Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION
November 13, 2007–7:30PM
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch.
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 Wanda Way - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Walpole Valley Rd. Map 13, Lot 41, Rural Ag. zone. Creating Lots 1 of 16.58 acres with existing house, Lot 2 of 5.02 acres. Lot 1 retains strip along discontinued Santaw Lane accessing Lot 42 owned by the Way’s. Frontages, setbacks and lot sizes are met. Attny. Rebecca Todd presenting. Secretary reported all fees, notifications and application materials were complete. A motion to accept the application as complete was made by Mr. DeCoste and seconded by Bob Miller, motion carried unanimously.
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 Lot 2 to their daughter Jessica Way Wilson so she may build a house. All frontages, lot sizes and setbacks are met. Mr. O’Keefe asked for clarification of the oddly shaped strip. She pointed out the strip of land along 1/2 of discontinued Santaw Lane being oddly shaped but giving access to the Way’s back lot (42). Ms. Todd said the Way’s were working on an agreement with Mr. Self regarding the discontinued road, with easements being agreed to. The Way’s would give Mr. Self an easement for their one rod on Santaw Lane and Mr. Self would correspond with his one rod.
Mr. Thaddeus Self spoke saying he was not in agreement with the Way’s using his half of Santaw Lane and did not see they needed it since they owned the paved portion of Santaw Lane as access. He said his half of Santaw Lane is undeveloped. He said he had not agreed to the easements at this time.
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. Santaw Lane is a discontinued road with access.
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 Ch. and V-Ch. sign it. Ms. Todd agreed to record the mylar at the registry.
B. Jack Franks and Lisa Bierweiler - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Ramsay Hill Rd. Map 8, Lot 86, Rural Ag. zone. Creates Lot 1 of 9.40 acres with existing house and Lot 2 “non-buildable” of 1.62 acres, State subdivision approval waived. Lot frontages, sizes and setbacks are met. Ms. Virginia Foote of Lawrence Associates presented. Ms. Foote provided new maps showing a substantial change to Lot 2. She said the purchasers of Lot 2 decided they did not want it designated as “non-buildable” and the State subdivision approval was being applied for. There is an agreement with Mr. Franks and Lisa Bierweiler if they move then the lot could be buildable, but not until that time.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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