Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION
June 24, 2008–7:00 pm
Town Hall Basement
MINUTES
Present: Bob Miller, V-Ch. presiding, Ben Daviss, Dave DeCoste, Shane O’Keefe, Donn Lounsbury, Mel Schupack, Bob Jasse, Dennis Marcom
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Secretary
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the July 8, 2008 meeting for corrections.
Meeting opened at 7:15pm
Purpose of the meeting was to review drafts of the goals and objectives and vision statement after receiving comments from planner Lisa Murphy from the Southwest Regional Planning Commission. And to discuss the role of the Conservation Commission plus adoption of the Town-wide conservation plan into the Master Plan.
V-Ch. B. Miller asked Mr. Daviss to comment on SWRPC’s cost proposal to incorporate the goals and objectives and vision statement into the existing Land Use section of the Master Plan. Mr. Daviss said he has not received a reply to his e-mail request but hopes to have a report by the next regular planning board meeting in July. Sec. Aslinger asked if Mr. Daviss had an update on the status of unpaid dues? Mr. Daviss said he spoke with Ch. Jeff Miller who was to contact Tim Murphy at SWRPC to request a letter addressing the issue of dues for 2008. Sec. Aslinger said to date no letter had passed through the office addressed to Ch. Miller.
Mr. Daviss moved forward asking the committee to comment on the changes suggested by Ms. Murphy in regard to the vision statement. He noted their meeting was productive and thought the comments were generally well targeted and useful. He said once the committee made final comments he would prepare a final draft for the Planning Board to review and possibly be able to schedule the first public hearing in August.
Comments vision statement:
- Comment #6 “Economic vitality” agreed, deciding to make subheadings out of items listed in descriptions to make it clearer and coherent. Discussed need to provide infrastructure (3 phase power, sewer, water) in order to properly plan/zone certain areas, although in reality there is only a limited area available. Discussed allowing industrial/commercial in all rural ag districts, restricting those uses to lands with infrastructure availability as being a fair trade off. Mentioned using natural resources land values as a guide/criteria also. Discussed adding specific language for future employment in the trades, using incentives to keep children of long time residents in Walpole. Mentioned that the of Monadnock region has the lowest unemployment in NH and nationwide, noting the cost of living is lower and wages are also lower. Mr. O’Keefe made note of education options at the River Valley Technical Center in Springfield VT where he works. The school offers many degrees and certificates in fields relative to the Valley’s historic and future employment needs at attainable levels that encourage graduates to stay in the area, such as culinary, machinery, agricultural, and business management. Mr. Jasse commented that even without specifying this issue in the Master
Plan the town wasn’t likely to diminish, perhaps it is better to attract start-ups that enhance Walpole’s rural agricultural character, job opportunities would follow. He doesn’t feel the Master Plan is obligated to provide for every possible idea, he thought the documents being discussed are too lengthy and repetitive but appreciates the committee’s efforts and continues to praise the overwhelmingly attractiveness of Walpole.
Mr. DeCoste shared some of his memories of how Walpole has changed over the last 40 years and how Walpole also seems to remain the same despite the changes. Mr. B. Miller in a positive light commented on how the master plan might be worded if the committee were made up of mostly natives instead of mostly non-natives. Some wondered if there would be substantial differences, we all seem to have a strong appre-ciation for the Town and want to see it continue into the future as a special place to live.
- Comment #13 discussed the issue of site plan and subdivision regulations including provisions to assess developers with fees to pay for the potential costs of town services. The adoption of the capital improvements program allows for impact fees to be assessed, the site plan and possibly sub regs refer to fees for studies and long-range impacts.
- All other comments were acceptable to the committee on the vision statement.
Goals and Objectives Comments:
- Goal #1, 4. “Adopt Conservation Commission town-wide plan” - Discussion ensued about the adoption of the town-wide conservation plan into the master plan with some opposition to and misunderstandings of possible ramifications of doing so. In answer to concerns several clarifications were offered regarding erroneous statements made at the previous planning board meeting about the conservation commission and easements.
Sec. Aslinger gave out copies of RSA 36-A providing an insight to the legal role of the Conservation Commission along with a document prepared by the Society for the Protection of NH Forests dated 9/22/2001 “NH Everlasting - an initiative to conserve our quality of life” indicating the rational for setting 25% of conserved town lands as a minimum goal to preserve a town’s character.
In addition Mr. Schupack distributed an inventory of “Conservation lands of Walpole” showing that out of 100% of Walpole’s land, 27.9% is owned by the Town of Walpole, 8.5% owned by the State, 5.0% is owned by the Society for the Protection of NH Forests and 58.5% are privately owned lands under Conservation Easement. There are 23,872 acres in Walpole with 13.7% or 3,264 acres currently protected. The goal of 25% equals 5,968 acres in total. By removing water, wetlands and developed lands, there is a grand total of 11, 471 acres or 48.1% is left for development in Walpole.
Mr. Schupack gave a brief but detailed overview of how a conservation easement works remarking contrary to what was said at the prior planning board meeting, that the land is not lost to public access unless it is properly posted according to strict guidelines by the owner, that some recreational uses are restricted involving motorized vehicles but hunting, hiking etc. are not restricted because of a conservation easement. Further in NH all land is publicly accessible, unless properly posted. A conservation easement contract addresses the development rights only - by restriction but most uses such as agricultural, farming and timber harvesting are allowed. Also the land is taxed exactly the same as it was prior to granting a conservation easement which means if it were in current use and taxed at those rates, it would remain taxed at those rates. If land is properly posted however some tax incentives are lost under current use laws. The legal contract/easements specifying what can and cannot be done are always held by a land trust and use of the land is monitored, restricted and negotiated through the land trust, not the individual or town or conservation commission. A land trust will not accept and easement unless the land has conservation value. Sec. Aslinger asked if a sample easement was available for the planning board to review in order to have a better understanding, Mr. Schupack thought the Monadnock Conservancy might be able to provide a sample, they along with the Society for the Protection of NH Forest, NH Land Protection and the Nature Conservancy are all considered “land trusts” that hold easements. Mr. Schupack noted that when the Town has been surveyed regarding protecting lands, the concept has been given a high priority by the citizens.
Mr. Daviss reported he also contacted the Society for the Protection of NH Forests for an explanation of where the 25% goal came from. He said it is not an arbitrary figure or something the conservation commission created, there are five criteria the society lists in order for a NH town to preserve its character and 25% conserved lands is the very least (based on studies) to protect a Town’s character and at the same time protect its viability. He also mentioned that the adoption of the town-wide plan depends heavily on whether the document is compatible with the Master Plan and it would simply be a reference document, not actually incorporated in whole as a chapter of the Master Plan. He reminded that the Planning Board agreed to have it reviewed by SWRPC for its compatibility, which is in the process.
- Goal #2, 1. “sprawl along Rte. 12” all agreed to remove “along Rte. 12” as suggested.
- Goal #3, 2. “Scenic Byway”, all agreed with comments but Mr. O’Keefe thought Rte. 12 and the River Byway were co-joined, it might need clarification.
- Goal #4, 1. “burdensome regulations, proposed or existing” discussed whether current regulations specifically address farming and the need to be sensitive when proposing amendments or re-writes.
- Goal #5, 4. “overlay zoning”, confusing term - although it is a proper term to describe designating specific buildings as historic rather than creating a Historic District which it was reminded was voted down twice in Walpole. Members discussed past experiences and gave examples of possible scenarios that might limit a property owner’s use of their historic home. The wording will be adjusted to better reflect the intent, which is to designate individual buildings by way of there historic identity and how they play an important part in preserving Walpole’s historic character rather than being restrictive.
- Implementation etc. 1. Discussed adding the state requirements for River corridors.
The rest of the document and comments were acceptable as presented.
Mr. DeCoste thanked Mr. Daviss for all the effort and work he has put into the update, with a group round of applause.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50pm Next work session scheduled for July 22, 2008.
Cc: file, PB, MP, ZBA, Town Offices
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.thewalpolean.com, www.walpoleplanningboard.org