18 January 2006

Approved 15 February with three changes requested by Mr. Therrien

Deleted material printed in italics--New material printed in bold.

 

Present: E. Vose, M. Mansouri, J. Galloway-Leclerc, L. Weber, L. Carignan (alt), B. Webb (alt)

Absent: L. Britton

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING MINUTES WILL BE REVIEWED ON 15 FEBRUARY, 2006.

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.

Mr. Vose appointed Mr. Webb to serve as a voting member.

 

Timely notice of all public hearings was posted and published, and abutters were notified by mail.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Pinnacle View Equipment Sign Variance.

Mike Snide represented Pinnacle View.  They want to install two new signs from corporate suppliers.  The signs will meet the setback requirement, but will not meet the requirement for 100 feet between signs.  Each sign will be placed 50 feet from the existing Pinnacle view sign. One sign is a Kubota sign, 12 feet by 3 feet, for a total of 36 square feet, and the other is a Polaris sign, 4 feet by 8 feet, for a total of 32 square feet.  The Kubota sign will require a variance from the size requirement as well, because it exceeds 32 square feet.  Both signs would be lighted.  Pinnacle View’s sales agreements with the corporations require that they display these signs.  Pinnacle View has fought the requirement since moving to its present location, but they need to honor the agreement.  The signs are provided by the companies, and are obtained wholesale, so Pinnacle View’s choice as to size and design is limited.  Pinnacle View cannot have signs fabricated to their own specifications as the signs are corporate logos which have to be approved by the corporations.  The distance from the proposed signage to the Rite-Aid sign is more than 100 feet.

Mr. Bingaman inquired if the applicant actually wanted the signs.  Mr. Snide said he does want to comply with his agreements with the corporations.

Mr. Vose read through the criteria for a variance:

No decrease in value to surrounding property.  All voted in agreement.

Not contrary to the public interest.  All voted in agreement.

Hardship. Mr. Vose stated we have allowed multiple signs across the street in the past.  Multiple signs on the same post are hard to see and might present a traffic hazard.  Ms. Galloway stated the signs would look better if placed on separate posts.  Mr. Webb noted the difficulty of mounting the two signs on one post.  All voted in agreement.

Substantial justice.  Ms. Weber said that many businesses in that and other parts of town have multiple signs.  All voted in agreement.

Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.  All were in agreement.

Mr. Webb moved that the variance be granted as to the placement and size of the signs.  Mrs. Galloway-Leclerc seconded.  All voted in favor, and the variance was approved.

 

L. A. Burdick Chocolates Special Exception:

 

Ms. Weber recused herself, as her business is an abutter.  Mr. Carignan was appointed to serve in her place.

Larry Burdick has bought the former R.N. Johnson small machines building on Main Street, and proposes moving his chocolate manufacturing, shipping, receiving and storage operations to this site from their current location in the center of town.  The existing retail and restaurant operations will remain at their current locations in town.  Approximately 30 employees will be affected by the move.  The property is all on one level, with loading docks and provision for inside vehicle receiving already in place.  The proposed operation is not toxic, is not noisy, and will use 18

Zoning Board-- January 2006—Page Two.

 

currently dead space.  No changes are proposed to the footprint of the building, but the glass in the front of the building will be replaced with barn board and new doors and windows across the top, for a more barn-like appearance.

Mr. Vose explained the project needs a special exception because the operations fall under the Zoning Ordinance definition of industrial or manufacturing operations, as chocolate is transformed into confections.  The building is also closer to the highway than the 85 feet required, but has an existing variance in place as to the setback requirement.  A special exception will require the site to have adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.  The proposed use may not cause undue smoke, noise, dust, odor, fumes or water pollution.  A recommendation will also be required from the planning board, but the Zoning Board is not bound to follow this recommendation.  Mr. Burdick will attend the next Planning Board meeting to secure the recommendation.

Peter and Chris Burchard asked what plans were for the grassy portion of the property.  There are no plans for it as of now, and Mr. Burdick expressed his desire to be a good neighbor and preserve green space.  In response to a question from Mr. Hurlburt, Mr. Burdick said that the only access to the property would be from Main Street, not from Firehouse Road.  He was told Firehouse Road could not be used for commercial access because of covenants on the surrounding properties.  Mr. Burchard asked if any other changes were proposed to the property.  Mr. Burdick said a new roof will be necessary, but no other changes are planned.  Mr. Buswell asked about hours of operation.  One or two people come in at 6:00a.m. and the rest between 8:00a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and leave between 4:00p.m. and 6:00 p.m.  During peak holiday periods, some of the employees will work later.  The noise of the operation should not be heard across the street.  Shipping is mostly by standard UPS and FedEx trucks.  Two or three trailer truckloads of chocolate arrive in the course of a year.

Ms. Kolasienski asked if any fences or barriers were planned.  She is concerned both with the nearness to her property of one driveway, and also with the safety of children riding bicycles near the traffic.  Mr. Burdick said he can make sure traffic does not use that driveway. She also asked what was proposed for lighting.  Mr. Burdick plans no more lighting than currently exists, and states he uses less lighting at his current location than was used before he purchased the building.  She also asked about his timeline for occupation of the building.  Mr. Burdick said his financing requires him to be in by September.

Mr. Buswell asked for clarification of how long a special exception stays with the property.  Mr. Vose stated that it remains with the property, but only for the chocolate operation being considered today.  A different manufacturing or industrial operation would be required to come before the Board for a new exception.

Mr. Jasse offered the opinion that this is a wonderful use of the building and a great thing for the town.

Mr. Vose stated that this will relieve some of the congestion in the middle of town.  He entered the letter from the selectmen regarding the operation into the file.  The hearing was closed.

Ms. Galloway-Leclerc moved to approve the special exception as presented, pending receipt of the Planning Board recommendation.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Mansouri and passed unanimously.

            Mr. Burdick asked if his new tenant will need ZBA approval for a new sign on his old building.  Mr. Vose stated no approval is needed as long as the new sign is the same size or smaller than the existing sign.

 

Zoning Board--January 2006—Page Three.

 

Therrien Variance—Stevens Road and County Road

 

            Ms. Weber resumed her seat on the Board.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc recused herself as an abutter.  Mr. Carignan was appointed to serve in her place.

Bill Therrien, property owner, and William A Lawrence, LLS, of Lawrence Associates, of Langdon appeared to request the variance.  The property in question is a 40 acre lot with approximately 750 feet of frontage on County Road, which is a town road, and 1000 plus feet of frontage on Stevens Road, which is private.  A binder containing several documents was presented to the Board in support of the project.

Mr Therrien began with a history of the property. He stated that the subject parcel was part of a larger property owned by Austin Stevens.  In 1947, all but the first 500 feet of Stevens Road was discontinued by the town and turned back to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Stevens began the subdivision by creating Lot 45, now owned by Coyle, by variance, in 1976.  A house was built on this lot in 2000.  Lot 43-2, now owned by Tim Allen, was created, also by variance, in 1979.  The Therriens bought Lot 44, the subject property, in 1997.  They wanted to build their house on the Stevens Road side of the property, and went to the Selectmen and executed an agreement with the selectmen granting them the same conditions as those imposed on the other owners on Stevens Road.  Mr. Therrien stated a variance was obtained at that time.  Mr. Therrien stated that the conditions in his agreement with the Selectmen were the same as the conditions the Zoning Board required of the other lots when granting their variance.  The Therrien house was built in 2000.  Improvements were made by the owners to Stevens Road in 1987, and major maintenance was performed in 2001, after the building was completed.  There are currently four lots with frontage on the town maintained portion of the road. There are currently four lots with houses on them on the lower private portion of Taggert Road and there are also four lots (three with houses, including Therriens) on the private Stevens Lane.

The Therriens are proposing to create two new lots on the southern , or County Road, end of the property, one of 11.42 acres and one of 11.66 acres.  Both lots would have adequate frontage on County Road to comply with current zoning requirements, and the lots would share a common access off County Road.  The variance is needed because the remaining lot, with the Therrien home, will have frontage only on the private portion of Stevens Road. The property lends itself to this division, as to divide it up otherwise would be unaesthetic have less desirable results. .  There is no suitable access from the portion of the property on which the Therrien house sits out to County Road.

Mr. Therrien and Mr. Lawrence then discussed the five criteria required for a variance.

No diminution in value to surrounding properties:  The lots are large and in keeping with those in the neighborhood.  Neither of the two new lots have enough road frontage to permit them to be subdivided further in the future. The documentation presented to the Board included a memorandum from Chas Street, a real estate professional, stating his opinion that the surrounding properties would suffer no diminution in value as a result of the subdivision.

Not contrary to the public interest:  Stevens Road complies with the safety requirements from the Town.  The home and access on Stevens Road are already in existence.

Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship:  The existing home already has adequate access from Stevens Road, and no viable access from County Road.  This access was approved by the selectmen. The house site is approximately 130 feet higher in elevation than the County Road side of the property.  Alternate subdivision plans would be less aesthetically pleasing have less desirable results and would be less advantageous to the property owner.  The frontage on Stevens Road should be counted as adequate access to the retained parcel.

Mr. Therrien further verbally defined “less desirable” as:

1.      Inefficient use of land

2.      More curb cuts

3.      Having potential for neighbor issues due to jutting finger connection to County Road

4.      Other plans were poorer designs (for both Walpole and the Therriens)

Observing the spirit of the Ordinance:  The two lower parcels are in compliance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and have more frontage than required.  The upper parcel has

 

 Zoning Board--January 2006--Page Four.

 

greater than required frontage along Stevens Lane.  The upper and lower parcels are separate from each other due to topography.

Substantial justice:  The new parcels are larger than the ordinance requires.  The home on the upper parcel is already in place and was approved by the Selectmen.

Mr. Vose inquired if the Therriens had signed a hold harmless letter releasing the town from liability for emergency services.  Such a letter has been required from homeowners building on private access roads.  Mr. Therrien stated he was not asked for such a letter, and there has been no problem with emergency services getting access to the Therrien property when needed. Mr. Therrien, in response to Mr. Vose’s question, stated he was unsure whether he would be willing to sign such a letter.  He would need the opportunity to consult with a lawyer before doing so. Mr. Vose also noted that what was submitted was a letter from the selectmen approving the building on the Therrien property, not a variance from the Zoning Board.

Mr. LeClerc stated that a fire protection letter was not required when the Therrien home was built, because their lot had adequate frontage on a town road.  If the only access to the remaining parcel is from Stevens Road the property should have the fire protection letter.

Ms. Galloway-Leclerc stated that the lot and house as it now exists conforms to the Zoning regulations.  There are ways to subdivide off two lots and still conform to the ordinance.  Whether the lots could be prettier or otherwise should not be the basis for departing from the current zoning requirements.  Mr. Therrien reiterated that the selectmen allowed them to build the house and gave them a variance.  Ms. Weber stated that the selectmen gave permission for building, but not a variance as none was needed at that time.

Mr. Webb said that the presence of the existing house does not convince him of the need for a variance.  He asked again about Mr. Therrien’s willingness to sign the emergency services liability letter.  Mr. Therrien indicated a willingness to consider it.  Mr. Lawrence suggested that a variance could be issued conditional upon the receipt of such a completed agreement.  Mr. Vose noted the matter could be tabled until next month pending resolution of the emergency services liability letter issue, which needs to be addressed to the selectmen.  This was acceptable to Mr. Therrien.

Ms. Weber expressed her concern that the Board has not yet addressed the five variance criteria, and these would still have to be deliberated on at the next meeting, in addition to a satisfactory resolution of the letter issue.  Mr. Lawrence expressed concern regarding what he perceives may be bias on the part of Board members.  Mrs. Weber stated that she has not prejudged the matter against the applicant, but neither is she willing at this stage to give the impression that she has prejudged in favor of the applicant without deliberation.

Mr. Snide stated he is a supporter of back lot development personally, but there is no support for it in the Walpole master plan.  Such development was acceptable in the 1970s when the Stevens created the lots, but back lot development was considered and rejected when the Master Plan was revised, and the current zoning does not permit it.  He stated the two lots could still be created and conformance maintained for all three lots by drawing the lot lines differently, and retaining a strip of land connection the Therrien lot with the required amount of frontage on County Road.

Mr. Therrien stated his plan controls density and adequately addresses the needs of safety.  The spirit of the law should apply to the frontage from which you access your home.  He reiterated that the property owners had brought the road up to standard, but the town has not taken over

 

Zoning Board—January 2006—Page Five.

 

County Road.  He feels caught in the middle of this long-standing issue with respect to the situation of his property.  He would like to add to his argument on the hardship factor the town’s

unwillingness to take over the road.  Town takeover of the road would be much more difficult to accomplish now.

Mr. Webb inquired who was doing the routine maintenance now.  Mr. Therrien stated it was he and his neighbors.  M. Mansouri said that the town was not required to take the road over.  Mr. Vose noted that at one time the property owners were promised the road would be taken over.  Mr. Webb suggested that Mr. Therrien approach the selectmen and get their approval to for the emergency services liability letter.  Mr. Therrien will check with his attorney regarding the required language.  Mr Boas noted that Mr. Therrien will still have to go before the planning board for approval after a variance is obtained.  Mr. Webb moved that the hearing be closed and deliberation held at the next regular meeting.  Ms. Mansouri seconded.  Mr. Therrien agreed to this procedure and stated that he had presented all he wants to say in support of the application. The motion passed unanimously.

 

New Business:

 

            Mr. Vose noted that the terms of Mr. Britton and Ms. Weber are up this year.  The filing period for those wanting to be on the ballot is from January 25th to February 3rd at 5:00p.m.

Ms. Weber moved the approval of the December minutes.  Ms. Mansouri seconded, and all voted in favor.

 

Old Business:

Mr. Vose noted that Todd Nielson has withdrawn his application with regard to the former Long River Garden property on Westminster Street.

 

Meeting adjourned.  Next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 15th, 2006.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

Lucy McVitty Weber