PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION
Oct. 25, 2005 7:30pm Town Hall
Unapproved Minutes
Members Present: Dave Edkins, Dave DeCoste, Eric Merklein, Ray
Boas, alt., Pamela Aslinger alt.
Members Absent: Jeff Miller, Ch., Henry Fletcher, Sheldon
Sawyer, Bob Miller, Fred Dill, alt.
Presiding: D. Edkins, V-Ch.
Recording: P. Aslinger, sec.
These minutes will be reviewed at the Nov. 8th, 2005
meeting.
I. Meeting opened: 7:35pm
V-Ch. Edkins designated R. Boas and P. Aslinger as alternates for J. Miller and H. Fletcher.
II. Old/Ongoing Business:
A. Zoning Amendments for 2006
1.
Mr. Edkins reviewed the planning board recommendations and discussed
the timing requirements for holding public hearings on amendments, referring to
the official schedule.
a. He described what the board had put forth for 2005, ie; limiting apartment building density to two per building, from the current zoning with no restrictions. He said the board had invited the opposing commercial property owners to the last work session, noting they had gathered a petition requiring the 2005 measure to pass by a 2/3rds vote. The measure had a majority vote within about 40 votes but did not pass by the required 2/3rds. The board felt their input would be valuable if the board wished to resubmit a limitation on the density for 2006. From that input, the planning board came up with a middle ground approach. Rather than strictly limiting the number of units or
units per acre, the board agreed to consider an “assessment of impact” based on the number of stories, percentage of lot to remain undeveloped and minimum number of parking spaces per dwelling unit. The result would be a number of units to be built, more clearly defined. Mr. Edkins had since been in contact with the Fire Chief who said three stories would be his preferred height limit. Mr. Edkins asked if members had suggestions on appropriate percentages of undeveloped lot space, he thought 30% sounded reasonable reminding it was the commercial zone we were considering. He said the 30% was a guess on his part. He felt the number of parking spaces could be ascertained by referring to a widely used “parking manual” showing the correct number of spaces for this type of development, he was thinking the number was 1 1/2 - 2 1/2, but would verify once he obtains a copy of the manual.
E. Merklein felt three stories was not in keeping with other Walpole buildings, that the height should be limited to two stories, although he recognizes the need for this type of housing in Walpole. Members reminded that this was proposed for the commercial district, which is designed to handle higher density and the Site Plan review process would guide design standards, leading to developments that would remain in keeping with Walpole’s specific style.
Audience members suggested having the quantity of open space contingent on the density, since density is a function of impact, that a higher rate of open space ie; up to 50% would be more desirable. Mr. Edkins warned, every lot would have its own possible design limitations, building designs may include one bedroom or 3 bedroom, it would be a function of design, so density vs. open space may not be a finite measure. V- Ch. Edkins said he was planning to have a draft ready for review at the November 8, 2005 meeting, reminding it isn’t final, these and other comments would be taken into consideration.
b. V-Ch. Edkins described a concern of Ch. Jeff Miller regarding the zoning ordinance allowing 2 family units on a single lot, but not allowing 2 single family homes on a single lot. Mr. Edkins said situations were arising where a property owner was putting up 2 single family homes on a single parcel and then connecting them with a breezeway. He said Mr. Miller felt a 2 family unit should be all on the same foundation, and that Mr. Miller would have additional wording suggestions at the next meeting. Members agreed by simply creating a definition of a 2 family dwelling unit in the ordinance, this concern might be remedied.
c. Mr. Edkins discussed a memo from Office of Energy and Planning requiring the board to amend the Flood Plain Ordinance within our present Zoning Ordinance under Article 18. OEP has provided the necessary re-wording and amendments that must be included in order for persons within the Flood Plain to obtain flood hazard insurance coverage. Mr. Edkins stated he would be in contact with OEP to have them provide the amendments in electronic form, in order for the board to more easily circulate the information and make it ready for the public hearing. He stated an entirely new mapping had been done as well.
Audience member George Watkins asked if the maps would be available for review. Mr. Edkins said he had seen Charlestown’s maps, the new maps are still in the review appeal phase but were done as aerial photos, the detail is significantly improved, building’s are actually visible. He suggested we locate the Walpole maps and have them available for the next meeting. He noted they should be reviewed for errors, citing several road name errors on the Charlestown maps.
2. P. Aslinger said she had asked the ZBA at its Oct. 19,2005 meeting if they had any suggestions for zoning amendments. The one they suggested was to allow commercial uses within the industrial zone, due to the excess amounts of variances they had granted in the southern Rte. 12 industrial zone, noting most of the present uses there, are of a commercial nature. The planning board agreed, citing the recently approved site plans in that zone and highly limited amount of industrial zone in the Town overall.
Audience member John Hansel reminded, by allowing commercial uses in the industrial zone, it would open the industrial zones to retail development, he would not want to see another shopping plaza within those areas. Board members agreed, discussing the limitations within the southern industrial zone, such as not having Town water and sewer and it not being well suited to another retail shopping plaza, that this suggestion had to be very carefully considered. Further discussion to be held at the Nov. 8 meeting with additional input from the zoning board.
3. Walpole Tomorrow’s suggestions were presented by Mr. John Hansel. He was accompanied by about 20 persons in the audience from his group. Mr. Hansel presented the board with an overview of their proposed amendments submitted at the prior meeting with the addition of a second Zoning amendment, not submitted at the previous meeting stating verbatim: Article VI Commercial District B. Uses Permitted, 3. One or more shops, restaurants or other retail establishments in a single building not exceeding 40,000 square feet in gross floor area. (Note: Connected buildings shall be considered a single building.) Walpole Tomorrow’s suggestions include an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Preamble and two suggestions to amend the Site Plan Review Regulations.
Mr. Hansel gave a brief history of Walpole Tomorrow Committee co-founded by Tucker Burr and Judson Gooding in 1999, formed in response to a threat by WalMart to bring a “big box” to Walpole. Under the leadership of Tucker Burr, the Committee succeeded in changing the Zoning Ordinance to restrict “big box” to 40,000 sq. ft. He cited the Committees effort to develop a Master Plan, adopted May 9, 2000. Currently the Committee is guided by this plan and continues to work closely with the Planning Board to see the guidelines established in the Master Plan are implemented and part of the Planning regulations. Mr. Hansel read a comment from Selectmen Charles Miller regarding the Master Plan and its significance to the Town of Walpole, it was from the minutes of the Planning Board May 9, 2000 meeting to adopt the Land Use Section of the Master Plan, the first major revision since 1985. “Mr. Charles Miller, chairman of the Master Plan Committee summarized the document by saying that Walpole citizens like Walpole the way it is. The Town is rural-based and residents do not want it to become a scenic/tourist center or a retail center. There is a “hands off” attitude toward development. Mr. C. Miller said the document (Master Plan) backs the ordinance but is not enforceable in court.”
Mr. Hansel stated his committee, submitted by petition to the Town in 2005, a request for a Special Town Meeting to consider declaring a moratorium during which time (a) not plans or proposals for development of commercial property in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. may be filed and (b) the planning board shall review the objectives outlined in the Master Plan, particularly as they relate to recent developments at the Plaza, and make such recommendations as it sees fit to implement those objectives as a means to guide the future development of commercial property in the Town of Walpole. The measure passed.
Mr. Hansel further commented that “impressed” after meeting with the Planning Board it was decided that a Special Town Meeting wasn’t needed as the Board agreed with their goal to implement the Master Plan through a recent revision of the Site Plan Review Regulations as well as other work the Board has undertaken for 2005 including the addition of the work sessions. The committee withdrew their request. He stated the committee has made a study of various ways in which the goals of the Master Plan could be set forth in the Zoning Ordinance without changing the Ordinance itself. They looked for ways to inject the spirit of the Master Plan into the ordinance and regulations as a guiding philosophy for both the Planning and Zoning Boards and equally important as a guideline or checklist for future developers of commercial property.
Mr. Hansel reviewed the two suggestions to amend the Site Plan Review
Regulations:
1) Section III Purpose, Add: According to Title LXIV, Planning and Zoning Chapter 674, Local Land Use Planning and Regulatory Powers every Planning Board shall “prepare a Master Plan to guide the development of the Municipality”. A Master Plan for the Town of Walpole was adopted by the Town in the year 2000. The purpose of this Planning Board is to meet the goals set forth in the Master Plan by following a procedure designed: In summary: see Section III Purpose 1st paragraph , no change in the wording was presented, just a revised format from a single paragraph to a “list” of purposes.
2) Section VII Submission Requirements C. 1 Other: Add: 9. (first line) On all commercial projects involving 10,000 square feet of floor space or more on the same foundation, an impact analysis study will be required, (rest is same).
10. (to read) Any additional reports or studies deemed necessary by the Planning Board to make an informed decision Adding: in fulfilling its obligations as outlined under Section III.
Mr. Hansel
stated the “Preamble” additional
wording his committee has suggested, relates the Master Plan and Site Plan
Review Regulations to the Zoning Ordinance.
It reads verbatim: Add:
(new second paragraph) The principle
purpose of this ordinance shall be as described in Title LXIV, Chapter 674 of
the Local Land Use Planning and Regulatory Powers to fulfill the goals and
objectives as set forth in the Town Master Plan, and as described in the Site
Plan Review Regulation, namely:
(1) To preserve the
scenic elements of the natural environment and protect Walpole’s land.
(2) To promote a
balanced growth.
(3) To guide the
character of development.
(4) To protect the
historic nature, the economic and aesthetic interests of the entire Town.
(5) To provide
aesthetically pleasing and compatible design of building and facilities with as
much open natural or landscaped areas as possible.
(continues with existing wording into a third paragraph)
In summary Mr. Hansel felt these changes would impact developers coming into Walpole, give them an insight as to what the Town wants for development. He stated the changes would guide the thinking of the applicant as well as the Zoning and Planning Boards, that all would be thinking in the same terms and values when reviewing proposals.
Board comments:
V-Ch. Edkins suggested the Board consider only the Zoning Changes at this point, due to time constraints for filing amendments. The Board agreed commenting briefly on the Site Plan Review changes, noting the suggested changes were not in conflict with the present regulations and could be considered without a Town vote, simply passed through the Planning Board after holding a Public Hearing. Board members agreed but noted the wording on Section VII needs consideration, ie: will, shall, may. V-Ch. Edkins asked to have the Board review these suggestions at the Nov. 8, 2005 meeting.
Board Members discussed the impact of the Committee’s second new Zoning amendment suggestion (see above), some asked whether it could be seen as antagonistic, whether it could be reversed through the variance process and what it would actually accomplish. Would it eliminate connected shopping centers, create a number of single large buildings on a site, would it be less desirable than the present limitation of retail establishments are not to exceed 40,000 sq. feet. Mr. Edkins asked how would we approach multiple single buildings on one lot? Mr. DeCoste, was the purpose of the additional change to clarify 40,000 sq. ft. limit, did the committee feel the current limitation was inadequate.
Mr. Hansel said under the current wording a developer could come in with a larger than 40,000 sq. ft. building claiming portions of it would be occupied by one retail establishment not exceeding the 40,000 sq. foot limit, but would include smaller spaces occupied by unrelated retailers. He said it is a snare and a delusion to think the larger retailer would not grow and eventually need a larger than 40,000 sq. ft. space, so would naturally open into the smaller areas, that it would be hard to prevent it. Mr. Sival noted that it is hard to insure the smaller retailer is not also a subsidiary of the larger retailer.
Mr. DeCoste said even with the proposed change, a developer could seek a variance and to consider the possible future changes that could occur in the retail markets, that an entirely new way of retailing could be possible in 30 years, he pointed to the existing Plaza and the changes underway from when it was first built.
Mr. Edkins stated that the 40,000 sq. foot limit was in response to a single “big box” store, that planners were not concerned with shopping centers or plazas or that kind of land uses, but with this change we would be moving into limiting that type of development. He said it was hard to make a definite decision on this, seeing it for the first time tonight, he felt the entire Board needed to consider this amendment very carefully and its potential impact.
Audience members questioned whether the new wording would limit the number of stories, the amount of single 40,000 sq. feet buildings that would be created and the impact and bulk of one single large store vs. a connected shopping center. Mr. Gordon asked if this wording had been in place prior to the Plaza, would the Plaza have been allowed? Answer was no.
Mr. Edkins asked for Board comments on the“Preamble” amendment, members had no objections but felt the entire Board needed to review the amendment. Mr. Edkins stated presentation of the amendments could be handled through and by the Planning Board or by petition by the Walpole Tomorrow committee, the timing for filing petitions runs from 11/14-12/14, so the Board would need to let Walpole Tomorrow know at the next meeting, Nov. 8, 2005. Mr. Hansel said the Committee would prefer to work with the Board and have the Board present the amendments. Members present agreed but felt the entire Board should make a final determination. R. Boas thought if the Planning Board made the presentation, we could vote to “recommend” the changes, thus showing Board support to the voters. Members felt some of the wording may need minor changes to be absolutely crystal clear as to what they are voting on. Mr. Edkins said we should anticipate the possibility of a petition requiring a 2/3rd’s vote on proposed amendments in the commercial district as happened in 2005.
The audience dispersed and the Board continued with its agenda.
Zoning Changes cont’d. P. Aslinger read a letter received from the Board of Selectmen regarding noise. The letter referred to Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey White of 35 Dearborn Circle, who complained about construction noises and hours of activity for construction. The Selectmen told the White’s the Town has no noise ordinance but would send their letter to the Planning Board for review and possible consideration of creating a noise ordinance for the Town. The Board members felt the responsibility for noise issues lies with the Police Department and is not a function of the Board and is so noted in these minutes. A suggestion was made to have the Police Dept. review Bellows Falls new noise regulation.
Old/Ongoing Business updates, B, C, D, E, F:
Capital Improvements program, no update other than at prior meeting J. Miller was going to contact Meredith at SWRPC regarding missing information from Town Offices and Recyling Center. Members commented on the complexity of the document and how to accurately apply it, that being a member of a regional school district further complicated it when it came to deciding on impact fees.
SWRPC Buildout/Mapping Study, no update, looking for information from SWRPC and what they have to offer.
Class VI Road Policy, develop a procedure, members discussed how the Board of Selectmen view Class VI and new roads, noting the BOS have said they will not accept any new roads unless by a Town vote, that according to the resolution, the BOS hold the public hearing, notify the Planning Board and request a recommendation from the Board.
P. Aslinger asked if the Planning Board could give the BOS a permanent standard recommendation, that the Board does not recommend, in any case, building on a Class VI road. Members felt each situation should be considered separately and that many homes already existed on Class VI roads. Mr. Edkins said even with the “waiver of responsibility” the Town emergency services would respond, or as in the recent flooding, Towns are being required to “make passable” some washed out Class VI roads. Members agreed the BOS was responsible for creating a procedure. Persons seeking a building permit on a Class VI road should meet with the Selectmen and not the Planning Board.
Subdivision Regulations Revision - Members agreed to table the revisions until after Town Meeting due to the current workload.
III. New Business
A. Budget increase request for 2006, due by Nov. 1, 2005. P. Aslinger reviewed the budget handout, showing an increase in the Secretarial salary by more than double due to the increased applications and additional meetings. She noted that by increasing the fees for both ZBA and PB it would greatly improve the revenue side of our budget. She reported the PB has processed 24 applications since Jan. 1, the ZBA another 7. She presented these figures to the ZBA at their 11/19 meeting, they commented on possibly separating the two Boards, so it would better reflect actual expenses by each of the Boards. The Planning Board showed no objections to the figures deciding to leave the SWRPC amount of 3200.00 for the next year, although we have no definite projects at this time. The Board asked that Pam show what the revenue side would have been if the new application fees had been in place. The Board agreed to submit the figures as presented, P. Aslinger will circulate the information to the absent members, and submit the budget on Nov. 1st as requested.
IV. Other
A. Agenda for Nov. 8, 2005 - P. Aslinger mentioned what applications were on the agenda, that the Cray application had been tabled, and an abutter from the Salak subdivision had contacted her regarding a wetlands issue, she asked them to be present at the meeting/public hearing. Ms. Aslinger noted that she would not be at the Nov. 8 meeting, that Regina Borden would be recording in her place.
B. Hearing notice revision - P. Aslinger provided the members with a revised Public Hearing noticed she generated on the suggestion of Mr. Edkins. She agreed the prior notices were lacking in some important information. The new notice mentions how long an application may remain on the Board’s agenda, the review and action process, where to respond in writing if an abutter or interested party is unable to attend the Public Hearing and where maps/applications are now being posted in the Lobby of the Town Hall. She said the new posting area has already been used twice by abutters and the Selectmen’s Office appreciates being able to direct the public to the information. The notice also tells the public where to find agendas, minutes and hearing notice postings including the Town’s website: www.walpolenh.us.
Members discussed the application filing process, noting applications are to be filed with the Board at the regular meeting and may be filed during a preliminary consultation. Once filed, the Board may vote to schedule the public hearing if it qualifies for an expedited review, ie; minor subdivisions, minor site plan, lot line adjustments, voluntary mergers only. The Board at the next meeting will then vote to accept the application as complete, hold the public hearing and take action. As a reminder: the Board may not accept applications until abutters have been notified. Mr. Edkins reminded the Board to use discretion when discussing an application at a preliminary consultation, not to go forward with a full review. P. Aslinger felt the Board should develop a procedure on how the Site Plan Review checklist is submitted. She suggested the checklist, which is a part of the application should be completed and request for waivers be submitted at the time of filing. She felt this step was being overlooked, due to the newness of the regulations. Mr. Edkins suggested P. Aslinger include procedure notes on the agenda’s as a guideline for the Board’s review since she creates the agenda and reviews the applications for initial completeness, all agreed.
Meeting was closed at 10pm.
Cc: All PB members, ZBA Chairman, Select’s Office
Posted: Town Hall,
Burdick’s Market, Town website: www.walpolenh.us