Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH  03608

PLANNING BOARD MEETING
June 12, 2007–7:30 pm
Town Hall

 

MINUTES

Presiding:  Jeff Miller, Ch.
Members Present: Chas. Miller, Select., Eric Merklein, Robert Miller, V-Ch., David DeCoste, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff White, alt. Fred Dill present but recused and in audience.
Member Absent: Henry Fletcher Recording: Pamela Aslinger, alt. and Secretary
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the July 10, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions, and corrections. There were over 50 persons in attendance.

I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm
A. Shane O’Keefe was designated for Henry Fletcher, but recused during Mary McMahon
application, Jeff White designated for Mr. O’Keefe during McMahon application.
B. Minutes from May 8 and May 22, 2007 were approved as corrected.

II. Review applications submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay
A. Robt. P. Hubbard Minor 2 lot subdivision Reservoir Rd. Map 10, Lot 28, Rural Agricultural zone. Creating Lot 1 of 9.80 acres and Lot 2 of 14.32 acres. Joe DiBernardo presented. Sec. Aslinger reported the application was in order. A motion was made and seconded to accept the application as complete, motion carried unanimously.

III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. Mr. DiBernardo explained the purpose as stated above. He noted state subdivision approval was not required. With no further questions -

IV. closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting.

V. Action on Robt. P. Hubbard - Ch. Miller called for Board questions and/or action. It was moved and seconded to approve the minor 2 lot subdivision as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Maps and mylar were signed, Mr. DiBernardo will record the plan and notify the Secretary.
B. Mary N. McMahon - Minor 2 lot subdivision Whipple Hill Rd. Map 2 Lot 1-1 in the Rural Agricultural and Timberland zones. Creating Lot 1 of 102 acres with existing house and Lot 2 of 74.05 acres, both lots have frontage on a Class V road. Mr. Joe DiBernardo presented. Sec. Aslinger reported the application was in order, but in need of one more map copy. A motion was made and seconded to accept the application as complete, motion carried unanimously.

III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. Mr. DiBernardo explained the purpose as stated above, noting Mr. Terrell, Town road agent had verified the Class V location, both new lots have frontage on the Class V portion of Whipple Hill Rd. With no further questions -

IV. closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting.

V. Action on Mary McMahon - Ch. Miller called for Board questions and/or action. Chas. Miller asked for clarification of proper lot numbering and determined the lot numbers were correct as shown. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minor 2 lot subdivision as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Maps and mylar were signed, Mr. DeBernardo will record the plan, notify the Secretary and provide on additional map copy for the file.

C. 1834 Washington Sq. II, LLC - Site Plan Review 16 Westminster St. Map 20 Lot 63, Commercial zone. Results in 3 apartments, 2 townhouses and office suites for rent. Mr. Smith is agent for formerly known Westburg property next to Murray’s restaurant. Ch. Miller announced the plans have undergone a substantial change increasing the townhouses to 3, causing the application review to be delayed until the July 10, 2007 meeting. Mr. Smith submitted revised plans showing the additional townhouse but not the architectural drawings. He submitted a check for re-notification of the abutters and will provide the rest of the application materials by the June 25th deadline, coordinating with Sec. Aslinger. The Public Hearing was cancelled for this meeting. A motion to reschedule review, acceptance and schedule the public hearing for the July 10, 2007 meeting was made and seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

D. Revocation of a Site Plan Review approval dated June 9, 1991, Map 12 Lot 55-13 located on Rte. 12 within the North Meadow Plaza, presently owned by Berkshire-Walpole LLC. formerly owned by RPG Partners. Purpose of the following hearing is to consider whether to revoke the plan because time periods specified in RSA 674:39 have elapsed without any vesting of rights as set forth therein, and the Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 plan no longer conforms to applicable ordinances or regulations. Ch. Miller stated the board’s reasoning for the revocation was because many years had passed without the approved buildings being constructed and any future development should be started fresh, cleaning the slate.

Ch. Miller announced Mr. Thomas Hanna, Attorney for Berkshire-Walpole LLC has raised legitimate questions regarding the board’s decision to undergo the revocation process for the mentioned approval and asked Mr. Hanna to step forward with his comments and concerns.

Mr. Hanna, his client and counsel for Reel to Reel do not see the revocation as a housekeeping matter. From their perspective and position the shopping center is now vested under the approval from 1990 and they intend to preserve their rights under the vesting laws of NH. He stated before he addressed the vesting law he would point out some procedural issues discussed earlier in the day with Sec. Aslinger. He said in the official notice it refers to the approval dated June 9, 1991, but the plan provided and posted shows the entire North Meadow Plaza as a complete entity. He said all the amended plans of the shopping center were comprehensive beginning in 1989. He said from the posted plan the portion of the plan under revocation is from a 5.13 acre site easterly of Reel to Reel. He said the board couldn’t proceed on the revocation for two reasons, one being all the abutters to the entire shopping center, as a unified plan should have been notified, not just the ones abutting Lot 55-13. He said the site plan is of the entire shopping center with modifications occurring at several different times after 1989, Lot 55-13 cannot be separated. The second issue in the notice regarding the June 9, 1991 approval clearly is limited to a building north of the Reel to Reel building, as substantiated by the June 12, 1991 “notice of approval” letter given to the applicant. He said all other buildings approved shown on the plan were from a 1990 approval, which has not been included or properly noticed for revocation. He said the notice was defective. He said he thought the board’s intent from the prior minutes was to revoke all approvals related to Lot 55-13 including parking and buildings. He said the notice does not meet the intent and states the board should not go forward with the hearing. He said he did not know why the board would go forward just based on those two procedural issues, nor would it accomplish anything. Moreover he thought the board would need to look at the vesting law 674:39 and case law called “A.W.L.” (he will provide a copy to Sec. Aslinger at a later date). He suggested talking to Town counsel about vesting and revocation. He said if the site is viewed as a coordinated site, there have been millions of dollars spent on infrastructure such as widening lanes on Rte. 12, signalization etc., sewer lines were built to accommodate the additionally approved buildings thereby “vesting” the property. He said he couldn’t say Berkshire would come in with the exact plans/footprint as approved but he said Berkshire has the right to do so and has the right to have it considered as a non-conforming vested right. In the event it comes back to the board with a modification to the Site Plan, it is coming back with a vested non-conforming right to the extent there are any zoning ordinance or regulations that have changed since 1991. Coming back as a vested non-conforming right is a whole lot different than starting from scratch and not a housekeeping matter. He noted because of the procedural defects it couldn’t go forward. If the Board does go forward on a substantive basis then he requests a 91:A request for documents so they may put together substantial information, to demonstrate the history of the project. They haven’t had the time to do so in the short time since the notification. (He gave the Chairman and Secretary a copy of the request, on file.) He said the request is nothing fancy. However he thought the board’s first step would be to consider the procedural issues and not proceed into the hearing on that basis.

Ch. Miller suggested in light of the issues Mr. Hanna has brought to the attention of the board and the fact the board has not consulted with Town council on the matter, the board should forgo proceeding until Town counsel is consulted. He stated the public hearing would not be held tonight. He said until Town counsel can be consulted on whether the board has the right to revoke the approval on an old site plan the board feels nothing has been done with, if it is a legitimate process, the Public Hearing will be rescheduled at a later time. Mr. O’Keefe asked who would pay for the 91:A copying and time required to put it together. Mr. Hanna said Berkshire would pay for the copying, not the time. He said it is a public record. Ch. Miller offered that the records could be made available for copying within the office. A motion to seek Town Counsel on revocation procedures was made and seconded, motion carried unanimously.

VI. Unfinished Business - Pending Applications - Continued Public Hearing/Review

A. Walpole D & D, LLC/Fred Dill and Randy Daniels - Major 13 lot subdivision on Hooper, Wentworth and Old Keene roads, Map 9 Lots 15, 6, 16 in Residential A and Rural Agricultural zones. Review SWRPC report and findings. Ch. Miller asked Mr. Dill if he got the SWRPC report, Mr. Dill

Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 deferred to Warren Stevens his engineer and Rob Kasper, Attorney. (Report attached to minutes for reference)

Mr. Kasper said the SWRPC report would be addressed in reverse order. Mr. Stevens will talk about item 5. regarding improvement of the road and capacity needs. Mr. Stevens stated SWRPC sent them a chart and graph, relating studies on vehicle trips on subdivisions with the average number of dwelling units being 206. Using SWRPC’s formulas they indicate 7 or 8 trips per unit. D & D proposal with as many as 10 lots out-letting onto Hooper Rd. could generate 70 or 80 trips per day and is reasonable with what other Towns in NH use. He said they would be willing to work with the Selectmen on fixing the road up according to what the Road Agent had said at the last meeting. Mr. Kasper said from the last meeting the final suggestion made by the Road Agent was to remove the top paving, grind it, take it down six inches, put in a fabric underneath and re-top it with gravel and compaction. This seemed to be the final assessment by the Road Agent. Jim Terrell, Road Agent said it was just a “suggestion” given if the road was to be left as a gravel road. He said the road currently is paved although not very well paved. He said for long-term cost and maintenance he prefers to see it as a paved road. He said this was the last discussion at the prior meeting. He clarified saying it “could be” made gravel in response to a question at the last meeting, not suggesting it “would be”.
Mr. Kasper said it’s their position since they were only talking 70 to 80 increased trips per day they would need to know what the baseline of trips on the road is now; some kind of study needs to be done. He said they are more than willing to accept as a condition to the project that D & D will conform the road based on the Road Agent’s recommendation of 6” of gravel and fabric. They will post a bond negotiating with the Road Agent and the Selectmen in terms of how the final payment is made based on a percentage increase caused by their development rather than paving the whole road for everyone who is currently using it. He suggested the board attach a condition saying they would need to come back and deal with the Selectmen in terms of what their pro rata share should be to improve the road according to what the Road Agent requires.

Chas. Miller asked if it was the Road Agent’s job to determine the road requirements or D & D’s meaning giving the Road Agent a variety of choices to pick from. Mr. Kasper said they would be willing to work with the Selectmen and Road Agent. Ch. Miller said if the board agrees, a condition would be a road plan along with a drainage plan to be presented to the Board by D & D and be designed according to the Town’s Class V road standards. The plans would show specifications, possibly removing the sharp “s” curve on the corner along with the required drainage plan called for in the regulations, the road designed according to the Town’s road specifications for a Class V road. A road plan made part of the subdivision application and as a condition of approval. Rather than working with the Selectmen the plan would be funneled through the Planning Board as part of the subdivision process. Mr. Kasper thought it was beyond the Planning Board’s authority. Ch. Miller disagreed saying the board could attach it as a condition. He asked for their next concern.

Mr. Kasper said the next concern (4.) is in regards to driveway permits. He said each purchaser would need to apply for a driveway permit before the lot is developed. He said they could live with a condition saying that before any lot can be developed the owner of the lot will get a driveway permit.

Mr. Kasper notated (3.) the naming of the shared driveway, they are willing to live with the condition that says one shared driveway as shown on the plan will have a name on it for 911 purposes.

Mr. Kasper notated (2.) drainage from the site, each purchaser of each individual lot will need to decide on how to locate their septic, well and house in accordance with driveway plans, they accept the condition that any owner will have to come back for Site Plan approval to address well, septic and drainage so drainage would not effect any downstream abutters.

Mr. Kasper notated (1.) the water issue and recommendation a hydrologist be hired to study the area to make a determination on how the new wells will impact the offsite wells. He said as he reads the regulations and the law, the Board has the right to make D & D show they have adequate onsite well and septic design which they have provided through their engineering. Uncontested from his understanding every surrounding lot has adequate water at this time. Allegations have been made that one of the new developed lots on Wentworth Rd. has had to have a second well. He said there is no evidence brought to the board that all the recent development on Wentworth Rd. has impacted any downstream wells. His legal opinion is, that forcing D & D to be the guarantor of off site water supply is both unreasonable and not

Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 within the powers of the Planning Board to exact. He reminded the board that its decision on the matter must not be based on a matter of personal opinion by board members or members of the public. He said the board couldn’t deny the application just because the community is not in favor of further development of the area. The board needs to have some hard and substantial evidence. He said the only evidence on the record is all the surrounding properties have adequate water supply, all the development on Wentworth has not impacted the water supply and D & D as applicant has provided adequate information for onsite water supply. He said they would not be willing to accept it as a condition. Concluding, he said the Board is forcing them to speculate upon future water supplies onsite and become a guarantor that all the surrounding sites will have adequate water.

In response Ch. Miller said he is convinced the Town has the right to require them to upgrade the road. Secondly the drainage system analysis under the requirements of the regulations General Provisions K. has not been provided. He read the wording. He said the plans are to be provided in unison with the road plan developed according to the Town’s specifications and as a condition of the subdivision plan. He said in the past driveway locations have been indicated on most plans. Because the lots are fairly small there are limitations to locating the house, well and septic, but agreed the driveways could be determined at a later date. As far as the naming of the shared driveway, he agrees with what they propose. He said as far as water source goes, he agrees the board can’t guarantee the abutters won’t be impacted or guarantee the lot purchasers will have a guaranteed water source. He said the board can’t do that, but he feels out of respect for the abutters who enjoy the Town, have made significant investments in the Town and are good participants in the Town and who are very concerned about their past history of water supply, out of due respect to them, there should be a hydrologist report. He assumes it may not be a guarantee but to have some sort of report showing an understanding of what impact may or may not occur. He said at least the board showed concern on the abutters concerns, to do the best to help them protect their property. He said it would be the right thing to do. He would feel remiss in saying we can’t guarantee water for abutters or new lot owners, without something showing the facts. He read from the regulations: Character of Land to be Subdivided: all land to be subdivided for building purposes shall be in the judgment of the board of such character it can be used without danger to public health or safety or to the environment. He said it is a broad statement but the health of the abutters - is to have a water supply. He said if the study is inclusive or not, the subdivision is 12 lots on a small piece of property and it is incumbent on the board to protect the health and viability of the existing homes, to at least see if there is an issue.

Mr. Dill said he didn’t see where to draw the line on how many houses can be put on a piece of property. He said the Sand Hill subdivision is the same amount of land with three times the amount of houses, a guarantee was never done nor has it ever been done in the past in any subdivision in Town. He wondered where to draw the line. He did not agree it was a lot of houses on a small piece of property there are higher densities in other developments in Town. He said if you note where the septic systems are shown on the lots it represents a place to locate it but they only take up 10% of the allocated space.

Ch. Miller said in other subdivisions the board has considered size and layouts of lots, such as the spaghetti lots on Walpole Valley Rd. He said they were very concerned about driveway locations and creating run-off on other properties and where the septic’s were located to avoid run-off. He said every subdivision is different and unique; each has different issues to be addressed. He said having so many abutters bringing up the same issues is of concern.

Mr. Dill said he was concerned about a hydro-geological study and what it might result in. He asked if test wells would be dug, how many, the expenses incurred, would the study result in useable information? Chas. Miller reminded the developer would pay for the study. Mr. Dill asked about the specific scope of review. Mr. Kasper agreed asking what parameters would be followed, who would determine what the study entails? Mr. Daviss said the hydrologist could be asked what to suggest. What information is needed to arrive at the odds this development as proposed will have an adverse impact on other people’s water. He said the hydrologist should be able to tell us what he needs to get that information then the Board and D & D would know.

Mr. Dill saw a problem with asking the hydrologist what to do is he may do a bigger job than needed. Bob Miller suggested using the scope outlined in the SWRPC report stating: “The Planning Board may require the developer to hire a licensed hydrologist to study the area and make a determination to the likelihood that 12 new wells will impact existing wells.” He said that could be the mission. Ch. Miller said he didn’t think the board had to make a decision tonight, he would like to hire the hydrologist and determine the scope quickly being mindful of the “clock”, to look at what he would say regarding cost and Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 scope within reason. Mr. Dill agreed with getting the cost and determining the results. Ch. Miller thought a common sense approach would be best.

Ch. Miller began recognizing persons in the audience with comments. Mr. David Quimby from Wentworth Rd. was concerned about the water impact. He has lived at 225 Wentworth Rd. for 15 years, in this time there have been 7 new houses built in a mile and a quarter from South Main to Hooper Rd. He said most are on 5 acres and are nice houses. When he moved into his house he had a second well put in, it took him to 3 gallons per minute, both wells 600 ft. deep. He said in the last year Cushing & Sons came to do a study, before he had 400 ft. of water, now he has 1 1/2 gallons per minute and only 200 feet of water per well. He said he wasn’t claiming to be a water expert, but all he knows is 7 new houses has drained his water supply. He said more development in this area may lead to more problems, he feels some type of study needs to be done, water is a problem. He said he had other issues to address.

Andy Pollack said if the water issue is addressed it will be opening a can of worms, he has put a number of wells on Wentworth Rd. and Old Keene Rd. He has worked for Cushing and Sons for 9 years and Green Mountain Well for 3 years. He’s done a lot of fracture tracing and a lot of aerial photography tracing aquifers. He said to say 10 or 20 new houses is going to deplete an aquifer in New England is absurd. He said the source of the aquifer could be in Virginia for all they know. He said if the water level is going down in people’s wells its because of the source of the aquifer not the house next door, its because of change in climate or dryness of the rainy season. He said he knew of a person in the area with three wells, but in this area of Town, most wells are 500-600 feet deep. He said everyone has a right to water under your domain just because you have water, you can’t eliminate someone else from having water. An audience member asked how could he determine drilling so many new wells wouldn’t deplete the water in the area.

Ch. Miller redirected the comments, saying a hydro-geological study would provide the information. Mr. Pollack argued if the board was requiring the study for this project then it should be a matter of policy to see all developments undergo the same requirement.

Ken Walsh of 206 Wentworth Rd. said if an adequate water supply is determined, if you look at NH Well Bureau, they will give you the recommended yields. He said for those who have had to put in two wells, Cushing said to them it was likely when wells failed it was because they were hitting the same vein. He disputed Mr. Pollack’s comments. He thought an “adequate water supply” did not mean two wells. He said Mr. Heydenrich has three wells.

Mr. Bill Curry read from Section IV of the subdivision regulations M. Stating “It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider, where public water supply is not available, to provide adequate information to prove that the area of each lot is adequate to permit the installation and operation of an individual, on-lot, water system at least 75 feet from any portion of a septic tank or drainage field.” He said to him the area itself and density of the development is the issue and its impact on the aquifer. He thought a qualified hydrologist might be able to dig a test well and make a recommendation. He thought there was a possibility at some time in the future the Town might want to consider running water lines to the area. He thought Mr. Pollack’s comment about the re-charge area being in Virginia was ridiculous.

Steve Markovich said he also has two wells and switches between wells during the summer. He said the board under its regulations has the right to require further information of a developer, not just require perk tests or siting but to prove there is adequate water supply. He said the board could reject the proposal if it does not provide an adequate water supply. Mr. Dill said he thought an adequate water supply was between he and the person that buys the land. Mr. Markovich disagreed and reiterated.

Susan Steisel said she agreed the board doesn’t have the right to make a judgment call but everyone in the room knows there isn’t enough water up there, anyone buying a lot will need to drill a second well. To think that this subdivision is going to stake a claim on all the water up there is unlikely. She doesn’t understand how the plan could be approved, lots sold and a year later the purchasers are drilling a second or even third well, what happens when the new lot owners are told, yes everyone knew there wasn’t water up there during the subdivision process? She said isn’t there a spirit behind the zoning regulations to benefit the people building expensive houses in the subdivision?

Ch. Miller said he didn’t think the board could guarantee they would dig a well 100-200 ft. deep and get water but relatively the board could surmise the impact is not going to be detrimental to the area. He said by trying to provide information saying if there is an impact at least the board tried to prevent the impact through incorporating a study in the review. He said, agreeing with Mr. Dill, we could not guarantee there would be water but rather mediates through the study to show health and safety is Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 preserved. Ms. Steisel asked if the board represented the new buyers, Ch. Miller was uncertain. Bill Curry thought it would be up to the developer and their responsibility to assure the new buyer has water by way of the Planning Board subdivision review process, otherwise the Town could be held responsible for capital expenditures to extend water supply pipelines to the area. He said the board should look at the power it has within the subdivision regulations and apply them.

Mr. Eric Merklein read from the regulations Section IV. M. (shown above). He interprets it to mean not only to provide adequate water supply but to prove the operation of an on lot water system. Ch. Miller thought it meant adequate land area. Mr. Merklein disagreed noting is says it has to operate, water has to flow, not air. Attny. Kasper disagreed stating in a free market economy someone buying the lot makes it a condition of buying the lot that a well has to be dug, that’s the way to deal with the issue not for the board to mandate that the builder has to guarantee water. Mr. Merklein said it’s not the planning board, it’s the Town’s own regulations and requirement. Mr. Kasper asked where in the ordinances does it address off site issues. Mr. Merklein said he was talking about on-site. Mr. Kasper said for on site you only have to have adequate information showing you could have a well on the parcel.

Mr. Daviss, said the issue of “M.” was subject to interpretation, he could see it both ways. He asked if Town counsel could be consulted to interpret the wording? Ch. Miller said it was a good idea. Chas. Miller thought it was a good idea to clarify both on site and off site water availability. He said if the abutters have water now, but not later, they would be looking to the Town for answers. Ms. Aslinger said a study would help determine the water question. Mr. Dill said it seemed hiring a hydrologist was what was being required, so move along on setting it up.

Mr. Jasse made the point he has dug over 12 wells and has used a seismologist. His best well provides 6 gallons per minute, some provided 15/16 gallons per minute but most of the wells are dry and abandoned. He said he was simply sharing his experience with using experts, he wasn’t certain specialists would help or provide useful information. He asked if the developer had considered digging the wells and adding it to the cost of the lot, just as a suggestion to address the water issue.

Mary Lou Montgomery asked if the “circle” shown on the plans were the wells, answer was yes. She asked if there is adequate land to allow for the placement of a second well on each of the lots along with a functioning septic system. Ch. Miller thought the developer was required to locate only one well on the plans. She said part of the planning boards review is to consider public health and placements on the lots. Mr. Dill said the septic system is only about 10% of the square shown on the plans. He said the lots are not the minimum lot sizes for the zones, he said there is plenty of room to locate additional wells or septic’s if needed.
Mr. Graves asked why not pipe town water to the area, Walpole has plenty of water.

Sue Bingaman from Wentworth Rd. asked who would select the hydrologist. Ch. Miller answered the Planning Board.

Mr. Daviss read from the subdivision regulations item K. paragraph 4, saying “if the storm water drainage system creates any additional flow over any adjacent property the subdivider shall obtain an easement therefore form the adjacent property owner and shall hold the town of Walpole harmless from any claims from damage resulting therefrom.” He said it sounds like they need to have the hydrologist guarantee water will not flow downhill into the Heydenrich and Steisel properties, he said the properties are seriously downhill from the development. Adding 13 houses, minimum 2000 sq. ft, that’s 26000 sq. ft. of new impermeable surface. He needs to prove it won’t impact those properties. Ch. Miller agreed saying he asked for the drainage study to go along with the road specifications to address those issues.

Mr. Daviss asked about blasting. Mr. Dill said he didn’t think there would be any blasting, rather machinery doing the removal. Mr. Daviss said he lives near the Whitcomb’s gravel pit, each time they blast everyone’s wells in the area suffer, pipes cracking. He said if there is any blasting planned he suggests posting a bond to pay for repairs to surrounding wells. Mr. Dill said most blasting companies would have insurance to cover damages. Mr. Daviss asked if Mr. Dill would be required to file reports if blasting was needed? Mr. Dill said blasting is very regulated, done by licensed professionals, he still does not anticipate blasting. Ch. Miller asked if State subdivision approval had been applied for yet? Mr. Dill said no, incase there are changes to the plan.

Steve Varone of 193 Old Keene Rd., asked if the hydrologist’s report came back showing new wells would cause the surrounding abutters to loose their water, would the Planning Board deny the proposal, would Mr. Dill and Daniels be forced to leave the parcel vacant so the abutters would have their water? Ch. Miller said he couldn’t determine the outcome on a “what if”. Mr. Daviss quoted Mr. Dill’s Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 caveat of buyer beware in response to Mr. Varone’s concern. He said perhaps Mr. Dill should have used more caution about the water before he purchased the parcel and made this proposal.

Eric Merklein said if the geologist’s report came back showing the abutters lost 90% of their water, the value of their homes would drop dramatically, this is of grave concern to the board. He mentioned Mr. Dill had said to him once, the Planning Board should not take any action to reduce the value of his land in the commercial district. Mr. Merklein said the same consideration should be given to the abutters in this situation adding he hopes the water flows and the report is favorable.

Mr. Bogar, abutter, said he was concerned because he is hearing a lot of things being discussed that have not been applied to other subdivisions. He thought every building lot should be subjected to the same review. He said if someone buys a one, five or 20 acre lot next to Mrs. Jones and they have a water issue will they be treated the same? He thought the board should apply the rules only. Mr. Daviss said the regulations do treat major and minor subdivisions differently perhaps all major subdivisions could be better defined in the regulations.
An abutter asked if part of the scope of the hydrological study would include what the water situation is presently. Ch. Miller said yes, this would be part of the presentation. Steve Varone asked if the wetlands were properly addressed that are designated on the plans. Attny. Kasper said he believed the engineers had addressed the wetlands. Bob Curry said in terms of the designated wetlands shown on the plan, the way wetlands are designated is by hydric soil tests. He thought a hydric soils plan would properly show the wetlands rather than just indicating a pond on the map. Mr. Dill said the engineers were qualified to determine wetlands and have shown them on the plans. Mr. Curry said a soils survey would indicate a larger area than shown. He suggested applying a soil survey if the delineations were not based on a soils survey. Ms. Aslinger said the Planning Board can require a soils data, to have the soil types studied for the entire parcel in accordance with the National Cooperative Soil Survey. She thought it would be a good idea, especially since there has been mention of ledge. She said it is a fairly simple process since the mapping/information already exists. She suggested adding it to the plans. Mr. Varone agreed.
Ch. Miller said in order to wrap up the meeting and to give direction to Mr. Dill the board requested the following additional information to be provided:
1) Submit a plan for re-design of the road with storm water drainage and according to the Town road specifications.

Mr. O’Keefe asked Mr. Terrell what the current traveled width of the road is. Mr. Terrell said it is 15-16 ft. Town specs say a new paved road would need to be 20 ft. This being an existing road he would accept 18 ft. traveled width. Mr. DeCoste asked to clarify whether D & D’s trips per day of 70-80 was correct or Mr. Terrell’s estimate of 120 and asked what the current traffic is there at this time. Mr. Terrell stated he went by State published guidelines of 10 trips per day per household, their information is similar. Mr. Dill corrected saying there is only 10 houses on the road. Mr. Terrell said he did not know the current trips per day. Mr. DeCoste said most of the traffic would be new? Mr. Terrell said there is minimal traffic on the road now.

Ch. Miller added to 1) above “with a minimum 18 ft. wide paved road.”

2) He said he would contact a hydrologist and with Mr. Dill regarding the scope and expense.

3) He asked for the soils data to be overlaid.

Sec. Aslinger thought every item on the SWRPC list should be addressed, none being eliminated.

Ch. Miller said as far as he was concerned the driveway locations could be put on the plans hypothetical, the 911 road naming etc. could be addressed later.

An audience member asked if drainage easements were required, would any of the studies address it. Ch. Miller said it depends on the road, storm water and driveway locations; these will be addressed at the next meeting. Attorney Casper said he thought the site plan for each lot would address any drainage issues. Ms. Aslinger suggested they start the application for state subdivision approval. Mr. Dill said he thought the project could be approved with the condition state subdivision approval is granted rather than applying and having to make changes. Attny. Kasper said it would have no bearing on the board’s decision. Ms. Aslinger thought it was vital information to have and should be coordinated with the final action by the board. Ch. Miller said a state subdivision approval condition has been allowed in the past and does not feel it needs to be included in the review at this time. He said the hearing and review is continued until the next meeting.

Hearing adjourned at 9:00 pm: Attny. Kasper asked to make a copy of the tapes from the meeting. Ch. Miller granted his request.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 VI. New Business
C. Other - Rebecca Todd, Attorney from Chesterfield was called. Ms. Todd presented conceptual plans for a 2 lot subdivision on Walpole Valley Rd. on behalf of Ernest W. and Wanda Way. Referring to a survey map dated 1993 showing Lot 13-41 of 21.6 acres that will have a lot of 5 acres subdivided off for their daughter’s use. The new lot will have more than 200 feet of frontage they are negotiating with abutter Thaddeus Self to make use of the discontinued road (March 1947 by Town meeting, no longer town land, it reverted to the land owners) for a driveway access. She said the non-existent road is a two-rod road with 16.5 ft. each belonging to the Way’s and Mr. Self. She said there is an existing driveway to his house but the majority is on the Way’s property; they are negotiating with Mr. Self regarding easements. She said there is plenty of water. She asked if the board had any concerns. Ch. Miller asked for their timing, she said it would need to be surveyed hopefully submitting the plans at the July meeting for an August hearing. Shane O’Keefe asked if the existing barn setbacks had been taken into account. Ms. Todd said yes there is a 20 ft. setback requirement to be followed. Chas. Miller asked if the power lines had been considered and whether a septic could be located within public service easements, he was concerned it might limit the amount of land for building. Attorney Todd said it would be addressed.

A. Toby Tousley showed a conceptual aerial plan of the Hubbard “B” farm property on Rte. 12, the parcel they had earlier tried to have re-zoned from rural agricultural to industrial zone. He said they are planning to subdivide the parcel into 2 lots at this time, Hubbard agreeing to lease the existing buildings rather than trying to purchase them as discussed earlier, Mr. Tousley noting that Hubbard would still be in business for the Town. He said the parcel is roughly 43 acres. Mr. Joe DiBernardo outlined the parcel for members. They showed where they were planning to use the south-easterly end of the frontage by creating a 50 foot wide strip along Rte. 12 along with 10 +/- acres to be sold to Chamberlain Machines. Chas. Miller asked if Chamberlain was manufacturing an agricultural product. Answer was no, an industrial use is allowed in the Rural Agricultural zone by special exception, but that would come later under a Site Plan Review, Mr. Tousley is just simply subdividing the land at this time. Mr. Tousley said Chamberlain would create a great opportunity for the Town and hoped the Town would welcome them. Ch. Miller asked if he could reconfigure the plans to include the acreage with the frontage rather than the oddly shaped “L” 50 foot swath. Mr. Tousely agreed saying his lawyer had advised the configuration, but he certainly could make the change, he agreed the additional acreage was not useable since it was a steep bank. He said he would like to retain the knoll for future consideration however. He said at some point he plans to do something with Huntington Lane so is trying to plan ahead somewhat. Mr. O’Keefe asked if the existing buildings the new lot line goes through would be coming down? Answer was yes, it would be a condition of the subdivision approval.

Mr. Tousley said the property would never likely be farmed again because of the large number of agricultural buildings and the deep concrete pads they sit on. He said a farmer would not be able to restore it to farmland, he said it would be an astronomical cost. He said he thought the new use of this land is highly suitable, it will house a low impact attractive building with the board’s guidance and benefits the Town. Mr. DeCoste mentioned the vote to turn down the re-zoning. Mr. Tousley said he was keenly aware of the vote but reminded an industrial use is allowed in the rural agricultural zone by special exception by Planning board recommendation. He said he didn’t want to hide anything and had spoken in detail with Sec. Aslinger before the meeting. He said they would like to be placed on the agenda for the July meeting but they do not have the plans available for submission at tonight’s meeting. Sec. Aslinger said the deadline for the July meeting is June 25th, but the board prefers to have plans submitted at their meetings. As long as the board agrees to divert from its preference and agrees for her to receive the plans prior to the official deadline the application can be processed. The board agreed to have the plans submitted by the deadline for a minor subdivision. Ch. Miller reminded Mr. Tousley to change the lot configuration, Mr. Tousley agreed. Ms. Aslinger said it was important to make the change so the board wouldn’t be setting precedence by allowing this type of odd configuration. Mr. O’Keefe suggested the board consider revising the subdivision regulations to incorporate frontage standards for lot configuration, perhaps taking into account this type of configuration. Mr. Tousley asked about the water and wellhead protection area. He has been in contact with Steve Brackett engineer about the protection area. He asked down the road, does the board have an idea of what type of information they will need to provide to answer to the well-head’s protection? They would like some sort of idea of what a study might result in, similar to what Mr. Dill is facing. He wants to avoid creating wrong information. He would appreciate feedback. Ch. Miller said to Walpole Planning Board Minutes June 12, 2007 refer to the Site Plan Review regulations. It was mentioned to speak with Mark Houghton and Gary Speed of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Tousley said he would like avoid providing the wrong information, the studies can be in the thousands of dollars, he doesn’t want to waste the thousands of dollars and more importantly wants to get the kind of information that will satisfy the needs of the board and Town agencies. Ch. Miller said the Site Plan Review requirements address what is needed and to be certain to include the Conservation Commission and Mark Houghton.

B. CD Davis Associates - Site Plan Modification Nextel/telecom Tower 88 Scovill Rd. Sec. Aslinger was in receipt of a letter from CD Davis relating to the board’s action in December 2006 passing over requiring Site Plan Review/building permit for general maintenance (changing out some of the antennae) on this tower. The letter refers to the “maintenance” but is now planning to modify the maintenance and add a few more antennae’s. Sec. Aslinger asked the board to determine if a Site Plan Review is required for the changes. The board agreed to have CD Davise appear before the board for a preliminary review. Chas. Miller noted the antennae’s are taxable so should be accounted for. Mr. O’Keefe thought because the technology is changing very rapidly now and into the future the board should have the opportunity to review the changes proposed. Sec. Aslinger agreed saying the request was more than maintenance with the addition of antennae’s. She suggested referring to the Telecommunications Ordinance and will notify them to come to the July 10th meeting for a preliminary review and application submission.

VII. Communications and Miscellaneous

A. Members acknowledged the letter from the N. Walpole Village Commissioners agreeing to a follow up in July.

B. Master Plan Update - Mr. Daviss stated the website is ready to go - the address is www.walpoleplanningboard.org, the survey questions are interactive and working. He has volunteered to filter the responses and post the results as they come in currently they are dead ended at Harry Bernard’s computer. Chuck Bingaman will put the address on his the Walpolean and there will be some notices posted once the site is fully ready for public use.

C. Other

Chas. Miller noted grant money is being issued to Towns to add broadband, Walpole may apply.
IX. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30pm.

Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, websites

Cc: All PB members, ZBA ch., Select’s Office, Fire, Road, NWVC, Town Clerk, J. Dibo, WCC, T. Hanna

R. Kasper, Town Counsel Hockensmith

HOME

 

Walpole was granted in 1736 as No.3, chartered in 1752 and was named in honor of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford. The town includes the villages of Walpole, North Walpole and Drewsville. Walpole is a rural agricultural town with numerous working farms, accredited primary schools, and a small but active business district.
There are several restaurants, and recreational facilities are available.