22 September 2007
 
Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
Post a comment (login required)
Ed. Note:  The following is an opinion submitted by Walpole resident Barbara O'Connor on last week's Planning Board decision to recommend that the Zoning Board approve a special exception to commercial and rural-agricultural zoning to allow Chamberlain Machine from Rockingham, VT to build a new, 40,000 square foot factory on the Huntington Farm property behind Diamond Pizza off Route 12.  CCB
 
 
Chuck : During  the September 19, 2007 meeting  of the Planning Board the application in the Chamberlain matter was filed. Part of the  wording of the applicable ordinance is that, if there is no land zoned industrial that is  available or adequate for an applicant's project, then he can apply for  an exception to the Zoning Ordinance. It seems to me that  the burden of proof to that standard could be as high or low as the boards make it. And everything depends on what they do.
 
     The applicant's statement at the Planning Board hearing was rather oblique. Their attorney said  that they needed water, sewer, three phase power, access to Rte 12 and a location that would not cause them to lose employees because of the  commute. In answer to a question from the audience, the managers said that they had looked at several places but always came back to the one in question.  No specifics, no questions from the PB.
     Mel Schupack from the audience said there were 16 acres north of the commercial area, outside the water protection area, that were on the market. The applicant did not reply. The planning board did not comment or question the applicant as to whether he had viewed that plot, whether there was the possibility of extending three phase power to that plot or as to whether there was a reason why that property was not adequate.  I suppose that some information may be exchanged outside the meetings, but in the meetings the public should hear all the information that the PB has heard, the law should seem to be complied with and addressed by the PB. Other audience statements were similarly not explored by the PB.
  Our zoning should not be undone by exceptions. The standard for an exception should be high. My sense from my first ZBA meeting is that it may be mainly about  the granting of exceptions.  However, I think that we have to do what we can to convince the ZBA to pay attention to the vote against industrializing the property in question, demand proof of need for the exception, give full credit to the concerns of the Town water department, and the Granite State Rural  Water Association.  (There will be a water expert speaking for the applicant who will say that the plant will be south of the well head and water runs down stream to the river, as if that would not be a concern. The company also contends that they are so clean that they squeak.) It would appear this company might be a good addition to our community, but why does it have to located in our water protection area.
 
     Ultimately I think the Town has to start considering development of an Industrial Park that will have three phase power and all the bells and whistles but not be in a place that interferes with our visuals, our traffic patterns in the commercial area, or our water supply, and that does not destroy prime farm land, or threaten rivers or streams. If we had such a place, then we could welcome Chamberlain and other suitable companies to our midst. There will not be any movement in the direction  of planning an Industrial park unless a lot of pressure is brought upon the Selectmen and the PB. (A whole lot of former Hubbard land is becoming available and much of this land may lead to requests for further exceptions. Exceptions may be perceived by the PB as the easiest way to facilitate development.)
     Things are happening too fast. Perhaps there should be a moratorium on development until the PB has a plan that will protect the values expressed in the Master Plan. I know work on that has been done, but there is still a great deal that needs to be addressed. I don't know who has real influence in this community. In the past influential citizens kept out a  paper company and other undesirable developments that  would have destroyed what we have. Who could do it now? If our officials do not listen to our votes, to whom do they listen.
  
    Anyway, the ZBA Public Hearing on Chamberlain will be on October 17 at7:30 p.m. There will also be a tour of the current plant of Chamberlain in Rockingham, VT, at 6:30 p.m., just prior to the meeting of the ZBA. Thanks for listening!  Barbara O'Connor
Posted by Chuck Bingaman at 3:26 PM | Comments (7)
 
Subscription Options

You are not logged in, so your subscription status for this entry is unknown. You can login or register here.

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
Sorry,but I must ask a couple of questions and make a statement. First, the land where Bensonwood is located, the land where, Amerigas, Yellow Freight, a car repair garage, etc are located was once "prime agricultural" land. Where were all the people that now oppose allowing Chamberlain to build on the Huntington Farm area to protest rezoning that land? Or is the fact that it is five miles out of the village a major point? What does one consider "prime agricultural" land? Acreage that is being currently used for growing of crop or pasturing cattle or a piece of land covered by concrete slabs and large poultry houses? Does anyone know the price of the Huntington property that Chamberlain is going to have to pay or the so called 12 acres further down the road? Could this be a factor? Curious minds want to know!!! Bill Moses

Posted by bill on September 23, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
I think the confusion about "prime agricultural land" comes from the fact that the Huntington property's soil is rated as "prime agricultural soil" by the state's ag department. But, while the soil is prime, the site itself is no longer a prime locale for a working farm. People can't be blamed for hoping that agriculture's temporary troubles might be resolved and the land somehow could be farmed again some day. Farmers are resourceful; if the slabs of concrete stay there, a farmer will plough up to and around it and keep on going. But if the land is redeveloped with a large industrial building and parking lot, that hope is lost. This isn't to say that an industrial site--with new, well-paid jobs for local folks and a boost to the tax base--is bad; it's just that different people have different priorites.

Also, it's my understanding that Chamberlain Machine is a financial partner in the development of the Huntington property, so not only is hoping to find a new location but also to profit from the further development of the Huntington property. If that's correct, and it might not be, that would help explain why Chamberlain is particularly interested in locating on that particular site: participating in additional development could partially offset the cost of its new building and relocation.

Ben Daviss

Posted by ben on September 23, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
Instead of speculating, why wasnt that question raised during the meeting? And "if" they are in partnership, doesn't that come under the heading of "free enterprise" and smart investment policies? Wonder who or what will "jump" at the chance to purchase the old Hubbard hatchery and what could not possibly be allowed to go in that building? Bill Moses

Posted by bill on September 24, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
Bill, of course partnerships come under the heading of free enterprise. You seem to assume I was criticizing the idea that these two might be in partnership. I wasn't and have no reason to. The ownership of land doesn't bear on the use it's put to from a zoning viewpoint. Also, transferring Hubbard's existing building -- the one that's already built and abuts the commercial district -- out of rural ag zoning and into commercial or industrial use should cause much less controversy than building on unbuilt land that sits closer to the river, that the town's conservation commission has included in its preservation plan, and that the town's water department has expressed a preference to leave unindustrialized. Ben Daviss

Posted by ben on September 24, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
I must admit I am a little slow in understanding why, if the so called Huntington Farm area is such a prime concern to the Town Water Department and the Conservaton Commission,that they and the Town have not sought some type of government grant to purchase and "conserve" this property which would include removing the buildings and concrete bases and putting the land back into the prime agricultural land that is being promoted. Just a thought. Bill Moses PS. Why is there an ongoing rehabilation to the farm house at Huntington? I thought everything was going to be razed.

Posted by bill on September 25, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
As anyone who lives out of sight of Walpole Village knows, the word is "location"- as long as you cant see it on your way to or from Burdick's, it is OK. Example: Lift-All.

Posted by cindyjean on October 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Re: Opinion: On the Planning Board's Action Re: Granting a Special Exception to Current Zoning for Chamberlain Machine
Re: Lift-All - Walpole's loss was certainly Westmoreland's gain. Hope Westmoreland sent a letter of thanks...

Posted by bill on October 3, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Post a comment (login required)