Minutes—18 October 2006.

Present:  M. Mansouri, J. Galloway-Leclerc, L. Britton, L. Carignan (alt) B. Webb (alt), L. LaClair (alt.), L.Weber.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING MINUTES WILL BE REVIEWED ON 15 November 2006.

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.

  New Business:   Ms. Mansouri said that she had a call from a member of the Walpole Unitarian Church regarding off-premises directional signs for the church.  No one was present from the church, so the matter was not discussed.

  Denise and Ken Horn, 11 Alstead Center Road, Drewsville, Setback Variance for shed.  Mr. and Mrs. Horn have owned the three family dwelling at 11 Alstead Center Road for nearly four years.  They have improved the property during this time.  They recently ordered a 12 foot by 20 foot garden shed which will be placed on the property.  The delivery is scheduled for next Friday. It takes 60 days to schedule a delivery.  When they got delivery confirmation, they were told they might need a building permit.  The Horns applied for a building permit, which was denied because they did not meet the 65 foot setback requirement from Route 123.  The edge of the shed will be 41 feet from the center line.  The land rises from the road, and the spot where the shed will sit is about 4½  feet above the road.  There will be no electricity, no plumbing and no heating in the shed, which will be installed on a 4 inch gravel base and blocks.  The lot is two acres, but there is a dropoff at the back of the property.  To comply with the 65 foot setback, the shed would have to be placed right next to the house and 2 feet from the dropoff.  In this location, wet weather conditions would cause the wood to deteriorate.  The shed would house two lawn mowers, two snowblowers, and other equipment.

  Mr. LaClair asked about the proposed location of the shed.  If you are standing at the Drewsville Store, looking across, Apartment #1 is the entrance facing the store.  The shed would be on fill there.  The 12 foot side, which has no windows, would face Route 123, and the 20 foot side would face the common.  The shed cannot be placed on the other side of the house, which has a large tree and the parking pad for Apartment #3.  Mr. LaClair noted that the house itself is not in compliance with the ordinance, and is grandfathered.  It was moved seconded and unanimously voted that the matter be set for a public hearing at the November hearing, pending the receipt of a completed application.

  Old Business:

  Minutes.  Three sets of minutes were presented for approval.  The minutes of the regular meeting held 20 September were approved as submitted.  Proposed revisions to the 25 September Special Meeting submitted by email by Mr. LaClair were distributed and reviewed.  The minutes of the 25 September Special Meeting were approved with the changes submitted by Mr. LaClair. The minutes of the 2 October Special Meeting were approved as submitted, with the addition of “(alt.)” after Mr. LaClair’s name.

  Gravel Pits.  Ms. Mansouri and Mr. Britton will visit the Woods pit and the two Cold River pits next week.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc and Mr. Carignan presented the report on Joe Sawyer’s pit, and said all was in order.  It is unclear whether he has taken any gravel out.  Mr. LaClair and Ms. Weber visited the Hodgkins pits and George Graves’ pit.  The Graves pit was found to be in order with the request that a berm be placed in a low spot which might, in a bad storm, allow runoff into the brook. There is no evidence of runoff at that spot at this time. 

  Ms. Weber distributed a draft of a letter detailing the concerns that still exist at the two Hodgkins pits.  She and Mr. LaClair summarized the concerns as follows:  In the Drewsville Road pit, the issues were runoff into the brook, missing berms, potential contamination of groundwater from storage of construction debris including painted or pressure treated wood, missing berms at the top of vertical slopes and spills from the diesel pump and waste oil drums.  These concerns were discussed with Mr. Hodgkins, and steps were outlined to correct the problems.  At that point, the issue of a reclamation plan for the Route 12 pit was also discussed with Mr. Hodgkins, who said that a reclamation plan is on file, and that there may be a buyer for some of the front land, which will be leveled and reseeded.

  Concerns with the Route 12 pit included missing berms separating the property from the property to the west, near Extra Innings, and at the top of a vertical slope at the southeast corner, and the completion of a berm around a drainage pond in progress.  The major concern here is the deposition of construction debris at the back of the property.  A runoff area is being filled with debris, and debris is sliding down a nearly vertical slope into the streambed.  In some places, water has eroded holes between chunks of construction debris.  These issues were detailed in a list given to Mr. Hodgkins in the spring, but were not discussed with him after the fall site visit because of scheduling conflicts.  The Board decided to send the letter to Mr. Hodgkins, and to invite Mr. Hodgkins to our November meeting to discuss the concerns.

  Budget:  Ms. Mansouri reported that she had talked to Teresa Kissell about the budget process.  The State lumps Planning and Zoning into one category, so that is how they are reported in the Town Report, and that is how they will continue to be reported.  Ms. Kissell has the ability to separate our budget from that of the Planning Board as an internal mechanism.  It was thought this would be helpful to allow us to track our costs and to determine if we are staying within our budgeted amounts, and to determine if our fee schedule properly reflects the costs of noticing hearings.  A motion was passed unanimously to request Ms. Kissell to keep separate records for the ZBA and the Planning Board.

  Attorney:  As a followup to a seminar offered by the Local Government Center attended by Ms. Mansouri, Mr. LaClair and Ms. Weber, Ms. Mansouri raised the issue of having an attorney on retainer.  The town currently hires an attorney when needed.  This might cause a problem when an issue arises, and we may not be able to use the attorney we think best.  It was noted that the Selectmen would actually hire and pay for the attorney, and would have final authority over who was chosen, as we have no line item in our budget for legal services.  It was moved and seconded that Ms. Mansouri get in touch with Southwest Regional to see how other towns in this region handle the issue, and report back to the Board.

  Ms. Weber noted the recommendation that the content of emails, if any, among the group, other than the routine circulation of an agenda, should be disclosed at the next meeting and records kept of their contents.  A file will be created for these communications.

  Mr. LaClair noted the suggestion at the training that we appoint five alternates in order to ensure a full Board at each meeting.  This has not been a problem for our current Board, as attendance has been consistent from both elected members and alternates.  However, with the resignation of Mr. Vose, we now have a pool of only seven individuals.  It was noted that both Ms. Mansouri’s and Mr. Vose’s term will be up in March.  We should be thinking about encouraging anyone with an interest who might be a good candidate to run.

There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned.  The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 15th, 2006 at 7:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Lucy McVitty Weber