PLANNING BOARD MEETING November 13, 2007 7:30pm Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller,
Members Present: Dave DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Bob Miller, V-Ch.,
Eric Merklein, Charles Miller, BOS, Jeff White, alt., Shane O’Keefe, alt.
Members Absent: Ben Daviss, Fred Dill, alt.
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes
are unapproved and will be reviewed at the December 11, 2007 for errors,
omissions and corrections. There were 15
persons in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm
A. Alternate Shane O’Keefe was
designated for Mr. Daviss
B. A motion was made by V-Ch. Miller and
seconded by Charles Miller to approve the minutes of 9/11, 25 and 10/9, 30 2007
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
II. Review Applications Submitted:
A. Ernest and
III. Meeting closed/public hearing opened
Ch. Miller asked Ms. Todd to
describe the subdivision. Ms. Todd
explained the intent of the Way’s to convey
Mr. Thaddeus Self spoke saying he
was not in agreement with the Way’s using his half of
Ms. Todd said his Attny. Fernald was
planning to contact him about the easement agreement and it is not relative to
the subdivision although she thought an agreement would be reached. Mr. Self said he had received an e-mail from
his attorney earlier in the day.
Ch. Miller called for further
questions, comments or concerns, being none:
closed the Public Hearing (7:45) and re-opened the meeting, called for
discussion and action. Mr. DeCoste asked if the Board
should be concerned with the easements, answer was no. Mr. B.
Miller made a motion to approve the subdivision as presented. Seconded by Mr. DeCoste, motion carried
unanimously. Maps were signed, the mylar was not available.
Ms. Todd will call Sec. Aslinger to make arrangements to have
B. Jack Franks and Lisa Bierweiler - Minor 2 lot
subdivision located on Ramsay Hill Rd. Map 8,
Secretary
reported the application was complete however abutters were notified of the
original proposal and not the changes.
Members agreed to re-notice the abutters with the changes instead of
going forward with the hearing and application review. Mr. Mike Snide, the purchaser said he was in
agreement to keep the lot undeveloped until Jack and Lisa were to move. Ch. Miller asked how Mr. Snide’s abutting lot
was created without frontage? Mr. Snide said back in the ‘70’s it was
granted through special exception, being the last house in Town without road
frontage. Ch. Miller thought the
non-buildable lot was being added to Mr. Snide’s land to make it conforming,
this is not the case however.
The Board agreed to re-schedule the
hearing so the abutters can be re-notified of the correct information. Selectman Sawyer thought it should be held
now. A motion to re-schedule the public hearing and application review for
the December meeting was made by Mr. O’Keefe and seconded by Mr. B.
Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Fees will need to be re-submitted and a
follow up letter will be sent.
C. Christopher and Kathy Monahan - Lot Line
Adjustment located on 174 Barnett Hill Rd. Map 9, Lot 59, Rural Ag. zone. Re-creating Lot 1 of 2.48 acres with existing
Monahan house and removes 2/3rd of easterly boundary line between Russell and
Pamela Harding recreating Lot 2 of 14.57 acres.
The additional acreage will be conveyed to the Harding’s. Frontages, lot sizes and setbacks are met. Mr. Aurealis DiBernardo presented. Secretary reported all fees collected,
abutters notified, application was complete.
A motion to accept the
application as complete was made by Mr. B. Miller and seconded by Mr.
Merklein. Motion carried unanimously.
Ch. Miller opened the Public Hearing (8:00). Mr. DiBernardo described the proposal as above
referring to the map. Mr. O’Keefe asked
if the home was Mr. Monahan’s present home, answer was no, Mr. Monahan was in
the audience. Hearing no further
comments Ch. Miller closed the public
hearing (8:05) and re-opened the meeting.
He called for board action on the application. Mr. Merklein moved to accept the lot line
adjustment as presented, Mr. B. Miller seconded, all were in favor, motion
carried. Maps and mylar were signed,
Mr. DiBernardo will record the mylar and notify the Secretary of cabinet and
drawer number.
V. New Business
A.
Voluntary Merger - delayed until 8:30pm
B. Preliminary
Consultations
1. Unitarian
Church - Secretary Aslinger presented.
She spoke with Mr. Bill Lawrence of Lawrence Associates earlier in the
day, he
stated they were able to find a deed showing the church, parsonage and house
all on separate lots, therefor subdivision was not required. Mr. Foote dropped off a newly completed
survey for the files. No board action
required. The house is currently for
sale Map 14, Lot 45-1 and does not require subdivision.
2. Wheeler - cancelled per Sec. Aslinger, may
show in December
3. Sec.
Aslinger: Question from Chamberlain
Machinery
regarding Well Source Protection conditional use permit procedure. She and Ch. Miller had both received a call
from Chris Miller asking what was required for obtaining the permit. Sec. Aslinger said she reviewed
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 3
the
ordinance and drafted an answer in a memo (on file) for the Board’s
approval. The memo states in order to be
consistent with the other Town ordinances and with RSA 674:4 Board’s Procedures
on Plats, the review must be submitted with the Site Plan Review application
and taken up before all other issues due to its gravity regarding the
protection of the wells. The current
ordinance did not provide a procedure, but Ch. Miller and members agreed
following standard procedures was consistent with other reviews such as
provided in the telecom-munications ordinance.
The criteria for the conditional use permit is included in the Well
Source Protection Ordinance. Sec.
Aslinger stated the Board could contact the Municipal Association legal
department for confirmation. Ch. Miller
confirmed his belief the procedure was for the permit to be issued under the Site
Plan Review application process once it is officially file. Sec. Aslinger said Chamberlain asked to be
placed on the December agenda for a preliminary consultation. Sec. Aslinger noted she added a procedure as
a proposed zoning amendment to be discussed later in the meeting. The Board gave Sec. Aslinger permission to
forward the memo to Chamberlain Machine.
4. Sec. Aslinger: Received an e-mail from Joe DiBernardo for
the Beaudoin’s for a Minor 2 lot subdivision, voluntary merger and lot line
adjustment on Barnett Hill Rd.
The Lot line adjustment is with
Barden Holdings who had in March petitioned the Board for a subdivision. Sec. Aslinger had written them back citing
the Board did not subdivide by petition, so a mystery solved. The Beaudoin’s will be purchasing 4 acres
from Barden Holdings and add it to their 2 lots. They will merge lots 52 and 54 to create one
big lot then a minor subdivision to create a small one acre lot with 200 ft. of
frontage. Further Joe asks if the Board
will allow him to submit the application on the deadline(11/26) for the
December meeting instead of tonight’s meeting.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if the frontage would be adequate, answer yes. Sec. Aslinger summarized saying they would do
a voluntary merger between lot 52 and 54, a lot line adjustment on the rear
line with Barden Holdings and finally a two lot subdivision, lot 1 of 1 acre
and lot 2 what remains. Ch. Miller called for a motion to schedule
the application for review and public hearing at the December meeting, seconded,
motion carried unanimously.
Question: Mr. O’Keefe asked if the well source protection
ordinance was an official ordinance?
Ch. Miller thought it had only been agreed to by the Planning Board as a
document needing some further study but could be applied when necessary, like a
half step, recognized by state law but not an official ordinance. (Later in the meeting upon further
discussion it was determined it was in fact adopted by the Town voters March
2002 and is an official ordinance.)
Mr. Merklein asked when Berkshire
came to the Board, they had provided very detailed parking lot, storm water
management plans, was that regulated by the State? Answer was the plans they submitted were
because of the Site Plan Review Regs.
VI. Old Business - Follow-ups
B. Ch. Miller asked if any new
information had come in on the Walpole D
& D subdivision. Sec. Aslinger
said she had not received anything but noted in the Selectmen’s minutes Mr.
Daniels had approached the Board of Selectmen, who granted his request to waive
the bond requirement on the road upgrade.
Ch. Miller said it was a condition of the approval to set up a
performance bond, which has been done before, it cannot be waived by the
Selectmen, even though they have the authority to lay out the roads, it isn’t
part of their purvue. If the condition
is not met the subdivision approval is not valid and cannot be signed or
recorded. Mr. Merklein asked if a letter
to D & D was in order or to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. O’Keefe asked if a performance bond is
allowed, answer was yes. Sec. Aslinger
read from the 9/19/07 letter outlining the conditions. All thought notifying the applicant and BOS
was in order and asked the Secretary to submit a letter stating the conditional
approval must be complied with.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 4
A. Delbert Frost - Secretary Aslinger
reminded members Mr. Frost had a lot line adjustment that needed revocation but
the Board asked if it could be done by letter to the Registry of deeds. She contacted the Registry, Evelyn Hubel who
agreed asking that the letter refer to the original recording information. Sec. Aslinger read the draft letter and cover
letter to Mr. Frost. The Board agreed to submit the letter as
drafted and signed by Ch. Miller and V-Ch. Miller to bring the matter to a
close by motion. Motion was seconded and
carried unanimously in favor. Mr.
O’Keefe asked if anyone could dispute it, did it take away the right of
appeal. Sec. Aslinger said she
questioned whether the full revocation was necessary since it was a simple lot
line adjustment and since a lot line adjustment does not require a public
hearing, technically no property changed hands because it was never properly
deeded.
VII. Communications and Miscellaneous
B. Work Session
- Ch.
Miller said the Master Plan Committee had finalized the survey at the prior
work session and it was to be mailed out the week of Thanksgiving. He noted in order to entice a better response
a raffle for a gift certificate to Burdick’s was included. Sec. Aslinger reported she had gathered the
post office information regarding the bulk mailing, the ladies in the
Selectmen’s Office are running the labels for North Walpole. She thought help preparing the mailer would
not be needed but had offers from members.
Work session is scheduled for November 27th at 7:00pm in the basement
office.
A. Zoning
Amendments for 2008 drafts - Discuss/schedule Public Hearings
Sec.
Aslinger provided a list of amendments in draft wording format plus several in
idea form. (please refer to the draft
list attached to the minutes) for the Board’s review and comment:
1. &
2. As requested by the ZBA - Home
Business allowed in the Rural Ag. zone.
Sec. Aslinger said although Ch. Miller and V-Ch.
Miller had expressed concerns about allowing home businesses in the Rural
Agricultural zone at the work session, the Zoning Board had expressly requested
the Planning Board present their amendment as it is written. Mr. O’Keefe and others thought the Zoning
Board could only recommend it to the Planning Board, not tell them to present
it. Ms. Aslinger asked if the Zoning
Board should put their request in the form of a petition in order to have it
presented? Ch. Miller said yes unless
the Board agrees to accept it and present it with or without changes.
Sec. Aslinger said the purpose of the ZBA’s version
is to allow home businesses in the Rural Ag. zone in the same way they are
allowed in the Residential and Commercial zones, noting they are presently
allowed only by variance in the Rural Ag. zone.
She said after listening to members who have been on the Board for
several years, in the past home/small businesses have been allowed by special
exception, falling under the idea they have been considered an industrial,
commercial or manufacturing use in the Rural Ag. zone. Ch. Miller said anyone having a home business
beyond a hobby such as a saw sharpening shop would come to both Boards for a
special exception but each case is different.
Mr. DeCoste pointed out amendment #1 and #2 were the same except the
ZBA’s version allows home business without a special exception and the Planning
Board alternative includes a special exception requirement. Ms. Aslinger said currently there is no
provision to allow a home business in the rural agricultural zone, even by
special exception. Home businesses are
defined differently than general businesses that can be commercial, industrial
or manufacturing. Selectmen Sawyer
thought the Zoning Board had asked about having this added for a couple of
years and shouldn’t it be presented? Mr.
DeCoste asked if the alternative has been shown to the Zoning Board? Sec. Aslinger apologized for working to the
last hour on the amendments, finishing them at 5:30 pm, she has not presented
them to the ZBA yet. Mr. Sawyer said he
thought the first version was adequate without special exception. Sec. Aslinger said after Bob and Jeff’s
comments she could see where some review in the Rural Agricultural zone for a
home business could be warranted, certainly if the district has been set aside
for it’s more rural character. She did
see where having a special exception review
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 5
only
by the ZBA would be adequate. The ZBA
could determine if it was a home business, industrial, commercial or manufacturing
operation or in need of a site plan review but at least it would be
reviewed. She said the criteria for home
business is very limited and limited in ways that prevent full scale operations
such as limiting the number of employees to two additional besides the owner or
tenant. Mr. O’Keefe said presently a
person can’t give piano lessons in their home.
Mr. Merklein asked why have special exceptions for such small home
businesses as dressmaking? The impact is
minimal. Ms. Aslinger said she thought
there was a reason home businesses were not allowed in the rural agricultural
district, the ordinance even though it was written a long time ago did have a
consistency about it. Perhaps the use
was not put in there for a reason such as protecting the quietness and nature
of the zone. Others questioned whether
home business was original to the ordinance.
Due to the language such as “dressmaking” it appears original. Mr. Sawyer said if home business is allowed
in Residential why would it be worse in the Rural Ag. zone? Ch. Miller said there have been more
questionable issues in the Rural Ag. zone in the past regarding home businesses
such as mechanics shops etc. so it needs closer monitoring. Sec. Aslinger said the definition of home
business is very limited a full scale auto shop would not be a home business
the way the amendment is written.
Ch. Miller said in all due respect to the ZBA the
amendment should be presented as they have requested and to schedule it for a
public hearing without them having to go through petitioning. The Board can decide whether to recommend it
or not.
Mr. O’Keefe said the type of home businesses have
changed greatly especially with the internet, the Board should consider making
provisions for allowing more home businesses besides what is defined. Mr. Sawyer pointed out the definition does
say “ and other similar types” of businesses.
Mr. White cautioned that an unregulated shop can also be allowed such as
a small machine shop running all day with one employee, it can be just as
disturbing as a regulated body shop. Mr.
White said he thinks it’s a question of density, a farm is also a home business
it is about an appropriate scale for a home business.
Ch. Miller called for a motion to present Amendment
#1 for a public hearing at the December meeting, asking the Zoning Board to be
present to promote the amendment.
Mr. O’Keefe
said the ZBA amendment allows home business without review? Yes.
He asked where #2 amendment came from. Sec. Aslinger said she drafted it
mainly because of the discussion from the work session, attendees asked her to
come up with an alternative to reflect how small businesses had been handled in
the past, but she has not had time to run it past the Zoning Board until after
tonight’s discussion. She said she
realized perhaps giving a full allowance of home business in the rural
agricultural district wasn’t the intent of the zoning ordinance for a good
reason, because of the density and the types of businesses that could be tucked
away hidden on the outskirts of town unchecked.
Mr. Bob Miller said his concern about allowing un-reviewed home or small
businesses in the Rural Ag. zone is about the protecting the property owner who
has a nice home on some acreage from a destructive type of small or home
business. He suggested stipulating no
employees, no deliveries or customer traffic.
Ch. Miller said he agreed a review protects surrounding property owners. Mr. O’Keefe said he knew of several
businesses operating that qualify as a home business in existence for some
years, they work on the internet or do hand work for Silver Forest of Vermont,
he is concerned about making them in violation of the zoning ordinance. Chick Miller thought the ZBA should be able
to consider #2. Sec. Aslinger thought the
ZBA was looking for a way to simplify the amendment and may not have considered
other wording. She said she would e-mail
the entire draft list to the Zoning Board for their input. The
Board agreed to schedule Amendment #1 as presented by the Zoning Board for a
public hearing for the December meeting.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 6
8:30PM Mr. Gary Dennis arrived for his scheduled
voluntary merger. Secretary
Aslinger
described the merger on Map 11, Lot 50-1 and 50-2 March Hill Rd., fees were
collected and an application submitted. Mr. Dennis stated he purchased the two
lots 5 years ago adding the second lot to accommodate a safer driveway. Due to re-financing the bank requires merging
the two lots. Mr. B. Miller moved to approve the voluntary merger, seconded, motion
carried unanimously. Ch. Miller and
V-Ch. B. Miller signed the form, Mr. Dennis was instructed to have it notarized
and recorded at the registry, returning a copy to the Secretary for proof, she
will notify the Town of the change.
Ch. Miller
returned to the Zoning Amendments #3:
3. Draft as proposed by the Planning Board -
Excavations
Sec. Aslinger said the purpose of this amendment is
to clarify the intent of the ordinance to review excavations as being the industrial
manufacturing commercial operations they are.
Due to a recent application before the ZBA she thought it was necessary
to designate excavations as specifically requiring a special exception, whereas
the ordinance presently is ambiguous. It
does not appear to require a special exception but because they can be
considered an industrial, commercial or manufacturing use, (as recently
determined by Town legal counsel) the ordinance needs to more clearly state the
requirement.
Mr. Charles Miller requested the word “commercial”
be added to the amendment to read “The commercial excavation……” all
agreed. Members discussed scale of
projects, when it triggers a larger state review. Mr. Sawyer asked if this was requested by the
ZBA? Sec. Aslinger said indirectly by
way of their deliberations and the Planning Boards original involvment when an
applicant asked about procedures. Ch.
Miller and others thought presenting the amendment to the ZBA for their input
would be helpful. If they approve it,
the Board would go forward with it.
Mr. Charles Miller wanted to know if this amendment
would also apply to projects under 2 acres?
Mr. DeCoste thought it would, but this needs to be clarified. Sec. Aslinger said despite the size of
projects all still need to be permitted by the ZBA under 155 E and the Town of
Walpole’s Regulations Governing Earth Excavations. Mr. O’Keefe noted that any industrial zone
excavation would also be required to follow the Rural Ag. guidelines.
4. Draft as proposed by the Planning Board -
Water Protection
Sec. Aslinger said #4, 5, and 6 are all housekeeping
measures to link the various supplemental ordinances to the main Zoning
ordinance.
She said if the Well Source Protection ordinance has
not been adopted by the Town as Ch. Miller suggests then linking it to the
Zoning ordinance is moot. She said she
does have a date of March 9, 2004 shown on the document. Sheldon Sawyer said it was adopted by Town
vote so it is a valid ordinance.
With that clarified, she said the proposed amendment
prevents a person reading through the main Zoning ordinance from missing a
related ordinance. Selectman Sawyer
agreed saying it is an area that can be lost in the Zoning ordinance such as
what happened with Chamberlain Machine.
Mr. O’Keefe asked why not put it into the Zoning ordinance? Sec. Aslinger said she thought about it, like
the Retirement Overlay Article IX, but this is a simplier stopgap measure
instead of trying to fold a large document into the ordinance leading to
confusion for the voters. She said in
addition this simple reference amendment needs to be carried over to the
Telelecommunications and Residential Overlay documents as shown in 5. and 6.
below.
5. Draft as proposed by the Planning Board -
Telecommunications Facilities
Basically the same as 4. linking the Telecommunications Facilities
Ordinance to the Zoning ordinance, presently there is not a reference.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 7
6. Draft as proposed by the Planning Board -
Retirement Overlay
The same simple linking measure, although the Retirement Overlay
District is part of the Ordinance it is out of order and can be
overlooked. Also it is not referenced in
the Residential zone where it is allowed.
The Commercial zone where it is also allowed by mention of all Residential
uses are also allowed in the Commercial zone does not need to be referenced.
Ch. Miller
called for a vote to schedule a public hearing for 4, 5 & 6 at the December
meeting. Moved by Mr. B. Miller,
seconded, motion carried unanimously.
7. Draft as
proposed by the Planning Board - Frontage means Class V or better
Sec. Aslinger thought the best way to clarify the
frontage issue that keeps coming up was to make a change in the
definitions. Frontage is just before
Public Street in the definitions making it easy for someone to see the two
definitions together. She said Public
Street is unique to Town of Walpole, it is more restrictive than the State
definition of frontage and not included in the State definitions. By adding in the definition of Public Street
“class V or better” highway it clarifies Walpole’s restriction of subdivisions
being allowed on a class V or better highway.
The State allows subdivision on Class VI roads, whereas Walpole does not
by definition. Mr. Sawyer wanted to know
why Walpole is more restrictive especially with the new resolution allowing
building on Class VI. Ch. Miller said
building could be done on Class VI with access but not subdividing the
amendment does not change the intent of the ordinance to restrict subdivisions on
Class V or better highways. Mr. Sawyer
said he promotes a 50 ft. ROW to back land and also requiring a larger
lot. Members discussed the concept and
thought the idea has merit, perhaps with a 5 acre minimum. Mr. Fletcher thought subdivision on Class VI
roads should be allowed. Sec. Aslinger
said she thought the reason for restricting subdivisions to Class V or better
roads in small rural towns with backlands stemmed from a concept of premature
and scattered development away from Town services like fire protection to a
distant home. She thought if the BOS
were considering laying out some new roads from Class VI to Class V they should
work with the Planning Board to target the areas for 50 ft. ROW development and
possible re-zoning. Mr. Sawyer said he
thought it should be allowed without the Town improving the roads. Ms. Aslinger asked who would maintain it wouldn’t
it be prohibitive for a buyer? Mr.
Sawyer cited an example of 7 houses on Taggert Hill Rd., privately
maintained. Mr. C. Miller thought Mr.
Snide’s lack of frontage should be encouraged to make better use of open land
for farming by encouraging people to build in the back lands. Mr. Sawyer agreed notng Mr. Jasse’s
subdivisions even though the houses are built in the back and the fields left
in farming some property owners were having some issues with farming practices.
Ch. Miller asked if the Board wanted to propose #7. The Board decided to leave the definition as
is since it
already states a public street means a highway that must be maintained by the
municipality. Although it isn’t clear,
members could not agree that “Class V or better” made it more clear. Sec. Aslinger offered to define “Class V or
better” with the actual road classifications although the term “Class V or
better” is common NH terminology.
8. Proposed by the Planning Board - Undeveloped
Open Space
Sec. Aslinger reminded the Board the
amendment reflects the exact wording as it appears in the Site Plan Review
regulations amended by the Board earlier in the year. It was at the recommendation of the Municipal
Association after being questioned by Attny. Tom Hanna in regard to whether the
Board was attempting to zone through the Site Plan Review regulations to
include it in the zoning ordinance as soon as possible. The municipal
association thought the wording could appear in both the zoning ordinance and
site plan review regulations. The
purpose being not only to match the language but to create a more balanced
amount of development per
lot
in the Commercial zone. She said there
are two backing provisions in the State RSA’s 674:16
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 8
I.
discusses “lot sizes, the amount of a lot that can be occupied and other open
spaces” within zoning ordinances and in 674:44 2. General Standards for Site
Plan Review - discussing open space.
Ms. Aslinger said by putting it in the zoning
ordinance it will be a true restriction rather than something the Board can
waive during a site plan review, she thought there would be a strong opposition
amongst the Commercial zone property owners, but it was also worth a try. Mr. Sawyer thought the opposition would be
great and it might also hurt the Town economically. Ch. Miller and others thought the Site Plan
Review restriction was adequate and liked the flexibility. Mr. Merklein noted the 30% restriction
matches the 30% open space allotment adopted for a multi-family development
that was passed two years ago. Mr. Sawyer
said Bensonwood couldn’t have added on to their location under a zoning
amendment. Mr. Merklein reminded it was
only for the commercial district, not industrial or other zones. Ch. Miller said if an industrial use is
proposed in the Commercial zone, it would have to abide by the 30% undeveloped
space, but not in other zones. Ms.
Aslinger thought by putting it in the zoning ordinance it is truly limiting the
lot coverage for the Commercial zone rather than a discretionary measure in the
Site Plan it would become a permanent requirement. Mr. O’Keefe suggested changing the percentage
amount to allow for less of an impact to the property owners.
Ch. Miller thought discretionary was better. He suggested further discussion was
needed. Mr. O’Keefe said he was trying
to discuss it and asked why have it in front of the Board if it can’t be
discussed. Ch. Miller said he thought since it was already in the Site Plan
Review for now it was best to move on to some of the other amendments in order
to prepare for the December meeting and vote in March. Ms. Aslinger said the reason the draft
amendments were being brought up is because they were a direct result of Board
activity throughout the year, she was attempting to help resolve them if the
Board wished through amendment to the zoning ordinance, they are drafts and
suggestions only. She said personally
this was one of those issues she could go either way on, if it is a restriction
it would require a variance to waive it. As a
Site Plan regulation the Board has the authority to waive it or make an
adjustment on a case by case basis or not.
Mr. DeCoste agreed saying he preferred to have the Planning Board decide
yes or no on the requirement and thought it was a lower priority amendment
since there are several now. Mr.
Merklein said the concept is to preserve as much open space as possible, the
extra effort it would take to get a variance would be a deterrent. Mr. Merklein said he was concerned if the
Board were to change there might be a different outlook about preservation of
undeveloped open space. Ch. Miller said
he thought the Board was adequately covered in the Site Plan Review
regulations. Mr. O’Keefe asked if the
30% was in the Site Plan, Ms. Aslinger said yes it is the exact same
wording. Ch. Miller called for a motion to present the amendment, Mr. Merklein
so moved, it was seconded by Mr. O’Keefe the motion failed. It will not be presented.
9. Proposed by the
Planning Board - Well Source Protection Ordinance
Sec. Aslinger said this was drafted to add a missing
procedure in the Well Source Protection Ordinance for the conditional use
permit. She reviewed the
Telecommunications Ordinance also requiring a conditional use permit and took
similar wording to create a procedure in order to grant a permit. She said it follows the guidelines outlined
in the Chamberlain memo discussed earlier, the amendment is a simple way to
interject a procedure into the ordinance.
She said Chamberlain pointed out the ordinance didn’t appear to require
a public hearing. Upon review they are
technically correct but consistency with the Boards procedures on plats allows
for the Board to hold a public hearing, there is very little the Board does
without holding a public hearing. She
said as Ch. Miller suggested it makes perfect sense to have the Well Source Protection
Ordinance fall under Site Plan Review as does the Telecommunications
Ordinance. Ch. Miller called for a motion to present the amendment, motion was
seconded, motion carried unanimously.
Walpole
Planning Board Minutes 11/13/07 page 9
Ch. Miller
tallied - there are five amendments for Public Hearings scheduled for December.
10. Consider some re-zoning of
current Hubbard properties. As noted
members agreed to discuss re-zoning after the Master Plan Land Use section is
completed. She said perhaps 8. could also be re-visited. Selectmen Miller suggested all commercial
properties be reconsidered not just the Hubbard properties, all agreed.
11. Increase of lot sizes - Ms. Aslinger said
this also could be taken up after the Master Plan Update and to include
Sheldon’s idea of 50 ft. ROW instead of frontage on some lots. He noted it was important to avoid
fragmenting lots, once a lot is taken from the front the back land is less
useable.
12. Remove industrial and commercial uses by
special exception in the Rural Agricultural Zones. Ms. Aslinger said the thought occurred to
her that high density uses such as industrial and commercial should be limited
in the Rural Ag. zone in order to protect farmland. She said it would be an alternative, why not
target some specific areas for commercial and industrial uses instead of
allowing it throughout the zone?
Selectmen Miller thought it was like 10.
She said she agreed it could be addressed once re-zoning could take
place after the Master Plan update.
13. Building vs. establishment - Sec.
Aslinger asked if the BOS had a timeline on the current pending court case
regarding the “co-mingled” amendment.
They did not. The Board gave Sec.
Aslinger permission to contact Mr. Hockensmith so if needed an amendment can be
drafted and presented along with the others.
Selectman Miller suggested the Board present the amendment anyway to
nullify the court case or prepare for an unfavorable outcome. Members thought it prudent to wait for the
court case or instruction from Legal Counsel.
Mr. DeCoste said by making an unwarranted re-presentation it would
appear the Board didn’t think it was right in the first place. He said waiting for the outcome was best. Ch. Miller said the current board has defined
what it means by resolution so it is already decided. Ch. Miller thought the Town had already voted
and prefers to wait for the court’s decision.
14. Legislative change - Eric Merklein had no
update other than it is in process. Ch. Miller asked if Tara had done anything
about the Cold River Bridge project he suggested submitting a bill to
appropriate monies to fund the Bensonwood design. Mr. Sawyer said the money would not come in
time to meet the FEMA deadlines, they were already working on an extension. He
said the bid was going out in December for a cement-butted bridge. Mr. White said he would like to see any
bridge at this point.
15. Limiting the number of amendments to prevent
overwhelming voters. Sec. Aslinger
said she thought it would be helpful to the voters once they realize many of
the amendments are housekeeping measures.
Mr. Sawyer said he wished the
Planning Board could put on the warrant what their vote was to recommend or not
recommend. He said the BOS is now required
to show their vote. Members thought it
was a good idea and will inquire about legality incorporating it if
allowed. The RSA’s say recommend or not
recommend. Mr. DeCoste asked if the
purpose can be added, it would be helpful to the voters.
C. Budget review 2008 - Sec. Aslinger noted
everyone was given a copy of the 2008 draft budget. She and Ch. Miller will review the numbers
and submit the budget to Teresa on the 15th.
VIII. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded, carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm
Cc: file, PB members, ZBA, Town Offices
Posted: www.walpoleplanningboard.org and www.thewalpolean.com