Town of Walpole, Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
September 9, 2008–7:00pm
Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Robert Miller, V-Ch.
Members Present: Sheldon Sawyer, BOS, Eric Merklien, Dave DeCoste, Ben Daviss,
Henry Fletcher, Jeff White, alt., Donn Lounsbury, alt., Shane O’Keefe, alt.
Members Absent: Jeff Miller, Ch., Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the October 14, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions, and corrections. There were 25 +/- persons in the audience.
I. Meeting Opened at 7:00pm
A. Roll Call - V-Ch. Miller designated J. White for Ch. Miller. V-Ch. Miller read into the record Mr. Fred Dill’s letter of resignation dated and effective 8/12/08.
B. Minutes - A motion to approve the
minutes from 9/12/08 was made and seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.
II. Review Applications Submitted:
A. Frank W. Whitcomb Construction Corp. Excavation Site Plan Review located on Old Drewsville Rd. Map 15, Lot 35 in the rural agricultural district for a proposed sand and gravel excavation of a 3.63 acre site resulting in a pond. Special exception has been granted for an industrial use, state and local permits are in order. Mr. Dick Fraser from One Source Permitting was asked to present the plans. Sec. Aslinger reported that the application was in complete order, fees paid, abutters and public notified. ZBA Ch. Myra Mansouri mentioned that the special exception was granted with conditions in July 2008 and submitted a signed copy of the 155E Gravel Permit issued by the ZBA 8/2008 according to the zoning ordinance requirements, also with conditions.
V-Ch. called on Mr. Fraser to present the application materials who said the site specific
State permit was approved in March 2008. He made his presentation focusing on the Purpose clause under Section III. of the site plan review regulations in regards to the proposed use being interactive with surrounding uses. He has brought experts to go over some of the details. He referred to the application booklet (on file). He described the lot specifics according to the maps and noted this use is an extension of the 1994 special exception granted to Mr. Whitcomb for a storage area. He discussed soil types, wetlands, test pit data and spot elevations. Sheet two shows the reclamation plan and grade plan. The pond is set where the excavation will take place below the water table. The slope is a shallow 3:1. The area will be bordered by the existing berm and extended to the edge of the cornfield and intercept the existing tree line, everything will be out of sight. The potential impacts have been mitigated. He said the third sheet discusses BMP’s, (best management practices) regarding seed description, hay bales, silt fences, swales, vegetation and groundwater. He said out of the 229 acre piece the project is about 1& 1/2 %, what’s on the other side of the road is exactly what will result although on a smaller scale.
He asked the members to refer to the booklet page by page beginning with the police and fire chief comments. Sec. Aslinger read into the record comments dated 9/9/08 by Chief David Hewes simply stating the project would have no impact on the police department. Mr. Fraser said Chief Richard Hurlburt via phone earlier in the day stated the fire department would not have any concerns regarding the project. Sec. Aslinger read into the record a letter from the Walpole Conservation Commission stating they have no objection to the project suggesting BMP’s being followed through and with one concern for the safety of the water if a leak should occur. Mr. Fraser reminded that the site would be inspected by the ZBA annually as part of the 155E permitting and special exception conditions.
He referred to the application, abutter list, checklist, USGS quad related to the road network, photo’s of the site showing part of the berm and footprint of the proposed pond. He reviewed and discussed the impact analysis report indicating the existing 11 uses surrounding the project and how it relates. Summarizing that the project is related to the other industries including the town’s own storage and stockpile area and that it is a good fit for the zone. He mentioned state and local permit info as shown in the booklet. He discussed nuisance, safety and welfare issues. He said the operation is seasonal, has a finite life, lasting 5 years and 58,000 cubic yards are to be removed. The ZBA permit is good for 3 years, they will need to return to the ZBA to finish the project if not completed in 3 years. The use has been carefully sited to protect nearby natural areas, he referred to the BMP’s that have been incorporated to protect the environment and community during the project. He said NHDES report was complete and issued the 415 permit for RSA 485-A:17 in March, it’s purpose to insure the surface waters are protected through BMP’s. He asked Mr. Jeff Cloutier, a NH licensed geologist from North America Reserve (Laconia, NH) hired to do a groundwater study to state his conclusions and refer to a study done by BCI Geonetics, Inc. of Laconia, NH as presented in the Studies and Fact Sheets section of the application booklet.
Mr. Cloutier talked about quality and quantity issues. He explained the aquifer has been mapped extensively by the USGS and that the project actually opens up void space and allows more water to collect in the aquifer. He said only compaction would alter the void space and quantity of the water in the aquifer. It will not be impacted except by the climate ie; rain/droughts. He said USGS has monitoring wells in the region to monitor quantity and that the pond across the road is a good measure of how the water in the aquifer changes seasonally. The proposal is not de-watering the aquifer and if BMP’s are followed the quality of the water will not be affected. Mr. Merklein asked if the excavation alters the existing water flow within the aquifer? Mr. Cloutier said it would follow the path of least resistance towards the Connecticut River. He said it would not be altered because the material is very homogeneous based on the monitoring well data, the water movement will remain the same and because the size of the excavation is so negligible the rate in which it moves won’t be altered.
Mr. Fraser highlighted the 1988 BCI study regarding the impact of gravel mining in NH.
In conclusion the report found no scientific documentation leading to the detrimental effect of mining gravel above or below the water table on an underlying aquifer. Further the report stated out of 18 municipal wells monitored for water quality in NH, none were impacted by gravel mining locations within their proximity and some secondary contaminations were not as a result of sand/gravel mining. He agreed that water is a very important resource but the report states sand and gravel mining has not been an issue with NH water quality.
Next, Mr. Fraser referred to the impact assessment relating to real estate values and asked Jeff James from Rauseo & Associates, Canterbury NH to speak. He is a certified NH licensed real estate appraiser. They took six recent sale sites as a comparison to determine whether there was any diminution of property values due to proximity to a sand and gravel excavation. After applying their standards of appraisal they could not discern that there was a loss of property values due to the proposal as shown in the report. Mr. Daviss asked if the sites were abutters? Answer was that two of the sites were located near the Hodgkin’s operation and one did abut the property.
Mr. Fraser reminded that it is a seasonal project and will operate as needed, there are no third party sales all materials are dedicated to projects secured by Frank Whitcomb. He discussed the entrance and exit making a point that trucks leaving the site will never turn left, all traffic goes straight across to the corporate area or right onto Old Drewsville Road and then to Rte. 123. Mr. Whitcomb has decreased the number of his fleet, so the level of traffic will most likely not exceed historical levels ie; less than 40 trucks. He said all construction traffic goes by all of Whitcomb’s property in both directions. Potential impacts to wetlands have been considered the state requires a minimum setback of 25 feet, however the closest wetland is 85 feet also protected by a berm built several years ago that has been stabilized. He read through the final points regarding nuisance and reiterated that no blasting will take place and no crushing equipment will be used so as to minimize vibration concerns. He said the two on-site pieces of equipment - the loader and excavator will not contribute significantly to the noise. The existing trees and extended berm will remain in place to minimize noise and fugitive dust. He said they are digging below the water table so the gravel won’t become a source of dust and readily available water will be used to keep the haul road from becoming dusty. Mr. Daviss noted that until they reach the water one quarter of the gravel area could become dusty. Mr. Fraser said a good portion of the material above the water table is topsoil that will be used to build the grass-seeded berms; thereby lessening dust potential. If there is a noticeable amount of dust before they reach the water table they could go across the street for water with a water truck.
He talked about safety with training of personal and a locked gate. He said all employees go through a safety/refresher course annually. He said the berms would offer safety on three sides and trees on the east side. He said the balance of the application booklet addresses the site plan review criteria much of which does not apply to the project. He said there would be no company personal parking on the site and limited parking activity. The loader and excavator will be on site. No buildings or signage is proposed. Final grading details meet the requirements of section 8.a. Grading management plans. Undeveloped open space standards do not apply; there will be 97% open space. Screening has been addressed, parking and landscaping, off street parking and loading does not apply. Mr. O’Keefe asked if there would be above ground storage tanks? Answer was no. At the corporate office area there is what appears to be concrete blocks but they are actually state of the art fuel storage tanks. He said the concrete is a secondary containment. The fuel will be stored off site at the existing area across the street. Mr. Lounsbury asked if there would be a locked gate? Mr. Fraser said there are gates at the east and west accesses. Mr. Lounsbury is concerned about kids specifically. Mr. Fraser said some citizens at other meetings expressed removal of the berms to expose the scenic qualities of the pond, perhaps something they could address after the project is complete if the Town agreed. He said the rest of the materials in the booklet are copies of permits and fact sheets from the DES, BMP’s on equipment maintenance. He referred to two final letters one from NH Natural Heritage Bureau according to their database there are no endangered species and a letter from Mary Pinkham-Langer the State DRA Sand and Gravel appraiser dated 3/2001 asking her to note how many gravel pits are located in residential areas across the State. She states more than 1/2 are located in residentially zoned areas, a large percentage are right in the middle of developed residential housing. He said the site was located in the rural agricultural district and the residential A and B districts are quite a distance from the site almost into the village. Member Jeff White noted the closest is right on Old Drewsville Road, his neighborhood, Dearborn Circle.
Mr. DeCoste asked what the maximum average trucks would be on a given day in and out. Mr. Fraser couldn’t give a definitive answer. He said they would be stockpiling materials depending on the needs. Mr. Whitcomb answered that a maximum would be 50 a day, but unlikely. Mr. DeCoste asked if the stockpile would be below the berm? Mr. Whitcomb said it would not exceed the berm. Mr. Fraser said it will be windrowed to dry and then stockpiled.
Mr. Daviss asked about the silt fence type. Mr. Fraser showed the location on the maps and described it as a plastic woven fabric on stakes. Ms. Aslinger asked about the BMP’s listed on the fact sheets regarding fueling and maintenance of equipment. She asked if there would be storage of grease and oil on site? Mr. Whitcomb said everything would be stored across the street only the equipment will be fueled on site. She asked if the equipment would have its fuel brought to it? Answer was yes, by truck.
Being no further presentation V-Ch. Miller called for an action by the board on the completeness of the application before opening the public hearing.
Mr. Sawyer moved to accept the application as complete, seconded by Mr. Fletcher. All were in favor, motion carried.
III. 8:00pm V-Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. He called for comments by the Board. Mr. O’Keefe asked why the ZBA limited the project to three years. Ch. Mansouri answered because it is required in the ordinance and 155E permit. It is the same for all sand and gravel operations, not specific to this application. They can re-apply after the three years.
Pauline Basora asked for clarification on the direction of the truck traffic and whether the Town of Alstead was informed of the project since it may be impacted. Mr. Whitcomb restated that traffic entering and exiting would only be to the north onto State Rte. 123 and did not know if the Town of Alstead was informed. V-Ch. Miller said he was not aware a special courtesy was made to notify Alstead beyond the published notice. Sec. Aslinger confirmed that the published notice is for the benefit of the general public, surrounding Towns and property owners but only the direct abutters are notified, Alstead was not specifically notified. V-Ch. Miller noted the traffic might be minimal towards Alstead most would be heading towards Rte. 12.
Mr. Lounsbury asked how much was being mined, how much do the trucks hold and based on that does it seem it would go quickly? Mr. Whitcomb said originally the gravel was slated for the Alstead reconstruction, but now that project is all but complete. He stated being in the bridge business there is a high demand for the quality of the materials. He said there are 58,000 yards of material and 12-14 yards per truck. Mr. Lounsbury agreed it is a larger scope than he realized. Mr. Sawyer said 50 truckloads a day isn’t as big a deal as imagined, he currently has 20 + loads going by his house for the bridge construction and about 2500 yards of gravel coming out of his gravel site plus many farm trucks especially with the corn that’s about to be harvested.
Local Boy Scout Josh Makinen asked how the effect of building a pond has on erosion control. Mr. Fraser noted it was addressed on the plan sheets #1 and explained that a product of erosion is sediment, small particles being transported by water. It can impact wetland, rivers or streams, fish, spawning grounds and drinking water. He said when they designed the project the ongoing site development will result in runoff containment being kept onsite. Any earth that is moved will be contained onsite and erosion control stabilization measures established.
Selectwoman Jamie Teague offered her calculations of how many trucks it would take to complete the project based on the number of seasonal working days, truck capacity and amount of materials. She said roughly over a 4 year period at a total of approximately 1035 - 14 yard trips would be about 4 trips per day, everyday. She said obviously there would be highs and lows for demand. Jeff White also calculated that over 5 years of excavating the amount and transporting it 10 yards at a time for 7 months it would be about 40 trucks per week. He agreed the demand could warrant 4 - 40 a day. He said it is a factor that demand, stockpiling and timing of contracts will determine the removal. He prefers to have it all out in one bite if possible, being a resident in the Dearborn Circle development. Mr. Sawyer said locations of the projects would determine where the trucks travel - it will go by someone’s house. He reminded on a good corn cutting day they will do 40 - 50 loads a day.
IV. V-Ch. Miller called for final comments, hearing none closed the public hearing at 8:10pm and re-opened the meeting. V-Ch. Miller called for board action on the application.
Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the proposal as presented. Seconded by Mr. Fletcher. All were in favor, motion carried.
B. Raymond E. Surrell - Minor 2 lot subdivision located at 580 Valley Rd. Map 11, Lot 20 in the rural agricultural district. Proposal creates Lot 1 of 3.88 acres with existing house and Lot 2 of 1.52 acres. Frontages, lot sizes and setbacks are met and state subdivision approval
is pending. Mr. Joe DiBernardo of DiBernardo Associates was asked to present. He described as stated above. He said there has been a revision to Lot 2 it is changed to 1.49A from 1.52A and
the frontage was slightly reduced. The corrected ROW configuration on Woodshed Road created the change. Lot 2 shows the test pit information and the state subdivision approval has been applied for. Sec. Aslinger reported that the application was filed completely with proper notification although the hearing notice did not reflect the minor revision. She said if the board agrees that the revision accurately reflects the ROW of Woodshed Rd. it is allowable to proceed with the application being that is does not create violations in frontages, lot sizes or setbacks. V-Ch. Miller received board consensus that the revision was minor. Mr. Sawyer moved to accept the application as complete, seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.
III. V-Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing (8:25). He called for comments or concerns. Hearing none closed the public hearing (8:27) and re-opened the meeting. He called for action by the board. Mr. Fletcher moved to approve the application as presented. Sec. Aslinger reminded that a condition should be placed on the approval pending state subdivision approval. Mr. DeCoste amended the motion to include the condition state subdivision is received. Mr. Sawyer seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.
The maps and mylar were not signed until the state permit is received. The secretary will keep the mylar.
New Business out of order: Mr. DiBernardo asked the board if he could submit the Claude Webster 2 lot subdivision application materials later in the week due to his emergency appendectomy preventing him from having it prepared for tonight’s meeting. The board agreed to allow Mr. DiBernardo to submit the application to the secretary before the final deadline of 9/29/08 and to schedule the application for the October 14, 2008 meeting with the public hearing. Sec. Aslinger will follow up with the board regarding the materials if it is not in order.
V. New Business: Preliminary Conceptual Consultations - Application submissions
A. Aumand’s Furniture Store - Legal opinion. V-Ch. Miller stated that Mr. Aumand would not be in attendance at tonight’s meeting. He was made aware of the affirmative legal opinion regarding his right to re-build on the exact footprint and has not prepared his final plans.
V-Ch. Miller asked the members to review the letter received from Attny. Hockensmith stating in his opinion Aumand’s may legally built within the exact same existing footprint. V-Ch. Miller explained that the planning board wanted to do the right thing and questioned whether the new construction would be required to meet the new zoning requirements enacted after the original building was constructed. He read the opinion/analysis into the record, (on file). (In summary the Aumand’s building was originally a legal conforming structure, once zoning was enacted it became a legal non-conforming use - which it can maintain indefinitely as long as it is not expanded or pose a nuisance to the public. (RSA 674:19), the right could be terminated if abandonment (after one year) occurs. Aumand’s should be permitted to build a new building in the footprint of the prior structure to maintain the same or similar square footage of retail space and it is suggested specific conditions could be placed on the new building to reduce the risk of fire spreading to adjacent structures.)
Sec. Aslinger reported she hand delivered a copy of the letter to Mr. Aumand earlier in the day and also to Attny. Kasper. She spoke with Ch. Jeff Miller the day the opinion arrived reading him the summary, he asked for her to contact Mr. Aumand via phone immediately -which she did. She said the board also received a letter from Attny. Kasper, members have copies. Mr. DeCoste asked if the next step would be for Mr. Aumand to speak to the N. Walpole ZBA and then return with to the planning board? Sec. Aslinger asked if the board would authorize her to send Mr. Aumand a follow up letter on how to proceed suggesting that Mr. Aumand to return to the N. Walpole ZBA. Mr. Merklein asked if after they meet with the N. Walpole ZBA do they then return to the planning board for site plan review? Sec. Aslinger said yes and because it involves new construction and has never received a site plan review it is under the scope of review as described in the site plan regulations. Mr. Merklien reminded that the safety issues would be reviewed during the site plan review. Mr. DeCoste asked about the reference in Mr. Kasper’s letter regarding expansion of the square footage by constructing a full basement. Sec. Aslinger cautioned that since the board does not have an actual plan it is best to withhold further detailed comments. She said the zoning board might also make safety suggestions and comments. Selectwoman Jamie Teague asked if the N. Walpole zoning board had been made aware of the letters. Sec. Aslinger said she had received the Kasper letter just before the meeting but had contacted Jackie Ronning via e-mail notifying her of the legal opinion and asked if a member of their board might attend tonight’s meeting. Ms. Teague offered to hand deliver a copy of the two letters to Ms. Ronning. Sec. Aslinger had copies prepared and gave them to Ms. Teague. (copy of e-mail on file)
B. Bensonwood - Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit under WSPO - Mr. Peter Wotoweic submitted fees, application form and one set of plans to the Secretary. He said there has been a change, the scope of Phase I is less square feet, they will return to the board when they begin Phase II. He referred to sheet 6 showing the site location indicating the layout. He included a hazardous waste list in regard to the conditional use permit. If the board agrees he will be submitting a few additional items before the final deadline of 9/29/08 as discussed with the Secretary such as the lighting plan, building elevations and definition of the utility plans. They intend to do wall mounted surface lighting, no lighting poles for parking areas. Site grading, stormwater management and erosion control plans and a sewage easement deed will also be submitted prior to the deadline. He said they have contacted the fire department for their comments. Sec. Aslinger asked if the checklist was filled out? She said normally the applicant fills out the checklist and at the same time makes waiver requests. Mr. Wotowiec said he had not filled it out and wasn’t sure if everything applied. Sec. Aslinger said n/a could be put on some of the items, the checklist will be reviewed at the next meeting prior to formally accepting the application. He said they would not be requesting any waivers. He asked if it was ok that the State alteration of terrain permit was pending? Answer was yes often it is a condition placed on a final action.
Ch. Myra Mansouri, ZBA asked how much was being changed from the original plans presented to them for the special exception? Mr. Wotowiec said the ZBA application was based on 65K sq. ft. and two blocks of buildings and the application being submitted to the planning board is for just under 36K sq. ft. and only one block of buildings. Ch. Mansouri reminded him the final letter sent to Bensonwood stated if any substantial changes are made they must return to the ZBA, she thought this was a substantial change and requested they appear at the next ZBA meeting to discuss the changed plans, the meeting is 9/17/08. He said he assumed because it was only one portion of the project he could proceed to the planning board but he will appear before the ZBA as requested. Ms. Aslinger agreed it was a substantial change and warranted a ZBA review. She said if the planning board does not object his appearance at the next ZBA meeting should not interfere with the processing of the site plan/conditional use permit application. Mr. Wotowiec stressed Bensonwood wants to maintain the full scope of the special exception granted by the ZBA for the entire project, it’s just that at this particular time they want to do a smaller portion. Ch. Mansouri thought it was best for him to clarify the plans with the entire ZBA for the record.
Mr. Merklien reiterated the need for a detailed lighting plan. Mr. Wotowiec said the regulations would be followed they have an outside engineer preparing the lighting plan and they are coordinating with Chamberlain on other aspects of the project.
Sec. Aslinger asked to have 3 more copies of the packet for the folder. She said the Conservation Commission has submitted their comments regarding the project and it is on file to be reviewed at the next meeting. A motion to place the application on the October agenda pending receipt of the additional items was made and seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.
C. Sue Bingaman for Adell Bosra - Site plan review for a two-family duplex on Union St. She explained Ms. Bosra has permission from the Unitarian Church who owns the former parsonage to proceed. Ms. Bosra is in the process of purchasing the building. Andrea Warchaizer from Springpoint Inc. presented plans explaining that Ms. Bosra intends to change the use from a single family to a two family duplex that it may require a site plan review. She described the plan and a small entry addition that does not violate any setbacks and is in the Res. B district. Ch. Mansouri requested any additions might require a variance. Ms. Warchaizer said she just measured the property and did not find any violations but the plans do not specifically show the measurements but she can have Bill Lawrence the surveyor provide the dimensions. Upon inspection of the plans it was determined the addition will not encroach on any setbacks, Ch. Mansouri agreed. Ms. Warchaizer showed the floor plans and firewall. Ms. Warchaizer said the use is allowed in the district and questioned how to proceed. Sec. Aslinger said the plans would qualify for an expedited site plan review because it meets the criteria as outlined and the new construction is only 240 sq. feet. Mr. Sawyer questioned whether they need a site plan at all for a duplex since it is an allowed use. Ms. Aslinger thought because it was a change in use it required a site plan review but thought it should be double-checked. She read the zoning ordinance where it is an allowed use in the district a special exception is not required because it is not a multifamily. Ch. Mansouri thought there was a provision purposely made in the zoning ordinance that allows for a person to convert their larger homes to a two family and that is why it is an allowed use. Mr. Sawyer asked if it is considered a residential use or commercial use? It was determined a duplex or two family is still considered a residential non-commercial use, therefore not subject to a site plan review, just as a single family home does not require a site plan review. A multi-family is 3 or more units are considered commercial and subject to site plan review. A building permit only is required for a duplex. The site plan review regulations exclude single and two family dwellings as commercial uses. Mr. Sawyer made a motion that the site plan review does not apply to this project and is subject only to a building permit. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried. A set of plans were kept to be placed on file as a record of the board’s determination.
VI. (9:10) V-Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing on the adoption into the Town’s Master Plan the document “Farms, Forest, Streams and Wetlands: Walpole’s Conservation Plan”. A presentation by Peter Palmiotto will explain and the board may vote on its adoption following the hearing. Mr. Sawyer stated he thought holding the hearing on a night that conflicted with a voting day excluded some town officials that may have wanted to attend the hearing. He suggested recessing the hearing until the next meeting. Sec. Aslinger reminded the hearing notice states persons interested but unable to attend may write to the board with concerns or comments prior to the hearing and that the address is given in order not to exclude anyone from the proceedings. Mr. Daviss asked if any of the persons in question had contacted the board to let them know they were not able to attend? V-Ch. Miller and Sec. Aslinger said no. Mr. Sawyer said Ernie Vose had spoken with him. Mr. Daviss thought he should contact either the Chairman or Secretary rather than a board member. Sec. Aslinger added that a copy of the document had been posted in the lobby of the town hall for over two weeks for review. Selectmen Jamie Teague said she appreciates the postings but because so many are active on many other committees there are conflicts and wondered if the board could hold their hearings
other than on their meeting nights to accommodate others? Sec. Aslinger said the board must hold their public hearings at their regular monthly meeting.
V-Ch. Miller called for Mr. Palmiotto, Conservation Commission alternate member to make the presentation. A projector was set up so the audience could follow along and a handout was distributed outlining the goals and objectives portion of the plan. Mr. Palmiotto said he was the chairperson on the task force asked to develop the conservation plan. He said he would be going over the highlights of the plan. He said in April of 2005 the Conservation Commission gathered the natural resources for the writing of the plan and a task force was formed with 13 town residents who met monthly May - Sept. 2006, a survey was sent in Jan. 2006 about priorities. He went over the handout in detail. (Because the presentation followed the handout exactly please refer to the handout attached to the minutes rather than the minutes reflecting the presentation of that portion.) He also mentioned the Land Values Comparison report that has been prepared and submitted to the planning board. He said the town may grow at a faster rate and it is the Commissions hope that the plan will guide the various boards in town to prepare for growth that may affect the town’s historic and natural character. He said the Commission who is acting only in it’s advisory capacity looks forward to working with the various boards on how to achieve the goals and objectives of the Conservation Plan and help to adopt the wording to fit the Master Plan. He thought there needed to be some modification and the adoption of the conservation plan in principal should only include the goals and objectives as a guide for further action, obviously as recommendations. He thanked the Selectmen, the town boards, SWRPC and survey respondents as well as all the members of the task force who ranged from farmers to teachers, real estate and retired folks. Mr. Palmiotto then offered to answer questions.
V-Ch. Miller opened the discussion. Selectwoman Jamie Teague said she had a question and then a letter from the BOS. She asked how many citizens responded to the survey? Mr. Palmiotto said 276 or 13% of households. She then read a letter into the record,(on file) from the BOS regarding adoption of the conservation document into the Master Plan. She added appreciation for the Conservation Commission’s involvement, the letter failed to mention them. The letter discussed three areas of concern, 1) the adoption of the entire 2006 plan into the Master Plan, 2) the insertion of overlay districts and 3) the potential for conflict with the current zoning ordinances. The letter made suggestions and recommendations regarding the areas of concerns: 1) adopt only the objectives pg. 12 and 13 that do not duplicate others already in the Master Plan, insert as an appendix the inventory of wetlands, swamps and open spaces, 2) define what an overlay district is, there are mention of 4 separate overlays. Does it mean introducing warrant articles such as for a historic district, if so it should be spelled out and could be considered restrictive, 3) The Master Plan as a guide should not conflict with the current zoning nor restrict a persons right to enjoy or use their land. The plan as it considers the future must acknowledge the changes that occur in time and the priorities may change. They recommend the planning board use independent judgment in updating the Master Plan and ask that the changes are communicated to the Town as widely as possible by a variety of means as it is imperative Walpole’s citizens understand the meaning of the Master Plan. She concluded by saying the BOS have been actively following the update and are genuinely interested in sharing their opinions.
Mr. Schupack reminded that a natural resource plan already exists in the Master Plan the document presented updates that portion.
Mr. Merklein asked which sections of the document did the Selectboard think should be excluded? Ms. Teague said for her the overlay districts were of high concern and it appeared to her that the board uses the Conservation Commission as an advisor on many of its applications. It was explained that when the regulations call for a comment from the Conservation Commission such as when the Well Source Protection Area is involved the board is required to seek their comments with the understanding they are only an advisory board. V-Ch. Miller said working in harmony with the other boards is very important for the welfare of the entire town. Mr. Schupack
attempted to explain what is meant by overlay. He gave the example of a scenic overlay district encompassing all of a Town rather than a specified group of roads designated as scenic that would involve restrictions. An overlay district protects a certain feature but does not necessarily create restrictions. Ms. Teague asked how an overlay could be implemented and still maintain the three distinct areas of town being Drewsville, North Walpole and Walpole?
Mr. Palmiotto said its not the recommendations that are to be incorporated in the Master Plan but the goals, the recommendations are too detailed and it’s the Commissions advise to only adopt the goals portion into the Master Plan, not the entire document. He said it’s up to the planning board to decide how to implement those goals.
Mr. Sawyer agreed the conservation plan should not be adopted in its entirety, it’s for the update committee to review portions that are applicable and free from conflict or confusion. He said the Master Plan should be independent of the full conservation plan.
Mr. Fletcher did not think most of the survey respondents were persons living in the town for more than 5 years and it represented more retired persons. Mr. Palmiotto referred to the survey results saying 49% respondents lived in town more than 20 years, 30% 5-10 years, 21% less than 5 years. Mr. Sawyer said 276 out of 1300 households seemed too few. Some thought the questions were leading and skewed. Mr. Daviss said the complaint comes after the fact instead of during the process. Mr. Palmiotto said the questions were worked through the task force and they made an effort to prevent leading results by asking for facts. He said the Conservation Commission is very willing to work with the update committee to prevent duplication and to having it become overly detailed in recommendations. It’s for the planning board to research means to implement the goals of the master plan, not write them into the master plan specifically. Mr. Schupack said the survey was based on many examples from other towns in the SWRPC region meaning the questions were not made up by a few people. V-Ch. Miller agreed remembering his past work on the 2000 survey and how hard they worked to be careful and fair in the questioning. Mr. Merklien questioned how the questions could be biased, either a person agrees or disagrees with the question and can fill it out as such, either your in favor of protecting certain areas in the town such as open space or not, the results are unknown until the surveys are tallied.
Mr. Bosora asked if it is the work of the Conservation Commission to help the planning board to flesh out the Master Plan and if the entire conservation plan were adopted does it have a force of law or is it simply an advisory document? V-Ch. Miller said it is the planning board’s duty to present and update the Master Plan which is required by State Law however it is a serious responsible guide for the Town but not a legal document. Mr. Sawyer said if a town has zoning a master plan is required. Mr. Bosora understood that the current Master Plan adopted in 2000 was a basic plan needing fleshing out and asked it the planning board was in the process of doing that by adopting the conservation plan? Mr. Sawyer said periodically the planning board makes updates to the master plan, which it has done and is doing, but warned about duplication resulting from adopting the full conservation plan as presented. V-Ch. Miller said the board posts notices and holds public hearings as required on updating the master plan but he said the turnout is usually sparse as revealed tonight, although the Selectboard’s letter recommends they do a better job of informing the public he doubts it would increase the attendance.
Mr. Schupack said many citizens were part of the Master Plan revision efforts and it was determined after several meetings in order to make the revision the input from the citizens was needed. The planning board survey had very good response of 20%. Mr. Daviss said the first meeting was well attended but it tapered off very quickly to a few core persons. Ms. Mansouri thought the prior 1999 and 2000 revision was better attended. Mr. Daviss reminded that it was an entire revision of the document whereas this is simply an update of the land use section, it may account for less involvement since it is a fairly simple section. V-Ch. Miller said it seemed to go smoother in 1999 and 2000 perhaps because SWRPC was involved.
V-Ch. Miller in closing said he was not ready to adopt the conservation plan as presented, that it needs to be determined which parts and wording are appropriate to include. Mr. Daviss agreed saying the next work session should be dedicated to the conservation plan to determine which portions are appropriate and to work with the Selectboard on their concerns. Mary Lou Montgomery suggested just using just the language of the goals. V-Ch. Miller suggested members receive copies of the Selectboard letter and other documents for the work session. Members agreed to take up the matter at the next work session scheduled for 9/23/08 at 7pm.
Sec. Aslinger reminded that the public hearing was still open and suggested closing it rather than recessing it and reviewing the results at the work session. She thought the process of bringing the information to the public for comments works and that input from all sides had been gathered. The likely substantial changes would require another public hearing. Mr. Daviss made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded, all were in favor, motion carried. (10:10)
VII. V-Ch. Miller re-opened the meeting - Communications and Miscellaneous
A. Master Plan Update - Mr. Daviss asked Mr. Sawyer if he had contacted SWRPC. Mr. Sawyer said there was no update other than they had been in contact and were awaiting SWRPC’s response based on the timing of their budget hearings just as the planning board had also been informed. He said they have not received a list of services provided for the dues as of yet. Mr. Sawyer said the suggestion made by Sec. Aslinger to withdraw the amount from the Master Plan Update line in the current budget was not acted on by the Selectboard because it was not officially requested by the planning board. He said if the request comes from the planning board they would act upon the request. Selectman Aldrich said suggestions can not be acted upon the board needs to make a formal request. Sec. Aslinger said the board was waiting for a response from the Selectboard as to whether they were going to pay the remainder of the dues. Mr. Sawyer said they did not intend to pay the dues and informed the board when first asked because it would be in violation of their budgeting regulations. Ms. Aslinger asked if they should put it in writing to the board so they can take the next course of action. V - Ch. Miller felt the minutes are enough to reflect the Selectboard’s position.
B. Work Session was scheduled for 9/23/08 at 7pm
C. Other - Sec. Aslinger handed out information on two upcoming conferences:
1 - NHAssoc. of Regional Planning Commissions with OEP Fall Zoning and Planning Conference 10/25/08 at Loon Mtn. in Lincoln, NH
2 - UNH Landscaping at the water’s edge 10/8&15 at Keene State College
3 - Mr. Daviss announced a training session offered by the Community Conservation Partnership being rotated among the participating towns every other Wednesday from 9/24 - 12/3. He has the information if anyone is interested.
VIII. Meeting closed at 10:20pm Next regular meeting to be held October 14, 2008 at 7:00pm
Cc: All PB, ZBA, BOS NWVC, Town Clerk, related applicants and agents
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.thewalpolean.com
