Town of Walpole
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
May 8, 2007 7:30pm Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch.
Members Present: Chas. Miller, Select., Henry Fletcher, Eric Merklein, Robert Miller, V-Ch., David DeCoste, Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff White, alt.
F. Dill present but recused and in audience.
Recording: Pamel Aslinger, alt. and Secretary
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 12, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections. There were over 50 persons in attendance.
I. Meeting opened at 7:30pm
A. No alternates were designated. All members were present.
B. Minutes from April 10 and April 24, 2007 were approved as presented.
II. Review applications submitted:
A. Ch. Miller announced the Lennon 2 Lot Subdivision on High Street had been
withdrawn.
B. Alyson’s Apple Orchard, Inc./Robert Jasse - Lot Line Adjustment located on Wentworth Rd., Map 5, Lot 2-11 in the Rural Ag. zone. Purpose is to remove 2.83 acres annexing it to Daniel and Jeanne McAllister, Lot 2-6 totaling 11.59 acres. Lot 2-11 becomes 11.10 acres “not to be developed”, accessed by a 50 ft. ROW on Lot 2-9. Joe DiBernardo, Land Surveyor provided three new maps with an address change. The application was in order. A motion was made and seconded to accept the application as complete, seconded, motion carried.
III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Joe DiBernardo explained the purpose as stated above. With no further questions -
IV. closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the meeting.
V. Action on Alyson’s Orchard Inc./Robert Jasse - Ch. Miller called for Board questions and/or action. Mr. Fletcher moved to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by Mr. B. Miller, with no further discussion the motion carried unanimously. Maps and mylar were signed, Mr. DiBernardo will record the plan and notify the Secretary.
C. Kimberly Bogar - Lot Line Adjustment located on 286 Old Keene Rd. Map 7, Lot 25 and 25-1 in the Rural Ag. zone. Purpose is to reconfigure the center boundary line creating Lot 1 of 12.1 acres and Lot 2 with the existing house of 22.2 acres. The application was in order. Mr. Merklein motioned and Mr. DeCoste seconded to accept the application as complete, motion carried.
III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bogar explained the purpose as stated above. Ch. Miller called for questions, being none -
IV. closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the meeting.
V. Action on Kimberly Bogar - Ch. Miller called for Board questions and/or action.
Mr. Daviss moved to approve the application as presented, seconded by Mr. Merklein, with no further discussion the motion carried unanimously. Maps were signed, Mr. Bogar did not bring the mylar, he will coordinate with Sec. Aslinger for signatures.
D. Walpole D & D, LLC/Fred Dill and Randy Daniels - Major 13 Lot Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment located on Hooper Rd., Wentworth Rd. and Old Keene Rd. Map 8 Lots 15, 6, 16 in the Residential A (Lots 1-3) and Rural Ag. (Lots 4-13) zones. Purpose is to create 12 new lots, 2-11 of 1.45 thru 3.34 acres and Lot 13 of 13.59 acres from a 40 acre parcel, formerly the Helff Farm. Lot 1 and 2 involve the Lot Line Adjustment creating Lot 1 of 5 acres with the farmhouse and Lot 2 of 2.90 acres to allow for wetlands. Lots 1-12 accessed on Hooper Rd., Lots 10, 11 and 13 by a 50 ft. ROW over Lot 9. Mr. DiBernardo provided 2 additional sets of new maps showing the well, septic and topography on a separate page. Sec. Aslinger reported the application was complete except for 3 items; the plans do not show typical designs of the on-lot water and sewerage systems, existing surface drainage, or preliminary locations of bridges or culverts due to access areas, she noted the items could be submitted during the
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 2
review process if the Board agreed. Mr. DeCoste moved to accept the application as complete, seconded, motion carried unanimously.
III. Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Ch. Miller called on Mr. Dill to explain the proposal. Mr. Dill said he thought the prior meeting was a semi-public hearing where some were able to voice their concerns. He took the concerns into consideration showing proposed well and septic locations but provided no answers on concerns about water. He noted it is a concern in this area, in other areas of town and in other towns. He offered no remedy, but has tried to present a good plan with accesses for all new lots only on Hooper Rd., but he may consider having some of the lots access on Old Keene Rd. He configured the subdivision to allow for lots larger than the minimum to allow for houses to be more randomly placed on the lots, making it more attractive. He stated the road measurements are now shown on the plans and in regard to the curve, he said he has walked the road several times in the last week and does not find the curve a problem, saying it is a country road and feels the curve prevents it from being a “speedway” or a “shortcut” with little traffic. He said when designing the plans they preferred to have all the accesses from Hooper Rd. He said the lots bordering Wentworth and Keene Rd. could be accessed onto those roads but he prefers to have them all on Hooper Rd. He said as far as the missing information regarding bridges or culverts it is not a concern because the regulations apply to only newly created roads. He said the right of way to the other lots does not require culverts or bridges. He said the water and wet areas are included in the plans to answer the “existing surface drainage” requirement. He pointed out the areas on the map, saying there are no all year round streams on the proposal.
Ch. Miller called for questions from the public. Mr. Gordon, abutter directed his question to the Board saying his major concern is the water issue; some of his neighbors have two or three wells because there’s not a lot of water. He is concerned that 12 new wells will cause greater problems asking how the town will protect his water rights?
Ch. Miller thought the plans showed adequate lot space for well radius of 75’. He said it wasn’t clearly defined in the regulations but thought the Planning Board could require a further study to address the water issue, if they agreed. He did not have an answer about protecting Mr. Gordon’s water rights.
Mr. Dill said he knew of a project that incorporated a small public water system instead of multiple wells, however if it were not managed properly it could lead to more problems, less of a solution and possibly only a temporary plan.
Mr. Gordon asked if town water could be brought up to the area and what the cost would be? Ms. Suzanne Steisel, abutter asked why the town would pay to bring water to the D & D proposal, when the project is inappropriately placed due to the lack of water. She said everyone in the area has 2 or 3 wells or a dug well, saying if the subdivision is approved you can’t expect the taxpayer to bring water to it.
Mr. Dill said there is water on the property but it’s on the other side of the property. Ms. Steisel asked if he would tell the potential buyers they may have to drill 2 or 3 wells, again noting everyone has at least 2 wells on their property. Mr. Dill said of the four houses he has developed in the area, all have one well. Ms. Steisel said she was advised from a well drilling company not to drill a well but stay with the dug well she has because there is so little water in the area. She asked if the Planning Board would approve this plan without providing adequate water.
Ch. Miller answered that part of the review criteria is to ask for a soil survey that might address the water issue. Mr. Dill said he didn’t think it was his responsibility to guarantee water. Ms. Steisel disagreed. Mr. Daviss asked if the Board would also consider a hydro geological study in order to provide the information? Ch. Miller said he is concerned about whether the 12 lots would all have water, but questioned whether the Board could require guaranteed water. He would like to get clarification, he said Mr. Dill has indicated the 75 ft. radius; the Board could ask for soils survey but reminded that other approved subdivisions including the existing abutting lots were approved without guaranteeing water and also in other parts of town.
Mr. Heyedenreich, abutter said his well of 700ft. ran dry, he added a second well that’s provided little water. With the close proximity of this subdivision how would it effect his and others wells? Ken Walsh of 206 Wentworth Rd. said he has two wells, the front one went dry in November, he knows of 2 others around him who have multiple wells and wells running dry.
Jeff French of Ramsey Hill Rd. speaking on behalf of himself and Dr. Heyendenreich asked about the Class VI road status. The Board corrected him. Hooper Rd. is a Class V town Rd. Ch. Miller said he did not think the road could handle the increased usage and the town would be forced to upgrade the road at the taxpayer’s expense, fix the drainage, curve and add gravel. Mr. French said as a developer himself, he
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 3
is usually expected to do all road upgrades at his expense, he does not agree as a taxpayer he should foot the bill for the upgrade of the road, it is the responsibility of the developer. Ch. Miller expressed his concern over the high density of the proposal and does not feel the town should upgrade the road at the town’s expense. Mr. French said secondly he knows Dr. Heyendenreich has two wells, he thinks the aquifir/water resources should be addressed and he asked if there were covenants as to what type of homes could be built. Mr. Dill said yes, there are covenants but are for the persons buying the land, he said the homes would be in keeping with the homes in the area. Mr. French said covenants should say the homes should be in keeping and with few interpretive statements. Ch. Miller said the Board does not regulate covenants. He reminded the town ordinances and regulations have no set standards for design or architectural style. He said it is up to the developer to keep the value of the homes high.
Ch. Miller recognized town road agent Jim Terrell. Mr. Terrell said he was asked for his opinion on the condition of the road. He said the road definitely needs upgrading, especially during the construction phase more so than the final additional traffic. He said the reason the road is in its present condition is to keep expenses down on a very low volume road. He said it would require a good bit of work to bring the road up but not impossible, who pays for it is not his decision. Ch. Miller asked him for an estimate. He said a rough estimate for paving, grinding and removing 6” off to install a fabric, it doesn’t include the use of equipment or labor would be around 50-60 thousand dollars.
He said gravel would need to be upgraded, ditches created, widened in areas, he’s not concerned over the curve area. He said the traffic numbers would average 120 trips per day at 10 trips per day per house, well within design standards for the roadway. Ch. Miller asked about draining the curve area. Mr. Terrell said an engineering study should be required to address the surface drainage and runoff onto the Old Keene Road; there is a culvert replacement. Ch. Miller asked if Hooper Rd. should be redesigned to meet the town standards. Mr. Terrell thought the engineering study would address the issues adequately.
Sheldon Sawyer asked if one house is built on Wentworth Rd. or two houses or 50 houses would the town expect the road to be upgraded by the developer? Why wouldn’t the same apply to Hooper Rd. He said there is a bridge on Wentworth that can’t handle two cars at once; other roads in subdivisions haven’t been required to upgrade the road. He said it is a Class V road and it is the town’s responsibility to upgrade the roads, he said there are many roads needing repairs, he doesn’t agree the developer should have to pay to upgrade a Class V town road despite its condition.
Ch. Miller answered said the impact of this major subdivision is within the scope of the subdivision regulations. The regulations allow for upgrading existing road at the developer’s expense, especially if the benefit is solely for the developer, which it is in this case. He said the quality of Wentworth Rd. couldn’t be compared to Hooper Rd. He cautioned that when a few lots are sold, the town would end up spending the money to upgrade the road because the buyers will want the road improved. He said it is an obvious issue the developer is responsible for. He compared the Sand Hill subdivision where the developer built a new road according to the town standards and the town took over the maintenance as the lots were developed, but until it met the standards the town did not take it over. He said common sense says the proposal creates a direct benefit to the developer. The road has been in its present condition for many years because it has always been a dirt road that connected two roads, not intended for development potential. He said it would be different if it were developed with one or two additional houses, but what the town is being faced with is an obvious high impact development on a poor road that shouldn’t be upgraded at the expense of the taxpayers. He said the road should be brought up to specs by the developer and let the town take over the maintenance from there. Mr. Sawyer reminded that Wentworth Rd. was also a dirt road at one point and the taxpayer’s paid to upgrade it; he said it is town land and the town’s responsibility to pay for it. Ch. Miller said circumstances weren’t the same and the town has subdivision regulations that apply. He reiterated it is not the obligation of the town to benefit the developer in this instance. Mr. Sawyer argued it is a Class V town road, the town’s responsibility. Ch. Miller said the road was not designed to carry a 12 lot subdivision.
Leo Carginan abutter, expressed concerns over the rock ledges on some of the lots, specifically the need for blasting in order to locate septic or foundations. He noticed some of the lots weren’t perk tested. Mr. Dill said they were not able to get a perk test, so they would need to be raised systems. Ch. Miller said it is required to have state subdivision approval applied for, Mr. Dill said they had not yet applied pending the outcome of the subdivision.
Suzanne Steisel asked about an old swale from Wentworth Rd. existing before the Heyendenreich house was built. The swale was dug out during the construction of the new house causing $7000.00 in
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 4
damages to her pond. She said the amount of water running through the dug out swale has caused her trees to fall down. She submitted photos indeed showing clumps of fallen trees. She asks the planning board to take into account her property lies below and in line with the area to be developed. She wants the Board to ask that all water drained from the lots or road be directed through lot 13 or to the swale, however it must travel through by culvert to avoid further damage to her property. She said previous construction has caused substantial damage to her property and her trees to fall. Mr. Dill said many trees had come down around town lately. She reiterated having the Board review the drainage situation. She said the swale had become overgrown so the water was disbursed at a gradual rate. Once it had been cleared it funneled a much higher volume onto her property. She wants a guarantee they will not add to the water volume draining into the old swale. She asked the town or developer provide adequate drainage by using culverts where needed.
Bob Anderson asked if the road could be kept dirt. He said as the lots are sold it could be disclosed the road would forever remain unpaved. He and others agreed the drainage should be addressed but preferred it to remain a dirt road. Mr. Bogar said he thought paving the road was a disservice to persons presently using the road. Mr. Terrell said they had basically put 4 inches of regrind on the road because it is easier to maintain. A dirt road costs less but is harder to maintain. If left dirt he would still like to see it improved because of the amount of traffic. He suggested a base of 4 inches of gravel, fabric and proper ditching. He said asphalt would be easier to maintain. Krystyna Marcom asked if the property lines would change due to widening the road. Mr. Terrell said only a foot or two where needed. Ch. Miller said it would need to meet the Class V road standards. Mr. Terrell said 20 foot width would require a substantial amount of tree removal, he thought with the amount of proposed traffic 18 ft. would be adequate. Ms. Marcom asked about the traffic standard. Mr. Terrell said for the type of development it is figured at 10 trips per day per lot, so 120 trips per day still considered minor. No paving is required until 400 trips per day.
Mr. Bob Miller said having driven Hooper Rd. as of yesterday he could not see any spot where two cars could pass at the same time. He said as he drove onto the road from Old Keene Rd. the map looks a lot cleaner than the actual curve of the road or the grade. An audience member agreed saying the road as shown looks wider than Wentworth Rd.
Mr. Gordon asked if the road could be taken over as a private road run by an association, make it a dead end. Mr. Dill said he hadn’t thought about that. Ch. Miller said it wasn’t allowed to have a dead end or private road greater than 600 ft.
Ms. Steisel asked again if the Board would consider carefully her concerns on the drainage and the swale funneling water in and onto her property. Ch. Miller said the final plans would if the Board agrees, show water run-off and erosion and a water study to make certain the impact would be minimal. He said he was surprised she had not spoken to the town before about her problems. She said she has but with no results. Mr. Dill said she had talked to everyone several times; it hasn’t been for lack of talking.
Mr. Dill asked if he could rehash from the prior meeting where a person who used to work for the road crew spoke about the road, how he had been the one to build it and was quite critical of the process. He said there was further discussion on the regrind etc. He points out it is a town maintained road with some potholes as some other town roads have. He said with the present amount of traffic on it, it certainly hasn’t been a priority. But in the past when it has needed attention it’s gotten it. He said the comment about cars not being able to pass is not true, it isn’t a wide road but it is passable without having to pull in a driveway to let someone by, it’s a country road, he agrees with Bob Miller a person must use caution coming in from Old Keene Rd. He said as far as the expense to maintain a dirt road vs. macadam, some towns feel it’s less for a dirt road.
Ms. Steisel asked about school children waiting for the bus on the road. Mr. Dill thought the bus wouldn’t likely travel Hooper Rd. Ms. Steisel raised more concern for children walking to a school bus on a narrow barely passable road. Ch. Miller called for other questions.
Mrs. Jill Dance abutter thought the proposal was inappropriate for the area, sighting the restrictions placed on their Farm resulting from the neighborhood opposition regarding an occasional 23 cars on the road, she thought it was unfair. In addition the proposal has septic, well, road, drainage, safety and traffic issues. She thought homework should have been done prior to the purchase of the property rather than forcing a square peg into a round hole. She doesn’t understand how a project can be approved with so many serious issues. She said she isn’t against development, but maybe this isn’t the spot for a project of this density.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 5
Ken Walsh asked about the road and snow removal issues, he thought Hooper Road served to offer an important cut through during plowing, he wondered if it would still be allowed once homes are built?
Sue Bingaman asked about the lots showing the wetlands, asking if it were infact buildable? Mr. Dill said they are, the engineer said there is room to build. He said there are a couple of ponds and just recently two mallard ducks flew in. He said they dry up in the summer but they could be reclaimed if someone wanted to.
Leo Carignan asked about the perk tests, he said two lots were still un-perked. Mr. Dill said they wouldn’t perk, but the State permitting process would address it. Ch. Miller agreed noting any subdivision lots less than 5 acres would require State subdivision approval prior to the approval of the subdivision. He said it would be a very expensive system. Mr. Dill said when they designed the subdivision they tried to abide by every rule of the town regarding lot sizes, frontages etc. He said the plan conforms to all the rules of the town and just because some don’t want any others to move into town it is not a reason to deny the plan, it meets all the criteria. He stressed that there are some water issues but overall it is conforming. He said its not as if the plan has driveways coming from every road with just four on Hooper Rd. He said as Sheldon brought up would the town rather see that or rather see the development contained within the access of Hooper Rd. only? He said it’s a town road and dismissed the complaint about its construction noting other roads in town and particularly the Old Drewsville Road similarities. He said he thinks the proposal meets the criteria better in a lot of ways and is a good situation.
Ms. Steisel asked if he or the town would be paying for any environmental impacts occurring from the construction phase such as damages from blasting and water issues. Mr. Dill asked if she was implying he should have an impact study done on the project when someone else not bordering on her property wouldn’t be required to? She answered no but she is expressly concerned by her personal experience relating to one simple change in the swale and its impact. She said the proposal has the potential of creating a much larger impact and it is not fair for the surrounding property owner’s to suffer damages from this high impact proposal. She suggested some type of study to insure against potential damages. Mr. Dill said the problem with studies often times is people’s minds are already made up their minds; it just costs the developer to spend more money.
Mr. Gordon asked about lot 13 not showing a well or septic and what is its access. Mr. Dill said lots over 5 acres are not required to be perked, it is accessed across a 50 ft. ROW across lots 10, 11, 12. He said it does have frontage on Wentworth Rd. but because it is more buildable near the other lots, it make sense to have access over the ROW off Hooper Rd. Mrs. Krystyna Marcom confirmed the State subdivision approval had not yet been obtained
Ch. Miller called for more questions. Mr. Daviss asked if the plan were approved as is, wells dry up or there is no water, would the town or Board be liable? Ch. Miller said he didn’t think so. Mr. Dill said the town wouldn’t have the liability but a court of law would determine whether he would be liable.
Mr. Bob Miller asked to get a legal opinion regarding the water issue. Mr. Merklein said it is the absolute obligation of the Board to look at perceived events such as drainage or well water going dry, these questions are serious, he suggests a geological study. An audience member asked who is responsible for upgrading the road? It shouldn’t be the taxpayers. Mr. Miller said he couldn’t say definitively at this time.
Ms. Aslinger pointed out that while the well locations are shown, they are not necessarily the exact sites, some lots look as if they have few or no alternative sites, leading to future problems if more than one well is required. Mr. Dill said once the house is located then they readjust the layout to take into account the required setbacks from the well and septic system and abutting properties.
Ch. Miller suggested continuing the public hearing to take into account new information or changes resulting from this meeting. He said it is important to address the issues raised on the water and road. Hearing no objections he announced continuance of the public hearing until the June 12, 2006 meeting and reopened the meeting. (A large number of attendees left the meeting although the Chairman announced the Board would discuss the proposal later in the meeting.)
VI. New Business
A. Cindy Westover presented a tax map showing a proposed 2 lot subdivision on Walpole Valley Rd. Purpose is to divide about 2 acres from the lot for her son to build a home. Her surveyor has not yet completed the plan and does not have the application prepared. She’s talked to Jim Terrell about the driveway. Sec. Aslinger noted the usual procedure is to have the complete application submitted at the
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 6
meeting, but if the Board agrees, she can accept the application materials by the actual deadline of May 28, 2007 and process it for a public hearing for the June 12, 2007 meeting. Ch. Miller called for a motion to process the application and schedule the public hearing providing the deadlines are met for the June 12, 2007 meeting, seconded, motion carried.
B. Joe DiBernardo presented a plan and application materials for Robert Hubbard on Reservoir Rd. The Board requested Mr. DiBernardo to submit clarified plans noting the way the lots were shown was confusing. He will submit the corrected plans by the May 28, 2007 deadline. He stated the lot is being kept in the family. A motion to process the application and schedule the public hearing for the June 12, 2007 meeting was made and seconded. Motion carried.
C. Mary McMahon, Mr. DiBernardo presented a plan and application materials for a minor 2 lot subdivision on Whipple Hill Rd. He showed where the Class V and VI designation was clarified allowing for adequate frontage on Class V for both lots. A motion to process the application and schedule the public hearing for the June 12, 2007 meeting was made and seconded. Motion carried.
D. Red Smith/Walpole Foundation - Sec. Aslinger presented a site plan review application given to her by Mr. Smith for the brick house formerly Westburg property next to Murray’s Restaurant. They are planning 5 apartments and office space. The architectural plans show the apartments, townhouses and office space, parking lot layout etc. She asked Mr. Smith if they had acquired the former manufacturing building in back of the property, they have not but are in the negotiating process. The plan is to remove the buildings and create extra parking space. She asked if the townhouses would be sold, Mr. Smith all space would be rented only. It is in the commercial district. A motion to process the application and schedule the public hearing for the June 12, 2007 meeting was made and seconded. Motion carried.
VII. Old Business
A. North Walpole Village Commissioners - 2004 Site Plan Compliance. Barbra O’Brien Commissioner acknowledged the concerns of the Board regarding the April 27, 2007 letter (attached) In regards to the Board’s conditional approval of June 8, 2004 for a 130,000 gallon water reservoir and 14 x 14 foot filtration building located on Mountain View Rd., Map 29, Lot 22. Abutter Mrs. Anne Hill asked to have the Planning Board address two issues that remain unresolved for drainage and noise. Ms. O’Brien listed the dates and results of various visits to the site to resolve the issues. She stated the Commissioners would not have signed off on the original plans if they had known the drainage was not addressed and stated Mrs. Hill’s comments to the contractor were never taken into account, there is no way to go back to have it repaired by the contractor. She and other agree the pipe was not low enough to stop the seasonal back up and flow. She said they would fix the problem as soon as there is money in the budget to do it. As far as the noise, Bob McCormick and others have determined the noise is no greater than the sound of a furnace going on, but have attempted to find a muffler attachment to help eliminate most of the noise and again will need to wait until there is money in the budget to address it. She noted the trains are more of a distraction. She added they have discussed this issue at several of their meetings. Mrs. Hill appreciated the effort of the Planning Board and the commissioners but she is very concerned with the delay and with the diversion of the water during runoff creates standing water in her back yard and it would be taken care of, but it hasn’t. She said she and the Durling’s wanted to support the filtration project to remove radon but thought the noise condition would be addressed. She agrees it isn’t much louder than a car idling but it is a constant noise she finds very disturbing, especially during the months when window can be opened. Again she stressed that the issue was to be addressed and hasn’t been. She agreed the trains create noise but not continuously. She asked if the filtration could be put on a timer to run during the late night hours. She said it is hard to enjoy her back yard with the constant noise from the plant. She said she wants the drainage resolved so it doesn’t leave standing water. She said because the drainage wasn’t done properly is not her fault.
Ch. Miller asked if the drainage system ever worked properly, Mrs. Hill said it did not but having only owned the property for 8 years she was not certain if the existing culvert now diverting excess water into the ditch had ever worked. Ch. Miller said he remembered the site visit to address screening and the standing water. She wants the improvement and has offered to allow some of her own property to used to have it corrected. Ms. O’Brien thought she should have come to them sooner so they could have had the contractor make the repair instead of now when they haven’t been able to include it in their work schedule or budget. Mrs. Hill said she had not approached the issue due to having a baby and family commitments.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 7
She thought it would have been taken care of by now. Ch. Miller said the Board physically looked at the project, discussed it with the Commissioners and made it clear the conditions would be met, but they haven’t been. He thought it was reasonable to set a timeframe regardless of the design and expenditure. He asked if it could be resolved or bring more information back the Board by the July meeting. He thought the Commissioners should abide by the conditions of the original approval and as soon as possible. He said it was to be addressed, if the Commissioners prefer to hold another site plan review to get it resolved this would be an option. He said he is flabbergasted that it has not been addressed because at the time of approval everyone was in agreement with the steps to be taken. Ms. O’Brien asked what would happen if the costs become so great they have to put it off until next year? Ch. Miller said it should be fixed and a course of action determined so the water doesn’t collect as agreed. Mrs. Hill noted that a week prior electrical poles had been delivered were placed within the standing water, she notified National Grid when she saw oils leaking into the water, they removed them and cleaned up the leaking oils. Ms. O’Brien said they will have an estimate and idea of how to make the repair in time for the next Board meeting and will either attend or forward the information after being directed to do so by Ch. Miller.
VIII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A. Handouts - Sec. Aslinger gave members copies of the SPR revision, Contact List and Legal Memo of 4/26/07. She asked if the Board would like to go through the revocation process on a 1991 Site Plan Review located within the North Meadow Plaza Shopping Center as mentioned in the Legal Memo. She said as indicated the Municipal Attorney strongly suggested revoking the obviously invalid expired approval (beyond the statutory time limits) not to let it be assumed. She said abutters would be notified at the expense of the Board, she would determine the procedure and stressed the importance of formally revoking the approval to avoid future misunderstandings. She mentioned when reviewing the commercial area to determine ownership issues she ran across the plans. Mr. DeCoste, Mr. Dill and others thought it was an unnecessary expense and effort on something so outdated and were afraid it would stir up problems. Ch. Miller thought it would not be challenged at such a late date. Ms. Aslinger said she was concerned and found it surprising to see an approval for over 16 additional connected and separate stores on one lot. She provided the map showing the plans, the lot in question being between the old Ames building and Fall Mountain, the lot houses the Reel to Reel video store. She said it was a substantial proposal but certainly beyond the time limit outlined in the RSA’s and site plan review regs, noting there had been several zoning changes granted since the approval was granted so it no longer conforms to the zoning. She said the provision allowed in the RSA’s to revoke an approval could apply if the Board agrees. Mr. Daviss asked if the State law already provides for revocation. Ms. Aslinger said yes but there is an actual process to be followed or take a chance it would not be pursued. Mr. Daviss asked about the costs, Ms. Aslinger said all abutters and property owners would be notified by certified mail and a notice published in the paper, she didn’t think it was a substantial amount. Ch. Miller said he didn’t think it was necessary; Ms. Aslinger disagreed. Shane O’Keefe asked couldn’t the Board just refer to the RSA’s showing it was out of date, if they didn’t like the Board’s decision they could go through the appeal process? Ms. Aslinger said if the Board takes a formal action the abutters and owners must be notified ahead. She said it couldn’t just be done at a meeting without proper notice. There is no pubic hearing. Mr. Fletcher said everyone on the Planning Board knows it isn’t valid. Ms. Aslinger said she thought the current property owner (Berkshire) must be aware of the approval. Mr. DeCoste asked if on a subdivision if it is never acted on isn’t it moot? Ms. Aslinger said a subdivision is valid only when it has been recorded, but on a site plan review since the plans are not recorded they fall under the time line restrictions. Mrs. Judy Daniels present in the audience had express knowledge that the property was sold to Berkshire with the approved plans. Ms. Aslinger said without asking Berkshire directly, do they realize it is an expired plan? She said it is only fair to the present property owner to go through the revocation process and not wait for them to come in with a proposal based on an expired approval. Mr. Bob Miller agreed with the municipal lawyer’s recommendation to go through the revocation. Mr. DeCoste asked how to proceed, would the Board take an action, make a statement? Answer was yes, but not without notifying property owners and abutters. Ch. Miller thought common sense would prove the plan had expired. Ms. Aslinger said if she were a property owner and had bought it thinking it was an approved plan, she’d start working on it as such. Ch. Miller suggested going through the process. Mr. Bob Miller moved to go through the revocation process on the site plan review approved in 1991 in question. Motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Ch. Miller instructed Sec. Aslinger to review the procedure and process the revocation for the June 12,
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 8
2007 meeting. Mr. Fletcher commented that the 1991 plan might not fit in with their intended plans anyway.
Continued review of D & D LLC - 12 lot subdivision. Ch. Miller reminded the public hearing was continued and asked for the Board to comment. He suggested in order to address the issues from the public hearing, he would like to involve the SW Regional Planning Commission by having them review the plans and make comments and suggestions. Mr. Charles Miller asked for exact clarification of how much land the town owns along Hooper Rd., specifically the width, he questioned if the actual road could have been privately owned and deeded to the town; there may be some question as to how much and if the road is owned by the town. Ch. Miller asked Charles Miller to look into the clarification and noted it was a good point, members agreed. Mr. Dill did not think he bought the Hooper Rd. Charles Miller thought it might be similar to the railroad beds. Shane O’Keefe asked if there was a precedent set whereby a developer upgrades a Class V road. Charles Miller said the sub regs have set standards for Class V road, the problem being Hooper Rd. is adequate for the amount of existing houses, with the newly proposed 12 lots, the road becomes inadequate for the amount of traffic and homes planned. He said as far as who pays for it is up to the Board through its review process. Mr. Dill said a precedent had been set by the amount of traffic generated by the Apple Orchard development and its impact on Wentworth Rd., they have not had to pay to upgrade the road or fix the narrow bridge. He asks why the Apple Orchard is not paying to upgrade the “red star” bridge? Selectman Miller said a red star bridge is being taken over and upgraded by the State, the Selectmen approve and the town is reimbursed. He said there are two bridges red starred at this time although it takes a long time to be completed. Mr. Dill asks if they pay for the road, can they put more lots in there. Ch. Miller said not without meeting the frontage requirements. Ms. Aslinger asked why they don’t put in half the lots. She said by reducing the lots, they would be reducing the amount of traffic on the road to a reasonable level, double the size lots would be “as desirable” as a purchaser, it wouldn’t effect the surrounding area as much, the septics and wells would be less of an impact. She said she thought the plans show excessive density on a relatively small 40 acre parcel, on a marginal road. If it were only 6 lots it would be in keeping with the surrounding homes with a large buffer between them. She thought the density was excessive. Mr. Dill said much of the opposition to the project involves the surrounding property owners not wanting to loose their own private preserve for recreation and even deer hunting. He thought the well and road issues were not the real issues. Mr. DeCoste asked if the Board decides the subdivision puts pressure on the road could we require the developer to do something about it? Ch. Miller said his feeling this was a situation that the town hasn’t faced but under the general requirements for subdivision L. it asks for specific criteria related to the road. Mr. Dill said it was for new roads only. Ch. Miller disagreed pointing out while it is a Class V road it is not up to standard for 12 house lots and the impact they will have on the road, therefore the developer must pay to bring it up to town standard since the project solely benefits the developer. He said the road safety is questionable. Mr. Dill and Mrs. Daniels compared Hooper Rd. to Old Drewsville Road, but Ch. Miller disagreed, the development has been very gradual and the road maintained as needed. Shane O’Keefe asked about procedures and was concerned the public hearing had been opened up again; he cautioned the discussion should be amongst the Board members only. Ch. Miller agreed. Mr. Fletcher said the Old Drewsville Rd. would be upgraded when the town decides to upgrade it, not when it is under pressure from a developer. Ch. Miller noted the town does have a Capital Improvements plan so may require impact fees. Selectmen Miller noted the Road Agent is somewhat responsible for added development, because he has the most say in how the roads are maintained and improved. He said he is not as concerned about the water or whether the purchaser has water, it’s their gamble. He feels the Board has a responsibility to protect the water of the abutting property owner first. He said the courts might require the town to provide water to any abutting property owner who looses their water because of the subdivisions pressure on the water supply. He hopes if the plan is approved and water is obtained, he does not want to see the abutter’s water taken away because of it. Mr. O’Keefe asked if it was an obligation on the town, he thought it would be more likely the developer would be liable. Selectmen Miller thought it was worth clarifying. Mr. Merklein asked if the problems of water and drainage might be addressed through an engineered hydro-geological study paid for by the developer? Ch. Miller said one of the reasons to continue the Public Hearing is to gather further information; raised at the public hearing, he thought the Board would need to look into the issues by way of certain specific studies. Mr. Dill said there is no drainage problem within the subdivision, only Ms. Steisel’s concerns about her own property. Mr. O’Keefe said the plans do not show drainage so how can the Board tell? Ch. Miller
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 5/8/07 page 9
said he wants to avoid the problem Ms. Steisel had when the new house was built next to her and has impacted her property. The subdivision has the same potential to effect surrounding properties and abutters in the same way.
Mr. Daviss asked how the Board could gather the information and how to proceed. Sec. Aslinger said the plans would go to SWRPC, they do a full review and make suggestions to the Board, they charge an hourly rate that can be billed to the developer. Mr. O’Keefe asked if they would do a site visit. Mr. Daviss asked if a copy of the minutes and previous minutes be included. Bob Miller asked if the issue of water rights could be addressed in their review.
Mr. O’Keefe expressed his concern over the prior meeting where a former road crew person discussed the known inadequacies of the road maintenance. Ch. Miller said there weren’t doing substandard work to the road but in fact improving it from what it has been, basically because it has so little use. Mr. Dill questioned the spokesman’s authority when he was a grader operator 20 years ago; he’s not the road agent for the town. Ch. Miller said the quality of the road needs major improvement, from tree cutting and ditching to surfacing and to address the safety. He said it should not be upgraded at the expense of the town; it cannot be compared to Old Drewsville Rd. or Wentworth Rd. He said it is a one shot development only benefiting the developer. Mr. Bob Miller said Hooper Rd. must not be compared to Wentworth Rd.; they are two different qualities of roads. Ch. Miller said it was more of a gradual succession of development not a major impact all at once like the D&D proposal. Mr. Dill said the 12 new lots would generate a minimum of $500,000 value in taxes so it would be returned in taxes for the Town to upgrade the road, he said they are entitled to something. Ch. Miller said yes they are entitled to something, a road that Mr. Dill will pay to upgrade.
Ch. Miller will call SWRPC and submit the plans for review along with the minutes. Mr. Dill said the Board should be careful not to try and guarantee people water, that it isn’t the responsibility of the Board. Ch. Miller said it is not a matter of guaranteeing water but the impact the subdivision has on the abutters and water availability for the area that counts. Mr. Daviss said to ask for the study to determine water available, more of an impact than a guarantee. Mr. Dill still thinks it is buyer beware on the water. Ch. Miller cautioned and referred to the plan Mrs. Westover submitted noting the small spaghetti lots that were created, at the time the issue was over long small lots what was the impact on septic, wells and runoff because of their size and configuration on a relatively small original parcel, it has been a concern in the past.
Ms. Aslinger asked members to review the general standards portion of the sub regs noting under G. Characteristics of land for subdivision, it points out many of the areas discussed and requires the Board to take into account danger to the public, health or safety or to the environment. She read on showing land with inadequate drainage, sewer or water should not be subdivided. She noted Mr. Dill had not submitted the plans for State subdivision approval, saying normally a developer would at least have applied prior to submitting the application to try to have the state approval to coincide with the Boards final action. She said otherwise the Board would have to grant a conditional approval. Mr. Dill thought the Board would just do a conditional approval because they aren’t certain the plans will remain exactly as shown possibly due to some driveway and access re-locations. She asked if they are uncertain about the plans did he wish to withdraw the plans and resubmit at a later time? He said no, it is the best plan; they would start over if the Board disapproves the plan or if they needed to make substantial changes. Ms. Aslinger asked the Board to act quickly in fairness to Mr. Dill on the plan, get it to SWRPC, get there review and be mindful of the time limitation of 60 days from acceptance, not to drag it out with costly studies and information gathering, to be certain the review can continue at the next meeting along with continued public input and to get on with the process. She said one of the SW Reg. planners will compare the plans to our own regulations; make suggestions for various studies and recommendations to the Board. The Board will decide how to proceed. They will not indicate how whether the Board should approve or disapprove a plan. She said it is somewhat hard for the Planning Board to review a project of this size and handle all of the other monthly obligations; they will be better focused on it. Mr. Dill asked if the plan was accepted at the prior meeting, answer was no, abutters must be notified before the plan is accepted and the hearing held, continuing the public hearing saves having to re-notifying abutters. The plans will be submitted early next week once the minutes are completed. Mr. Merklein asked if the report could be circulated to the Board prior to the June meeting.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes page 10
B. Work Session - Mr. Daviss asked if the work session for May was being held. Sec. Aslinger said she had discussed with Ch. Miller the possibility of canceling the work sessions for the summer months and to take up the Master Plan Update at the regular meetings to allow for people to enjoy the summer. Mr. Daviss asked to hold the May work session.
He asked if the Conservation Commission attendees would speak about their meeting earlier in the week regarding the Monadnock Conservancy. Mary Lou Montgomery said they discussed the possibility of improving the mapping through a new pilot project. They are not certain Walpole is eligible yet but offers it as a possibility. Mr.Schupack said the intent is to do a survey of the town and rank all the different conservation areas and types by value in the town and put that information on a GIS map they would like to see it coordinated with the Planning Boards land use mapping, it could be used as a tool by all Boards and used with overlays. Mary Lou said this is an expansion and result of the newly created conservation plan.
Work session to be held May 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM in the basement office.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30pm
Cc: file, PB, ZBA, MPU, BOS, Road Agent
Posted: Town Hall, Lobby, Burdick’s Market, www.walpolenh.us, www.the walpolean.com