Town of Walpole
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
August 14, 2007 7:30pm Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch.
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Dave DeCoste, Bob Miller, V-Ch., Henry Fletcher, Selectman Charles Miller. Jeff White, alt., Fred Dill present but recused and in audience.
Members Absent: Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt. Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the September 11, 2007 meeting for errors, omissions, and corrections. There were over 50 persons in attendance.
I. Meeting opened at 7:40pm.
A. Alternate Jeff White was appointed for Ben Daviss.
B. Minutes were passed over until 9/11/2007 meeting.
II. Review applications submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay
In order to speed up the meeting, Ch. Miller announced he would like to accept all the applications as complete in one motion, provided the Secretary’s report was favorable on each. Sec. Aslinger reported all applications were complete with fees, abutter lists, maps, all notices posted, abutters notified. No application had pending issues. The applications were:
A. UNH Sprint-Nextel Corp. Site Plan Review
B. Hubbard Farms LLC Minor 2 lot subdivision
C. Martha Kingsbury Minor 2 lot subdivision
D. Sheldon Sawyer Minor 4 lot subdivision
E. Flessa, Laroche/Pratt Minor 2 lot subdivision
F. Richard S. Francis Minor 2 lot subdivision
A motion to accept applications A-F as complete was made and seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ch. Miller said the public hearing for each application would be held separately, with the Board taking action on each after the public hearing was closed
III. Meeting was closed the public hearing opened for:
A. UNH Sprint-Nextel Corp. - Site Plan Review for additional antennas to existing telecommunications facility located at 88 Scovill Road Map 3 Lot 82 in the Timberland zone. Jacqueline Murray of C. Davis Associates stated the purpose of the site plan is to add 2 new antennas at the same centerline heights of 280 ft. and one equipment cabinet inside the existing equipment shelter. She and the Board reviewed the maps. She said there would be no other changes. Ch. Miller called for questions. Charles Miller asked if there would be a new building for the equipment. Answer was no. She said UNH owns the land. Mr. Merklein asked to be shown the existing 6 antennas and where the placement of the two new ones would be, Ms. Murray showed him on the maps. Charles Miller asked if they would be installing anything on the Fall Mountain site, she said no this was unrelated. Mr. Merklein asked about CMZH, Ms. Murray said it was an acronym for the transmission technology being used. Hearing no further comments Ch. Miller closed the public hearing and called for Board action. Charles Miller asked why the maps said Walpole VT not NH. Ms. Murray said it referred to a radius area used for internal identification. Cindy Westover asked when she could speak (note, persons sitting in the back rows were unable to hear clearly) Ch. Miller said the hearing had been closed, but allowed her questions. She asked if there were going to be additional towers, higher, wider? Ms. Murray said the tower is owned by UNH they lease the space, no additional towers. Charles Miller asked about sending the tax bill to Sprint-Nextel, Ms. Murray said she was not involved in the taxation issue. Henry Fletcher made a motion, seconded by Bob Miller to approve the site plan as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 2
B. Hubbard Farms LLC - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Rte. 12 North Map 12 Lot 4 in the Commercial and Rural Agricultural zones. Joe DiBernardo presented the proposal whose purpose was to created Lot 1 of 31.13 acres and Lot 2 of 12.48 acres. A 30 ft. ROW across Huntington Lane is being retained for Lot 1 access to back area. Mr. DiBernardo presented revised (9/6) plans, Lot 1 of 32.06 acres and Lot 2 of 12.15 acres. He said it is located in two zoning districts, with 250 ft. in front being commercial everything in the back Rural Ag. He said the new plans show revised lot numbers to match the tax maps. Lot 2 has the frontage requirements but is accessed via a 30 ft. ROW and then an existing 50 ft. ROW (Huntington Lane) that is part of Lot 1. Members asked Mr. DiBernardo to point out the oddly configured lots on the map individually. The property lines follow down the center of Huntington Lane. Ch. Miller called for other questions. Mr. Blount asked for a description of where the parcel is. Mr. DiBernardo pointed out surrounding properties noting it was south of Pinnacle View and surrounding Diamond Pizza where the old Hubbard chicken barns where.
Barbara Dretzin asked if the zoning uses were being changed? Ch. Miller said this was a simple subdivision of the land under the existing commercial and rural agricultural zones. Mr. DiBernardo pointed out that Lot 1 did include all the commercial area and it was partially used as a boundary line. He pointed out existing buildings designated to be removed or relocated. Ch. Miller noted Chamberlain Machine was interested in Lot 2. Hearing no other questions he closed the public hearing and called for Board action. A motion to approve the proposal as presented was seconded, motion carried unanimously. The maps and mylar were signed. Mr. DiBernardo will record the mylar and report to the Secretary the cabinet and drawer number as proof.
C. Martha Kingsbury - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Kingsbury Road, Map 8 Lot 118 in the Rural Agricultural zone. Ms. Virginia Foote, of Lawrence Associates presented revised plans to the Board noting the proposal results in Lot 1 of 71.02 acres and Lot 1 of 1.11 acres. The lots meet the frontages, size and setback requirements. Ch. Miller called for questions or comments, hearing none he closed the public hearing and called for board action. Jeff White made a motion to approve the proposal as presented, Dave DeCoste seconded, motion carried unanimously. Ms. Foote agreed to record the mylar and report recording information to the Secretary as proof, the maps and mylar were signed.
D. Sheldon Sawyer - Minor 4 lot Subdivision located on County, Wentworth and Meetinghouse Roads, Map 5 Lot 4 in the Rural Agricultural zone. Ms. Foote presented noting the purpose is to create Lot 1 of 5.62 acres, Lot 2 of 6.36 acres and Lot 3 of 5.02 acres and Lot 4 of 55.52 acres remaining. Mr. Blount asked where the remaining 55.52 acres are, Ms. Foote showed on the insert where the remainder is. Ch. Miller called for questions. Nancy Houge asked for clarification of where she was in relation to the proposal. Ch. Miller described to her satisfaction where she was in relation to the proposal. He noted the frontage is on County Road but the ROW is off Wentworth Road just before the cornfield. Ms. Steisel asked why the access was off of Wentworth not County. Ch. Miller said Mr. Sawyer was allowed to give the ROW over his land for access, noting the steep terrain off of County Road. A question was asked if the subdivision was for housing? Answer was the lots met the requirements for housing. Charles Miller asked if the ROW would serve all three new lots? Mr. Sawyer said if the lots were sold or given away the ROW would be better determined, he said he had no immediate plans to sell the lots but was planning for the future. Hearing no further questions, Ch. Miller closed the public hearing and called for Board action. Henry Fletcher moved to approve the plan as presented, seconded by Eric Merklein, motion carried unanimously. The maps and mylar were signed, Ms. Foote agreed to record the mylar and report recording information to the Secretary as proof.
E. Steven Flessa, Barbara Laroche/John McKee Pratt Revocable Trust - Minor 2 lot subdivision Mr. located on Reservoir Road, Map 11, Lot 1 in the Rural Agricultural zone.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 3
DiBernardo presented noting the proposal results in Lot 1 of 41.51 acres and Lot 2 41.83 acres, the lots meet the frontage requirements and lot sizes. Charles Miller asked if Mr. Pratt’s house was on any of the new lots. The lots are at the end of the road and north of the reservoir with Mr. Pratts house on the opposite side of the road. Ch. Miller called for further questions, being none, closed the public hearing and called for Board action. Mr. Merklein made a motion to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by Henry Fletcher, motion carried unanimously. Maps and mylar were signed, Mr. DiBernardo agreed to record the mylar and report recording information to the Secretary as proof.
F. Richard S. Francis III - Minor 2 lot subdivision located on Ramsay Hill Rd. in the Rural Agricultural zone, Map 11, Lot 7-1-1. Mr. DiBernardo presented noting the proposal results in Lot 1 of 57 acres and Lot 2 of 3.1 acres. He said test pits have been done. Ted Fellows is handling the State subdivision application. Ch. Miller called for questions. Sue Bingaman asked if the small lot was where he was building his new house, answer was no, he is building on the larger lot. Charles Miller asked about a Hatfield view easement. Mr. DiBernardo said it was an easement granted to Ms. Hatfield to protect her view. Hearing no further comments, Ch. Miller called for Board action. Ms. Aslinger noted a condition of approval would be to obtain State subdivision approval prior to recording. Ch. Miller called for a motion to approve the proposal with the condition State subdivision is granted. Motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Maps and mylar were signed, with Mr. DiBernardo agreeing to record the mylar, once the state subdivision approval was granted. A copy of the approval will be forwarded to the Planning Board, the mylar can then be recorded, Mr. DiBernardo will contact the Secretary with the recording information as proof.
V. Unfinished Business
A. 1834 “Griswold Place” - Site Plan Review pending revision. Mr. Smith was not available, Mr. John Blair presented. He noted in order to satisfy the abutters Mr. and Mrs. Fred Ernst, the building in the back would be moved 5 feet from the property line with the basement area and actual foundation area to be removed and relocated. He said windows are to be removed from the west side rear, less two and reducing the size, the center section will have four windows removed as well. Sec. Aslinger read a letter from Mr. Ernst describing their agreement after a meeting held on 7/25th with Mr. Smith and the architect. The letter confirmed the changes described above and is on size. Ch. Miller asked the Board to approve the revisions as requested. A motion to approve the revisions was made by Mr. DeCoste, seconded, motion carried unanimously. The newly revised plans will be filed as approved.
B. Walpole D & D, LLC - Major 8 lot subdivision - Review water study, Brian Goetz presented. Mr. Goetz provided a power point presentation following the written study. (A copy of the written study is available for review in the Selectmen’s Office during regular business hours.)
Ch. Miller recognized Mr. Goetz of Weston Sampson in Portsmouth. He said he was hired to do a desktop analysis using the existing data to determine the hydro-geological conditions and water balance of the area to determine the projected water demands and to query the abutting properties to gather additional data regarding wells, water use and other pertinent information and to determine the need for conservation measures and deed restrictions for future and other site recommendations. He pointed to USGS maps within the study showing conditions from the 1930’s and 50’s. He said they met with DES hydro-geologist discussing the geology of the area, saying everything around the areas surface is less than 2 meters thick till overlying bedrock. He said the DiBernardo plans show the test pits, noting the same conditions apply. He said NHGRANIT on-line showed soil paths, confirmation of the rock and till. He showed a bedrock map, Littleton, Fitch. He moved to a lineament map showing the actual fractures where water is present, it is an aerial map. He pointed out where the roads were as reference. He said based on the above information, they determined the recharge rate, according to a recent USGS 2004 report
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 4
in Vermont and NH, the recharge rate is 20% for precipitation or 7” of rainfall will actually penetrate and recharge the aquafirs. With that rate at 43 acres, each acre has a little over 200,000 gallons per year recharging, the caveat is once you get to the bedrock it is a bit less, the existing slope on the property effects the recharge. NHGRANIT has information on the sites land use, he and Mr. Dill walked the land before the meeting, noting the data was accurate. He noted the type of trees on the land/site, the hayfield, barns and wetlands. He said they took the USGS maps and reviewed the concerns of the abutters and the effect of drainage on the site. He pointed out where the drainage moves, the major part of the subdivision drains on the southerly portion. He said they looked at the large drainage area of 22 acres and taking the worst case storm event, 2.8” per day, a magnitude flow rate of would be 76,000 gallons per hour. He said the next step was to incorporate the 23 returned abutter surveys and their information. They were able to locate each of them on a tax map, and he reviewed each in the report, see report. He said they gave a good overview of the types and yields of the wells. Some wells were hydro-fractured, drilled, dug or pounded. The surveys provided a cross section of ages of wells, with an overall drop in yields over the past 10 years. He cautioned the numbers were not scientifically calculated but a good indicator. He discussed the depth of wells and static. He noticed the newer wells provide highest yield, this is not unusual, the older wells do not recharge as quickly. One 100 year old dug well provides 10 gallons/minute. He said one abutter reported drainage and runoff problems located at the bottom of the largest drainage area. He said 30 wells were reported, the newer and deeper wells provide the higher yields. He said the DES provides a report on wells, the methods and how yields are affected by the age of the well. He said most of the surveys indicated current conservation methods being used. He said there is present water use on the site, ie; the trees. A mature oak tree can draw 50 gallons of water a day. He said there isn’t clay to hold the water. He took the subdivision plan and overlaid it on the use map. He said DES has no rules about wells other than the 75 foot radius requirement. They calculated each single family home proposed in the subdivision would use approximately 600 gallons per day based on projected square footage of 2000. He showed existing homes and water uses and the variable ranges. He said factoring in the information on the subdivision and the resulting changes basically some forest would be removed for the houses, the wetlands would remain, using the 300 gallons per day per unit comes to 2400 gallons per day or 86,000 gallons per year. He discussed some conservation measures noting 86,000 gallons per year does not exceed the potential resource for the area, but the bedrock wells do have a limited ability to capture the recharge unless they are hydrofractured or pounded. He noted septics are on-site, there is return flow of 85-90% return to the general area. He reviewed the recommended deed restrictions of all plumbing would be high efficiency and low flow. Irrigated areas very limited, pools not filled from on-site wells. As things are built some recharge could be incorporated such as roof drains, drainage swales, run-off to slow the water. To determine the adequacy of the surrounding water levels, he suggested a non-pumping well that would give ambient water level. He gave Mr. Dill and Ch. Miller a copy of the report and asked to take questions.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Mr. Dance asked if Mr. Goetz could tell where the aquifer comes from noting the area is along a spine of land, was there a tie in to the Connecticut River? Mr. Goetz said it was coming from the fractures as outlined on the first map, re-charge comes directly from rainfall, there are no other sources of water for the area.
Ken Walsh said since the recharge comes from surface and rainfall, where does the water come from and where does it go? Mr. Goetz said basically the well sites as shown on the plans may not be the perfect location for the well, the smaller lots would be more limited to finding a higher yield fracture. He asked how many years it takes to recharge? Mr. Goetz said 7” per year per acre would recharge the area. Mr. Walsh asked to correlate it to static. Mr. Goetz said an ambient well would show the seasonal changes. He said a pumping well would not reflect true
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 5
static unless it is unused for a period of time. He said an older well could be crusted up and not pumping properly. He said static is a relative term at times. He said a drop in static could indicate a drop in the water table.
Mr. Dance said when the pond goes dry the surrounding area wells go dry. He asked what would happen if a drought persisted for a few years, what impact would the new proposed wells have on the area water? Mr. Goetz thought there are more wells, but the existing use based on the trees alone could affect the overall water. Mr. Dance mentioned some of the better producing wells. Due to the direction of the runoff, if the weather took a turn for the worse, the persons along the spine would have water shortage and adding another 8 wells to the watershed would be a concern.
Mr. Blount, Ms. Steisel and others asked if the 8 additional wells would affect the abutters water? Mr. Goetz said in order to answer the question a more detailed study would be required. Mr. Dance thought the more water drawn on an already limited watershed the more likely there would be less available for everyone. Mr. Goetz referred to the recommendations for conservation to aid the recharge. Ms. Steisel felt the recommendations were viable but there was no insurance the measures would be enforced. Mr. Goetz said it could be added as a deed restriction. Mr. Hunter said he had a hard time believing those recommendations would alleviate the extra water use by the 8 new lots.
Mr. Sawyer asked if the recharge would increase by removing trees. Mr. Goetz said it would reduce the water taken out but may not help the recharge.
Ms. Houge said there is a historic water shortage for not only her parent’s home on Meetinghouse Road but many of the abutters and she was concerned the added lots would add to the existing water problems in the area.
Ch. Miller asked if all the abutters were drawing from the same fracture? He said no matter how many wells are added, it is hard to determine exactly where the water comes from. He said over the years as it has grown, perhaps that has affected the water. He asked if there was a way to allow only 4 wells, have it monitored before more wells are added based on the history of the 4 new wells? Mr. Goetz said the only way would be to drill the wells and monitor them. He said the well locations on the maps might not be the best place to locate the wells. Ch. Miller asked if the 8 lots would have a greater impact within the 8 lots rather than the abutters asking if the abutters may be affecting one another even without the additional wells? Mr. Goetz said yes it could be the case.
Mr. Dave Howell asked about the age of the existing water? Mr. Goetz said they can carbon date the water. Mr. Hunt asked to look at the fracture map asking how the fractures were determined? Mr. Goetz said USGS studies were done a couple of years ago, they take the previous studies and formulate the data, aerial photos in black and white, satellite and field surveys showing the fractures that are eons old. Mr. Hunt asked if fracture lines could be built like the oil companies do? Mr. Goetz said no, oil extraction is a different technique. He asked about other techniques to capture water. Mr. Goetz said hydro-fracturing is the newest technique.
Ms. Steisel asked if hydro-fracturing could ruin a fracture. Mr. Goetz said an earthquake could cause a problem but not residential well drilling. Mr. Walsh said a person could be a distance away from the fracture and still be drawing from the fracture. Mr. Goetz agreed some bedrock wells could draw from a mile away.
Ch. Miller asked how the well dates affect the water, wondering if the newer wells were better producers and had created problems for the older wells.
Mr. Dance said it seemed wells off the Wentworth spine seem to have more water the new wells were going to draw off that single spine. Mr. Blount said the principal area of stressed wells are depending on the one fault line, the new lots appear to be drawing off the same fault. Mrs. Daniels asked to see where Wentworth Road was on the fracture map.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 6
Mr. Goetz said field data might show a more realistic idea of where the wells would be located. He said the drainage map shows a divide that might be questionable. Ch. Miller asked if he had experienced a situation like this? Mr. Goetz said he sat on the groundwater commission at the State house and grappled with the issue. He said the State regulations are site specific to insure water availability but some of the specifics would require more detailed studies.
Mr. Merklein asked based on what Mr. Goetz has seen in the past what is the actual bottom line on the effect on the abutters? Mr. Goetz said at present the results are a general overview of the conditions for this level of study. He said more detailed investigations could answer the question but the information gathered is useable to determine a general overview. He said a suggestion to do a fracture trace of the area was made but is only good down to 500 ft, many of the wells are 600 feet and beyond. He said physically drilling the wells would give additional information.
Mr. Merklein asked about a sample well to measure the effect. Mr. Goetz said a large groundwater withdrawal well is done with monitoring wells. Mr. Merklein said the monitoring wells could be the existing wells. Mr. Goetz agreed saying if you were trying to get the effect of a withdrawal and future conditions the large well would need to be located where the withdrawal would take place as opposed to a surrounding area. Mr. Merklein asked, one well super pumped within the subdivision and measure it there for additional information? Mr. Goetz said that’s what has been done in the past for large groundwater withdrawals. Mr. Dill and Mr. Kasper said large groundwater withdrawals are for 40,000 gallons an hour, this subdivision would not warrant that type of study. Mr. Goetz agreed.
Attny. Kasper observed most of the problem lies within the north up hill part of the property. The abutters in the worst shape are to the right of Wentworth Road and the fracture is to the left of Wentworth Road. The data also shows the drainage is north of Hooper Rd. He said the surface flow appeared to flow north of the subdivision. Mr. Goetz clarified the elevation drops to the south. Mr. Kasper said it is pure speculation on Mr. Goetz’s part unless all 8 wells were drilled and monitored for a number of years what and if any impact those wells would have on the water supply that there is no way to determine the impact. Mr. Goetz said the desktop study gives adequate information based on the level of the study and existing conditions they are not doing a large groundwater withdrawal so it is beyond the desktop study results to determine the actual effect on the surrounding water supply. Mr. Kasper said by cutting down 4 or 5 trees per lot it would reduce the withdrawal. Mr. Goetz agreed noting his recommendations. Mr. Kasper said if the Planning board puts in the recommended restrictions everything possible would be done to recapture the water including the septics, roof flows, restrictions on irrigations, no pool filling, it appears there is almost a zero impact. Mr. Goetz agreed if the Board implements the conservation restrictions it would significantly reduce the impact.
Mr. Dance asked if D & D would pay to have his well replaced if it ran dry in the next 10 years? The answer was no. Mr. Carignan said in regard to speculation, his first well was pounded, it ran dry, the second hydro-fractured yielding 1.5 gallons.
Mr. DeCoste asked how to determine the direction of the flows from the fractures? Mr. Goetz said it could not be determined but likely flowed towards the Connecticut River. He said without a pump test he couldn’t determine where or which fracture was being utilized. Ch. Miller thought the 4 or 5 houses built in the past 4 years could have affected the previous wells. He said it seemed the weather played the most important role in recharging and available water supply. Mr. Goetz agreed saying dug wells would run dry first the bedrock wells take a longer time to go dry but take longer to recover from a drought.
Ms. Aslinger asked in addition to his recommendations would it be recommended to reduce the number of lots based on the density to 4 or 6 lots noting he had mentioned the density of some of the lots limited acreage didn’t allow for more than one 75 ft. radius. Mr. Goetz said the State requires the 75 ft. radius but some of the smaller lots have less area for moving it
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 7
around. Ms. Aslinger said he had mentioned the maps don’t necessarily show exactly where the wells would be rather showing where they would fit in. Mr. Kasper objected to the question saying Mr. Goetz wasn’t an expert on where the wells should be located. Ms. Aslinger said she had heard Mr. Goetz mention the density earlier and wondered if putting 20 wells vs. 8 wells or 4 wells instead of 8 would improve the chances of the water supply being less impacted. Mr. Goetz said without having any of the wells drilled there is no way of knowing.
Mrs. Daniels asked if by hydro-fracting a well, does it make things better for the surrounding properties? Mr. Goetz did not believe so.
Mr. Merklein said since we were talking serious speculation about a very serious matter, he asked if there was another step to take in order to alleviate the speculation that wouldn’t incur a major expense but insure the Board a few years later wouldn’t have abutting properties without water? He asked how to get a clearer picture. Mr. Goetz said hydro-geological studies range in size in scope. He said the level of this study was to determine baseline conditions make some recommendations to mitigate and address the fact there is a current water use on the property ie, the trees. By taking the trees away vs. a well use, to incorporate restrictive measures and capture some of the surface drainage through swales. They were trying to present some scenarios to mitigate some future conditions but to promise what will exactly happen 5-10 years in the future is not known.
Ch. Miller said he understood there was no way to be certain whether 4 lots or 8 lots would make a direct impact and it is speculative. He asked if the only guidelines Planning Boards have in NH is to go by the 75 ft. well radius, whereas in VT there are more restrictive guidelines. Are there no other measures the Board can take to prevent a subdivision from impacting surrounding properties? Mr. Goetz said he was correct but more restrictive guidelines are not on the books at this time. Mr. Merklein read from Walpole’s subdivision regulations questioning what the wording meant by being adequate. Mr. Goetz and others thought it only referred to the 75 ft. radius, if it were more restrictive it would have a flow rate or another measure to go by.
Suzanne Steisel said she thought the impact on the abutting properties had to be considered. She is concerned about property values declining when the water becomes less available. Ch. Miller said the single growth houses in recent years have also affected the surrounding areas.
Mrs. Dretzin suggested rather than the zoning being determined on frontage or lot size why not consider the availability of resources on a parcel. Ch. Miller said he agreed with the idea however the current zoning does not allow for it, that D & D’s parcel is within the Rural Agricultural and Residential zones and meets the current requirements.
Ch. Miller thanked Mr. Goetz for the presentation, the audience applauded him and a five minute break was called.
Meeting resumed 9:45pm
Ch. Miller announced the conclusion of the water study, as he thought it might be, it was inconclusive but a good effort. He said he thought the recommendations were appropriate, he said the Board was at its decision deadline. He said after hearing the report and to adequately write up the resulting conditions of a possible approval he felt the Board needed more time. He asked Mr. Dill for an extension until the next meeting. Mr. Dill said he needed to consult with his partner did the Board need an answer tonight? Ch. Miller said yes the Board would not be meeting again before the next meeting. He said he is still very concerned about the future of the abutters water supply, he mentioned possible reassessment of reducing the number of lots or restrict the number of initial lots/wells to help the concerns. He said he is also concerned about the road design and final plans and feels the Board needs additional time to formulate adequately written conditions. Mr. Dill said they had cut the number of lots already but they don’t seem to make any progress with negotiations, he asked if it was speculative to expect a decision at the
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 8
next meeting if they grant the additional time. Ch. Miller said he did not see a reason why the Board would go beyond the September meeting with a decision. Members agreed. Selectman Miller asked if the work session could be used to finalize Board action. Sec. Aslinger said the Selectmen had on more than one occasion felt the work sessions were to be limited to all other business besides review of applications before the Board and she felt it was appropriate to maintain the work sessions as non application review meetings. Selectmen Miller said they would ask this as a favor for Planning Board members who normally do not attend the work sessions to come for the review and could leave immediately after. Ch. Miller stated he would not be able to attend the meeting and would not agree to hold the review at the work session meeting.
Mr. Dill asked if he incorporated all the recommendations resulting from the study, would the Board be willing to make their final decision at tonight’s meeting? Ch. Miller said if he wanted a final action by the Board tonight under the circumstances he would recommend the Board deny the subdivision because they would not being able to make an informed decision based on lack of information. Mr. Dill asked if there would be further delay at the next meeting? Ch. Miller and others agreed the Board would have adequate time to digest the information provided in the study and to come to a final determination at the Sept. 11, 2007 meeting. Selectman Miller suggested Mr. Dill be put on as the first agenda item. Members asked if they could have copies of the studies. Sec. Aslinger said she would make copies.
Mr. Blount asked if a copy of the deed restrictions would be available for review prior to the next meeting, answer was probably not. Ch. Miller said they would be available after the next meeting.
Ch. Miller decided to officially close the Public Hearing, further discussion will be limited to the Board’s own review. Ch. Miller recognized Mr. Carignan. He asked if it is feasible, in the future if Town water could be extended to the Wentworth Road area? Ch. Miller said it would be an option and could be studied, he thought it would be paid for by the Water department and through taxation. Selectman Miller said it was a viable possibility and would protect property values.
Mr. Dill asked how the Board would proceed on his proposal? Ch. Miller said the road information was basically agreed to, the recommendations from the study would be incorporated and he would suggest limiting the number of lots to allow for an interim point as a safety net for everyone. Mr. Dill said he would not agree with such a restriction they would not be able to go into it knowing half of the land would be given up. Attny. Kasper agreed saying they would not abide by that restriction, they are coming before the Board with an 8 lot subdivision, it can be approved or not, the Board cannot say you have 4 lots for a while and see what happens.
Henry Fletcher asked if citizens could petition the Town to have the water brought up to the area? Answer was yes by a warrant article. Selectman Miller thought the impact to the tax rate would be little, it would add to property values and there is plenty of water. It would be whether a water line could be brought up there.
Secretary Aslinger said she would send a follow up letter to D & D outlining the information discussed at the meeting as a reference for the members so they would be prepared for the September meeting.
C. Site Plan Revocation North Meadow Plaza - Hockensmith comment (This item was passed over until the Sept. meeting, noting Sec. Alsinger did received an opinion from Attny. Hockesmith too late to be adequately reviewed for tonight’s meeting and an invoicel to be signed.)
VI. New Business: Preliminary Conceptual Consultations
A. Richard Drew surveyor, Hearns Lot Line Adjustment on Church St. North Walpole.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes 8/14/07 page 9
Matt Drew was present. He submitted the application, fees, abutters list and made a brief description of the proposal it is in the Residential B zone. A motion was made by Mr. Merklein and seconded by Bob Miller to place the application on the agenda for the Sept. 11, 2007 meeting, motion carried unanimously.
B. Chamberlain Machine - Special Exception recommendation, Site Plan Review. Attny. Gary Kinyon presented the Board with the application, fees and abutters list. He asked for feedback. He said he understood they would need to get a special exception recommendation from the Planning Board prior to applying for the special exception from the Zoning Board, and if granted a special exception return to the Planning Board for a site plan review for Chamberlain Machine on Lot 2 of tonight’s approved Hubbard subdivision. He asked if they could submit additional materials prior to the Sept. 11th deadline as noted by the Secretary in order to be placed on the agenda for a public hearing for that meeting date. He wanted to know if there was other information needed besides what is required in the zoning ordinance under Rural Agricultural Article VIII. I a-g. Sec. Aslinger referred to a letter sent to Mr. Tousley in March reviewing the procedures for special exception recommendation. She said the letter referred to the Zoning Ordinance Article VIII. Rural Ag. District, Special Exception I. a-g as criteria the Board would use in order to make a recommendation. Attny. Kinyon agreed but questioned whether the Board according to the regulations would consider anything beyond a. i) and ii). Members agreed those two criteria would be the only required. Attny. Kinyon said they would be providing the Board with the zoning application and other supporting information prior to the Sept. 11th final deadline but would want the Board to address the two criteria above at the public hearing if the Board agrees.
Ch. Miller questioned whether a public hearing was necessary, his thinking in the past the Board would make a non-binding review but usually not held a public hearing. Sec. Aslinger said it is only required for this particular zone and use change but it is required. Sec. Aslinger asked for clarification under Section C. only a. i. and ii. would be reviewed by the Planning Board? Answer was yes, remaining criteria would be reviewed by the Zoning Board.
C. Jack Franks - Minor 2 lot subdivision on Ramsay Hill Rd. Not present.
D. Joe DiBernardo surveyor presented the Board with preliminary plans for two minor 2 lot subdivision located on Barnett Hill Rd. for Chris Monahan. On the first plan it shows a 30 foot driveway that should be a 50 foot ROW, Joe will confer with the road agent about the driveway. He will be presenting both plans for the October meeting. The second plan was similar. Ch. Miller asked about restrictions on the Webb Farm. Henry Fletcher said the restrictions were no longer in effect they had a time limit on them that has expired.
VII. Communications and Miscellaneous
A. The work session was cancelled for August.
B. Other
VIII. Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm
cc: All PB members, ZBA, BOS, Town Clerk, Fire, Water, Road Dept.
Attny. Kasper, Attny. Hockensmith
Posted: Town Hall, Burdick’s Market, www.walpoleplanningboard.org,, www.thewalpolean.com