Town of Walpole, NH 03608

PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION

May 23, 2006 7.30PM in the Town Hall

Unapproved Minutes

Members Present: Jeff Miller, Ch., Bob Miller, VCh., Dave Decoste, Henry Fletcher, Sheldon Sawyer, Ben Daviss, Pamela Aslinger, Alt., David Edkins, Alt.

Absent: Eric Merklein, Ray Boas, Alt.

Presiding: Jeff Miller

Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Secretary

Note: The meeting was tape-recorded, these minutes are NOT a verbatim transcription of the tapes.

These minutes will be reviewed at the June 13, 2006 meeting to be held at the Walpole Primary School at 7:30pm.

Notice of the meeting was properly posted.

The meeting was called to order at 7:35pm. One member absent, no alternate appointed.

OLD/ONGOING BUSINESS

Ch. Miller diverted from the agenda began with announcing the Board had scheduled this work session to address Board review of the South Meadow/North Meadow Plaza aka

Walpole Properties/Berkshire Development Proposal at the May 9, 2006 meeting. He said the Board intended to have a representative from the NH Dept. of Transportation to answer questions and update of the site layout for the entrance/exit at tonight’s meeting. He said the rep. would have something ready for the June 13th meeting. He said he did talk to a Bill Oldenburg at the State level, they are in process of reviewing the design plans. Ch. Miller said further discussion would be taken up at the June 13 meeting.

Ch. Miller said the Board had also requested to review issues with Legal Counsel regarding square footage and conflict of interest. He called for a motion to move into a non-public executive session to discuss pending legal litigation matters that may face the Board. Dave DeCoste so moved, seconded by Ben Daviss. Ch. Miller called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously.

The Planning Board moved to the basement office, deliberated until 8:35 PM.

The Planning Board returned upstairs to the regular meeting at 8:35PM.

Ch. Miller said the Board would continue with the workshop.

Fred Dill stated he would like to recuse himself from discussion and deliberations on the Walpole Properties proposal, siting his financial interests. He said he would like to sit in the audience, watch, learn and listen. Ch. Miller said as an alternate member he was more than welcome to do that if Mr. Dill feels it is appropriate. Mr. Dill left the table and sat in the audience.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/23/06 page 2

David Edkins stated in light of the questions raised over his participation and as an alternate member of the Board, he requested the Board to vote on whether they felt he had a conflict of interest. He said he did not feel he had a conflict, had signed the protest petition relative to the zoning amendment itself, which was consistent with the position the Board had taken on the amendment. He said it had nothing to do with the project before the Board, he has not reached any conclusions on it. He added because a question had been raised, he would ask the Board to vote on whether he should be disqualified.

Mr. Daviss moved that Mr. Edkins remain at the table during the discussions of Berkshire hearings and has no apparent conflict. Seconded by Mr. DeCoste, vote taken, motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Fletcher asked the Planning Board to vote on whether he should be disqualified from action on the Berkshire proposal due to conflict of interest. He said he had absolutely no interest in Pinnacle View, owned by his brother, who was a signer on the protest petition. Ch. Miller called for a similar motion to Mr. Edkins’ being no conflict, so Henry Fletcher could remain as a full acting member of the Planning Board. Moved by Ben Daviss, seconded by Dave DeCoste, vote taken, motion passed unanimously.

Ch. Miller called for review on the Walpole Properties/Berkshire Development proposal:

He said of primary concern was DOT’s review but we couldn’t address it at this time.

He called for other issues.

Mr. Edkins agreed that traffic was one of several issues, such as landscaping, bonding, looking at Kevin Russell’s list. He said including DOT, other permits were still pending such as the Alteration of Terrain Permit, although Sec. Aslinger thought that had been completed. Also status of sewer and water connections, clarify installation of systems. He said those items should be addressed prior to the Board’s final decision on the application.

Mr. DeCoste asked if two buildings are allowed on one lot. Sec. Aslinger said she had raised that question earlier. Mr. Edkins said he had never heard that question raised before, many businesses in the commercial district had more than one building. Ms. Aslinger said they were accessory buildings, such as Fall Mountain Building’s pole barns, but the Zoning Ordinance does not allow accessory use buildings in the Commercial District.

Mr. Edkins said he had never heard that issue raised before, although it was a valid question and should be looked at. Ch. Miller and others said they could not think of another situation where two separate buildings, with two separate uses existed on one lot.

Mr. Dill stated a building permit was issued to a cabinet shop on the same lot as the Baseball batting cage business in the Industrial Zone last fall. The Selectmen issued the permit without requiring a Site Plan Review, or notifying the Planning Board. The Board agreed to inquire about whether a Site Plan should have been conducted.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/23/06 page 3

Mr. Edkins said Ms. Aslinger had raised this subdivision question in an e-mail to Kevin Russell at SWRPC. She said she had discussed it with the Board at the April 11th meeting.

Mr. Hanna interjected saying it was never discussed at any meeting he attended. She said he left prior to the meeting being over, he argued that he had never left before a meeting was closed. Ch. Miller intervened.

Referring to Ms. Aslinger’s and Mr. DeCoste’s question, Mr. Edkins and Ch. Miller said they did not see in the ordinance anywhere, where it allows only one building on one lot. Ms. Aslinger asked the members to refer to the Zoning Ordinance under Article VI. B Commercial District. Uses Permitted which states “A building may be erected, altered or used and a lot may be used or occupied only for the following purposes and in ac-cordance with the following provisions”. She said she reads that to mean a building/one building, on a lot/one lot. Mr. Edkins said he did not agree because every item listed after that is in the plural. She said she sees those plural items being allowed in a/one building on a/one lot. Mr. Edkins disagreed saying he thought she was reading something into the ordinance that isn’t there. Ch. Miller said he thought it was a good question, Mr. Edkins said he wasn’t saying it wasn’t a good question.

Ms. Aslinger said being new to the Town and it’s ordinances her intent was to clarify what the ordinances mean. After serving for 18 years on the Warner Planning Board and dealing with ordinances, she reads Walpole’s ordinances the way she had read and understood Warner’s ordinances. To see what subdivision means in Walpole,

she read the definition of “subdivision” within Walpole’s subdivision regulations noting it means: the division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two or more lots, plats, sites, or other divisions of land for the purpose …of sale, rent, lease, condominium conveyance, or building development etc. She asked if the North Meadow Plaza had been subdivided under that definition. Mr. Edkins said Ames built the original building and they later decided to subdivide the Ames building off from the other section so they could own their building and the land it was on. He mentioned they sought a variance because of not meeting building setbacks. He said all other stores are on a single parcel, the Shaw’s building is owned separately from the land it is on. Mr. DeCoste asked if it was done through the subdivision process, Mr. Edkin’s said Ames requested it, not because it was a requirement. Ch. Miller said yes, like the Bank, it was subdivided. Mr. Edkins said he thought of a shopping center as a use of the property, whether it has multiple establishments, tenants or even buildings it is all the same use. Ms. Aslinger said she thought the definition of subdivision allowed for the grouping of businesses in one building, that she did not see where the proposed larger building would require subdivision, just the separate restaurant building. She said Kevin Russell of SWRPC thought the ordinances were ambiguous on this issue, to look around the Town for a similar situation. She said she thought of Fall Mountain Building Supply and Pinnacle View’s pole barn/lumber storage/equipment storage areas. Although the ordinance does not allow accessory use buildings, she considered these spaces as necessary buildings much like the loading dock at the proposed grocery store, a location to temporarily house inventory, accept shipments and deliveries. But she did not see how a restaurant in a separate building could be considered even an accessory use building to the grocery store.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/23/06 page 4

She said she felt it was important to avoid creating a situation where an applicant would not be in conformance with the subdivision regulations, this was her purpose in asking the question. Mr. Edkins said he doubted it was ever interpreted that way before or would interpret it that way now, but the worst case scenario would be, Berkshire would have to create a new lot for the restaurant. She added accessory use buildings that are not allowed in the Commercial district should be considered for a zoning amendment if they are thought to be allowed or should be allowed. Mr. Sawyer asked what happens if there are two separate buildings on two separate lots and one person buys both, isn’t it allowed. Answer was yes because they would already be subdivided. Mr. Sawyer mentioned the cabinet shop and batting cages were an instance of two separate buildings/uses on the same lot. Members agreed the cabinet shop situation needed review, that it had never come before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review therefore the Board would not have been able to apply this interpretation. Mr. Edkins still felt the interpretation was brand new and the Board was in uncharted territory. Ch. Miller said it was a new question, but he couldn’t remember two distinct uses and buildings on one property allowed in the Town.

Letters for the record

Ch. Miller asked to have noted in the minutes 10 letters had been received by the Board from concerned citizens regarding the Berkshire development. Sec. Aslinger added that more had come in throughout the week, now totaling 5 original letters and 14 form letters. She began reading the names, was interrupted by Mr. Hanna objecting to comments coming to the Board after the Public Hearing had been closed, he couldn’t speak tonight since it was closed. Sec. Aslinger said she was going to say, after she acknowledged who the letters had been submitted by, the Board does not have to read them into the record for them to be part of the record. Mr. Hanna objected to them even being part of the record or to name names since they were written and received outside the process. Ch. Miller said he just wanted to acknowledge the letters and would leave it at that. Ms. Aslinger disagreed with Mr. Hanna’s objection.

Ch. Miller asked if there was anything else.

Sheldon Sawyer moved to adjourn the meeting until the June 13 meeting.

Con’t review Walpole Properties/Berkshire proposal

Ben Daviss asked what the Board’s jurisdiction was on regarding traffic safety issues on both the inside and outside of the Berkshire proposal.

Ch. Miller said after his conversation with DOT, the Board would be waiting to hear from them. That the State’s responsibility is to accept a design they feel would work, it’s not their job to say you can’t do this because of a,b,c, that it(DOT report) always is added as a condition of approval.

Ben Daviss asked if the State had the final word, we couldn’t challenge their decision? Ch. Miller said he thought the Board could have some input and it is why he invited the Regional person come. D. DeCoste asked if the Board had safety concerns, could the Board deny the application based on those concerns.

Sec. Aslinger asked to read aloud her notes from the conversation she had with Mr. CR Willeke of the Regional District Office in Swanzey. She had spoken to Mr. Willeke to

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/23/06 page 5

obtain the State contact person at the request of Ch. Miller. Ch. Miller had also spoken with Mr. Willeke that day, 5/17/06. The notes stated: “Mr. Willeke said he had contacted Concord last Thursday (5/10) that Concord’s review of the study and concept plans on their part was almost done. He did not feel it would be ready for our 5/23/06 meeting/work session, but might be ready for the June 13th meeting. Mr. Willeke will forward a copy of Concord’s recommendations, once available, to the Town. He said the District Office will or will not concur with the recommendations. He said there didn’t seem to be a signal needed, basically it is a very similar configuration, with turning lanes etc., to the existing North Meadow Plaza. He said his office would be the overseer of all recommendations. I asked Mr. Willeke if the Board has safety concerns, are we to just assume the State DOT’s review was the final word? Mr. Willeke said his agency cannot deny the traffic proposal or deny them access to Rte. 12 as long as it meets the standardized criteria his office uses for review. He said for a development of that size, the standard criteria can be met, especially since there is a development of similar size next door. I asked him since we did not know who the tenants were going to be, could the numbers be accurate as to traffic flow? He said some of the numbers were based on a grocery store, but agreed the second building and other spaces were unknown. He said Concord will check to see if it needs a traffic signal, and the District Office will double check that recommendation by doing their own analysis to see if it is warranted. He said Concord views projects mainly “on paper”. The District Office relies on the physicality of the location, they use seven specific “warrants” in their determination including crash history. I reminded him the Townspeople are the ones driving the area, there is no way to quantify the “near misses” we all experience at the present Plaza. I asked if he would be able to come to a Board meeting to answer the surfacing concerns over the traffic, scale and safety of the proposal. He stated he would rather appear before the Board once the Concord review is in, and his office has had a chance to review what Concord is recommending. I asked him if the Board could send along their concerns, he said yes, he had received a letter from a citizen in Town, he prefers to have them in written form not by e-mail. He reminded that his District Office is the correct contact for the Board, not the Concord agency. Chairman Miller said he invited Mr. Willeke to the June 13th meeting at 7:30pm.”

Sec. Aslinger said she hoped the notes answered some of the Board’s questions.

Mr. Daviss asked if the State presents us with an ok for a plan, it’s not within our purvue to say no this isn’t ok, this lane needs to be longer etc., do we have to take or leave it? Ch. Miller agreed, but Mr. Willeke is willing to take input.

Mr. Sawyer withdrew his motion to adjourn.

NEW BUSINESS

Sec. Aslinger asked to go over the remaining agenda items, beginning with a letter received from Mr. Larry Burdick: Mr. Burdick wrote a letter to the Board saying the minutes reflected an untruth about where deliveries were to be made at the new location. The minutes state three different ways the deliveries would be taken on the side only. Mr. Burdick said they would be taking deliveries in the back. Ch. Miller, Mr. Edkins and Mr. Sawyer were certain they thought deliveries were going to be made at the back of the

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/23/06 page 6

building only. Sec. Aslinger said the minutes she took did not show that, specifically an abutter in attendance asked if deliveries would be made at the back, Burdick’s representative (Cathy) said no, only on the side. The abutter would be the one most affected by rear deliveries. The Board decided to write Mr. Burdick a letter acknowledging his concern and adding it to his file. Members did not feel it should be re-heard, Mr. Sawyer said he didn’t see where there would be a conflict.

Meeting location change for June 13th

Secretary Aslinger reminded the Board that the June 13th meeting will be held at the Walpole Primary School Building due to Graduation taking place at the Town Hall, extra notices have been posted, the Principal will be putting up a sandwich board at the High School to direct persons to the Primary School.

Capital Improvements Program

Secretary Aslinger asked the Board to consider holding a Public Hearing, June 13th for the adoption of the Capital Improvements Program completed by SWRPC, since the agenda was lighter than usual, the hearing notice had been created, it was just a matter of posting and providing a couple of copies for public review. She said the Town had spent $5000.00 to create it, the Board should be prudent in getting it adopted. She reminded the Board she will be gone from June 19 through August 10. She was hoping to have this done ahead so as not to leave it for Regina Borden, who will be covering while she is away. Ch.Miller and Mr. Edkins felt it would be better to wait until after the Board had completed the Berkshire proposal, that it should be moved to July at the earliest, thus allowing for a more complete review of the document. Mr. Sawyer said it was a rather easy process to adopt it and it was not disputable. (tabled until June meeting)

Other

Mr. Sawyer said the DOT was holding a hearing on the 27th regarding the bridge over the Cold River. He said input would be appreciated. Ch.Miller asked if the center abutment would change the course of the river. Mr. Sawyer said the public was used to seeing the center abutment in the stone arch bridge. He said DOT had considered relocating the bridge but because of steep slopes and moving houses they decided to replace the bridge.

Walpole Properties/Berkshire proposal deadlines

Sec. Aslinger reminded the Board of the “day” in the review process of Berkshire’s Proposal. As of 5/23/06 we are at day 34 of the additional 65 day extension. April 11 was day 57 of the first 65 day period, April 19 was day 65. June 13 is day 55 of the extension, June 23 is the 65th day. She said if the Board was considering an extension these dates should be kept in mind. Mr. DeCoste said he didn’t think a final decision could be made on the proposal without the DOT report, members agreed and in hopes the plans could be available by the June 13 meeting.

Sec. Aslinger said she had mentioned in the agenda items, if the applicant submitted new materials or when the DOT study came in, the Board could schedule a second public hearing, that those items should be reviewed under public hearing process. Just because this phase is closed doesn’t mean the Board couldn’t hold an additional hearing.

Walpole Planning Board Meeting 5/23/06 page 7

Mr. DeCoste asked when the bonds etc. would be written.

Mr. Edkins said the Board needs to craft them and put them into its decision, they would be the details of the final decision, and negotiated with the applicant.

Mr. Daviss asked who was responsible for writing those kinds of items.

Mr. Edkins stated the Board was, by pulling together a proposal,

Ch. Miller said it was interesting because it does come from the Board, the Board has to come to a decision whether it is a good proposal or bad proposal. If there is a prevailing motion that it’s for certain reasons it is a no go, then you don’t have to deal with the conditions. If a motion is in favor of the proposal then the conditions would be part of the motion, and listed. He said a voting member of the Board even now, has the perogative, they could be putting it together now.

Other

Sec. Aslinger asked to clarify Mr. Hanna’s attack about the question on the subdivision not being brought up at a meeting he attended, needed to be settled. (Mr. Hanna was not present) that in fact Mr. Hanna and the Berkshire group did leave before the meeting was over. Ch. Miller said he knew it was brought up during the meeting and not to worry about it, the subdivision question was legitimate and needed to be addressed no matter who raised it. Mr. Edkins said honestly it is not a big deal they can just subdivide the lot. Ms. Aslinger agreed, her intent was to simply understand the regulations, the ordinances are so thin. Mr. Sawyer felt when Ms. Aslinger had brought it up, no one on the Board seemed to be interested so it should have left Ms. Aslinger with the impression that it wasn’t a big deal. Mr. DeCoste said he had originally brought up the question not Ms. Aslinger. Ch. Miller said he thought it was an interesting concept. Mr. Edkins said in the grand scheme of things what is to gained by drawing an imaginary line across that lot, how does it make it a better or worse project. Ch. Miller said so it conforms to the subdivision regulations. Ms. Aslinger agreed saying, so it simply conforms to what is written in the ordinance. Mr. Edkins said he thought Ms. Aslinger’s interpretation was a stretch to begin with. She said so does Mr. Hanna, she is only acting as a board member trying to contribute to the review. Mr. Edkins said he wasn’t criticizing, he just didn’t agree.

Mr. Fletcher said that there are seven members on the Board, there is some give and take to be expected.

Mr. Miller said he still couldn’t come up with another situation in Town where two separate use buildings were on the same lot.

Mr. Fletcher asked about Pinnacle View’s additional building. Ch. Miller said it would be an accessory use, an expansion of the same use. It wasn’t as if Pinnacle View asked to have a second building in the back of their property for a Real Estate office, which would be an example of two distinct uses. He said he cannot think of any approval or denial the Board has made regarding the issue because it has not happened. He said North Meadow Plaza could have been an instance but they went through the subdivision process because everyone wanted to own their own property. Ms. Aslinger said this was her point, North Meadow Plaza did follow the subdivision requirement. Ch. Miller said he could

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/23/06 page 8

understand where you can see the interpretation and it is one of those issues that needs to be clarified just like the 40,000 sq. foot issue.

Mr. DeCoste said it is possible if an applicant came in with two buildings/uses on one lot, then the Board could possibly deny the entire proposal if the Board didn’t want one or the other building, therefore the subdivision regulations provide the protection against that action. He said to look at it from a turned around position.

Mr. Sawyer said but the Board is only concerned with the one building at present because nothings been proposed for the second building.

Ch. Miller said no, both buildings are shown on the plan and will be built if approved.

Mr. DeCoste said the point is, if part of the proposal doesn’t meet the regulations, then should the entire proposal be denied?

Mr. Daviss said this is why it needs subdividing.

Mr. Sawyer said if there is only one part that doesn’t work, why deny the entire project.

Mr. DeCoste strongly disagreed with Mr. Sawyer, the whole project needs to meet the regulations because it is all on one parcel.

Mr. Sawyer said it could be a condition put on a proposal for acceptance, yes you can do this, but you can’t do that, it would be up to the applicant to decide whether to follow the conditions. Mr. DeCoste said if they don’t meet the conditions then the whole project would be invalid.

Mr. Fletcher said then they could either subdivide or go to the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Daviss asked if Berkshire had submitted all they had been required to, was everything complete?

Sec. Aslinger said yes, Mr. Edkins said except for some permits and the DOT plan.

Mr. Sawyer moved to adjourn.

Secretarial Position

Ben Daviss asked about the final agenda item, Secretarial Position. Sec. Aslinger said she and Regina Borden had agreed to continue sharing the position although she had considered having Regina take over fully. Sec. Aslinger will be gone for a portion of the summer in Montana, but reachable by phone and e-mail to stay in touch. If the Board is agreeable, she and Regina will continue with their arrangement.

Mr. Sawyer amended his motion to adjourn until the June 13, 2006 meeting to be held at the Walpole Primary School Community Room at 7:30pm.

Seconded, carried.

Meeting adjourned 9:30pm

Cc: All PB members, ZBA, Select’s Office, Town Clerk

Posted: Town Hall, Town Hall Lobby, Burdick’s Market, Town website