Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION
September 11, 2007 / 7:30PM
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch.
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Ben Daviss, Bob Miller, V-Ch., Henry Fletcher, Charles Miller, Select., Jeff White, alt., Shane O’Keefe, alt.
Members Absent: Dave DeCoste, Fred Dill, present but recused and in audience.
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the October 9, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions, and corrections. There were over 50 persons in attendance.
I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm.
A. Alternate Pamela Aslinger was designated for Mr. DeCoste.
B. Minutes were passed over until later in the meeting.
II. Unfinished Business - Pending Application Review and Action
A. Walpole D & D, LLC - Major 8 Lot Subdivision located on Hooper, Wentworth and Old Keene Rd., Map 8 Lot 15, 6 and 16 in the Res. A and Rural Ag. zones. Continued review of 5/8/07 accepted application regarding: Road Specifications Re-design, Weston Sampson study: recommendations and deed restrictions, Drainage plan with soils overlay, Additional fees. Ch. Miller recapped the status of the application and referred to the follow-up letter. He offered to have the board move the question to approve the subdivision with the following conditions:
- Road Specifications, submit a plan approved by the road agent as previously agreed to, post a performance bond based on road agents specifications, to insure completion and compliance with the Town’s standards for a Class V road. Road must be completed before the first building permit is issued as a timeline guide.
- Approval of a Storm water Drainage Plan.
- Approval of submitted plans to increase recharge, conservation and water
recapture drainage as recommended in the Weston Sampson report and criteria.
- Collection of outstanding fees noted in the 8/24/07 letter.
- State subdivision approval must be granted.
Mr. Bob Miller so moved, Mr. Chas. Miller seconded. Ch. Miller called for discussion:
Alternate P. Aslinger asked if the recommendations mentioned in the Weston Sampson report were to be put in the form of deed restrictions would the Board have a copy of them as a part of the conditional approval? Ch. Miller said yes the Board must accept the wording as part of the approval.
Mr. Merklein asked when the Board reviews if the conditions are met? Ch. Miller said as the items become available the Board would review them at future meetings. Sec. Aslinger suggested the Board hold a compliance hearing to address the data once it is gathered and complete. Ch. Miller noted once all the conditions were met the mylar/plat would be signed, he thought it was possible for D & D to have the information ready in two to three months.
Ch. Miller called for a vote hearing no further discussion. Motion passed unanimously in favor. Mr. Dill submitted a check for $100.00 to cover fees and asked if the Weston Sampson bill was ready for payment? Sec. Aslinger said she had not received it she would double check with the Town Office and report back to Mr. Dill. Mr. Dill submitted a letter of agreement with the road agent outlining his road improvement requirements. (on file) Mr. Joe DiBernardo asked when the mylar was needed? Answer was not until the conditions had been met, changes might result depending on the pending information to come.
III. Review New Applications Submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay
A. Travis Hearne and David Hearne - Lot Line Adjustment located on 95 and 97 Church St. in N. Walpole, Map 30, Lot 35 and 36 in the Residential B zone. Purpose is to adjust the line between the lots by adding 10,203 sq. ft. to Lot 35 from Lot 36. All frontages, setbacks and acreages are met for the zone. A variance #2007-05-15 for Article IV, C-3 and C-5 was granted on 7/19/07 for the setback requirement from the N. Walpole Village Precinct ZBA. Sec. Aslinger reported application materials were complete. A motion to accept the application was made and seconded, motion carried unanimously.
Ch. Miller closed the meeting - opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Matt Drew was present representing the applicants. He referred to the maps and described the plans noting the hatched area is the area being moved. No questions or comments were made from the public. Mr. O’Keefe noted the variance allotted a zero setback to a 5 foot setback. Hearing no further questions, Ch. Miller closed the hearing and re-opened the meeting.
Ch. Miller called for Board review and questions, being none he called for a motion to approve the lot line adjustment as presented. Mr. Merklien so moved, it was seconded. Mr. O’Keefe suggested amending the motion to include reference to the granted variance. All agreed. The motion was amended. Ch. Miller called for a vote, motion carried unanimously. The maps and mylar were signed. Mr. Drew asked to have Secretary Aslinger do the recording and provided the required fees.
B. Hubbard, LLC and Chamberlain Machine Inc. - Special Exception Recommendation located on Rte. 12 N. Map 12 Lot 4-2 of 12.15 acres in the Rural Ag. and Commercial zones. Purpose of the recommendation is to comply with Article III. Rural Ag. District C. Special Exceptions 1. a. i. and ii. of the zoning ordinance. The Board will review the criteria and hold a public hearing and take action whether to favorably or not favorably recommend that the Zoning Board of Adjustment grant a special exception for an industrial use in the rural agricultural zone.
Ch. Miller described the proposal noting the Zoning Board will review the proposal in the future and determine whether to grant the special exception based on the remaining criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance. He reiterated the Planning Board’s role in reviewing two criteria mentioned above as: 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. He said the remaining criteria would be reviewed by the Zoning Board. He said the purpose of the meeting and hearing was to listen to a description of the proposal as presented by Attny. Gary Kinyon representative for Chamberlain Machine, take public input and have the Board review the criteria and make it’s recommendation. He called for Mr. Kinyon to speak.
Attny. Kinyon introduced himself, Mr. Chris Miller, Bob and Scott Boynton.
He said the company has been family owned and operated since the 1940’s in Bellows Falls. The Boynton’s are the present manager’s Bob’s father had owned the company prior. Chamberlain is a manufacturer of high quality precision machined products sold to various markets including medical. Unlike many industries in the US over the last years who have been lost to outsourcing, Chamberlain has thrived and grown now requiring expansion. They found the site recently subdivided by Hubbard to be suitable for their needs. He pointed to the site on the provided maps, Sec. Aslinger noted the application materials included a traffic study, letter from Brackett Geo Science regarding the water protection area and site maps. He described the previous Hubbard business and buildings saying the past and recent tax assessments show the land use as industrial use. He said it has Town water and sewer and most importantly 3 phase power needed specifically for Chamberlain’s machining. He pointed out access to the site as being Huntington Lane off of Rte. 12. He noted the surrounding property uses. He said the property is located in two zones, 200 ft. in the Commercial and Rural Agricultural the rest. He noted lot requirements
Walpole Planning Board Minutes for the zones, and permitted uses reading directly from the zoning ordinance. He said in both of the zones an industrial use is allowed by special exception. He said they are proposing a roughly 40 thousand sq. ft. building to include manufacturing facility and office space. He said the current site employs about 50 persons the plan is to maintain that number at the new site. He said the employees are skilled laborers making from $12 -$24 per hour. He said one of the attractions of this location is Chamberlain’s ability to keep the skilled workforce they have by limiting additional commute times for key employees traveling as far south as Hinsdale and north from West Lebanon. He said the facility would be about as clean a manufacturer as possible, with no emissions, no noise or hazardous waste production. Currently in Vermont where hazardous waste laws are very restrictive, Chamberlain is exempt because they do not produce any. He said it does not draw a lot of water or produce excess water or sewer. Once up and running the facility will provide about $80K per year in taxes based on 2006 figures. He said the proposal is to build a state of the art facility at this site in order to keep Chamberlain competitive and to thrive in its present market and into the future. He said they thought it would provide the Town with a very dependable employer and future employer. He pointed out their need for a special exception in order to proceed, specifying the two mentioned criteria. He supported criteria i.) by pointing out the only zoned industrial property known as the industrial park is inadequate due to the fact 3 phase power is unavailable and Chamberlain must have 3 phase power. Secondly Chamberlain feels it is inadequate because it is not “ready for building” like the new site is and the new site is located within the preferred commuting distances for their key employees. The industrial park is out of their preferred commuting area. The new site is located to all the convenient commercial services and main routes. He said based on the fact the industrial park is not adequate for Chamberlain, it ruled it out for consideration nor are there other adequate locations. He said the second criteria ii.) regarding uses appropriate and consistent with the Master Plan can be considered by how the zoning ordinance is written usually based on what is in the Master Plan. He thought the language in the zoning ordinance outlining uses for the zones and criteria for allowing an industrial use by special exception, not prohibiting them, was a clear decision enacted in the zoning ordinance reflecting consistency with the Master Plan. He referred to the Transportation section of the Master Plan looking for mention of industrial uses stating under the goals: “To provide for adequate streets, street systems, in all existing and future residential, commercial and industrial subdivisions”. He thought it was fair to say this site was consistent with the Master Plan regarding the fact it is located on Rte. 12 a main access and thoroughfare connecting the interstate and routes north and south. He referred to the Land Use Goals and Objectives stating “to insure Walpole has a diverse mix of commercial and industrial uses”. He said for years the Town has had a level of industrial uses this proposal is actually replacing a bygone industrial use. He did not think anyone knowing the US economy is under any illusion a rush to expand industrial uses over residential uses would occur in any small town. Having an opportunity to enhance the diversity of industrial, residential and commercial uses in Walpole is consistent with the Master Plan. He added the proposal is a golden opportunity for Walpole and Chamberlain to bring a proposed use with its very good scale based on the population, it is an ideal spot for both. He reiterated the lack of adequate industrial space and the consistency with the Master Plan asking the Board to grant a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board for their proposal.
Ch. Miller recognized Board member Ben Daviss who asked how many current employees live in Walpole? Mr. Chris Miller answered 4 and about half their employees live in NH. Mr. Daviss asked if the 80K tax revenue is more than what is generated now? Mr. Kinyon said it was 80K in total, not in addition to. Selectmen Miller asked what would be the assessed value of the building? Mr. Kinyon said roughly 3 million dollars.
Ch. Miller called for other public comments:
Ms. Barbara Dretzin asked if they had spoken with the present owner of the industrial park, she thought he was willing to install 3 phase power. Mr. Kinyon said no, but it was his belief the owner did not have the ability to install 3 phase power to the site. An audience member said it was common knowledge the site would not support 3 phase power.
Mark Houghton of the Town water department was concerned the proposed site sits atop the well source protection area. Attny. Kinyon said they were unclear as to whether they were infact within the protection area and asked if better maps were available. Mr. Houghton said he could provide a better map but he is certain they are in the protection area.
Ms. Barbara O’Conner asked what criteria the Planning Board uses in order to determine whether the applicants have made a good faith effort to try to find suitable and adequate land for Chamberlain’s purpose. She is concerned they have not spoken with the owner of the industrial park, an obvious choice, are they saying the proposed site is simply very convenient for them so they don’t believe there is any other site available.
Ch. Miller said in previous preliminary meetings the subject was raised as to the lack of 3 phase power which is essential to Chamberlain’s operation. He believes bringing 3 phase to the current industrial park would be very costly, time consuming and possibly unlikely based on some limited knowledge of the process. He said it is likely with general flow of electricity in that area “hiccups” could occur leading to a quality issue with precision machining.
John Almsbury asked what types of solvents, lubricants and product shipping preservatives are used, and secondly does NH have equivalent hazmat regulations to VT?
Plant manager, Chris Miller stated they use a wide range of LPS preservatives and machine oils, some solvents. Whether NH hazmat is equivalent to VT he doubts it but stated they would certainly comply with whatever the requirements are and he is highly confident given the exempt status they have in VT they will be able to meet the NH standards. They have zero production of hazardous materials.
Mel Schupack said the proposal is not consistent with the Master Plan with goal # 4 calling to preserve agricultural land. He said the site is prime agricultural land and is one of the best agricultural soils in the State. While it may not be farmed in the near future, paving it over now and destroying it is not consistent with the Master Plan. He said the Conservation Commission voted at their last meeting to recommend against allowing an industrial use on the parcel. He said it is part of the Master Plan to preserve farmland. He said it is also over the well-head protection area. He said there is a 16 acre commercial parcel for sale north east of there out of the protection area, he wondered why it wasn’t considered.
Mary Lou Montgomery read a letter from Jennifer Palmietto, PhD Granite State Rural Water Association Lead Staff Officer stating their opposition to the proposed application for a conditional use permit for a machine shop in the River Well wellhead overlay district. Allowing the use will increase the well long-term susceptibility to pollutants such as heavy metals. It refers to the ordinance prohibiting auto service and machine shops within the district and how the overlay district, was researched and enacted and refers to the Natural Features section in the Master Plan. It states Walpole is fortunate to have two quality wells. It being necessary to have two sources to provide a back-up for the system. Recently the Watkins Hill well was inoperable for ten days, the River Well became the Town’s sole source, stressing the importance of protecting the quality and quantity of the River Well.
Sheldon Sawyer offered comment as a Selectmen, not the Selectboard. He said many concerns he hears in Town besides high taxes, is not being able to afford to live in Walpole. There are not enough reasonable paying blue collar jobs, in years past Hubbard and RN Johnson have played a major part in providing jobs but it hasn’t been the case recently. He said the abatements to Hubbard has lowered the tax base although there have been a few new industries, such as Bensonwood and Burdick’s. He said the lower paying jobs have increased in the commercial shopping center area. The demand for house lots has increased substantially as well as the building of larger homes. He feels the Town needs to have a good balance of businesses to have a good effect on the tax base. Recently the power company has helped but recently that dropped from 8 million to 6 million, a drop of 2 million. Hopefully it will improve over time. He feels Walpole is suffering from not having good clean industrial uses, the Town does not have an adequate industrial area providing 3 phase power, town water and sewer. He said if not on this site, then where? He strongly feels this site could be made to safely accomplish the concerns of the Conservation Commission and Water Department. Along with the Planning Board, engineers and Chamberlain Machine and others, this would be a great asset for Walpole. An industry need not threaten the safety of the Town’s water supply if properly designed and engineered. On a final note Selectmen Sawyer added each year the Board of Selectmen are faced with turning down justifiable projects that would be good for the Town, it’s harder all the time. The highway department has greatly increased, salaries could be raised for dedicated qualified employees but it is tough to afford. This site would be an asset.
Ms. Barbara O’Conner said the recent vote not to rezone this entire parcel substantiated the community’s desire to prevent an industrial use. She said she did not think it was appropriate for the Planning Board to ignore the vote. The fact this is a subdivision of the larger plot is immaterial it is still within the water protection area.
Mel Schupack said taxes are always a pain in the neck, but Walpole has actually maintained a lower increase in the municipal portion of the taxes, lower than the rate of inflation since the year 2000. He said the BOS are doing a better job than they are admitting too. He said there are other sites to consider and the Planning Board should do a study to take into account all the potential areas as part of the process. He said approving something that is opportunistic for one developer is not the way to go.
Attny. Kinyon said Chamberlain is not shirking any responsibilities regarding the development of the site and to make certain it is not a threat to the well protection area, they will comply with all the standards. He said given the minimal impact this use will have, you have to consider the other potential uses for the site such as agriculture with the fertilizers and pesticides, residential uses with water requirements, they are permitted uses. He applauds the Town and persons who have spoken tonight, but insures they will do what is needed to insure the water is protected. He said whatever the future use might be, they could be of a greater threat than their proposal, because they are permitted uses for the zone.
Charles Miller mentioned knowledge of Chamberlain speaking with Mr. Dill about his available land but did not know the outcome. Mr. Dill said he had spoken with Chamberlain about his site.
Mary Lou Montgomery asked if an approval is granted for special exception is there anything guaranteeing Chamberlain and their level of operations would always occupy the site? Ch. Miller said the Board only makes a non-binding recommendation to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board acts on the special exception, if granted Chamberlain must return to the Planning Board for a full site plan review to further address all issues in detail. He said 20 years down the road if they sell out to a different company then it would be a change in use triggering all new requirements and review, the special exception and it’s pertinent conditions is granted to specifically Chamberlain Machine. He mentioned his own knowledge of industrial material handling leads him to be less concerned over safety issues because of the detailed recording of the materials from receiving to disposal.
Shane O’Keefe noted the handling of the materials was not something likely to be addressed in the zoning. Ch. Miller said but they could be made part of the conditions during the Site Plan Review process. He mentioned Pinnacle View had to provide similar information. He said they have similar materials to what Chamberlain uses such as machine oils and solvents.
Charles Blount said he didn’t believe anyone present was opposing Chamberlain Machine, but he thinks the Board should be convinced they have made a good thorough effort to identify every piece of commercial and industrial land available, to investigate whether 3 phase can be brought to the current industrial park. Ch. Miller said he thought after 25 or 30 years since it hasn’t been brought in, it wasn’t likely to be done. Mr. Dill said he looked at the site 24 years ago and it wasn’t feasible for one business to put it in. He said on another note, his recent experience with the hydrologist, it was explained to him the flow goes with the river, this site is away from the well site.
Gail Siddell asked about traffic concerns for the area. Sec. Aslinger said a traffic study was included with the application materials. Ch. Miller said it would be addressed during the Site Plan Review if they receive a special exception.
Mr. Merklein agreed with Selectmen Sawyer about the need for businesses to contribute to the tax base. He asked if Chamberlain had indeed thoroughly looked at all the available sites, perhaps not within the well protection area specifically.
Chris Miller of Chamberlain answered saying they had looked at a number of sites, but kept coming back to this site because of the 3 phase power, town water, town sewer and location for their employees. They spoke with Mr. Dill, looked over the industrial park only briefly being no 3 phase power, and a site in North Walpole. He said at the time they did there search, this site was the best available.
Mr. Toby Tousley, the new owner of the property, said he has read the Master Plan which states the Town needs to be sustainable, not just focused on agriculture. He said while the site has been designated as prime agricultural soil, it is not immediately farmable. There are several large buildings, and a vast amount of concrete and concrete surfaces making it unlikely it will ever be farmed. He said he has the right to put 40 houses on the parcel, and has seen preliminary plans for such a development. He believes the impact of 40 residences would have a far greater impact on the water supply through unchecked contaminants, such as car oils, pesticides and fertilizers. Chamberlain Machine must account for every pound of materials that goes in and out. He said currently the maps the Conservation Commission have shown a current farming operation is within 400 ft. of the well, what about herbicides and manure used being unchecked? He said Chamberlain’s proposal is a great opportunity for the Town. He didn’t grown up in Brooklyn or move here from Connecticut, he is from the area having grown up and lived in Keene all his life, attended school with many people in the community, so he is aware of the concerns and opportunities the proposal presents.
Board member Ben Daviss said being the designated Board website manager reading the comments he would like to follow up on what Mr. Tousley said and to put into context some of the townspeople’s concerns before the board votes. He said the proposed industrial use may be the best use for the land even though the vote to change the zone was unfavorable in March. He disagrees the land can’t be farmed again, relating in 1962 he was told Mr. Nixon would never have a political career and in 1980 the US Steel Industry was dead and gone forever, he doesn’t put a lot of faith in those kinds of predictions. He said it is true a Mom and Pop farmer is not going to pay Mr. Tousley’s price for the land and farm 40 acres of corn. He said the alternative best use may be light industrial, it would have less of an impact overall than a large scale housing development. He said the industrial use and economic benefits are not what the Board must consider at this time, only whether there is existing adequate industrial land and whether it is appropriate and consistent with the Master Plan, this is what the Board will vote on. He said in the Master Plan under Land Use, the goal is to protect Walpole’s land. For some this proposed use might not be everyone’s idea of land protection. Goal #2 says to insure there is a diverse mix of commercial and industrial uses. It also notes general satisfaction be met with existing business planning in Walpole, noting that the most important use is to have businesses that serve the needs of the residents rather than regional markets. Chamberlain Machine will not make products directly serving the residents. One of the objectives is to support the continuation of existing land uses, granted agricultural use will not continue therefore rezoning it to industrial does not preserve existing land uses. If the Board is going to play by the rules set, they would need to see more in the Master Plan weighing against it than in favor of it. He thought the Board should not take lightly the Granite State Rural Water Association, the Town’s water department, the Master Plan, and voters are all being against the proposal. To play by the set rules and to keep faith with the Town, the Board is obligated to vote against recommending it.
Mr. Tousley said the voters voted against rezoning the entire parcel to industrial. He said he thought the opposition was not against an industrial application in the rural agricultural district, which is allowed by special exception but that they were voting against a blanket zone change to industrial.
8:45PM, Ch. Miller receiving no further comments closed the public hearing and opened Board discussion.
Mr. Bob Miller said the vote against the zone change was 591 to 501, he did not think it was an overwhelming majority against an industrial land use for the parcel.
Mr. Fletcher said if the vote were to happen today it might go the other way, he thought the voters were misinformed thinking the developer’s were “taking” a big piece of property.
Ch. Miller said having been on the Board for many years participating in the original Master Plan and rewrite, one major concern has been to limit strip commercial development along Rte. 12. He referred to the Master Plan promoting nodal development along Rte 12 over strip development. He said it was an ideal to work at promoting light industrial nodal areas along Rte. 12 to break up the commercial strips. He said over the years there has been discussion about changing some of the zoning to industrial/commercial but never enacted through zoning changes. He said now there is an opportunity for a light industrial operation on land zoned in the 1960’s Rural Agricultural, zoned specifically because Hubbard Farms owned the land and they housed chickens on it. He said once they built the large barns it actually went to a commercial poultry enterprise owned locally. He said it is no longer owned locally so it is being sold as a commercial piece of land with commercial uses on it. He said it is a prime opportunity being a clean industry without actually impacting the water at all, the well is to the North the water flows to the South. He said all State requirements would be met, he would rather see three commercial/industrial businesses owned and operated by local people with roots in the community who will value the community they are part of as is evident in Bellows Falls. He said one of the reasons they expanded the commercial zone for Pinnacle View is because they were local people, they would do right by the Town. He sees the same situation here, local people involved in the community they are a part of. Hubbard Farms did as well as they did in Walpole because they were local and part of the community. He thinks it will be a great interlude to the strip development on Rte. 12. He reminded that it wasn’t too many years ago when the IGA was leaving the Village everyone was scared about what would happen to the Village without a grocery store. He said the IGA considered keeping a presence in the Town, the Bank purposely stayed in Town, there were many old houses people turned into Bed and Breakfast’s and restaurants, all local people to trying to revitalize the Town. Walpole is lucky because local people take an interest in their community they were able to build things up and revitalize the Town. He sees the Rte. 12 area as similar. He said Hubbard Farms has provided a great deal of tax revenue for the Town, but less successfully in the last 10 years saying it could change more quickly, loss of revenue and jobs. He said the land owned by non-Walpole residents is for sale leading to a possible larger impact if developed residentially. He said it is commercially zoned land and historically operated as commercial land. The criteria the Board needs to review for its recommendation has been met favorably with the Master Plan mention of promoting nodal development on Rte. 12 and the inadequacy of the only industrial land available in the Town being the industrial park. He said the proposal meets the two criteria the Zoning Board has the balance of the criteria to review. He reiterated what a great opportunity it is for the Town, having lived here all his life he sees potential.
Eric Merklein said he hopes if it goes through, Chamberlain will design a site and building in keeping with the Town’s architecture.
Henry Fletcher moved to favorably recommend the special exception to the Zoning Board of Adjustment based on the two criteria being met. Seconded by Bob Miller. Vote was 2 against, 5 in favor, motion passed.
Ben Daviss followed up saying he voted based on the rules, not necessarily against the proposal. Ch. Miller said he wouldn’t argue with his reasoning or Selectman Miller’s opposition, he understood his reasoning because of the Town vote in March. Mr. Daviss said part of the problem might be due to the lack of an economic development plan in the Master Plan, he would like to see it added to the work session agenda later in the month.
A five minute break was taken to allow the audience to disperse.
VI. New Business: Preliminary Conceptual Consultations
A. Mr. and Mrs. Mack - Voluntary Merger, various others. Sec. Aslinger said the recent reassessment has spurned several voluntary merger applications. She put together a general instructions guide for Elaine to hand out. Betty Mack was present and turned in an application form. Sec. Aslinger said several applications will be presented at the October meeting, no public hearing is required but abutters must be notified. Ch. Miller disagreed abutters need to be notified. (please note: Ch. Miller was correct, voluntary mergers according to RSA 674:39-a do not require abutter notification or public hearing but should appear on the Board’s agenda the night of review. Ch. Miller obtained this information shortly after the meeting.) Mrs. Mack will need to provide the fees at a later time. Mrs. Mack asked if they would need to have a deed written, answer was yes and the Board will provide a signed form for her to be recorded at the registry of deeds at the next meeting.
B. Toby Tousley - Future development of Rte. 12 parcel Map 12 Lot 4-1 Mr. Tousley presented an outlined map showing the larger parcel designated as mainly in the Rural Agricultural zone. In order to determine what to do with the remainder parcel he has been in contact with Bensonwood. He said he wished he had spoken up earlier regarding availability of suitable land for industrial uses beyond the industrial park. He said the reason this site is desirable is because of the 3 phase power. Mr. Benson is interested in it for that reason, his present site does not have 3 phase and he is built out. He is interested also because there is plenty of land for expansion. He said although Mr. Hansel in a previous meeting had mentioned how good 3 phase generators are, Mr. Benson disagrees otherwise he would continue with what he has, although he can’t specifically speak for Mr. Benson, they do not have an agreement. Mr. Tousley stated he has an lease agreement for a time, possibly a number of years with Hubbard for three of the large buildings with some chickens currently in them, #14, #17 #18, and they are currently occupying the lab building. He questions if he sells the operation to Bensonwood knowing they would need to acquire a special exception like Chamberlain’s process, is putting a different business on the same site as Hubbard’s leased space a conflict?
Ch. Miller said if Bensonwood expands their current operation to the site the existing buildings would be accessory buildings being leased for a time certain. He does not see a conflict, they are existing buildings and currently used. Bensonwood could use them for storage but they would be leased for a time in the future. He said he thought they had the right to lease them if they want.
Mr. Shane O’Keefe agreed saying since they exist and are being used as an agricultural/industrial use, only a change in use would trigger a site plan review, but it may need to be better defined.
Selectman Miller though a legal opinion could clarify it. Ch. Miller thought if the Board agreed on the interpretation a legal opinion would not be necessary.
Mr. Tousley said if he sells it to Bensonwood, hypothetically only, then Bensonwood would be leasing the buildings to Hubbard. He said there are two issues to consider one being Hubbard was planning on leaving Walpole entirely, keeping them here is a help. He said there has been a fair amount of concern over the access to the lot as being Huntington Lane only, however the other access is a legal curb cut, would the Board prefer to see a purchaser use Huntington or Edwards Lane? Ch. Miller said without knowing exactly who would buy the parcel it would be hard to determine a preference, noting the State would be the determiner based on the needs. Members agreed it would depend on the needs and the State requirements. Mr. Tousley said preliminary discussion with the State was favorable to using Edwards Lane, he wanted to know in general if the Board had any concerns.
Mr. Daviss asked how large an operation Bensonwood would be building? Mr. Tousley said he was not certain but thought they were planning on one building they like the site because there is plenty of room to expand in the future if needed. Bob Miller noted the parcel is 3 times the size of their current operation. He said there is a large pond and septic located on their current location.
Ms. Aslinger said in order to help clarify whether two businesses could occupy the same lot, and she will do further research, she thought if it were to be granted a special exception as an industrial use in a rural agricultural zone the use would fall under the zoning requirements under the industrial zone much different from the rural agricultural zone where it talks about one building on one lot. She said there are no building size limits in the industrial zone, it is only for retail commercial buildings. She thought the existing buildings would become accessory buildings to the owner of the property but putting an additional industrial building on the same lot would be creating two buildings and uses on one lot with the same frontage. She thought it was correct to think the industrial use criteria would apply to the lot rather than the rural agricultural or commercial districts criteria if a special exception is granted. The industrial zone criteria does not speak of “a” building on “a” lot as in the Rural Ag and Commercial districts.
Ms. Barbara Dretzin asked to speak, Ch. Miller allowed her question. She asked if a special exception is granted for an industrial zone change is there no limit to the building size? Ms. Aslinger said the special exception doesn’t change the zone, the Boards are not changing the zone but the use within the zone and there isn’t a building size limitation for industrial. Ch. Miller said the zone would always stay the same until the Town votes to change it. Ben Daviss thought it was a play on words because if the land stays zoned rural agricultural but a special exception is granted for an industrial use then it doesn’t matter what is zoned rather what it’s used for. He thought in one night between this plan and Chamberlain’s the Board has disregarded the intent of the ordinance. Selectman Miller said it made the Town vote ridiculous.
Mr. Tousley said he understood by the Town voting down the zone change it caused a more detailed review by going through the special exception process. Ms. Aslinger said he made a good point, if the vote had gone in favor of changing the zone the site could have housed a huge industrial complex with few restrictions and would have been promoted as an industrial park and an owner would have had to develop it in that way. This way by leaving it zoned as is requiring a special exception for an allowed use it keeps the development on a slower and smaller scale and impact. It doesn’t take a huge piece of property and turn it into an industrial park. She said from the onset she did not like the idea of the parcel’s rezoning to industrial due to the lack of restriction in the zoning ordinance and the potential for a too large scale of development for the Town.
Ch. Miller used Ms. Aslinger as an example showing how she didn’t support changing the zone because the ordinance already allowed the use by special exception, so why supercede the zoning ordinance by changing the zoning by a Town vote. He thought she knew since it was already a permitted use the additional criteria needing to be met through the special exception process would be better for the Town, so it could be taken piece meal on a smaller and slower scale. With meeting the additional criteria it allows for a more careful and detailed preliminary review rather than just the site plan review. She agreed saying the special exception process causes the developer to jump through more hoops, it brings proposals to the public forum, one extra step rather than directly to the site plan review. She said the industrial zone does not have many restrictions on it until it can be changed, so it seemed premature to re-zone a whole piece of land to industrial before the ordinance can be adjusted to accommodate needed changes such as limitation to building sizes.
Ms. O’Conner asked why then is this proposal being considered? Answer because it is a permitted use in the ordinance by special exception. She asked why if the voters turned down the zoning change did the Board recommend the special exception to rezone the land. Ms. Aslinger said no rezoning is taking place they are confusing the issue. Ch. Miller said the original proposal to rezone the parcel was one of two options the developer had and they wanted to try it first. Ms. Aslinger said the special exception process is the better way to go. Ch. Miller agreed saying the Board is following the zoning ordinance. Ms. O’Conner said what about the vote of the Town. Ch. Miller said the Town also voted to adopt the zoning ordinance and it is being followed correctly and according to it. Ms. O’Conner said a precedent was set tonight by the Board granting the special exception. Ch. Miller said the Board did not grant the special exception but has only made a recommendation to the zoning board based on the criteria outlined in the ordinance. He said the Town vote had nothing to do with the criteria the Board needed to review to make its recommendation although he knew some members did consider it. Ms. O’Conner said what the Board did tonight was to make it so easy for anyone to come in and say I want and get a special exception.
Mr. Tousley interjected he was not proposing special exception at this time. Selectman Miller said if they disagree with the Planning Board’s decision the next step is for the Zoning Board to make its review suggesting they should attend those meetings to make further comment.
Ms. Aslinger said she does not think the board made their decision or voted lightly on anything to do with the proposal, stating they are planners, its what they do. She referred to the Master Plan stating the known conflict of trying to keep agricultural land protected and encourage development, as things come to the board they need to be weighed. She said you can pick through the Master Plan only picking the things that you want to focus on but if you read the entire plan you’ll find the whole overall picture showing developing the Town for sustainability for the tax base and agricultural preservation go hand in hand, we have to do both. In order to do both we have to take into account these projects when they come. On a scale of projects it happens to be a pretty good one compared to other proposals she’s seen having sat on another NH Town Planning Board. She said they are local people they will take care of the Town because they will be a part of the Town.Mr. Tousley submitted a copy of his preliminary plan for the Board’s file.
C. Delbert Frost - Secretary Aslinger said Mr. Frost was not present nor asked to be, she was simply asking the Board to instruct her as to whether Mr. Frost needed to have his 1991 Lot Line Adjustment revoked since the Board approved it but he never had a deed written or recorded to reflect the change. Some years later his neighbor purchased the small amount of land at a tax sale thereby invalidating the Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Frost has called Sec. Aslinger a few times and attended Selectmen’s meetings recently. He has notified the Town he no longer owns the property but has been taxed on it since 1991. Sec. Aslinger asked the Board whether he should go through the revocation process or simply handle it by letter, but she is concerned at present it appears to be valid until revoked or acknowledged. Ch. Miller thought it was a property dispute and not for the Board to handle. He said if there is no dispute with the abutter then ask Mr. Frost to make a written request to the Board to revoke the 1991 Lot Line Adjustment due to the circumstances that have taken place. Ms. Aslinger will notify Mr. Frost on how to proceed.
D. Virginia Foote of Lawrence Associates presented a lot line adjustment between N. Walpole Village District/Police Station and Norman Firenz located on Russell St. off Rte. 12. Map 30 Lot 1 and 2. Purpose is to annex .02 acres from Lot 1 to Lot 2 removing the old line that ran through the garage and to meet the 5 foot setback requirement. A motion to place the application on the October meeting was made and seconded, motion carried. Sec. Aslinger asked to have 3 more copies of the map submitted as soon as possible the application, abutter list and fees were submitted. There was some discussion about who owns some of the land. It was determined there is a 100 x 100 ft. parcel owned by the Police Station.
E. Ms. Foote also brought in a plan to be submitted at the October meeting for the November meeting regarding a 2 lot subdivision on Ramsay Hill Rd. for Jack Franks. He is subdividing 1.6 acres from 11 acres with 200 feet of frontage. Purpose is to provide a ROW across his land to a landlocked parcel so the person can own his driveway. Ms. Foote did not have the application complete for submission but will have it ready for the October meeting Sec. Aslinger will add her to the agenda for another preliminary in October.
F. Myra Mansouri of the Zoning Board - She brought up a zoning amendment change to the Rural Agricultural District to allow home business as it is in the other zones. She read a letter from the Zoning Board where they voted to request the Planning Board amend the zoning ordinance Article VIII Section B. to reflect the same language as shown in the other zones permitting home businesses. Ch. Miller suggested the ZBA write the amendment, the Board will hold the Public Hearing, to check the dates. Shane O’Keefe asked why it wouldn’t be added to all zones including the Timberland district. It was thought because there is no building allowed in the Timberland district. Referring to the zoning ordinance under the Timberland zone, any use permitted in the Rural Ag. Zone is allowed but for a building a permit from the ZBA and Planning Board is required and meet several other restrictions. Henry Fletcher noted the Timberland district does not have road frontage due to it being set back 1200 feet from the other zones.
G. Ernest and Wanda Way - Attny. Rebecca Todd showed maps of the minor proposal wanting the Board look at Lot 2’s shape. She noted it included a long strip (50ft wide) of land along Santaw Lane accessing the back portion of their remaining lot. Rather than deeding a ROW over the lot they prefer to retain ownership of it. Their daughter is going to own the new lot, if she decided to sell it in the future they would like to retain owned access instead of a deed restriction. There is also another access to the back lot on their retained lot as well, 20 feet wide. They are trying to prevent future problems. She asked if the Board has concerns? Members did not see any problems with the configuration although it is oddly shaped. The lots meet all the other requirements. They are planning to submit the application at the October meeting.
VII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A. North Walpole Village Commissioners Letter - Sec. Aslinger reported members have copies of recent correspondence in their agenda packets. She suggested everyone read it for discussion at the next meeting, noting the Board should be deciding on whether NWVC have complied with the conditions of approval.
B. Site Plan Revocation - N. Meadow Plaza - Sec. Aslinger reported members have copies of the correspondence in their agenda packets, suggesting they read it and discuss it at the October meeting. She said some of the recommendation depends on past site plan review regulations in reference to time limits. She researched this, there were no reference to time limits until the 2004 revision. She noted while Attny. Hockensmith believes there are good grounds to go forward with the revocation, it raises the question if it is challenged legal fees may mount for the Town. Ch. Miller says in the long run, anything done to the parcel will need to come for a Site Plan Review and it is not likely to resemble what was previously approved. He doesn’t feel it is critical. He mentioned Berkshire taking the Town to court over a March zoning amendment regarding building vs. establishment, a case is pending in the courts. He said the Selectmen are currently handling it without the Planning Board’s input. Sec. Aslinger said she has a few copies of Hockensmith’s response for those interested.
D. Ch. Miller announced the Work Session for 9/25 would be held, summer vacation is over, reminding it starts at 7:00 pm rather than 7:30 pm.
C. Handouts - Sec. Aslinger asked members to sign up for the DRI workshop to be held in October. She passed out OEP’s Fall conference sign up also.
Ben Daviss reminded minutes need approving. A motion to approve the minutes from July and August was made and seconded, motion carried.
At a point in the meeting Joe DiBernardo of DiBernardo Associates submitted an application to Sec. Aslinger for a lot line adjustment on behalf of Chris and Kathy Monahan previously discussed at the August meeting located on 42 Barnett Hill Rd. Map 9 Lots 48 and 48-1 in the Rural Agricultural zone. It adds 3.81 acres with the existing house to Lot 48 for a total of 13.81 acres with 456.72 feet of frontage and Lot 48-1 of 11.01 acres with 200 feet of frontage. Sec. Aslinger will process the application for the October meeting.
VIII. Meeting Adjourned 10pm
cc. file, PB members, ZBA, BOS, WCC, Water, Road Agent
posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, Town website www.walpolenh.us