Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
February 13, 2007–7:30 pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
( approved as amended 3/13/07)
Presiding: Jeffrey Miller, Chairman
Members Present: Bob Miller, V. Ch., Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman, Henry Fletcher, Bennett Daviss, Fred Dill, alt.
Members Absent: David DeCoste, Eric Merklein, Dave Edkins, alt.
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, alt. and Secretary
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the March 13, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections. (There were 6 persons in attendance)
I. Meeting opened at 7:30pm
A. Pamela Aslinger was designated for E. Merklein
B. Minutes from 1/9/07 and 1/23/07 were approved with one amendment
to 1/9/07 adding D. Edkins as absent.
II. Ch. Miller called for review of the Jeff and Karen Michaud, LLC Minor 2 Lot Subdivision located on 40 Meadow Access Lane off Dearborn Circle Rd., Map 12, Lot 55-4 in the commercial zone. The purpose is to create Lot 2 of 2.01 acres by reducing Lot 1 with the existing buildings to 4.76 acres. Mr. Michaud was present and gave a brief description, presenting the Board with photos of the area. He explained his intent to build a single-family residence on the newly created lot. He has spoken with both direct abutters (Byrne/Carey) who approve of his plan. He pointed out where the fence line would be moved on the Byrne side of the lot and showed where the required 200 ft. frontage on Rte. 12 is located following the bank along the north back line. His access will remain off of Dearborn Circle Rd. across a 20 ft. easement called Meadow Access Lane. Secretary Aslinger reported the application was complete, fees collected and abutters properly notified. Ch. Miller called for a motion to accept the application as presented, so moved and seconded. Motion carried unanimously. (Mr. Dill, an abutter did not participate in the review of this application.)
III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing on the Michaud 2 Lot Subdivision. Ch. Miller called for questions or comments from the audience. Jeff White asked Mr. Michaud where the fence would be re-located, Mr. Michaud showed Mr. White on the map.
Being no further questions,
IV. Ch. Miller closed the Hearing and reopened the Meeting.
V. Ch. Miller called for Board discussion/action. Henry Fletcher moved to approve the application as presented, seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The maps and mylar were signed. Mr. Michaud will record the mylar at the registry of deeds and notify Sec. Aslinger with the cabinet and drawer numbers.
VI. Ch. Miller closed the Meeting and opened the Public Hearing on the Site Plan Review amendment addressing Open Space Standards.
Ch. Miller read the amendment wording. He stated Mr. Merklein, author of the amendment was not in attendance to present the amendment. Ms. Aslinger stated she was able to present the amendment along with an agreed upon revision to the amendment addressing concerns raised by Dave Edkins in an e-mail regarding the exclusion of drainage and retention areas from the 30% and whether the setback areas would be considered within the 30% open space. She said after speaking with Mr. Merklein about the concerns and others mentioned at prior meetings, he agreed to come prepared to the meeting with alternate wording. His idea was to come to the meeting prepared but to take input from the public before changing the wording thus allow other issues to be brought up. She said she would distribute the alternative wording once the public made their comments and the hearing was closed. Ch. Miller called for comments. Mr. Schupack asked if Site Plan Review dealt only with commercial developments, answer was yes. He asked if it was a residential subdivision would it be affected, answer was no. Being no further comments;
VII. Ch. Miller closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the meeting.
Ch. Miller called for Board discussion. He said there would be no action taken by the Board at tonight’s meeting, a second public hearing will be held in March to address any changes. Mr. Dill asked if, by disallowing the drainage as part of the 30%, does it encourage the developer to squeeze it in a deep sunk hole instead of a gradual slope. He referred to current conditions at N. Meadow Plaza where there is a gradual drainage area, passable by snowmobile. He said the alternative could be a deep area surrounded by chain link fence in order to provide the 30% open space. He said he was concerned about the looks of it also. Ch. Miller questioned if most recommended drainage standards would prevent steep drainage areas. He thought the 30% open space should include the drainage areas. Ms. Aslinger said she thought Mr. Dill’s concern is valid, the alternative wording addresses drainage differently. She asked the Board to review the alternative wording handout. She said the term “open space” used in the original wording refers to a residential/conservation/preservation term rather than the intent of the amendment to limit the amount of coverage on a commercial lot. She said by adding the word undeveloped open space shown in the revised wording it better described the intent to limit the amount of developed area on a commercial lot to 70%. She read the revised wording:
“Add new: B. Undeveloped Open Space Standards: No less than thirty percent (30%) of the entire lot to be developed shall be retained as undeveloped open space, unencumbered by building, parking lots, accessory structures, other impervious surfaces or other manmade improvements except those improvements which specifically support the use of undeveloped open space, such as a path, fence or seating. Said undeveloped open space may be used for lawns, gardens, landscaping and passive recreation. Said undeveloped open space may include the setback areas as defined in Walpole’s Zoning Ordinance.
Delete 1. and 2. go forward with changing B. Screening through Q. Underground Utilities to C. Screening through R. Underground Utilities.”
She said the new wording eliminates the original statements about drainage and run-off protection areas because they fall under “manmade” improvements. She said adding the setback wording addresses Dave Edkins concern, agreeing it should be spelled out. Mr. Dill, Ch. Miller and Mr. Sawyer thought the drainage and retention areas should remain as part of the 30%, so as not to take away more of a developer’s available land. Mr. Sawyer thought it would reduce the value of the lot and limit the number of buyers. Ms. Aslinger said or it could improve the value by keeping it at a higher standard than pavement from one edge to the other. She said there are two different types of developers, ones that want to build from edge to edge and ones who want to build something in keeping with the character of the Town. She reminded that protective character standards are already built into the Master Plan and regulations. Mr. Sawyer pointed out the Board had not applied the 30% to tonight’s subdivision in the commercial district or applied it to the new Burdick’s site under its prior site plan review, asking why the Board didn’t provide for better buffering of the parking lot. Ch. Miller said Mr. Sawyer made a point, noting the Michaud subdivision just removed a potential percentage from a commercial lot and converted it to a residential use. Ms. Aslinger said the amendment couldn’t be applied if it isn’t yet part of the regulations it needs to be voted on by the Board and applied to future projects. She said it would have been nice to have the Burdick property screened, she had asked the Board to correct it, but was voted down. Mr. Sawyer said maybe if the Board had insisted on screening he wouldn’t have been able to move to the new site and the Town would be dealing with the parking issue in the Village. He said to be careful what you wish for, meaning the amendment might not result in its intended purpose for all proposals. Ch. Miller said the purpose of tonight’s discussion was to bring up all the issues and concerns, to consider alternative wording or revisions if necessary but to continue working on it. He suggested scheduling a second public hearing for March 13th and hoped Mr. Merklein could be present to help answer concerns. Mr. Dill asked if other towns use 30%. Ms. Aslinger re-searched the 30% figure because Mr. Merklein had taken the number from Mr. Edkin’s recommendation on the multi-family housing amendment from last year. She found the 30% to be a standard in many towns within the county. She mentioned Warner had also used a 30% figure as well as Hanover. She referred to NH OEP website in the resource library under the heading of open space. She said most of the open space documents and references however were residential uses. Hanover has a village open space overlay district. Ms. Aslinger said by researching open space she was unable to find an application of that term involving commercial development, all references were describing conservation and preservation. Hanover’s Village open space overlay referred to tiny parcels of land interconnecting parks with strips of land between houses, none of which were “open to the public” without permission from the land owners. She said she was not the proponent of the amendment and she had many of the same questions the Board raised when Mr. Merklein first brought it up. She questioned whether it should be part of the zoning ordinance instead of the site plan review, noting if it were in the zoning ordinance it could only be reversed by a variance instead of a simple vote of the Board to waive the requirement under site plan review regulations. Mr. Dill thought Keene required 20%. Mr. Dill asked if after the second public hearing more changes were made would another hearing be held, if no other changes are made after the public hearing will the Board vote on it? Answer was yes. It can be added to the Site Plan Regs once the Board votes to approve it. Ch. Miller thought it was important to have Mr. Merklein present. Ms. Aslinger offered to do further research on the 30% figure, the Board agreed. Mr. Dill especially wanted a clear idea of whether the 30% wasn’t enough or was too restrictive. Ms. Aslinger mentioned the Master Plan stating 50% open space and wondered how a developer would like to be limited to using half of their lot. Mr. Daviss added the Berkshire proposal had 15% allowed including both lots. Ch. Miller said he could imagine double that, it didn’t seem unreasonable but agreed to have further research done for the next meeting. He said the new wording allowed the setbacks to be included in the 30% but questioned whether removing the drainage collection areas was fair. Mel Schupack noted Chesterfield allowed 30%. Mr. Sawyer wants to see recreational areas included in the 30% as well. Mr. Daviss asked what “passive” recreation means, having a picnic or playing touch football. Mr. Dill said Mr. Merklein had mentioned several times about having a space for picnic tables, but because employees need a smoking area outside, it’s become a problem with litter in some of these outdoor areas. He cautioned that while it may sound like a good idea, it might not be what was envisioned. Ch. Miller questioned whether a commercial shopping center even needs a picnic area, unless for the employees, which would be up to the employer to provide. Ms. Aslinger said maybe it was better to have this provision in the Site Plan review because the Board could use its discretion to help the developer design the open areas, to take into account site limitations if need be, by reducing the 30% or allowing the drainage to be included. While the restriction would be in place on a broad base, she could foresee circumstances where having the flexibility of design input could make a big difference in how a project turns out. She ended with the thought the Board would be willing to work with developers to have projects reflect the amendments intent, which is to prevent covering every inch of space with pavement. Ch. Miller said to schedule a second public hearing on the revisions and plan to continue discussion at the March 13, 2007 meeting.
IX. Ch. Miller called for New Busines
A. Mr. Hansel made a request that when the Planning Board considers the new industrial park he would like to be assured the entire park would not be taken one incremental section at a time for review. He asked for the Board to request a complete environmental impact statement to be done on the entire parcel. To insist on knowing what the developer may have in mind for the whole area, to assess traffic and lights, population density, environmental and other impact studies as a whole, not just one proposal at a time. He felt this was crucial for the area if it should be rezoned and the initial plans move ahead. He cautioned the Board of the potential scale of development on the site, saying they could put 6 of the size building his company occupies on the parcel including a 30% open space. His building is 100,000 sq. ft. He reminded the Board of the comment made at the meeting by the developer of “hundreds” of employees. He reminded of the sensitive nature of the Town’s aquafir protection area and wondered why an abutting property is being protected as conservation land, isn’t this parcel equally as important to the aquafir. He said the industrial park at full capacity would have a much greater impact in the future than planning now for just one machine shop business as presented. He is formally making his request to the Board.
Ch. Miller asked if members had comments. Mr. Dill said he thought it would be difficult to request an impact study when the developer didn’t know what would be going in. He said no matter what facts and figures they come up with he thought the information would be disputed.
Mr. Hansel agreed but compared evaluating a piece of land for maximum usage is often used as a guideline by a conservancy in determining the value of an easement. He thought an impact statement could measure the park in a similar manner. He said perhaps in 2012 we might look back and say we might not have allowed that if we had known about this now, especially in regard to traffic. He said we need to know what the potential is, not to be afraid if an impact study isn’t completely accurate anymore than an evaluator is when determining a maximum use meaning it may not be what is going to be used but it is what could be used.
Ch. Miller thought Mr. Hansel’s request is a very reasonable. He said the Board has asked to know on subdivisions and other developments in the past what their future plans are. The Board needs to be well aware of what the future holds for the site and will be well within its pervue to ask the developer. He thought the State DOT would require future plans. He said the Board should request the developer to provide his master plan for the park and it should be part of the initial review beginning with the machine shop development. He said the Planning Board should set a precedent now, confirming this request. He said in five or ten years without future planning a serious problem could be created that was preventable. He said it needed to be clearly stated.
Mr. Schupack thought having an impact study done upfront would aid the developer in determining what the best uses are and may help him to market the park.
Ch. Miller said major subdivisions are required to put forth their entire future plans as well, this wouldn’t be any different and for the same reasons. Mr. Dill still thought an environmental impact study was used as an obstruction to development, such as what has happened in Keene. Ch. Miller said he didn’t see the Planning Board going to that extreme, it would be using the Site Plan Review regulations, holding the developer to the requirements contained therein. He thought Mr. Hansel’s request would provide the Board with a comprehensive future plan. He thought it was very important for the developer to state exactly what he wanted at the earliest point, so the Board could make informed decisions, well into the future. He thought the developer would be expecting to be asked for detailed future information, that he would be reasonable. Mr. Hansel read from the Site Plan Review stating an impact study could be required to review traffic, demographics, community facilities, environmental and other areas. Mr. Dill agreed the Board had asked for future plans in the past and thought it was a reasonable request. Ch. Miller said there was also a possibility the property could be under different ownership in the future, so having something to go back to would be important. Mr. Sawyer said it could change hands after the first parcel is sold. Ch. Miller said it would be best to have a guideline set up from the beginning, if changes came about in the future the original planning would need to be considered first. He thanked Mr. Hansel for bringing the request to the Board.B. Mel Schupack - A letter was received from Mr. Schupack’s lawyer requesting the Planning Board to acknowledge in writing, that although his lot did not meet the zoning and subdivision requirements enacted in 1966 the lot is legal and a recognized town lot. Sec. Aslinger provided the members with a copy of the letter and a response letter stating as such to be signed by Ch. Miller and V. Ch. Miller, filed with the BOS and kept on file with the Planning Board records. A signed copy will be mailed to Mr. Schupack’s lawyer, with a copy sent to Mr. Schupack.
Ch. Miller called for a motion to approve of the action, so moved and seconded. Motion carried. No fees were required.
X. Communications and Master Plan Update
A. Ch. Miller asked Mr. Daviss to give an update of where the Board stood on the matter. Sec. Aslinger handed out a copy of a note regarding a conversation with Andrea Santoro, SWRPC requesting initial documents. Mr. Daviss said he spoke with them today they were preparing a cost estimate for the Board. He shared his ideas about how to proceed. He thought the Goals portion was part one and the Preliminary portion that SWRPC would be updating as part two. He said he was hoping to recruit townspersons in the updating process but wasn’t able to get a response, so thought the Board could take one goal per work session if they agreed. The Board agreed. Mr. Hansel said if he had a schedule he could get a turnout from his group to participate. Sec. Aslinger said the meetings/work sessions had been set for the 4th Tuesday of every month at 7pm in the basement until further notice, agendas would be posted, meeting open to whomever wants to attend. Mr. Schupack asked how SWRPC would be involved. Ch. Miller felt they would be used in the writing, with the Board supplying the ideas, perhaps with the Sec. Aslinger’s help as well on some of the clerical duties. She mentioned she would be volunteering part of her time also. Mr. Schupack suggested using other Towns’ Master Plans to avoid recreating the wheel. He mentioned all NH Regional Planning Commissions are all working in a coordinated effort on looking at innovative land use ideas and each regional commission has been assigned a few sections to research and do some model ordinances that towns could use for ideas. There is a reference to some of this in RSA 674:21 in the latest editions of NH Planning Land Use Regulation 2006-2007 edition from OEP (p389). The manual should be published later this year. I hope there may be some workshops offered on it and I hope the people working on revising our master plan would attend those. Mr. Daviss will coordinate the work session agenda with Ms. Aslinger
C. Other 1. Sec. Aslinger reported the Board was asked by OEP to update the information on the Town’s telecommunication towers. She filled out the necessary forms, returned them with a cover letter. She has set up a new file with all of the gathered tower information for the board. She said Elaine was very helpful in providing the information for her.
2. Sec. Aslinger mentioned a letter received from Chas Street, part of their agenda items, relating to the Boards decision to recommend the zoning change, he is not in favor of the change.
3. Sec. Aslinger asked the Board to refer to her “Notes on when a Town project goes through Zoning and Planning review such as the acquisition of a bandstand, re-visited”. She noted she had brought this subject up in a prior meeting but had been asked by others why the BOS were planning to accept a gift of a bandstand for the common without Planning, Zoning or Conservation Commission Review. She pointed out she contacted SWRPC for their opinion back in August, their response said it depended on whether the use was governmental or non-governmental, on government land or non-government land. The RSA states if it is not a governmental use on governmentally owned or occupied land the project shall be subject to the local land use regulations. She said it seemed the bandstand would be a non-governmental use on government land, thereby subject to review by Zoning and Planning. Two other RSA’s in Title III 31:95 e and 41:14 a, also speak to authority and procedures of the BOS on gifts and acquisitions. She said it seemed to her there were many combinations of projects to be considered under the regulations, but since the bandstand was a non-governmental use on governmentally owned land it would require review by the Planning and Zoning Board. RSA
41:14 a acknowledges once the BOS have the authority, which the Town has given them the authority, to acquire or sell land, buildings or both; they shall first submit any such proposal to the Planning Board and to the Conservation Commission for review and receive recommendation by those bodies. She stated this has not happened. She said at this point there is an article on the warrant put on by the BOS for the bandstand but she questioned why the Planning Board and Conservation Commission haven’t had their review, what’s gone wrong? She asked why the Boards were excluded from the review, adding for the record the Board’s need to be included.
Mr. Sawyer said he would like to respond by inviting Planning Board members to attend the BOS meeting on Thursday, they would have the answers, many of the points were erroneous and he would like to respond at the meeting. Ms. Aslinger asked if other Board members were concerned or was it just her. Mr. Dill said Ms. Aslinger was the only one who lived on the common and certainly have an interest in the bandstand. He said he thought it was such an overwhelmingly good thing that he was happy with what was happening and didn’t bother to dig to find reasons why it shouldn’t happen. He said it depended on which angle it was being looked at. He attended the meeting where it was first presented and the second one. He didn’t feel it was necessary to dig into the RSA’s to find out why it couldn’t be done. Ch. Miller didn’t think it mattered whether someone was for it or against it, certain criteria has to be met in order to accept projects. He happened to disagree with Mr. Dill on the bandstands merits. He didn’t think it was an appropriate use of the common. Mr. Sawyer asked again to have members come to the Selectmen’s meeting for a response he didn’t feel comfortable discussing it at this meeting. Ms. Aslinger agreed and said she wasn’t expecting a response, she was questioning when Boards are included in review of Town projects. She didn’t feel she should not bring up the issue because Mr. Sawyer sits on the Planning Board. Mr. Sawyer said they have other RSA’s they’ve applied in the past to allow bands to play on the common and didn’t have to have Planning review or such as allowing the Elementary school’s graduation. Ch. Miller agreed those are good uses. Mr. Sawyer said the bandstand was being considered for rental to cover maintenance, but that is not happening, instead a maintenance trust fund is being set up. Ms. Aslinger she was using the bandstand as more of an example. Mr. Dill said the reason he let the bandstand slide, he thought the procedures were being followed and he didn’t question it otherwise, its not whether he’s arguing for it or against it. Mr. Sawyer maintained the BOS didn’t have to even hold a hearing on it but did. Ch. Miller asked if it was on the warrant, Mr. Sawyer said it is on the warrant. Ch. Miller said he would like to attend the BOS meeting along with Ms. Aslinger. Ms. Aslinger asked if the Board agreed when a Town project takes place if it requires Planning, Zoning and Conservation review, shouldn’t it be done? Mr. Dill agreed, Mr. Sawyer said if it is required, but this project doesn’t require it. Ch. Miller said other Town projects have been reviewed in the past. Ms. Aslinger said being new to the Town, new to the Planning Board and as the Secretary she is trying to determine how it has been handled, so she can give out accurate information when asked. Mr. Sawyer asked when they have band concerts on the common now; do they have to go to the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board? Mr. Dill reiterated he thought the BOS had handled the project correctly, he didn’t feel the need to dig up RSA’s to stop it. Ch. Miller said it wasn’t the use as much as the building itself being the issue. Ms. Aslinger stated even though she lives on the common, as Mr. Dill owns commercial property in Town, she feels she can sit on the Board without a conflict, and feels she is able to discuss any issue and raise questions. Mr. Sawyer said in her notes she uses “the common” there is some question as to whether common refers to the Walpole common or Drewsville common. He said on any article that is voted on it has to be determined. Ch. Miller said he does not want to see the common used in that manner, he said it was not a good idea. Mr. Dill said differences of opinion on a Board makes for good and healthy discussion. Ch. Miller reminded of the bathroom placed in the Town Hall being a bad idea and was voted at the next Town meeting to be removed and relocated.
Discussion ended with Ch. Miller and Ms. Aslinger and other members agreeing to attend the BOS meeting on Thursday.Ch. Miller asked about the 300 thousand dollars being raised to fund the purchase of conservation lands, thinking it was a large amount. Mr. Schupack explained that it would be a loan at a reduced interest rate that would be paid 33 thousand per year and with the Conservation Commission helping to offset the amount every year with the monies from land use changes they receive. He thought it was a very reasonable request. Ch. Miller asked if there were other more important pieces of land? Mr. Sawyer said it was critical to the wellhead protection area, the Town will be buying 8 acres thus allowing the Town to build additional wells into the future.
Ch. Miller agreed with the wellhead protection, but thought the Site Plan Review protects the area, answer was not entirely. Mr. Schupack said the land is rare prime agricultural soil and the 8 acres will allow the Town to address future water needs. Ch. Miller asked how it was protecting the wellhead if used for agricultural purposes. Mr. Sawyer said manure spreading and cow pasturing would not adversely affect the wellhead protection area as long as it was natural, without chemicals. Comments were made about the site being good soils from erosion and it being an ancient lakebed, glacial erosion etc.
Mr. Dill asked to be place on the agenda for March for a preliminary review of his major subdivision located off Wentworth Rd. He also stated the Postmaster had asked about his plans for the Bailey property north of Fall Mtn. Building Supply on Rte. 12, he had heard he might need to re-route his mail delivery. Mr. Dill said he was planning to plant corn there.
XI. Meeting was adjourned at 8:45pm. Members will meet 2/27/07 for the work session on the Master Plan update.
Cc: all PB members, BOS, ZBA, Con. Comm.
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.walpolenh.us, www.thewalpolean.com
I