Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
February 12, 2008–7:30PM
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch.
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Henry Fletcher, Dave DeCoste, Charles Miller BOS, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff White, alt.
Members Absent: Jeff Miller, Fred Dill (in audience)
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the March 11, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections. There were 35 +/- persons in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm
A. V-Ch. B. Miller designated P. Aslinger as alternate for J. Miller.
B. Minutes from January 8 and 22, 2008 were approved as presented by unanimous vote.
II. Review application submitted:
A. Chamberlain Machine Inc. - Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit under Well Source Protection Ordinance Section 4 A. Project is located on Rte. 12, Map 12, Lot 4-2 in the commercial and rural agricultural districts. A special exception was granted for an industrial use in the rural ag. district by the Zoning Board. Purpose is to submit plans to build a 49,000 sq. ft. building for a machine shop and apply for a conditional use permit to allow the operation in the Well Source Protection area.
V-Ch. B. Miller asked Chamberlain’s representative Attny. Gary Kinyon to present the application for the Board to determine completeness so it can be accepted as such. Attny. Kinyon reviewed the status of the applications stating they had been properly submitted at the prior meeting and were now being officially considered by the Board. He understood the next step is for the Board to accept the applications and hold the public hearing. He said the engineer would make a quick presentation of the application materials, adding they would provide a more detailed presentation during the public hearing phase if the Chairman agreed. V-Ch. Miller agreed. Attny. Kinyon stated that the Conditional Use Permit consideration would fall under the Well Source Protection Ordinance and taken up in more detail once the Board accepted the main Site Plan Review application.
Mr. Robert Hitchcock from SVE Associates Engineering in Keene, NH suggested going through the site plan checklist, pointing out where each item is on the plans: (see attached checklist) He displayed the maps so the audience could see them and the Board members referred to their individual sets of maps.
A. Submission Requirements: 1-7 were submitted with 4. not applicable and 8. no waivers being requested, not applicable.
B. Plat Submission Items:
- Items 1-7 were submitted, item 8. road profiles, not applicable.
- Items 9-13 were submitted.
- Item 14. signs, have not yet been finalized until the building has been completely designed however any signs will placed be on the building.
- Items 15 & 16 were submitted although the site does not have wetlands or rock ledges.
- Item 17. “Size and location of existing and proposed water mains, sewers, culverts connections or alternative mean of providing water supply and disposal of sewage and surface drainage” were submitted noting an on site septic system is being proposed rather than hooking up to the Town system. Mr. Hitchcock said although there is a main sewer line across Rte. 12, they are not able to tie into it because it is a “forced main”.
- Items 18 & 19 were submitted.
- Item 20. wetlands portion, not applicable.
- Item 21. location of perc tests and results; design is not complete or submitted, test pits have been done and are shown.
- Item 22. location of well is not applicable because they will tie into the Town system.
- Item 23. is pending regarding septic design. Mr. DeCoste asked why they were not connecting to the Town’s sewer system? Mr. Hitchcock said in order to reach the Town sewer system they would need a pump station and a force main out to Rte. 12 and then all the way to the top of the hill to the gravity main at the shopping center. Mr. DeCoste said he thought one of the main reasons Chamberlain picked the site was because they could hook up to Town water, sewer and have three-phase power. Mr. Hitchcock said when they started the project everyone assumed there was a gravity line available, which is true but it is a forced main and most municipalities do not allow tying into it, because it can be problematic. He said one of his engineers met with Mark Houghton, the Town’s water and sewer commissioner, he said if they wanted to tie into the sewer they would have to pump it all the way to the gravity station. Mr. DeCoste asked if the three houses along Rte. 12 had their own systems, no answer. Mr. Merklien suggested since the area has other development potential that should be included in the Town’s sewer system, they work together to defray some of the costs involved. Mr. Chick Miller agreed and suggested they “join hands”.
- Item 24. deed restrictions etc., not applicable.
- Item 25. base flood elevations and hazard areas, not applicable.
- Item 26. DES permits and approvals have been applied for. They have shown a concrete slab to house a propane tank for fuel. There will be no underground storage for fuel oil. Propane will be used only.
C. Other plat submission items -Note: most of these items come later in the review, he touched on those applicable at this point.
- Item 1. has been submitted.
- Item 2. state subdivision approval, not applicable because the lot is greater than 5 acres. Mr. O’Keefe asked if the State would approve the septic system? Answer was yes. Mr. C. Miller pointed out rather than shipping all the waste water to the sewer plant why not see the benefit of eventually returning it to the aquifer by way of an on site septic system.
- Item 3. alteration of terrain permit is pending and has been applied with NH DES. Initial comments have raised some issues to be addressed.
- Item 4. State driveway permit has been granted, DOT letter on file.
- Item 5. Reports from Town officials; Mr. Hitchcock said they have not contacted all officials and assume they have been made aware of the project and plans by the Board. Sec. Aslinger said with the application just now being formally submitted requesting Town official’s comment would result from the review and possibly from tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Chris Miller provided the Board with a letter from Fire Chief Hurlburt regarding flammable liquids storage. V-Ch. Miller read the letter into the record dated 2/7/08 (on file). The letter stated Fire Inspector Herb Hurlburt toured the current facility in Bellows Falls finding the present storage and use of flammable coolants and oils pose no risk to the future building or occupants in his opinion, the amount that is on site and used is well below any danger levels.
According to the MSDS sheets the flammability levels for “Crystal clean” are 103 degrees farh. the quantity of 105 gallons in a closed system is a minor amount for this facility. He observed containment products close to the machine so any accidental spill could be handled quickly. The oil supply company has an active contract to change and dispose of the product monthly plus cleans and filters the products off site so no materials are disposed on site. Storage and use of other water based coolants looked consistent with acceptable practices for this type of product.
Selectman Sheldon Sawyer asked if Chamberlain’s plans had been posted for interested parties to view? Sec. Aslinger said yes, the plans have been posted for over 3 weeks in the Lobby of the Town Hall. Selectman Chick Miller thought if Town committees wanted to comment on the proposal the plans were available, perhaps Chamberlain could have encouraged their comments. V-Ch. Miller thought the availability of the plans was adequate but it is the responsibility of the Planning Board to ask for specific comments on the application from various Town officials, it could be discussed later in the review as concerns arise.
- Item 6. approval for municipal water/sewer connections, they have verbal approval for the water connection, written approval is pending. V-Ch. Miller stressed the importance of written agreements; any communications should be submitted in writing.
- Item 7. deed restrictions etc, not applicable, there are none.
- Item 8. State and Federal permits; the site specific permit, septic permit and stormwater retention plan are all pending.
- Item 9. impact analysis studies; a traffic impact study has been provided, Sec. Aslinger noted she has copies for Board members wishing to review it.
- Item 10. & 11. additional reports or studies are pending and may result from the review or not.
Mr. Hitchcock completed his presentation at 8:30pm.
Sec. Aslinger made her report on the completeness of the application noting that signs, sewer/septic issues and various permits were pending. She said the application for the purpose of acceptance by the Board was complete.
V-Ch. Miller asked members what other committees they thought should be contacted to look over the plans?
Mr. Mel Schupack asked if the site was located in the flood zone, thinking he saw a map showing it within the flood plain zone. Mr. Hitchcock said he did not check on it mainly because of the high elevation. He didn’t think it could possibly be in the flood zone. Sheldon Sawyer agreed noting where the lower portions along the river are in the flood plain, but Chamberlain’s site is 20 to 30 feet higher so doubted it is. The board will verify it.
Sec. Aslinger reminded the Board they were at a point where they need to accept the application as complete first. The necessary items such as the application, fees, abutter list, four paper copies of the plans have been received in a timely manner, the public hearing notice was properly published and abutters notified.
Mr. Merklein asked if by accepting the application as complete means nothing can be changed on the plans? Sec. Aslinger answered the board only accepts the basic documents to begin the formal review process, changes may occur anytime during the review process. Mr. Chick Miller asked if letters from various Town officials need to be received first, whether accepting the application prevents the Board from asking for further information. Sec. Aslinger said letters or other information the Board might request during the Site Plan Review is not required at this time to accept the application. The Board will decide later to approve, disapprove or delay action on the application once the public hearing has been held, this is only accepting it to begin the process. Mr. DeCoste tried to clarify saying he thought the applicant had addressed all the issues on the checklist in order to submit a complete application, discussion and detail would continue. Mr. Chick thought all items needed to be in hand before the Board accepted the application. Sec. Aslinger reiterated they were not handling this application differently from any other application that comes before the Board, the application is taken in at a regular planning board meeting, it includes an application, fees, abutter list and four sets of plans which constitutes a completed application. She said the Board then votes to accept the application and begins the formal review by holding a public hearing and deliberating on the merits of the proposal, reaching a final decision. She said to refer to the order of the agenda that begins with accepting the application, without accepting it first the Board can’t open the public hearing. Mr. C. Miller remained concerned as to how complete the application needed to be in order to accept it and was not sure a Secretary’s report was adequate. Mr. O’Keefe asked if there were any request for waivers? Answer was no.
Mr. Dave DeCoste made a motion to accept the application as presented, Mr. Eric Merklein seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Merklein asked to have all other agencies notified for their input on the application. V- Ch. Miller so noted, instructing the Secretary to make contact and report to the Board.
III. V-Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened (8:45) the public hearing reminding this was the time to take public comment and discussion. He asked Mr. Kinyon to make their presentation.
Attny. Kinyon said he would now present the substance of the Site Plan Review application as well as information in support of the Conditional Use Permit under the Well Source Protection Ordinance. He turned the presentation back to Mr. Hitchcock to go into more detail and answer any questions from the public or Board on the overall Site Plan.
Mr. Donald Lansbury, an audience member and recognized by the Chairman asked about the SW corner of the building specifically the shipping dock, how is it accessed, what is the elevation and how does it drain? Mr. Hitchcock pointed to the building map layout showing the dock; it is depressed 4 feet, noted the gradients allowing the depression that drains into a detention basin containing a dry well. The elevation is 3.3. Mr. Lansbury asked if they shipped goods on a standard 4 x 6 pallet/skid or larger? Chris Miller answered they use 4 x 6 pallets, nothing larger. Mr. Hitchcock showed how a truck would access the dock.
Mr. Hitchcock began by showing the overall site, locating the proposed buildings on the survey map. He said the site sits back 400 feet back from Rte. 12 and is in the Rural Ag. zone, the frontage is in the Commercial zone. He said the lot size is 12.15 acres the building is 49,000 sq. feet with approximately 74,000 sq. feet of asphalt on the site. There are currently 50 employees. They are providing 84 parking spaces allowing for visitors, guests and deliveries. Set backs are 20 feet, with 30 feet on the north side of the building, the lot is level with the loading dock area sloping down. The Main entry is on the NE corner, a secondary access for the employees and a second area for a truck unloading directly into the office area. They have included two concrete pads, one for the dumpster and one for the propane tank. They are using propane because of the well source protection area requirement. He showed an existing building to be saved used for miscellaneous storage. He said everything was designed to handle a WB50 truck a standard tractortrailer. The existing road will be reconstructed making Chamberlain’s turn off from it to access the building. They are going to tie in the existing driveways to the two homes serviced by the entrance road.
Mr. Miller asked if it was considered a road or driveway? Mr. Hitchcock said it is laid out as being 24 feet wide and paved so for all practical purposes it is a road but will not be taken over by the Town. He said the road is private and will remain private but constructed to Town standards. He said the existing farmhouse will be connected to the new road, but it is owned by Mr. Tousley and for him to decide. Sec. Aslinger asked about the length of the private road? Mr. Hitchcock answered from Rte. 12 to the end is 860 feet. Mr. C. Miller asked where the 200 ft. of frontage is? It was pointed out on the map as being 219 feet. Mr. Hitchcock stated they are allowed up to 30% coverage of impermeable surface according to the regulations they have 23% including the building and asphalt. Six catch basins are located and shown on the site specific application filed with DES.
Mr. Merklein asked if permeable surface had been considered? He provided a handout and supported the idea of either permeable concrete or asphalt despite the initial expense or scale. He asked while the Board can’t require it, have they considered it? Mr. Hitchcock replied he is very familiar with the surfaces known as either pervious concrete of porous asphalt. While he likes both surfaces he has concluded the expense is it’s biggest drawback. He said in concept both surfaces are great and pointed to UNH’s stormwater center that is leading the way across the country by actually studying their own installed examples of both surfaces. They have built parking lots made of the materials and it is very impressive. The concrete requires 3 feet of aggregate as a base and the concrete is 6 inches thick. He recently contacted Carroll Concrete for pricing, they are the only certified installer, as of eight weeks ago they would not quote a price.
Mr. Merklien asked about the New London Hospital porous asphalt parking lot. Mr. Hitchcock being somewhat knowledgeable about the project and concept said Pike construction determined they could not provide porous asphalt and stand behind the product. The Hospital because they had committed to the surface turned to Carroll Concrete who installed the concrete surface. The asphalt industry must retool in order to create the product. He said the lot was not a huge so it didn’t make sense for the asphalt company to retool for one day, it is an industry problem noting both surfaces would not be widely used until the industries come up with a way to make it affordable and competitive. He added that another obstacle is being the first one on the block to try it, if it fails it is a huge expense to replace it if something goes wrong. Both surfaces would require vacuuming after sanding about 3-4 times per year. Supposedly the concrete people feel it is equitable because of the high cost of commercial land. When there are regulated lot surface coverage requirements the permeability factor is not an issue. He questions whether it is a true cost savings if the land is already owned. He said it would not be a part of this proposal although he would support it if it were cost effective and proven in the long term in the Northeast. He said Keene has a parking lot going in as a test case.
Selectman Sawyer asked about salt on concrete. Mr. Hitchcock said typically salt is corrosive to concrete, however they have come up with formulas and additives to address that issue. They have documentation from England showing once salt passes through the concrete and aggregate base the hydrocarbons have been eliminated. He wasn’t certain if asphalt would do the same. He said even under ideal conditions as a design engineer he is reluctant to recommend either surface at this time. Mr. Merklein thanked him for his knowledgeable explanations.
Mr. Hitchcock indicated where the utilities and water lines would be located. He said the sprinkler contactor would dictate what size of line would be needed; being at least a six or eight inches depending on the pressure needs and flow. He said the septic system was being designed for 70 persons. The DES standard for persons in a manufacturing facility is 25 gallons per day per person, equaling 1750 gallons per day. He said in reality they would probably generate 750 gallons per day. As a general rule the “real flows” are 50% of the “book flows” in part due to new low water toilets.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if there would be any process waste? Answer was no, none whatsoever.
Mr. Mel Schupack asked if the septic would be “enviroseptic”, answer was yes. Mr. Hitchcock said preliminary plans are to install two septic tanks with “enviroseptic pipe” made of polyethylene wrapped with a type of fabric because there is a 40% reduction in bed size. Because these systems are also used in commercial operations stone companies don’t sell as much stone meaning they don’t wash their stone as well which leads to clogged bed bottoms. He no longer designs or installs stone pipe systems.
Mr. O’Keefe asked about process waste and what happens to it? Mr. Hitchcock said all solvents and oils being used are collected and recycled. Mr. Chris Miller confirmed that some water-based materials are used but are separated and reused. Mr. O’Keefe asked then there are no process wastes going down the drain? Answer was none, it would be illegal in NH. Mr. O’Keefe agreed but cautioned it had happened before in Walpole. Mr. Hitchcock said you cannot have floor drains and they are not planning any floor drains. If they were to incorporate floor drains they would have to be run into a holding tank and have it pumped out periodically such as a similar situation with Fed-Ex in Keene using a system allowing them to wash their trucks inside at their facility. Mr. Merklein asked about cleaning the machinery? Mr. Chris Miller said all the cleaning materials are in separate components. The waste is picked up by a local contractor and the material has been tested and is approved to be disposed of in a municipal sewer treatment plant, however they elect to remain with their handler in Bellows Falls, who takes it to the waste treatment plant. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out the location of the 5 test pits on the plan.
Mr. Hitchcock turned to the lighting plan, showing 9 light poles, 30 feet tall, type 400 block metal halide. The contours are 1/4 foot candle which is about as low as any programs will go. The light load is 4.8 max, min. 0.8, ave 2.4 foot candles throughout the parking lot. There are 7 follow up lights 3 feet tall to light walkways. There are some wall packs for security and safety by the entrances. He said Chamberlain runs one shift although they have a flex schedule but everyone is gone by 5 or 6pm, the lights will be out by 7pm. He said a minimum amount of security lights would be left on.
Mr. Merklein asked if the plans conform to the regulations for lighting standards. Answer was yes although the regs are lacking specifics. Mr. Merklein wants to make certain light pollution is addressed. Mr. Hitchock said all the lights are shoebox type and full cut off, so the light goes down rather than up to prevent light pollution. Mr. O’Keefe said 30 feet is high and can be seen by passing vehicles. Mr. Hitchcock agreed but said the higher the light the fewer required, going shorter means more lights. Mr. O’Keefe asked for a cut sheet showing luminaries. Mr. Hitchcock provided three copies for the files. Mr. Hitchcock noted the site remains 400 feet from the highway. V-Ch. Bob Miller asked how the residences would be affected? The very dense evergreen buffer will shield the residences, he will make certain they will be at least 20 feet tall or they will reduce the height of the poles. In addition they are adding 8 evergreen trees to the already dense buffer to prevent headlight penetration onto the residences. Ms. Aslinger asked if the Malnati’s be looking up into the lights? Answer was not likely but Mr. Hitchcock was not certain it would require further study.
Mr. Merklein asked if there were plans for safety lighting onto Rte. 12. Mr. Hitchcock did not see the necessity but would comply with what the Board wants. Mr. Sheldon Sawyer noted that NH Dept. of Transportation would generally make the recommendation if needed. DOT has not made a recommendation for a safety or traffic light and they have given their approval. Mr. Hitchcock said the traffic study presented to the Zoning Board at the special exception hearing showed where DOT rated the area as a level of service A being one of the lowest ratings possible. He explained “level of service” is rated like a report card A - F with A being the best and F the worst. The DOT will design intersections with a level of service D. He said even with the Chamberlain project in place the level of service rating will remain at A for all turning movements. He said the level of service is a function of how long you have to wait to turn onto Rte. 12. Selectman Chick Miller noting more development was likely asked how would that change it? Mr. Hitchcock said DOT does not want lights, comparing a site in Keene at Smith Plaxco and C & S on Rte. 12 with higher commercial traffic without a light. He guarantees they will not suggest a light unless requested by the Town for documented reasons ie; accidents.
Mr. Hitchcock switched over to the landscape plan. He said the landscaping regulations were somewhat unclear but they have complied as recommended and made additions where needed. There are 22 trees 2 1/2 - 3” in caliper when planted and evenly distributed around the site. There are 81 shrubs in a 3 gallon size. Mr. Daviss asked how the four varieties were chosen were they chosen for aesthetics and/or hardiness? Mr. Hitchcock thought they were chosen for both reasons. They were picked by the landscape architect who was not present to whom he suggested keeping the selection down for simplicity although they would be willing to add varieties or substitutes if required by the Board. Ms. Aslinger noted that it seemed most of the landscaping revolved around the parking lot standards where the screening is specified in the regulations. He agreed saying they looked at the parking lot standards in order to provide 1 shrub for each 1.6 parking space, they went over the required number to 81. Mr. Chick Miller asked if they would be maintained, answer was yes. Mr. Hitchcock said the standard for plantings is based on the parking lot standards and asphalt. They would be glad to remove or add as the Board decides.
Mr. Chick Miller asked if the parking lot configurations were going to interfere with snowplowing? Answer was yes, for snowplowing it is best to have no plantings and no curbing. The plan shows sloped granite curbing. He said if it isn’t curbed however the landscaping cannot be maintained.
Mr. Ben Daviss said when Chamberlain first came in with their proposal they talked about expansion, he wondered where they plan to expand and if it would effect the 30% undeveloped open space requirement? Mr. Hitchcock referred to the plans showing an area on the east face of the building where the offices are proposed. They have allowed for a small 70 foot office expansion and also at the back of the building on the west side for expansion of manufacturing if needed. He felt the expansion would not go beyond the 30% requirement noting 7% remainder of 12.15 acres is quite a bit of land. He said history would tell them if they need additional parking spaces but he did not think it was likely.
(9:10pm) V. Ch. Miller called for additional questions from the public or board members.
Mr. O’Keefe asked about the entrances on sheet C-3 and pedestrian traffic to clarify where employees and visitors would enter and exit. He also asked about the building height. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out the entrances and exits. The building height will be 18 feet with a flat roof and screened roof mounted ventilation.
Mr. Merklein asked if the building design plans were available so the Board could see what it will look like as well as what it is made of? He remarked that generally in all of the past projects the actual building design and elevations are part of the plan, not just the footprint.
Mr. Chris Miller provided the Board with very preliminary drawings showing a single story building. The architect has not been finalized for the actual building. Mr. Chris Miller said they are still deciding on the exterior ribbing/siding but they have decided to use masonry on the front and across the office area. The rest of the manufacturing building is shown with vertical ribbed metal siding; the color has not been finalized but will be chosen to blend in with the surroundings. There are some lights shown across the full length on the top of the building called “calwall” to provide natural lighting and cut down on interior lighting fixtures and costs also making it a much nicer interior environment. He said the purpose of the masonry is to provide a low key building style to fit in with the site. He said there would be some roof mounted HVAC equipment and it has been pushed back so it won’t be as visible and it will be screened. Mr. Merklein asked if they had considered “green” alternatives for fuel and building materials. Mr. Miller said yes they have considered choosing environmental design elements. They are currently in the process of choosing the engineering firm to construct the building and will look into recapture of radiant heat from the building as well as other ideas.
V-Ch. Bob Miller asked if Mr. Kinyon had anything else to present? He said no, but they were willing to go into their presentation on the Conditional Use Permit. V-Ch. Miller agreed.
Mr. Kinyon reminded that the Conditional Use Permit was to be reviewed under the Town of Walpole Well Source Protection Ordinance, not the Site Plan Review regulations. He said the map included in the WSP Ordinance shows their site within the well source protection area but they are not convinced they are truly within the district based on research Steve Brackett the geologist for Chamberlain Machine has done. In his professional opinion regarding the ordinance it appears the property may not be properly designated as being within the wellhead district because of the relationship of that district geographically to the actual well. Mr. Kinyon stated that under the WSPO there is a provision under Section 2 that allows for an applicant to seek a change to the boundaries if they think their lot is not properly within the protection area. He said they were not going to seek to change the boundary because even assuming they are in the wellhead protection district they will be able to qualify pretty easily for a conditional use permit. However he wanted to bring the issue up to the Board in order to provide some background. He said he wanted to be clear they are not here tonight with their application under the Well Source Protection Ordinance to change the boundary, but they do somewhat question whether the boundary is accurate. He said what they are applying for is under Section 4 of the ordinance stating: if a development is within the protection district then a conditional use permit must be obtained from the Planning Board including industrial, commercial, institutional and governmental uses not prohibited by the ordinance. Chamberlain falls under an industrial use. He said under Section 4. B. there are 5 standards are to be met. He said 2-5 have been met, he will address them briefly, Mr. Brackett will address item 1.
With respect to #2. - there will be no long term reduction to the aquifer because it will be on Town water.
With respect to #3, - the site plan presentation made clear the sewage disposal system will be designed to handle standard effluent only.
With respect to #4, - since the water use will be minimal they will not have any effect on the aquifer recharging, the proposed use will not cover more than 20% of the lot, however they have submitted a stormwater management plan with the Board.
With respect to #5, - they have obtained a special exception from the ZBA this being the only other relevant ordinance referred to in #5.
He concluded saying those standards have been met, however standard #1 requires the benefit of Steve Brackett’s insight. He read #1: “The proposed use will not detrimentally affect the quality of the ground water contained in the aquifir by directly contributing to pollution or by increasing long term susceptibility of the aquifer to potential pollutants.” He said in the original application materials he provided a letter from Mr. Brackett to address the standard (on file). Mr. Kinyon asked Mr. Brackett to make a brief presentation on his findings.
Mr. Brackett provided handouts for the Board (copy on file). He is a State of NH licensed geologist and has practiced geology for 28 years with the last 18 in Cheshire County. His office is in Keene. He has practiced in MA, RI, CT, NH and VT. He said a little over a year ago he was contacted by Chamberlain Machine to provide preliminary studies on their proposal. He has visited the existing Chamberlain operation for a complete understanding of what they do, visited the proposed site and has gotten the DES file for the Walpole River Well. Based on all the information it is his contention the fundamental reason this site does not pose a threat to the River Well and aquifir is geological. He referred to the handout map showing the site, the source protection district and the well. He said in order for contamination to go from Chamberlain’s site to the well it would need to be carried in the groundwater for a long distance. He said the groundwater would have to be flowing in the direction of the river well which is W-NW. He showed on the 2nd page a groundwater contour map developed by USGS in the 1990’s from a regional study done on the entire southern portion of NH. He said the map was derived out of this study. It shows the groundwater surface elevations under the ground. In addition the same map was used in 2001 by Doug Heath of EPA when he delineated the source protection area for the Walpole River well. He said the map is used by geologists to determine groundwater flow and it is his intent to convince the Board that water flows downhill. He asked members to look at the contour map stating the water flow is going to be perpendicular to the contours/elevations. He said in the center of the map he has indicated where Chamberlain’s building is located. As shown there are two closely spaced contours to the south, those indicate the slope that is steep to the south of the building, meaning the direction of the water flow underneath the Chamberlain building is to the south. Based the study he prepared, the 18 years of experience and working in the Connecticut River Valley, he cannot imagine how the water would go from south to north against the direction of flow. Ultimately this site will not impact the River Well because the groundwater flows to the South, not to the Northwest.
He said two other arguments prove the site will not pose a threat to the River well. First taking into consideration the current regulatory environment - which is to say businesses like Chamberlain Machine are very heavily regulated on their use of process fluids plus given the fact construction of the building lacks any floor drains or breaks in the floors, any spills would be extremely obvious and cleaned up. Based on his experience and review of data-bases maintained by NH DES and VT DEC, operations such as this do not pose even a very minimal risk of contamination. In fact based on a review of NH DES database he did for this review he could not find any similar facility causing contamination within the last 15 years. He said 30 or 50 years ago machine shops were terrible contributors to pollution all over the nation, those being within a whole different business environment compared to today. He said the last argument in favor of his position as now all know the facility is sitting on a large glacial terrace, the drop of topography is in excess of 40 feet to the Malnati farm. The water table under the site is greater than 35 feet deep, so if there were somehow a release at the facility and it somehow got outside the building before it was addressed it would have to saturate a 35 foot thick bed of fine sand before the material ever made it to the water table flowing south - not to the northwest.
Mr. O’Keefe noted there was possibly a greater chance of contamination from the parking lot than from the facility. Mr. Brackett agreed noting there is a greater risk of housing development contamination. In fact the NH DES database shows most contamination incidences in the last 5 years resulting from fuel oil spill at residences. He said a 20 home residential development would pose a greater risk to the well than Chamberlain’s operation.
Mr. Kinyon wrapped up their presentation on the Conditional Use permit stating they were prepared to answer member or audience questions. V-Ch. B. Miller called for questions from the audience, there were none.
Mr. O’Keefe asked for further clarification on item #3 regarding the on site storage of hazardous or toxic materials. Mr. Brackett stated the materials being used are being used in a manner that while they could be potentially hazardous they are exempt from Federal RECRA and State regulation. RECRA (Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1976) regulates and was written specifically to address and identify how hazardous materials are to be properly stored and used. The reason they are exempt from RECRA regulation is because the materials they are using are recycled. He said they have process fluids on site but none are regulated.
V-Ch. Bob Miller referred to an attachment to Mr. Brackett’s letter listing all the process fluids by manufacturer, trade name, use, gallons on site, hazard class, flammability rating and waste stream. He read the notation: “No process fluids used at CMI are, or have ingredients that are, considered hazardous according to EPA RECRA Sect. 2001 40CFR Sect. 261.31-261.33.”
Mr. Ben Daviss said in the WSP ordinance under Prohibited Uses J. it states “all onsite handling, disposal, storage or recycling of hazardous or toxic materials”(are prohibited). He said the ordinance defines things that are hazardous as being things that are flammables such as solvents and oils. The letter from the Fire Chief stated flammable materials were being used, which is prohibited. He asked if the WSP ordinance is overridden by State law, so it doesn’t pertain to them?
Mr. Brackett said generally the Federal Govt. determines what is hazardous or not. As far as what is flammable one of the solids used is a low grade flammable if he remembers correctly. However under federal and state hazardous materials laws, which have been piggybacked on the federal laws there is an allowance for methods of use, storage and disposal of materials that are exempt from those laws. Their position is that because they are doing what they are supposed to do in properly handling the process fluids by recycling, they do not use, store or dispose of any hazardous materials as defined by the federal or state regulations. He said some of the materials do have the characteristics prohibited in the ordinance but they are using, storing and disposing of them in the proper manner that exempts them from Federal and State regulation. Mr. Daviss asked even though it (a fluid) is flammable and prohibited from being used in the source protection area, it does not apply to Chamberlain? Mr. Brackett said unless the Town of Walpole wants to invest in a new set of definitions different from the State and Federal definitions of hazardous and toxic materials they must go by the State and Federal definitions.
Mr. Daviss read the definition within the WSP ordinance for hazardous or toxic materials: “Material which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed including without exception hazardous materials identified and listed in accordance with Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Examples include: 1) Toxic (poisonous), 2) flammable (paint, varnish remover, solvents and oils) 3) Reactive, 4) Corrosive (acids)”. He said it’s not saying when you misuse them, it’s saying when materials that if they are misused will have these effects.
Mr. Brackett said when you continue on the same section “when improperly …in accordance with RECRA…” RECRA is the government agency that regulates the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and NH has additional laws. He said under RECRA they have the exemption, if they have the exemption under the federal and state agencies it seems they should have the same exemption under the Well Source Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Daviss thought the word “including” meant not just the things listed in RECRA, rather “any” material. He said he was struggling with the interpretation and how to apply the ordinance. He understood what Mr. Brackett was saying about being exempt under RECRA but did not understand how they were exempt from Walpole’s ordinance.
Attny. Kinyon interjected stating whenever you read an ordinance, federal or state law you have to apply different “rules of construction”. One rule is being able to look at it so the different provisions of the ordinance all fit together and make sense. He doesn’t disagree that a literal reading of hazardous and toxic materials in the ordinance if looked at in isolation and in part is capable of a meaning of hazardous materials that is broader than RECRA. He thinks when reasonably read and construed with the rest of the ordinance, in reference to hazardous materials, the very recognition that industrial, commercial, institutional, and governmental uses can qualify for conditional use permits - you can’t help but conclude industrial uses dealing with potentially hazardous materials in a reasonable way are meant to be able to qualify for a conditional use permit. Rather than being disqualified per se because they might have an on site material if used improperly could harm the environment. He said every home has materials in it if used improperly could damage the environment but obviously the ordinance it is not trying to prevent single family residences in the area. He said when read together in context with the rest of the ordinance the Board can and should reasonably make the ordinance apply in an overall fashion and context by saying we could interpret it that way (more restrictive) or a more reasonable interpretation is to piggyback on RECRA and follow its lead to say that if used properly these things won’t be a hazard to the well.
Mr. Schupack said even if the materials are handled properly if they are outside of the building at times and if they are in the flood zone there is a potential for contamination, hypothetically. V-Ch. Miller thought it was irrelevant to this situation. He mentioned Pinnacle View as being a huge potential contaminant, however it was grand-fathered and not subject to the ordinance at all. V-Ch. Miller said fortunately they are reputable people who use care in their facility.
Ms. Aslinger said she reviewed in detail the Well Source Protection ordinance from beginning to end to fully understand it’s intent. She obtained a copy of RECRA section 3001 on-line and read the extensive description of what constituted hazardous materials under the section. She said the ordinance obviously was put in place to protect the water supply, which is very important but she can’t imagine it was designed to be so restrictive a person couldn’t have a container of insect spray on their property. She thought “J.” under Prohibited Uses was overly broad agreeing that it is difficult to interpret. She thanked Mr. Daviss for questioning the ordinance in order to help the Board make an accurate interpretation.
(9:50pm) V-Ch. Bob Miller called for further comments, being none asked if the Board preferred to close or continue the Public Hearing until the next meeting. A motion was made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing until the March 11, 2008 meeting at 7:30pm in the upstairs of the Town Hall. Motion carried. Sec. Aslinger suggested continuing the review until the next meeting due to the late hour and pending agenda items, members agreed.
VI. Unfinished Business
A. Walpole D & D, LLC - Review revised deed restrictions, members received mailed copy’s of the revised document prior to the meeting. Mr. Dill was present to answer questions. Secretary Aslinger reported the revision adequately reflected what the Board requested at the prior meeting, members agreed. Mr, Dill said the wetlands have been staked out and recorded on a map for State subdivision approval. Sec. Aslinger will send a follow up letter to Mr. Dill stating receipt and compliance with the deed restrictions condition. She will leave D & D on the agenda for the March meeting.
VII. New Business
A. Toby Tousley - Preliminary Consultation - Minor 3 lot subdivision located on Rte. 12, former Huntington Farm, remaining parcel. Mr. Tousley submitted an application, fees, abutter list and maps for a 3 lot minor subdivision Map 12 Lot 4-1 in the Commercial and Rural Agricultural districts. Lot 1 is 23.81 ac, Lot 2 is 5.67 ac, Lot 3 is 1.98 ac. All lots meet the frontage requirements of 200 ft. with all fronting on Rte. 12. The purpose is to sell Lot 1 and 2 to Bensonwood, a local manufacturing business. Mr. Tousley pointed out the lot configuration with Lot 3 to the South all within the commercial district, Lot 2 will consist of a piece on the northerly side to include the buildings Hubbard is leasing from him and Lot 1 will be “u” shaped with combined frontage along Rte. 12 to be sold to Bensonwood, He explained the reason there are two separate lots is to avoid having two separate businesses on one lot which is prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance. He said Bensonwood would come to the Board with their site plan. Eventually when the Hubbard lease is up in 10 years they will likely merge Lot 1 & 2 back together. It was noted Lot 1 includes the ROW for the Chamberlain parcel. He said when the lots are merged the front of Lot 2 could be returned to a commercial lot. The access for Bensonwood would be on Huntington Lane because Hubbard discourages the use of Edwards Lane due to potential disease issues. Mr. DeCoste reminded that Bensonwood would be required to go through the same special exception process as Chamberlain for a manufacturing facility in the Rural Ag. zone. Ms. Aslinger made a motion to place the application on the March 11, 2008 agenda and to schedule the Public Hearing. Seconded, motion carried unanimously.
B. NH Trust for Public Lands - Josh Kelly, Lot Line Adjustment on Henry Cabot Land Rte. 12 aka Ballam Farm project. Mr. Joe DiBernardo was unable to present the proposal instead instructed the Secretary to make the presentation. Sec. Aslinger asked member Ben Daviss to explain the proposal. Mr. Daviss referred to the survey map prepared for the Henry Cabot Trust to benefit the Town of Walpole by giving them an 8 acre piece of land as an addition to their “River Well” property Map 12, Lot 3. The Walpole Selectmen in consultation with Mark Houghton, Water Supt. Requested this additional land as a site for the Town to locate a new well should it be needed in the future. The Henry Cabot Trust will not deed this land to the Town until they are paid in full by TPL at the closing of their property Map 23, Lots 12-1thru 12-4. The closing is estimated to occur in late March at which time TPL and Henry Cabot Trust will seek to record the survey mylar of the Lot Line Adjustment if approved by the Planning Board at their March 11, 2008 meeting. Mr. Sheldon Sawyer said the BOS have yet to determine whether the Water Dept. or Town will be accepting the land on behalf of the Town there are benefits if the Water Dept. acquires it vs. the Town. Mr. Fletcher asked about missing road frontage. Ms. Aslinger said since no new lot is being created, road frontage is not an issue, it is not a subdivision which would require frontage. A lot can be created without frontage as long as it isdesignated non-buildable but it does not apply to this application. She said a motion was needed to place the application on the agenda for the March 11, 2008 meeting and schedule the public hearing. She noted the fees, application and abutter list has not been submitted tonight but is promised by Mr. DiBernardo within the deadline. A motion was made and seconded to place the application for the lot line adjustment on the agenda for the March 11, 2008 meeting and schedule the public hearing pending receipt of additional application materials prior to the deadline. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. O’Keefe asked if the map could be configured showing North as up? Sec. Aslinger will relay that request to Mr. DiBernardo.
C. Dick Fraser for Whitcomb excavation project on Old Drewsville Rd. He explained that the ZBA has requested they seek a special exception recommendation and site plan review by the Planning Board. Mr. Fraser introduced himself as a representative of Frank Whitcomb. They started a year ago on a project speaking with Sec. Aslinger about procedures to follow. Initially they were instructed to go through the special exception/site plan process by the Secretary but former planning board member Dave Edkins and Chairman Jeff Miller concluded the project would only need review under the zoning ordinance under Article IV - General Provisions E. as an allowed use in the district. After applying to the Zoning Board under Article IV the ZBA has determined a special exception and site plan is required on advice from the Town’s attorney. Mr. Fraser understands the Board would make a recommendation to the Zoning Board for the special exception and then he would return to the Board for a site plan review. He would like a determination by the Planning Board as to whether Site Plan Review can be waived according to Section IV of the Site Plan Review regulations stating if it is non-residential and if the cost remains under $10,000.00. They want to develop a small pond with the excavation materials to be used in personal construction projects to fulfill State contracts as part of Whitcomb’s commercial road construction business. The new proposal is 2.7 acres to be excavated with a site disturbance of 3.63 acres in total, there are no buildings being proposed. Members questioned whether the site could be excavated for under $10,000.00 and questioned the “personal use” of the materials qualifying as a non-commercial enterprise. Mr. Fraser thought they could develop the property for under $10,000.00.
ZBA Chairman Myra Mansouri was present adding some background: in 1998 the same site was granted a special exception and site plan review for a 40 x 60 pole barn and storage area. The pole barn was never built nor was the Site Plan approval conformed to. With their new proposal a change in use triggers the Site Plan Review and because it is a commercial operation in the Rural Agricultural zone a special exception is required.
Selectman Sawyer disagreed reading from the Zoning Ordinance directing an excavation project to be reviewed under RSA 155E only and read a court case stating RSA 155E preempts attempt to “frustrate” by more restrictive review. He did note the case referred to a blasting operation. He supported the idea of excavations being reviewed under Article IV. General Provisions E. only as an allowed use and permitting process through the ZBA and provisions of State RSA 155E. He does not agree a special exception or site plan review is necessary.
Selectman Chick Miller thought there were benefits of requiring the site plan review to address landscaping and traffic issues.
Members were unsure of how to advise Mr. Fraser without a set of plans or details to look at. Mr. Daviss asked how long a period of time would the project operate? Answer was 5 years. Mr. Ben Daviss recused himself from commenting because he lives near the project.
Mr. Fraser tried verbally to explain the scope and location of the project but members were reluctant to offer advice without specific plans. Mr. Merklein expressed concern over traffic issues.
Selectman Sawyer said during the ZBA excavation review, the ZBA on the advice of the Town Lawyer have determined a site plan and special exception is required but he believes the ordinance does not require it.
V-Ch. Bob Miller said he would agree with the ZBA that a site plan and special exception is required. Mr. DeCoste said the special exception is only a recommendation by the Planning Board to the ZBA. He questioned whether the Board can advise when they do not have specific plans to review. Mr. Chick Miller suggested contacting legal advice on who has the greater authority. Mr. Fraser said the State requirements are very clear, as far as who has the authority over this the Town has appointed the ZBA as the regulator so they have the most say.
Mr. Fraser said the ZBA could be more restrictive than the State.
Chairman Mansouri is concerned about the Site Plan approval not conformed to that remains in place. The ZBA will require a special exception recommendation from the Planning Board for the excavation but also needs clarification on the existing site plan review and subsequent new site plan review due to the change in use.
Mr. O’Keefe asked what is on the site? Answer was storage of culverts and road construction materials. Mr. O’Keefe tried to determine whether there was a change in use to trigger a site plan such as an increase in traffic. Members agreed there would be a change in use and subject to site plan review and agreed more detail was necessary.
Mr. Fraser offered a set of plans for the Board to review however due to the late hour V-Ch. Miller asked to have him return to the next meeting better prepared. Mr. Fraser then asked if he was dismissing his request to determine whether the proposal was exempt for Site Plan Review due to it’s development value being less than $10,000.00? Members thought it was unlikely but they would need proof of costs along with specific plans.
Sec. Aslinger thought because it is a commercial use within the rural agricultural district the special exception recommendation requested by the ZBA is valid. She pointed out the new project is not what has been presented to the ZBA, Mr. Fraser agreed. She said Mr. Fraser last met two weeks ago to go through the files to re-construct a history on the parcel. She said originally he contacted her about a small excavation project asking her to define a procedure. She wrote him a rather lengthy letter describing the process for an excavation project in the rural agricultural district since it would be a change in use to an industrial use, he would need to obtain a special exception from the ZBA and site plan review. She based the procedures on Chamberlains similar situation. Within a few days Jeff and Dave determined the Zoning Ordinance specified an excavation project needed only to follow what is outlined in E. Removal of Sand and Gravel Article IV. General Provisions following RSA 155 E and permitting through the ZBA. Ch. Miller asked her to send a correction letter. When Mr. Fraser appeared before the ZBA, (she suggested members go back and read the past several months of Zoning minutes), the ZBA questioned whether a special exception was required and contacted the Town Lawyer for advice. Because a special exception and site plan had been granted on the site before precedence had been set. It was in the ZBA’s and Legal Counsel’s opinion it should be reviewed under the special exception process. She said as side note she believed she had instructed Mr. Fraser on the correct procedure originally and that the regulations shouldn’t disallow any industrial or commercial use by special exception in the rural agricultural zone. She said one of the Board’s proposed 2008 zoning amendments clarifies and reinforces what is already present in the ordinance. Since precedence has been set by requiring a special exception and site plan on the original project it seems to be the correct direction to take on the new proposal. She said if Mr. Fraser wants a specific determination, he would need to provide plans for the Board to determine a cost valuation. Mr. Fraser asked why Mr. Whitcomb was originally required to undergo Site Plan Review for a simple pole barn, why didn’t the dollar value apply especially since he never constructed the building? Ms. Aslinger speculated if he had come before the Board without the pole barn chances are he would have possibly qualified for the $10,000.00 exemption. He asked how to nullify the original special exception and site plan. Sec. Aslinger said the Board has a revocation procedure that can be initiated by an applicant.
Mr. Fraser submitted a preliminary set of plans and asked the Board to direct his next application steps. He said the Town attorney stated in a letter to the ZBA in regard to the special exception the Planning Board would waive requirements C. 1 a and b and recommend it to the Zoning Board. In the Attorney’s view the sections are approved and given the preamble that expressly permits gravel extraction as a use in the district. He asked when they come before the Planning Board for the site plan review could the special exception recommendation take place at the same time? Sec. Aslinger said it is done in two steps with one application for the special exception recommendation and it’s public hearing, sending the recommendation to the ZBA who will then decides on the special exception after holding their public hearing. If the special exception is granted he would then return to the Planning Board with an application for Site Plan Review. She asked him to review the original letter for procedures. He asked if he were to be placed on the agenda for the March meeting and obtain the special exception recommendation he could appear before the Zoning Board in March and if granted the special exception return to the Planning Board in April for the site plan review. Answer was because he needs to file an application with fees, abutter list and four sets of plans at tonight’s meeting the Board could not schedule him for the March meeting. He asks when the RSA 155E permitting process takes place. Ch. Mansouri said it would be attached to the special exception application and site specific plans submitted to the ZBA.
Mr. Merklein asked where to begin reading the minutes from the ZBA for background? Answer was begin with May of 2006. Mr. Fraser asked if the Secretary could to review the site specific plans? She said giving a set of plans to her does not constitute an application filing, he must fill out an application provide fees, an abutter list and 4 sets of plans for the special exception recommendation as well as for the site plan review if the ZBA grants the special exception. He asked to have an application e-mailed to him. Sec. Aslinger said the Board only takes in applications for review at it’s regular meetings to allow all members to verify whether it can be scheduled for acceptance and a public hearing, so he would not be able to do that tonight. She will e-mail the application and suggested he re-read the 4/2006 letter describing the procedures.
Mr. Merklein asked how deep the pond would be? Mr. Fraser said average depth would be 11 - 12 feet.
Mr. Chick Miller moved to adjourn the meeting - it was seconded.
Other: Selectman Sawyer made an announcement that the BOS had received a petitioned amendment to go to a non-Town meeting vote referred to as “SB-2”, similar to what the School district does. He said the BOS is not in favor of it, they prefer to have Town participation. A public hearing will be held on it Thursday February 21, 2008 in the Selectman’s Office.
V-Ch. Bob Miller called the vote to adjourn the meeting, failing he moved forward with the remainder agenda items.
VIII. Communications and Miscellanous
A. A work session was scheduled for February 26th at 7pm in the basement office.
B. Subdivision Regs update - passed over
C. Meeting time change - Sec. Aslinger announced it was a perfect time to mention changing the meeting time from 7:30pm to 7:00pm to prevent late meetings. All agreed - to be discussed at the next meeting. Budget fees increase - passed over
D. Other - none
IX. Motion (10:45pm) to adjourn the meeting was made and seconded, motion carried.
Cc: file, PB members, ZBA, Town Offices
Posted: www.walpoleplanningboard.org and www.thewalpolean.com