinance and would be used to interpret it to mean per
Page 7 PB Minutes 12/13/05
building rather than per retail establishment. Mr. Edkins said the Master Plan came after the zoning ordinance restricting size, the current wording was designed to keep out big box stores, namely Wal-Mart at the time. The Board agreed the current zoning ordinance can not be interpreted to mean single building as the proposed amendment stipulates.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Sawyer if the Selectmen had received the petitioned and asked for them to forward it to the Secretary for processing. It was determined the Selectmen did not need to delay bringing it to the Planning Board until the
Selectmen meet on Thursday the
15th, one day after the official deadline for submitting petitioned
amendments. Mr. Sawyer said they had
received the petition and agreed with the Board on the submission. The
Board moved and seconded to schedule the public hearing for the Jan, 10, 2006
meeting, vote was unanimously in favor.
VIII. Ch.
Miller called for action on the proposed zoning amendments as presented.
#3 - Flood Plain Revisions - Moved
and seconded to approve the amendment
as
presented and to place it on the Town Warrant for March 2006.
All
in favor, motion carried.
#2 - Walpole Tomorrow Preamble
Reference to MasterPlan - Moved and
seconded to approve the amendment as
presented and to place it on the
Town Warrant for March
2006. All in favor, motion carried.
#1 - Multi-family Housing - Moved
and seconded to approve the amendment
as presented and to place it on the
Town Warrant for March 2006.
Ch. Miller called for discussion, E. Merklein moved to amend the motion to read “8 a. change 3 story to 2 story”. Motion to amend from 3 story to 2 story was seconded. Ch. Miller called for further discussion.
H. Fletcher asked how many acres are in the Commercial Zone? Fred Dill
answered 220 acres, less Dearborn Circle area. Mr. Fletcher said how much was buildable, answer was most of it.
E. Merklein said he thought 2 story would be easier to pass than 3 story.
D. Edkins said he didn’t understand why some were against 3 story vs. no restrictions. Sheldon Sawyer said he thought 3 story would be much more expensive to build.
Eric Merklein said he was more concerned about controlling density, not the aesthetics or economic issue, and stressed he wasn’t convinced a project built under this proposal being 3 or 2 story would insure affordable or low income housing.
R. Boas stated he was in favor of the proposal as presented, to get a control measure on the books, reduce our vulnerability.
J. Miller stated there has been a lot of interest on Rte. 12, as more pressure is placed on Keene, the land here becomes more vulnerable especially within the next 3-5 years. He said the Board could revisit the restriction in a year and make adjustments then. He said he favored 2 story over 3 but is concerned it won’t pass with the needed support of the commercial property owners. He felt this
amendment once passed would offer the Town the protection it is intended to
Page 8 PB Minutes 12/13/05
provide. He noted if last years amendment had passed it was far more restrictive than this proposal.
D. Edkins said in the spirit of compromise he would support 2 story vs. 3 story if the Board chooses.
Mr. Carmody said he has a vested interest in the Commercial Zone and loves the Town, this amendment is about as tight and restrictive as he would like to see.
He doubted whether the Town would see a high rise in one of the agricultural fields, the amendment refers strictly to the limited amount of commercial zone available. He supported the amendment as presented.
P. Aslinger remarked that a high rise would be unlikely since the Fire Dept. can only protect 3 storys, to keep in mind the actual possibility of what could be designed. She said until Eric showed the picture of the larger 3 story development, she hadn’t considered the potential scale the amendment would allow. She agreed it was best to submit the amendment as is rather than have it defeated by the commercial property owners and continue without protective restrictions of any kind. She agreed a 2 story building could just as easily be built on a low budget, perhaps marketability would determine the quality and the quantity. She said the other regulations, Site plan review and Subdivision,
would add to the design element of projects, allowing Planning Board input.
Ch. Miller called for a vote on the amendment to the motion stating a
yes vote would be in favor of changing 3 story to 2 story, a no vote would
defeat the amendment to the motion. The
vote was called, the no’s prevailed, motion to amend the motion was defeated.
Ch. Miller called for a vote on the original motion to present zoning
amendment #1 Multifamily Housing as written and to place it on the Town Warrant
for March 2006. The vote was called, the
yes’s prevailed, motion carried.
XI. Ch. Miller asked what happened to the definition amendment for Dwellings he
had proposed. Sec. Aslinger explained according to the minutes and discussion at
previous meetings she thought it would be placed within the Subdivision Regulations. Both Mr. Edkins and Mr. Miller agreed it should be included in the Zoning Ordinance. A motion was made to schedule Amendment #5 Add to Article XVII Defintions: P. Dwelling: Means a building of common foundation. A one or two family dwelling will share the same foundation per lot for a Public Hearing at the January 10, 2006 meeting, seconded, passed unanimously.
B. Handouts, P. Aslinger noted each member was given a new meeting schedule
for the next year and an informational bulletin on Developments of Regional Impact written by SWRPC. Henry Fletcher and Sheldon Sawyer asked to have their minutes mailed, other members unable to open e-mails sent by Pam are obtaining the information from the Town’s website.
The Board agreed to hold off addressing the Site Plan Review amendments until March. Sec. Aslinger reminded she would be gone for Jan. and Feb. and she would prefer to handle the changes when she returns. The Board agreed. She
noted several other housekeeping projects needed on the Regulations, such as
Page 9 PB Minutes 12/13/05
updating Appendix B Road Standards, the Table of Contents and separating out the ordinances into their own separate section.
The Board agreed to hold the necessary hearings on the newly completed Capital Improvements Program in March as well. The board asked to have individual copies for review.
IX. Unfinished
Business
Ch. Miller and V-Ch. signed maps and mylar for Dance, signed maps for Salak,
the mylar for Salak has not been presented, Sec. Aslinger will contact Ms. Salak.
Meeting Closed at 10:15PM
Cc: All members, ZBA, Select’ Office, Fire Dept.
Town Clerk
Posted: Town Hall, Burdick’s Market and website
.