Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
May 13, 2008–7:00pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Chairman
Members Present: Bob Miller, V-Ch., Dave DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Sheldon Sawyer, BOS, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe,alt., Jeff White, alt., Donn Lounsbury, alt., Fred Dill alt.
Members Absent: Eric Merklein Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 10, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections. There were 12 persons in attendance. Alternates Jeff White and Donn Lounsbury were not yet officially sworn in due to a miscommunication.
I. Meeting opened at 7:10pm
A. Roll Call - Ch. Miller designated Shane O’Keefe for Eric Merklein.
B. Minutes - passed over until the end of the meeting
II. Review applications submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay before Public Hearing
A. Frank W. Whitcomb Construction Corp. - Special Exception Recommendation
Located on Old Drewsville Rd., Map 15, Lot 35 in the Rural Ag. district. Proposed 3.6 ac. commercial excavations of sand and gravel resulting in a pond, 5-10 year plan. Purpose of the application for the recommendation to the Zoning Board is to comply with Article VIII. Rural Ag. C. Special Exceptions 1. a. “i. property currently zoned for industrial, manufacturing and commercial operations is either unavailable or inadequate for the proposed use; and ii. the proposed use is appropriate and consistent with the Town’s Master Plan.”
Ben Daviss recused himself and sat in the audience, Ch. Miller appointed Fred Dill to sit in his place. Ch. Miller reviewed the purpose of the application and criteria to result in a non-binding recommendation to the zoning board. Sec. Aslinger reported the application materials had been submitted completely, abutters were notified and the notice appeared in the newspaper within the notification deadline. Ch. Miller called for a motion to accept the application as complete, so moved and seconded, motion passed unanimously.
III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. He asked Mr. Fraser to present the details of the proposal.
Mr. Dick Fraser of One Source Properties Permitting, LLC introduced himself and Mr. Chip Whitcomb, president. While he agreed with the Chairman on the purpose of the meeting and criteria to be addressed he suggested that excavations are treated differently in the zoning ordinance and read under General Provisions stating excavations are an allowed use in the Rural Ag. district by permit according to State RSA 155E. He said it is already deemed a permitted use, further he read from a letter from the Town’s Attorney Hockensmith to Attny. Lawrence Slayson dated 1/11/2008; stating Attny. Hockensmith believed the planning board would waive the above mentioned requirements. Mr. Fraser said he thought if the Board agreed with the Town Attorney, there would be no need to continue.
Ch. Miller read from the recently passed March 2008 zoning amendment stating “any excavation as described above is to be considered an industrial, manufacturing or commercial operation subject to a special exception review as outlined in Article VIII Rural Ag. District - Special Exception and may be subject to a site plan review with the Planning Board.” He said if the amendment had not passed in March, then Mr. Fraser would be correct. The Board is operating under the newly adopted amendment and its requirements. Ch. Miller asked Mr. Fraser to present his evidence.
Mr. O’Keefe noted that an engineer’s stamp was not present on the plans. Mr. Sawyer asked for clarification on whether the amendment passed after they had applied to the planning board, answer was no, they had been before the zoning board only.
Mr. Fraser said they were celebrating one year before the Town on their proposal, they had received instructions on how to proceed from the planning board via a letter dated May 4, 2007 saying it was an allowed use under the zoning ordinance and to apply for a permit under RSA 155E with the zoning board, which they did. He said they had four public hearings and a site visit. Mr. Sawyer asked when had that taken place? Answer was in 2007, resulting in delays and in the Town Attorney’s opinion that the proposal required a special exception review. Mr. Fraser stated instead of fighting with the Town they are working with the Town to go through the process beginning tonight with step 1. Sec. Aslinger reminded that they had changed the original plan, that this was a new plan. Mr. Fraser agreed there was a slight addition to the square footage from the original plan. Ch. Miller reminded that the board is proceeding as discussed at the April meeting and according to the amendment of last March. He said the board’s recommendation is non-binding and that the zoning board still has a list of additional criteria to review.
Mr. Fraser began with the first criteria regarding the availability of property in the industrial zone. He showed a zoning map pointing out the available industrial zone concluding there is no suitable industrially zoned property for the proposed use.
Mr. Sawyer did not think it was necessary for them to identify a specific industrially zoned parcel for a gravel excavation, they weren’t proposing an industrial park, simply a gravel excavation. Mr. Fraser said in all fairness, the type of operation they are proposing is widely considered by most towns in the State as an industrial use. He reiterated there were no properties in the industrial zone available for their use.
Mr. Fraser presented an aerial map of the surrounding area showing the presence of many industrial uses outside of the actual industrial zone, suggesting the board might consider re-zoning the area to industrial in the future. He listed businesses within 1 1/2 mile radius stating excavation was not foreign to the area with Mr. Whitcomb’s father beginning excavations in the 40’s and 50’s and it is still an active quarry owned by Lane Construction. He showed Merrill Farm, an additional excavation site in Langdon, a former hot mix plant site, Walpole’s transfer station, the Whitcomb pond having been excavated for materials, the State DOT sheds/garage, a Hubbard Farms complex, Hodgkin’s Construction, Town of Walpole garage and salt shed in addition to the Frank Whitcomb construction storage area granted by special exception as proof the neighborhood leans heavily towards industrial uses and making it indigenous to the area.
Mr. Fraser addressed the second criteria whether the proposed use is consistent with the Master Plan. He read about State RSA 155E legislation from 1989 “The general court finds that the general availability of construction material effects the cost of roads and other governmental infrastructure. Whenever the supply shrinks, prices increase. Although NH has an abundance of sand and gravel in deposits suitable for construction infrastructure aggregate, their availability is being curtailed for development over regulation or both. Making up for dwindling supply raises the cost of production and transportation. This in turns raises the costs of the roads and other public infrastructure. Additionally it is clear that the existing local regulatory scheme needs clarification. Useful material is available only where it is deposited if it must be transported long distances the cost of construction increases.” He said the legislature is smart to realize gravel is located where God put it, sometimes within sensitive areas such as town centers. He said in this case it is in a good location because of access on a State highway, all of the potential impacts have mitigating remedies, so it is pretty benign project. He said according to the Master Plan there was a lot of study regarding demographics and it’s vision, he intends to make a link with the project to the Master Plan. He said the application packet showed Best Management Practices plans which as part of the Master Plan states that the planning board will rely on contours and erosion control measures in order to review applications for development, which has been provided. He said under land use section goal #2 it states “to insure Walpole has diverse mix of commerical and industrial uses” this project falls into that category. In the natural features analysis development capability “land from the 0-8% slope category is preferred for all types of development”, this project meets that criteria. Under goals and objectives in the natural features analysis it stresses the need to submit contour and erosion control information on all development applications. He said the townspeople wanted to insure that any development include good environmental stewardship, they have provided that evidence. He said industrial uses are mentioned in the land use analysis plan talking about mining and diverse mixed uses and preserving the scenic elements of the natural environment. The Master Plan talks about class I highways and using them for commerce, which they plan to do and that residential neighborhoods with driveways are to be discouraged along those highways. In addition Drewsville Road is classified as a class II highway. Taking this information into account it shows they are in a good location and they clearly meet the criteria. He concluded, asking the board to grant a favorable recommendation for special exception to the zoning board of adjustment.
Ch. Miller called for questions recognizing Ben Daviss a resident in the area of the proposal. Mr. Daviss asked why a new site was being developed when there is an existing operation for excavation? Mr. Fraser answered, first - it is desirable to use the resource from a site already owned rather than buying from someone else and secondly, Lane Construction is a quarry and provides mostly quarry stone or ledge.
Mr. Daviss speaking as a resident of the neighborhood, said by the aerial photograph and Mr. Fraser’s description it appears to be an industrial area, in fact it is not. It is a very quiet residential area settled with 15 -20 houses within earshot and diesel smelling range of the proposed site. Despite Drewsville Road’s classification and his road, Valley Rd. both were not in very good condition for 5 plus years of additional heavy gravel truck traffic. He said in terms of the Master Plan, the idea it is appropriate does not make sense, the wording of the criteria “is appropriate to the Master Plan”. He stated the recent Master Plan update shows a lot of concern about protecting existing land uses and preserving open land, he does not see where this project is consistent with protecting existing land uses and preserving open land. He added adequate documentation has not been presented showing other available areas for excavations besides in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He does not feel the case has been made on either of the points addressing the Master Plan criteria. He asked the board to consider that putting an open pit gravel mine in the middle of a residential neighborhood for at least 5 years could have a very serious effect on surrounding property values.
Abutter Sue Hunkler said she has no objections at all, the roads are bad and have been bad and they are not concerned.
Mr. Fraser said it was clear from the plans that Valley Road won’t be traveled the trucks would come out of the site and turn right. He said he thought Whitcomb’s owned all the property along Rte. 123 so it wasn’t correct to portray it as a residential neighborhood. He said it could not be ignored that the area has a heavy concentration of commercial and industrial uses.
Mr. Daviss agreed within the immediate area, but by having an open pit gravel operation noise and fumes do not stay in the area, there is a much larger area affected especially any residences. Mr. Fraser said that issue would be discussed in the next step of the special exception review but thought the amount of equipment and duration may be less of an impact.
Mr. Jeff White said he lives within site of Rte. 123 and because of the truck traffic due to the Cold River bridge demise, the southbound lane of the highway has become deeply indented as opposed to the northbound lane because they return empty. He said chunks of the road have been thrown 15 feet onto person’s lawns, the State tells them to wait. He wants a guarantee their proposals truck traffic would travel the new bridge once it is completed, he understands they will have varying numbers of trucks per day but is concerned about the impact to the roads and the need for the new bridge to be used instead of Upper Walpole Rd.
Mr. Fraser said to keep in mind this is a very small project and what they add to the traffic flow is minimal and added he thought everyone would be happy to see the bridge back in place.
Tom Fitzgerald, abutter realizes each operation is there by special exception, one by one until his property is worth nothing, it needs to be taken into account, either it’s industrial or residential. Mr. Sawyer corrected saying it is rural agricultural not residential, residences are allowed in the rural agricultural zone along with other uses, it’s not exclusively residential with the added protections, by building a house in the rural agricultural district he knew there would be other uses. Mr. Fitzgerald said he expected rural agricultural uses - not rural industrial. Mr. Fraser added it was the nature of the beast recalling the discussion from the last meeting about allowing industrial and commercial operations in the rural agricultural district. Mr. Sawyer noted when Mr. Fitzgerald built his house a gravel operation was allowed without special exception. Mr. Fitzgerald said the area has changed due to the new operations that have been allowed and it has changed substantially in the last 20 years.
Mr. Sawyer referred to two new bridge projects that will require gravel, while it’s nice to get it from someone else’s backyard it is also good to have it available within the Town, it’s good to share in the projects.
Ms. Aslinger commented that after re-reading the Master Plan she could not find any reference where it encourages this type of development, only commercial and industrial not specifically gravel pits. While the State requires towns to allow gravel pits it does not seem to be a focus or development in the Town. Her second concern is its location within the aquifer. The Master Plan states “certain industrial uses over an aquifer are not appropriate due to the potential for groundwater contamination”. She asked if their plans took into account that it is within the aquifer and does the State have further requirements and protections to allow excavations within the aquifer? Mr. Fraser answered that the hearing tonight was only to address the two criteria, as far as the aquifer it should be addressed by the zoning board and subsequent site plan review.
Ch. Miller asked what the previously mentioned mitigating remedies were for the abutters? Mr. Fraser said one concern dealt with wetlands, they had the entire site inspected by a wetland soils scientist Jonathan Siskel who believed they were not included in the site being disturbed. He asked the board to look at map 3 showing impacts. Mr. O’Keefe asked if there was a written report? Mr. Fraser said no it was delineated by a GPS system.
Mr. William Lundgren, abutter said if the board was allowed to take a site visit they would see it is very poorly taken care of, containers. rusted materials and other stuff, probably leaking into their wells. By starting another excavation site 5 -10 years down the road and being given very elusive answers he cautions that the big picture should be taken into consideration. It’s a little rural area in Drewsville NH, the impact is worth trying to protect their homes.
Mr. Fraser said what is allowed on the site is a permitted use. Rusted cans are what they are. He said he has heard enough from the zoning board hearings and prefers to deal in facts. It is a construction equipment storage are, if culverts rust, they do, if steel decking rusts, it does also, it’s a permitted use. A Keene transfer station person was in attendance at the site visit, he made no comments in regard to leaking petroleum products. Mr. Lundgren clarified he did not mean to say containers were rusted, he thinks the board should see what’s there.
Mr. Fraser said having been before the Town on the project for over a year and listened to the ownice being placed on Whitcomb Construction and how they manage their properties, as regulators, the Town has the responsibility to insure permittees operate as they should. Perhaps the Town should consider stepping it up a bit to avoid Mr. Lundgren’s and other’s concerns.
Mr. O’Keefe, referring to the plans asked if the existing storage area was going to continue to be used, answer was yes it is permitted. He then asked about the existing sand and gravel stockpile area and a second auxiliary stockpile area, if they were permitted? Answer was no, they would fall under the new request for special exception for both. He asked if the proposal needed to be revised to show both needed special exception, it appeared the existing construction storage/stockpile area was not included in the special exception request. Mr. Fraser said he would have to read over the original special exception and what it included. Ch. Miller said it was for storage only, not stockpiling gravel. Mr. O’Keefe said he was trying to avoid missing information that should be included in the special exception. Ch. Miller asked if the existing berm would be removed, answer was no. Mr. Fraser said the plans were not being revised what is shown is what is being submitted.
III. and IV. Ch. Miller called for additional comments, being none closed the public hearing at 7:50pm and re-opened the meeting asking for board comments and action.
Mr. O’Keefe said there are two proposed areas for stockpiling. Mr. Sawyer and DeCoste concurred. Mr. O’Keefe said he is concerned about the area changing from rural residential to rural industrial little by little and whether the board intends for the area to change considering its planning process. He also questions why the plans do not show what else is happening on the entire parcel - just the site disturbed area, what will happen with the storage area and construction materials?
Ch. Miller reminded that the board was reviewing this project for the first time and under the new amendment, only the two criteria can be considered for a recommendation to the zoning board, similar to what has been done on the Chamberlain site. He thought the availability of other industrial zoned land that had deposits could be possible and in a better location. He said he thought it would be hard to say the proposal is consistent and appropriate to the Master Plan especially in light of the recent survey and resulting comments specifying what a rural agriculture use is. A gravel pit despite it’s size has a very large impact on the rural agricultural zone and surrounding residences and the use is not consistent with what the survey deemed appropriate for the zone. He did not think it was appropriate and consistent with the Master Plan and was uncertain if there were other sites available that would cause less of an impact to surrounding residences.
Selectman Sawyer said if there were other deposits they would have probably been identified by a large outfit such as Whitcomb and the Town itself has looked for possible sites.
Mr. Dill thought the proposed use was pre-existing in the area because of Lane Construction and the truck traffic. Ch. Miller disagreed and thought the residences have been tolerant but will this put it over the limit, he reminded that the zoning board has several criteria to review regarding property values and living conditions. He thinks it will have an impact and is inconsistent with what the Town is and changes the rural agricultural district there. He said the prior granting of the special exception for the construction storage has become not what was expected, nor did the board envision such an expansion. Mr. Dill said if there is to be a gravel pit in Walpole, here seems a likely place despite “not in my backyard”, he knows of persons looking for good gravel in nearby Westmoreland, so he agrees with Sheldon about it being a limited resource. Ch. Miller said he can understand but it is zoned rural agricultural and allowed by special exception, its hard to justify the impact of the use. Mr. Dill said while he wouldn’t want it next to him, but he feels that people that own property have individual property rights and it is permitted by special exception so the owner has the right. Ch. Miller said but, criteria must be met. Mr. Dill said then it is important for the land use boards to add restrictions in the ordinances to protect neighbors as it’s being done. Mr. Sawyer reminded that once buildings and houses are built they there forever, whereas once the gravel is taken out that’s the end of the project, he knows because they took gravel out of his dooryard for Rte. 12, it is a short lived project. Mr. O’Keefe asked how the pond would be fed resulting from the excavation. Answer was from the groundwater just like the pond across the road.
Mr. Fraser submitted a letter from the planning board to the zoning board dated 4/15/98 acknowledging the site plan review approval for Frank Whitcomb Construction on 4/14/98. The approval was for “ 40 x 100 pole barn, and contractor’s equipment, gravel storage yard on Old Drewsville Rd. Map 15, Lot 35”, so it appears the prior special exception included the gravel storage yard as part of the 1998 approval. Ch. Miller said the pole barn wasn’t constructed. Sec. Aslinger said the Selectmen also submitted a letter dated 5/15/01 noting the Planning Board requested the BOS to oversee the return of the property to its original condition, indicating there were some problems on the site and approvals. She said Whitcomb submitted a response on July 10, 2001 saying they were removing the request for the pole barn from the special exception and site plan review, that it would include supplies, storage/parking of construction equipment. Mr. Sawyer said the berm was the result of the BOS letter and meeting plus they had to post a bond for it.
Mr. Lounsbury asked about two abutters to the NE of the berm, the secretary said all abutters were notified of the meeting and hearing, those were included.
Mr. Fred Dill moved to favorably recommend the Frank Whitcomb Construction gravel excavation proposal to the zoning board of adjustment, and that the two criteria have been met for special exception. Mr. Sawyer seconded. Mr. Dill asked to insure that they would return for site plan review. Mr. O’Keefe questioned Mr. Dill’s original wording that included “approval”. Ch. Miller clarified saying “approval” was not to be included in the motion. Mr. Bob Miller asked if both criteria needed to be met for a favorable vote. Answer was yes. Without further discussion Ch. Miller called for the vote. The motion passed with four in favor and three opposed.
8:10pm Mr. Dill stepped down and Mr. Daviss resumed as a voting member.
II. B. Jane P. Skofield - Minor 2 Lot Subdivision located on Old Drewsville Rd. Map 10, Lot 29-1 in the Rural Ag. district. Purpose is to divide the parcel into Lot 1 of 27-9 ac. and Lot 2 of 91.1 ac. Lot sizes, setbacks and frontages are met for the zone. Sec. Aslinger reported all fees, application materials; abutter and public notices were complete. Mr. Joe DiBernardo of DiBernardo Associates presented the final mylar and showed where the Class V and Class VI frontage on Phipps Rd. began and ended. Lot 2 has frontage on Phipps Rd. and Old Drewsville Rd. and confirmed by Jim Terrell that up to the driveway on Phipps Rd. is Class V and partially paved.
Ch. Miller called for a motion to accept the application as complete, so moved and seconded, motion carried unanimously. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. Ch. Miller called for comments. Mr. O’Keefe asked about the road delineation on the paper maps, Mr. DiBernardo said only the mylar showed the delineation. Sec. Aslinger asked him to provide new paper maps because the recorded mylar and maps must be the same. He will drop copies off at the Town Hall and the secretary will sign them in absence of the Ch. and V-Ch. who will sign the mylar if approved.
Ch. Miller closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting and called for board action. Ben Daviss made a motion to approve the subdivision as presented and was seconded by Shane O’Keefe. With no further discussion, Ch. Miller called for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. DiBernardo agreed to record the mylar and report the information to the Secretary.
V. Unfinished Business/Pending application: Board Action
A. Walpole D & D, LLC - road status and State subdivision approval. Mr. Dill presented the board with a copy of the State subdivision approval and said Jim Terrell had signed off on the road. He brought the final mylar for signatures also. Ch. Miller said it was his understanding Walpole D & D had met all the criteria so the board would be able to sign the final mylar for recording. He said he had just driven the road before the meeting seeing it had been recently graded but asked about the section off of Old Keene Rd. up - that seemed rough. Selectman Sawyer said Mr. Dill did not own that section, it belongs to Mr. Jeffrey’s. Ch. Miller said he remains concerned with that section because it may lead to future problems with run-off and that the Town would end up paying for future upgrades to the road, contrary to what the board intended. Selectmen Sawyer said the road would be asphalted per the highway superintendent after the houses are built. At the expense of the Town, noted Ch. Miller, which is what the Board was trying to prevent. Ch. Miller and V-Ch. Miller signed the mylar and maps. The second sheet mylar showing wetlands etc. was not signed but it is referenced to page 1.
VI. New Business: Preliminary Conceptual Consultations
A. Attny. Kasper for Ramen Patel - N. Walpole Site Plan Review 988 Main St. Convenience Store. Attny. Kasper and Paul Grazewicz, engineer were present representing Mr. Patel. Mr. Grazewicz presented the board several missing items to be submitted with the site plan application. Attny. Kasper said he was brought in late on the project. He has a meeting with the N. Walpole Village Commissioner’s on Thursday May 15th to determine what permits need to be granted from the zoning commission toward the project. Any and all required hearings will be held prior to the June 10th planning board meeting so zoning issues will be in place prior to the planning board’s hearing. They are submitting the site plan application at this meeting pending the zoning issues. The new zoning administrator is Ken Farcus.
Ch. Miller said it is in the Residential zone for N. Walpole, he read in their ordinance that it was a non-conforming use and may need to have a change in a non-conforming use. Attny. Kasper said they are actually reducing the use and questions what will be required.
Mr. Grazewicz submitted additional fees, maps, checklist, letter requesting waivers and supplemental information from prior meetings with NWVC and DOT, and a cd with technical information showing access and landscaping photos. He also submitted trip generation collection data. Sec. Aslinger reported she had spoken earlier in the day with Mr. Grazewicz about missing application materials; the application had been dropped off at the planning board office a few days ahead of the meeting so she had a chance to see what was submitted. Mr. Grazewicz’s submissions made it complete. She also spoke with Jackie Ronning, of the NWVillage Commissioner’s, before the meeting to verify whether they would be able to hold their deliberations ahead of the planning board review, being that most applications before the planning board already have zoning approvals in place. Ms. Ronning will call Sec. Aslinger and let her know the outcome of Thursday’s meeting to insure processing the application and holding the public hearing in June is proper procedure. Sec. Aslinger pointed out there has been a one-bedroom apartment added to the plans from the prior meeting.
Mr. DeCoste asked about the parking lot and if it is shared? Mr. Grazewicz said he created a separated entrance/exit for the abutting property. Mr. DeCoste asked if he had spoken with the abutters, answer was no but thought they would be addressed at the zoning meeting. Mr. DeCoste asked about the entrances and removal of the loading docks and how they would buffer and protect the abutters. Mr. Grazewicz said there would be two entrances/exits and they are proposing a healthy screening for the abutters with plantings and/or fencing depending on what the board requests. Mr. DeCoste stressed the need for those abutters to be included.
Mr. Sheldon Sawyer moved to place the application on the agenda and schedule the public hearing for the June 10, 2008 meeting. Ben Daviss seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ch. Miller said of course, it would depend on the outcome of the NW zoning commissioners hearing, if it is required.
Zoning board Chairman Myra Mansouri asked if a State highway permit was needed, answer was yes, they have made their application.
8:30pm B. Hick’s Machine - Mr. Randy Hicks presented the board with a partially completed application for a site plan review proposal to make a 28 ft x 88 ft, 2462 sq. ft. back addition to his building on Main Street in the industrial zone. It will be used for light prototype assembly work. He said the sq. footage was under the 2500 sq.ft. limit for an expedited review. Sec. Aslinger had spoken to the applicant earlier confirming the site plan review regs make a provision for an expedited review. This application if the board agrees, appears to meet the criteria shown under Scope of Review page 4, stating the board may make provisions for review of minor site plans if it qualifies for no new construction greater than 2500 sq. ft. and if the site impacts are not expected to be significant. The board may waive certain requirements such as an engineered plan, all waivers must be included as part of the application. She suggested filling out the checklist and submitting it with the application, it makes a provision for waiver requests. Ch. Miller thought it met the criteria and called for a board consensus by vote.
Sheldon Sawyer moved to designate the application as meeting the requirements for an expedited review under the site plan review regulations. Mr. O’Keefe seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hicks and his engineer Jerry Swain submitted most of the application materials, but because they had not filled out the checklist Ch. Miller read through the items indicating which ones would not be required due to the expedited review: Sec. Aslinger said additional materials would be submitted after the meeting but prior to the deadline if the board agreed. The board agreed and reviewed the checklist with Ch. Miller listing the following items to be excluded by waiver request: A. Submission Requirements - all are to be included. B. Plat Submission Items - exclude 8. - 17., 19. -23. C. Other Plat Submission Items - all excluded. Sec. Aslinger said she would follow up with a list for the applicants in a few days. Fees were collected and the board agreed to review the application and hold the hearing for the June meeting.
C. Other - none
VII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A. Master Plan Update - Mr. Daviss reported the goals and objectives have been circulated and asked for board comments. Sec. Aslinger asked if the vision statement was being included. Answer was no, it had not been discussed by the board yet, only drafted from the last work session. Sec. Aslinger said she thought the draft had been e-mailed to everyone prior to tonight’s meeting although some had not received it including Mr. Sawyer (was given a copy at the end of the meeting). Mr. Daviss said if the draft goals and objectives and vision statement are ok’d, then they will go to SWRPC and a public hearing can be held, all agreed. Ch. Miller thought the board could review the vision statement and make comments prior to the May 27, 2008 work session being held at 7:00pm in the basement office. Sec. Aslinger asked the board about adopting the Conservation Commission’s town-wide conservation plan into the Master Plan, Ben Daviss had asked her whether it required a public hearing. It is considered an amendment to the Master Plan and needs a public hearing along with the new Conservation Commission’s “Natural Resources Land Conservation Values Plan”, she asked if the board would like to schedule those items for a hearing at the same time as the other items. Members asked if they could have copies to review prior to deciding. Sec. Aslinger will find out if hard copies or digital copies are available from the Conservation Commission.
B. Fees comparison - Sec. Aslinger provided a draft report from all but 18 towns in the SW regional planning commission area. She said all towns and OEP are interested in the final report as well. Ch. Miller thanked Sec. Aslinger for making the effort. She said each town has it’s own way of setting fees, some by lot, square footage, with and without postage, flat fees. Some site plans charge for each square foot of disturbed area. She said most felt they were not covering their expenses, it is too hard to tell from year to year because the volume and type changes, secretarial expenses vary also, some with office hours, some not. Walpole is not unusual. Some towns charge for preliminary and design reviews and some charge $50./hour for the board’s time. She thought the way she’s determined Walpole’s expenses and fees was somewhat simplified by adding up the administrative costs and dividing them by the annual number of applications to yield fees. Having spent three years as secretary she has a good consistent history of what the expenses are and how much time is required to process applications. She thought the proposed per application $25.00 increase was reasonable to cover last years shortfalls. She said she would update the rest of the information and present it to the board. Mr. Sawyer asked her if she thought the information provided was enough of a comparison? She said yes but has been encouraged by SWRPC to make a comprehensive report that could be circulated to the other towns as well as Office of Energy and Planning. She said since she has already contacted each town she would volunteer the rest of the preparation.
Mr. Bob Miller commented about Marlow not charging at all. Mr. O’Keefe asked about notification fees. Sec. Aslinger reported that the abutter fee is covered by the applicants, however the legal notice that is published is paid for by the board costing about $35.00 divided by the number of applicants. There was additional discussion about procedures, recordings, end of the year reports etc., avoiding mistakes and legal requirements.
Comment: Mr. O’Keefe asked if it was possible for each member to receive application materials on proposals by mail ahead of the meetings. Sec. Aslinger said as secretary to another planning board she did provide miniature copies of application materials to board members two weeks ahead of the meetings but it is costly both in time and postage. Ch. Miller said the reason they require applicants to submit applications at their meetings is so the members are aware of what will be before the board at the following meetings. The maps and documents are posted in the lobby not just for public review but for the board members and Sec. Aslinger offered that she can always meet members at the office, so long as its not more than 1 or 2 at a time to avoid a quorum, for their inspection of the application materials.
D. Handout - OEP Innovative Land Use workshop 5/22/08 Henniker 6:30-8pm
Fred Dill, Shane O’Keefe and Ben Daviss reported they had an informative time at the Spring OEP confenence they attended in April. Each attended different sessions and came away with good information. Fred reported on age discrimination within 55 and older housing.
B. Site Plan Review building design standards - Sec. Aslinger asked if the board had a chance to review the draft for possible adoption. Mr. Dill thought making design standards would be limiting and stepping out of planning board bounds. He thought a more cooperative approach was better and that it was encouraged in one of the OEP sessions he attended. Mr. Bob Miller thought the board had been cooperative by working positively with developers and by making suggestions based on each individual proposal rather than having set standards. Ch. Miller agreed saying the approach had worked well in the past.
Sec. Aslinger asked if the board would at least consider adding the simplified requirement to provide elevations and plans without any required design standards, she said at least the board could see what the building looks like, not tell them what it is supposed to look like. Ch. Miller agreed saying he always thought it was a part of the requirements. Ms. Aslinger said it was not a part of the old regs and was left out of the model they used to create them although it is a legal request and other towns do have it. Mr. O’Keefe said one of the comments made at the conference was by a developer that implored boards to just point out exactly what they want, instead of making him decide and provide something the board or town doesn’t want.
Mr. Sawyer thought it wiser to keep things less complicated to prevent smaller persons trying to realize the American dream from selling out to larger developers because of difficult regulations and requirements. Ms. Aslinger spoke favorably about using the site plan expedited review, designed specifically for smaller scale proposals as an example of cooperative regulations. She reminded that in the subdivision and site plan review regs any requirement may be waived by the planning board to allow for flexibility, the applicant needs to ask. Ms. Aslinger said she agrees with the Board and is not proposing Walpole adopt strict design standards such as those provided in the example she prepared, however, she thought having a plan of what the building would look like was very important.
Mr. Sawyer was concerned that the board would be commenting on a building without the expertise. Ch. Miller disagreed that the board would use the information to possibly critique not disapprove. Instead it would offer the board an insight as to what was being proposed, changes could be suggested if there was something glaring and if need be the applicant could request a waiver. Mr. O’Keefe thought for the most part applicants know immediately what their building will look like, so it’s not asking them for something new to prepare, but good information to complete the site plan review. Mr. DeCoste said Ames implied the building was going to be better than it turned out as an example. Ch. Miller said it would not be possible to deny an application based on what the building looked like. Mr. Sawyer said Keene is an example of poor design and traffic it’s difficult to shop in some of the plazas whether someone thought they were attractive or not. Ch. Miller said requiring elevations, as part of the plat submission items was not the board designing but rather being able to see what the building will look like.
Mr. Dill thought it was too overwhelming to developers to consider façade materials etc., he thought it was too difficult already with lighting design and parking lot design standards that can be changed by an untrained board member. Ms. Aslinger reminded the board must consider safety issues some of the design standards are there for protection. Mr. Sawyer disagreed saying the curbs and plantings are for beauty not safety. Mr. O’Keefe disagreed that board members are untrained, he has training in lighting areas and Mr. White has first hand experience with commercial lighting poles shining in his windows at 4 am because of poor design.
Ch. Miller returned the conversation to the issue of requesting elevations be part of the plat submission items versus adding design standards. Members agreed to request only the elevations at this time. Sec. Aslinger said the amendment would require a public hearing and she asked the board if they agreed with the draft wording: Add new: page 7 B. Plat Submission Items #27. The location, type and design of all buildings including an elevation view or photograph indicating their height, width and surface treatment.
The board discussed presenting it at the June meeting for a public hearing, whether anyone had an objection to the wording, being none Mr. O’Keefe and Mr. Sawyer suggested the hearing could be held in June. Mr. Sawyer moved to schedule the amendment to the site plan review regulations as read for a public hearing at the June 10, 2008 meeting. Mr. O’Keefe seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sec. Aslinger thanked the board for moving forward on the amendment.
VIII. Mr. Sawyer moved to close the meeting, seconded. He noted the minutes from April had been passed over. Mr. DeCoste moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded, motion passed unanimously. The vote to close the meeting carried unanimously at 9:15pm.
Cc: PB, ZBA, WCC, BOS, NWVC, Town Offices,
applicants and engineers
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market,
www.walpoleplanningboard.org