1-30-08

Walpole’s Zoning Appeal That Nobody Owns

By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer

            One of the four people whose names head the notice of appeal filed January 4 against the Walpole Zoning Board and reported in Monday’s Eagle Times was unaware that the appeal was being lodged in the Keene Superior Court in her name before reading about it in the newspaper, two learned of it from this reporter on Tuesday and none were involved in hiring the lawyer and filing the appeal!

            The lawyer who filed the suit declined on Tuesday to identify his client or clients or to say who was paying the bill for the appeal.  At least until he had a chance to discuss it with them later in the week.

            Community activist John Hansel of Walpole--not named as an appellant--was the person who solicited her participation, according to Cathy White, one of the four appellants listed in the notice of appeal. 

White said on Monday, after being surprised to see her name in the Eagle Times story, that she had agreed to lend her name to a petition effort to get the Zoning Board to reconsider its granting of a special exception to Chamberlain Machine to build a new factory on agriculturally zoned land in Walpole.  Hansel, she said, had called her at home to seek her permission to use her name in an attempt to force the board to reconsider, but she was unclear about the exact nature of the action.  She did, however, tell Hansel that she did not want to be involved in any “lawsuit”. 

White does favor reconsideration of the special exception but not participation in a court action.  White also noted that her name is misspelled in the court filing, that its assertion that her house is the “closest residence to the proposed industrial facility” is incorrect and that, contrary to the claim of the filing, she did not attend the October 17 zoning board hearing. White did not see the notice of appeal before it was filed, nor did she sign it.

After learning about the appeal late Monday, Ms. White telephoned the attorney that filed the appeal, Geoffrey Ransom of Concord, and requested that her name be removed from it.

Clarence (Clancy) Houghton, reached on vacation in California Monday evening, was surprised to hear that his name was on the appeal and had no explanation of it.  He did say that he thought the special exception was improperly granted and that, had he been asked, he would have considered signing on as an appellant.

Dr. Jennifer Palmiotto, the third listed appellant, said Wednesday evening that she was also listed inaccurately as an appellant.

Dr. Tucker Burr, the fourth listed appellant, said Tuesday afternoon that he was aware of the pending appeal and fully supported it.  He did not initiate it and is not funding it.

So who actually engaged attorney Ransom to file the appeal and who is paying for it if none of the listed participants are?  Mr. Ransom says it’s a confidential matter of attorney client privilege and he will not disclose it until he can “sort it out with” his client later in the week.

As to Mr. Hansel who solicited Ms. White to be a participant in an effort to get the zoning board to reconsider, he’s not talking.  In a phone call on Tuesday morning, Hansel said that, while he strongly supports the appeal, he has “No comment” about whether he is involved in it, “No comment” whether he engaged attorney Ransom, “No comment” about whether it was he that supplied the information in the appellate filing, and “No comment” on whether he is paying for it.  

So, someone is appealing the zoning board’s decision.  But nobody is willing to accept responsibility for it at this point.

                                                --30--

PLANNING BOARD

Walpole, NH  03608

Work Session Tuesday January 22, 2008, 7:00pm Town Hall Basement

Minutes

Present:  Jeff Miller, Bob Miller, Chick Miller, Ben Daviss, Henry Fletcher, Shane O’Keefe.  MP committee - Mel Schupack, Dennis Marcom, Chuck Bingaman

Recording:  Pam Aslinger, Sec.

Chairman Miller reviewed the agreement with SWRPC to provide assistance to the Board in updating the Land Use section of the Master Plan.  Mr. Daviss provided the list of tasks to SWRPC based on discussions at the prior Planning Board meeting.  They will:

- Review vision statement, goals and objectives from prior Master Plan updates;

- Review info and data gathered from survey to determine current community

values and goals;

            - Attend one meeting of the Board or Master Plan committee;

- Work with the Board or committee to draft a new vision statement, new and updated goals and objectives as well as an implementation statement.

            - Time period to be determined.

            - Compensation - 20 hours of assistance - $1000.00.

Attendees discussed various ways on how to proceed, the necessity of creating a vision statement required in the RSA’s and using the survey results to update the goals and objectives.  The actual survey results were discussed on a question by question basis resulting in a strong emphasis on maintaining the rural agricultural character of the Town and to keep Walpole the way it is, to broaden the tax base and provide housing for young persons and retirees.  Conservation of natural features were important as well as  economic considerations to maintain industrial, commercial, home and local businesses.      

Chairman Miller appointed Ben Daviss, Bob Miller and Mel Schupack to meet with SWRPC to go over the survey results and to re-draft the vision statement and draft a set of new goals and objectives setting a timeframe to present them for a public hearing in March or April.  Survey comments are being reviewed by Board members, once compiled and posted on the Board’s website, Chuck Bingaman will write an article on them for the newspaper.

The group will meet either at the regular Board meetings, time allowing or schedule a work session on the fourth Tuesday of the month, to be announced.

Cc:  file, PB, Mplanners, BOS

1-27-08

Walpole Residents Appeal Zoning Board Ruling

By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer

            Four Walpole citizens are challenging the Walpole Zoning Board’s decision December 5 to grant a special exception to rural agricultural zoning intended to enable Chamberlain Machine of Rockingham VT to build a new factory off Rt. 12.

            Kathy White, Clarence (Clancy) Houghton, Dr. Jennifer Palmiotto and Tucker Burr filed the appeal to the zoning board decision January 4 in Superior Court in Keene.  Through their lawyer, Geoffrey J. Ransom of Concord, they are arguing that the requirements for a special exception to zoning were not satisfied and that Walpole’s Well Source Protection Ordinance prohibits any industrial use that involves on-site handling, storage or recycling of hazardous materials in the well source protection district.

            “We are not so much opposed to Chamberlain,” said attorney Ransom last Friday, “as we think the zoning board failed to follow their own procedures and the provisions of the Well Source Protection District.”

            Petitioner Palmiotto, Lead Staff Officer and a Source Water Protection Specialist for the Granite State Rural Water Association, had voiced her opposition to the special exception during the hearings last fall and noted that she had worked closely with the town of Walpole in 2002 to develop its drinking water protection plan. She is proceeding as an appellant in her individual capacity.

            Chamberlain Machine, a family business established in the 1940s in Bellows Falls VT, employs 50 people who manufacture high quality precision-machined products, including pumps of all kinds and other metal pieces.  While it uses solvents, lubricants and coolants of several kinds, company officers have maintained all along that they are not toxic.  The company needs to expand its plant and has no room to grow at its current site.

            The Walpole Planning Board recommended to the Zoning Board of Adjustment that it grant Chamberlain a special exception to 12.15 acres of the 34 acres parcel off Rt. 12 behind Diamond Pizza to build a new 42,000 square foot manufacturing facility.  The land is currently zoned rural agricultural, and Walpole voters turned down a warrant article in March 2007 to rezone it industrial.  Almost all of the 12 acres in question are in the well source protection district that secures the town’s “river well” that serves 922 residents and businesses in Walpole.

            As rezoning and zoning variances seemed out of the question for Chamberlain’s desired move, they sought a special exception to the zoning.  To get such an exception, Chamberlain had to persuade the planning and zoning boards that other property currently zoned for industrial or manufacturing operations was either unavailable or inadequate for their use and that their intended use was appropriate and consistent with the town’s Master Plan.  Further, they had to show, according to the ordinance, that their use would not cause any “undue hazard to health, safety or property values or which could be offensive to the public because of noise, vibration, excessive traffic, unsanitary conditions, noxious odor, smoke or other similar reason.” 

            Even if Chamberlain persuaded the boards that they met those conditions, they faced another hurdle: the town Well Source Protection Ordinance.  That ordinance allows a Conditional Use Permit to enable a company to operate in the well source protection district only if it does not involve the handling, disposal, storage, processing or recycling of hazardous or toxic materials.  And that ordinance defines “hazardous or toxic materials” as those which pose a “present or potential hazard” to human health or the environment, an even higher barrier to approval than those in the zoning ordinance.

            The appellants are arguing that the zoning board failed to require Chamberlain to meet the requirements of the ordinances before granting the special exception and that its granting of the exception was, therefore, “unreasonable and unlawfully determined.”

            “The ZBA meeting minutes reveal,” argues the appellants’ filing, “that on balance, the Planning Board and the ZBA gave more weight to the potential for increased tax revenue and potential jobs than carefully considering the water quality concerns raised by the Town of Walpole Conservation Commission, the Granite State Rural Water Association and the individual members who spoke in favor of reducing risks to the Town’s unique and precious water supply located beneath the subject property.”

            Appellants are asking the Superior Court to rule the zoning board’s decisions unlawful and to send the matter back to the zoning board for a redetermination of the application for special exception.  The town will have an opportunity to file its written arguments supporting the zoning board’s decision and possibly ask for an opportunity to argue its views in open court.

                                                --30--

TriVillage Energy Offers Screening of “The Story Of Stuff”

Stuff. Where does it come from? Where does it go? What is the impact?

Actually, there’s a whole lot more to the answers to these questions than we might imagine. And when you think about it, do we ever stop to imagine??

The producers of “The Story of Stuff” did.

“The Story of Stuff” is an entertaining 20 minute video sweeping the internet that takes a hard look at these questions and their answers. It traces the “materials economy” from extraction, to production, distribution, consumption, and finally, disposal.

It’s a system that assumes there is an unlimited amount of raw materials from which to make stuff. The system also assumes there is an unlimited area into which we can toss the used items that we no longer want. In fact, though, (at least at the moment) we have just this one planet from which to harvest resources. Many experts are warning that we are beginning to reach a point of diminishing returns in our efforts to extract raw materials. And at the other end of the system, as Gertrude Stein said, “Away has gone away. You used to be able to throw things away. Now there is no away.”

And what’s even more interesting, many experts are now also saying that the part in between, the endless buying, using (often briefly), and throwing out, is not making us happy. Go figure – the richest nation on earth, our people able to buy more stuff than other people can imagine, and we’re less happy than people in some of the countries you couldn’t pay us to live in. Huh.

Maybe it is a good idea to give it all a little more thought.

TriVillage Energy will be offering a free public screening of “The Story of Stuff” on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 10:30 am in the Walpole Village Library. TriVillage Energy, a group recognized by the Selectmen, serves Drewsville, North Walpole, and Walpole. The group works to help the entire town -- individuals, businesses, schools, and government -- save energy, reducing both our dependence on non-renewable (often foreign) fossil fuels and our greenhouse gas emissions. For more information on TriVillage Energy or the screening of “The Story of Stuff,” phone Fritze Till at 445-5283 or email Jill Robinson at info@trivillageenergy.org.

1-24-08

Openings for Walpole Town Offices

By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer

            After five terms as selectman in Walpole, Charles D. “Chick” Miller is retiring in March and making way for a new selectman. As of Thursday, however, no candidate had stepped forward to file for election to his selectman slot.

            Ernie Vose, the two-term town moderator, on the other hand, has announced that he is seeking another two-year term.

            One-year terms expire for the town treasurer, Myra Mansouri, and the North Walpole Tax Collector, Teresa Kissell.  Both have announced that they intend to run again.

            Supervisor of the Checklist, Cynthia Westover, ends her six-year term, and she intends to seek another term.

            Two Walpole Planning board members, David DeCoste and Henry Fletcher, are reaching the end of their three-year terms, and each intends to seek another term.

            Zoning Board of Adjustment terms for Jan Galloway-Leclerc (three-year term) and Lucy Weber (one-year remaining) are ending.  Galloway-Leclerc has announced that, after beginning as an alternate on the board, she has served “three or four three-year terms” and does not intend to run for another one.  David Calhoun is running for the remaining one year on Weber’s term.

            Dan Schwenk’s term as Trustee of Trust Funds is ending, and he has announced that he intends to seek another three-year term.

            Three Walpole Town Library Trustees’ three-year terms end in March, those of Joe Beer, Kate Nerrie, and Shirley Capron, and each expects to run again.

            Cemetery Trustee Connie Adams’ three-year term ends in March, and she is running for another term.

            Candidates may file for these offices at the town clerk’s office Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays through January 31, and on Friday, February 1 between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.  For further information they should contact Sandy Smith, Town Clerk, at 756-3514.

                                                            --30--

1-24-08

Berkshire Withdraws Appeal in Walpole Suit

By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer

            Berkshire Development’s years long effort to develop a triangle of land south of Walpole’s South Meadow Plaza took another surprising turn last week when the Springfield, Massachusetts based developer withdrew a legal appeal the day before filing its brief in the Superior Court in Keene.

            The case had challenged the way the town had voted in March 2007 to make it clearer that new commercial buildings were limited to 40,000 square feet. In his letter withdrawing Berkshire’s appeal, attorney Thomas R. Hanna said, “My clients’ withdrawal of this appeal does not relate to the analysis of the merits.  Rather, Berkshire is determined to work cooperatively with the town on development that will benefit both the town and the developer.”

            In the shifting battle over the wording and meaning of Walpole’ zoning ordinance, the town’s Planning Board voted in May 2006 to interpret the language as preventing the building of any new structure in the commercial zone that exceeded 40,000 square feet.  The language had been ambiguous in the minds of many, and Berkshire, wanting to build a large commercial mall-type building on the site, had interpreted the language to mean that there were no limits on the size of the building.  Instead, Berkshire argued that the ordinance language merely prevented any single “establishment” or business inside such a large building from being more than 40,000 square feet.

            As if to emphasize the Planning Committee’s 2006 ruling, the town voted in March 2007 to rewrite the language to make it even clearer that the 40,000 wording applied to the overall size of the building—not the businesses inside of it. 

            But then it got complicated.  The warrant article sought to change the language in two sections of the zoning ordinance—commercial and rural agricultural—in a single warrant article.  The warrant article passed at the Town Meeting, but Berkshire Development, still hoping to move ahead with a large, mall-type building on their land, appealed to the board of selectmen to throw out the vote and to separate it into two questions, one each for the commercial zone and the rural agricultural zone.

            Berkshire, through its attorney, had argued that lumping the language change together for both zones deprived voters of voting for the change in one zone and not the other, contrary to state law that requires only one subject per warrant article.  Walpole selectmen saw the change in language as the identical issue in both zones and affirmed the town’s vote in a special town meeting in May 2007.  Berkshire appealed to the Superior Court in Keene.

            Over the summer counsel for both sides met with the judge, agreed on a schedule for filing legal arguments in December and eventually extended the deadline for the filing of written arguments to January 15, 2008.

            Last Monday, January 14, Berkshire development counsel Thomas R. Hanna of Keene informed Walpole counsel Jeremy Hockensmith, also of Keene, that his client was withdrawing the appeal and not filing the brief after all. 

                                                --30--

TOWN OF WALPOLE

MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN

JANUARY 10, 2008

Selectmen Present:     Charles Miller, Sheldon Sawyer, Whitney Aldrich

PUBLIC BUSINESS:

NORTH WALPOLE RESIDENTS – PEARL STREET:  Shirley Capron and Nancy French, residents on Pearl Street, discussed the Town’s recent decision to discontinue plowing the Pearl Street loop.  Shirley Capron stated that the Town took care of the road for as long as she can remember.  Her mother always said that Charlie Wright had given the street to the Town many years ago; probably in 1948.  Upon doing research, Jim Terrell discovered that this did not include the loop.  There was discussion relative to the Town accepting the road through dedication and then going to the voters for acceptance but this would require a right-of-way from the property owners stating that the Town would not be liable if any damage occurred from plowing and bringing the loop up to standards.  Shirley Capron will contact the other two property owners on the loop to discuss their options and get back to the Board of Selectmen.         

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Accounts Payable check register and manifest in the amount of $72,487.46.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

PAYROLL:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the payroll voucher for the week ending January 5, 2008, for gross wages in the amount of $21,878.21 or net wages in the amount of $12,339.02.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the electronic fund transfer for the Withholding, MEDI and FICA taxes in the amount of $5,541.23.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

MINUTES –SELECTMEN’S MEETING- JANUARY 03, 2008:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the Minutes of the Board of Selectmen’s meeting of January 03, 2008, with the following addition of a Building Permit.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

Building Permit – John and Suzanne Hodgkins – Map 007-007-000:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve Building Permit No. 2008-01 for John and Suzanne Hodgkins to construct a shed.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

DEPARTMENT / COMMITTEE REPORTS:

The Board of Selectmen received and reviewed the Minutes of the North Walpole Village Board of Commissioners meetings of January 03, and January 08, 2008. 

OLD BUSINESS:

RECYCLE – BAG PRICE:  The Board of Selectmen discussed raising the price for recycling bags from $1.50 to $2.00.

Mr. Miller moved that Mr. Aldrich contact George Watson and Rick Cooper about their recommendation for a $.50/per bag increase.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

Board of Selectmen Meeting – January 10, 2008 – Page 2

FURNACE DOWN STAIRS – MARK HOUGHTON’S REPORT:  Relative to the question of the two furnaces down stairs in the Town Hall, Mark Houghton is going to put one in the old town garage; Jim Terrell agrees with this decision.

Mr. Sawyer moved to sell one of the furnaces, as is, on a “first-come first-sell” basis for the amount of $500.00.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.  

NEW BUSINESS:

TOWN MEETING AT WALPOLE SCHOOL, SATURDAY, MARCH 15, 2008:  Elaine Moore reported that arrangements have been made to use the Walpole School for the Town Meeting on Saturday, March 15, 2008.

Mr. Aldrich moved that the Town Meeting will be held at the Walpole School on Saturday, March 15th, 2008, starting at 1:00 PM.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

STATE OF NH – FOREST FIRE WARDEN:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the appointment of William E. Houghton as the Forest Fire Warden for the year 2008.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

DRA – EQUALIZATION MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT DATA SHEETS:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve and sign the 2007 Equalization Municipal Assessment Data Sheets for the Department of Revenue Administration.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

PERSONAL DAY – ELAINE MOORE:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve having Elaine Moore take one day off next week as a Personal Day.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN’S REPORT FOR THE TOWN REPORT:  Mr. Miller is working on the Board of Selectmen’s report for the Annual Town Report.  Topics to be covered were noted.

Mr. Sawyer moved to adjourn this meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.  The time was 8:58 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Regina Borden, Recording Secretary

PLANNING BOARD MEETING                  January 8, 2008 at 7:30pm

MINUTES

Presiding:  Jeff Miller, Ch.

Members Present:  Bob Miller, V-Ch., Eric Merklein, Charles Miller, BOS, Bennett Daviss, David DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Shane O’Keefe, alt., Jeff White, alt.

(Fred Dill was present in the audience, but not as an alternate member)

Recording:  Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the Feb. 12, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections.  There were 20 persons in the audience.

I.            Meeting opened at 7:35pm

            A.  All regular members were present, no alternates designated.

            B.  Minutes of 11/13/07 and 12/11/07 were approved as presented.

II.        Close Meeting/Open Public Hearing on seventh proposed Zoning Amendment for 2008 Town vote. 

Chairman Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing on amendment #7 adding the following new provision to:

Article VI - Commercial District E.  Land Standards:  “Undeveloped Open Space Standards:  Not less than thirty (30%) of the entire lot to be developed shall be retained as “undeveloped” open space, unencumbered by buildings, parking lots, accessory structures, other impervious surfaces or other manmade improvements except those improvements that protect natural features and/or support undeveloped open space that can be used for lawns, gardens, landscaping, and human recreation.  Said undeveloped open space may include setback areas as defined I the zoning ordinance for each zoning district.”  Purpose is to match the exact wording as appears in the Site Plan Review regulations to create a balance of Undeveloped Open Space in the Commercial District.

            Chairman Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing at 7:40pm and asked Mr. Merklein to present the explanation. 

            Mr. Merklein said the presentation of the amendment is based on a recommendation by legal council from the Local Gov’t Center’s attorney when the Board queried whether it should be put in the Site Plan Review regs or the Zoning Ordinance.  The Board did adopt the exact wording and placed it in the Site Plan Review regulations in April of 2007 but with the intention of eventually placing it in the Zoning Ordinance.  The attorney suggested it was appropriate in the Site Plan regs but would be undeniably enforceable in the Zoning Ordinance unless a variance was granted.  Mr. Merklein explained placing it in the Site Plan Review regs was only a stopgap measure until it could be added to the Zoning Ordinance within the following year.  He said it is exactly the same amount of allowable open space that was approved by the Town regarding multi-family dwellings.  He thought the voters would support the same amount for commercial developments.  He said it fits in with the Master Plan and recent survey.  He thought if left in the Site Plan regs it would be more legally challengeable than it would be in the Zoning Ordinance.

            Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman commented saying he thought the amendment as proposed would seriously limit incoming businesses that might be good for the Town’s economic base.  He sited Burdick’s reuse of a building, Fall Mountain Building Supply and Bensonwood.  He thought it would lower the value of commercial land in the Town by restricting 30% of the land as un-useable.  He thought the way it is being addressed in the Site Plan regs and at the discretion of the Planning Board was far better than placing the discretion by variance through the Zoning Board.  He did not think the past policy was not working.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/8/08 page 2 

Mr. Merklein disagreed that creating open space devalues land, instead increases the value by adding to aesthetically pleasing development plus narrows the amount of developable land, which causes an increase in prices for the remaining land.  He said a developer can come in for a variance by proving economic hardship at the Zoning Board, he didn’t believe it would stop any development.

            Mr. O’Keefe asked if there was an inventory of available commercial space to determine whether 30% was a figure based on availability.  He asked where the 30% came from.  Mr. Merklein said there was not an inventory, the 30% came about from the multifamily restriction, trying to parallel that requirement.  He said it was to prevent sprawl and building after building without buffers.  He said the same wording appears in the Site Plan Review regs.   The idea was to put it in the Zoning Ordinance so it would be less likely to be challenged legally. 

            Mr. Sawyer thought the value of a 10 acre parcel minus 3 acres would lower the value of the property, even in terms of farming if he had to reduce a crop by 3 acres.

            Mr. Fletcher asked what was considered a setback?  Answer was whatever setback is required within the zone.  The setbacks were added during deliberations on the wording for the Site Plan regs and thought to be a fair approach.  Ch. Miller re-read the wording. 

            Ms. Susan Steisel asked if agricultural uses would fall under this restriction?  Answer was no, only commercial operations in the commercial district/land.

            Mr. Mel Shupack noted the operations Mr. Sawyer mentioned are existing and would be grandfathered.  He said there is a great deal of concern in Town for avoiding the commercial sprawl issue, he thought it was better to clarify the restriction in the Zoning Ordinance.

            Mr. Jeff White agreed with it being placed in the Zoning Ordinance.

            Mr. Eric Merklein said 30% sounds large but including the setbacks and other uses it shrinks the limited area.

            Mr. Don Lansbury asked if septic systems would be excluded or included in the 30% open space.  Ch. Miller answered most, if not all available commercial lands are served by Town water and sewer so it may not be a concern.

            Mr. Ben Daviss reminded in the recent survey, persons ranked land preservation and land conservation more highly than commercial or industrial development.  He thought Mr. Merklein’s proposed amendment expressed the wishes of the Town.

III.       Close Public Hearing/Re-open Meeting - Action on amendment #7:  Approve - Disapprove- Edit, hold a second hearing.  Recommend or Not Recommend.

Ch. Miller called for further comments, being none, closed the Public Hearing (7:55pm) and re-opened the meeting.  He explained even though the Planning Board was submitting the amendment the Board was required to vote to recommend passing it to the Town or not recommend passing it.  He called for a motion to recommend or not recommend this article as it appears on the warrant.  Mr. Ben Daviss moved to recommend.  Seconded by Mr. Merklein.

Further discussion:  Mr. Dave DeCoste asked what number amendment would it be?  Answer was #7.  Ch. Miller said his main concern about the intent of the amendment is if the Board decides to pass it, is that he thinks because it already exists in the Site Plan Review regs it’s enough and because the amount of commercial land is very limited, each situation may have special circumstances that flexibility in the Site Plan Review regs would be better able to address without having an exact restriction if placed in the Zoning Ordinance.  He doesn’t agree it is appropriate to create an amendment that may cause persons to seek a variance they should not be given out easily.  He said he doubts a variance could be granted especially given the very limited amount of commercial land.  He disagreed the Town would be open to lawsuits and disagrees the

Planning Board would not uphold the Site Plan provision as it is written now.  He hoped the

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/8/08 page 3

Board would not favorably recommend the amendment like it had been voted down last month and to keep the provision in the Site Plan where it belongs. 

Mr. Merklein said SWRPC commented on the fact that for the population Walpole has a larger commercial and industrial district than other Towns in the region.  He said yes it does make it harder for a developer but it is good planning for the Town.  Ch. Miller said he thought the Planning Board has a reasonable amount of control over open space with the restriction in the Site Plan and feels the Board would uphold it in most circumstances but has the ability to meet the needs of property owners and the Town.  He still thinks it is unnecessary in the Zoning Ordinance.  He said the Board has flexibility to reduce it to 25% but an applicant must submit their proposal based on the 30% requirement and prove to the Planning Board why they would need a reduction.  It would be up to the Planning Board to decide, not the Zoning Board.  He thinks the Planning Board has better ability to decide design issues rather than the Zoning Board.

Mr. DeCoste asked how much harder would it be to seek a variance vs. a waiver in the Site Plan?  Mr. Merklein said the ZBA has set criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance.  Mr. DeCoste said the Planning Board can also ask for set criteria in granting a waiver, so it could be just as hard as proving variance criteria.  Mr. Merklein disagreed saying the ZBA criteria is more difficult but the Planning Board is more discretionary.  Mr. DeCoste and Ch. Miller thought the Planning Board could be just as stringent in its review.  Ch. Miller said the Planning Board had the ability in the Site Plan Review to determine an adequate amount of open space up to 30% to be able to work with each site individually rather than having a set 30% in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. O’Keefe asked to clarify where it appears in the Site Plan?  Sec. Aslinger located it on page 9.  General Standards. He asked as of now it only appears in the Site Plan Review Regulations?  Answer was yes.

Ms. Aslinger offered a comment on behalf of ZBA Ch. Mansouri who was not present but had expressed concern over the amendment appearing in the Zoning Ordinance.  She does not agree a person applying for a variance would automatically receive one based on the very restrictive criteria they would have to meet.  Ms. Aslinger thought economic hardship would not be an acceptable reason for granting a variance as it would run with the land.  She said if a developer came in and wanted to seek a variance for the Undeveloped Open Space they would not be able to ask for a portion less than 30%, the variance would be granted on the full amount thereby leaving the Town and Planning Board with much less or no open space than if it were addressed under the Site Plan regs.  She said having the provision in the Site Plan regs gives the Planning Board the flexibility to work with the developer.  Another concern is on a large parcel 30% would not be monumental but on a one acre lot it could be prohibitive.  She thought the amendment could be reconsidered at another time but should take into account that the 30% figure might be deemed unreasonable. 

Mr. Bob Miller asked if the Board was comfortable with the possibility that only setback requirements would be adhered to with the rest of the property developed?  Members thought the Site Plan regs offered many other restrictions such as parking lot standards, landscaping and buffering etc. plus the 30% open space.

Ch. Miller thought variances have been granted in the past fairly easily if there is a sympathy factor vs. an economic hardship unless it is because of the land.  He thought it would be hard to prove enough money couldn’t be made by taking away 30% of the land questioning whether it is viable reasoning for seeking a variance.

He restated the motion to recommend the amendment as proposed and called for a vote.  1 was in favor, 6 were against.  Motion failed. 

Ch. Miller noted in order to move the question in the affirmative another motion to not recommend the passing of the amendment would need to be made.  Mr. Dave Decoste moved to not recommend the amendment #7.  Seconded by Henry Fletcher.  Mr. O’Keefe asked to

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 4

clarify the motion?  Ch. Miller said #7 would appear before the voters but it would state whether the Planning Board recommended it or not, so a motion needed to be made in the affirmative.  Ch. Miller called for the vote, 6 were in favor, 1 opposed, motion carried.   Ch. Miller said the amendment would appear as #7 on the warrant for March.

Sec. Aslinger asked the Board if they would authorize her to have Town legal counsel review the 7 amendments for legality in order to avoid challenges to them after the Town vote?  She said the building vs. establishment article from 2007 was being challenged because of how it was worded. 

Selectmen Sawyer questioned why the Board would vote not  to recommend amendment #7 and whether the Board had voted to approve it to be put on the warrant?  Members stated it had been approved at the last meeting and it was proper for the Board to recommend or not recommend an article. (Note:  Ch. Miller and Sec. Aslinger determined after the meeting by reviewing the prior minutes that a vote to approve #7 for placement on the warrant was not made, therefore amendment #7 will not appear on the warrant for 2008 due to a procedural error.)

Sec. Aslinger restated her request to have legal counsel review the final abbreviated version for the warrant to avoid legal challenge.  Ch. Miller said because the amendments were already clear and straightforward he does not think it is necessary to have legal counsel review them.  Sec. Aslinger said she would make sure the Board members had copies of the amendments prior to placing them on the warrant.  Mr. Daviss cautioned any substantial changes would require an additional public hearing and the deadline would be past.

IV.       Old Business

            A.  Walpole D & D, LLC - Update on conditions pending.

Ch. Miller announced receipt of a road approval agreement, a sign off from the Road Agent, except for a Spring inspection, resulting in delaying signing of the final plat.  Sec. Aslinger provided copies of  Road Agent Jim Terrell’s sign off letter. 

            Mr. Daviss asked if the Board set the requirements for the road specs or did Mr. Terrell?  Ch. Miller answered the Board did not specify specs but relied on Mr. Terrell to set them according to the Town’s needs.  Mr. Dill verified the agreement, saying he and Mr. Terrell verbally agreed and put the specs on paper.  Selectman Sawyer asked if the Planning Board overruled the Selectboard on how Class V roads are done?  Ch. Miller said no but the Board had placed a condition on the approval based on the Road Agent’s needs to bring the road up to a better quality according to the Town’s specs in order to service the additional lots.  Mr. Sawyer asked if it included input from the BOS?  Ch. Miller said he assumed it would, they would be working together for the Town.  Ch. Miller said the Board’s request for a performance bond was to insure the work was done, however the work got done without it.  Mr. Sawyer said the Subdivision Regulations state a bond is not required on a Town improved road, so they felt it was not necessary.  Ch. Miller said a condition of approval was to provide the bond and the applicant had  agreed.  Mr. Sawyer said that was wrong according to the regulations.  Ch. Miller said it was needed to insure the work was done and the Board had asked for it in the past referring to the Sand Hill subdivision.  Mr. Sawyer disagreed saying he couldn’t remember ever asking for a bond on a Class V road only on newly laid out road.  Ch. Miller said it was appropriate for the Board to ask for the bond to insure the work was started and completed, if something was left undone the Town would not have to pay for it.  He said in this case the work was done so far to the Road Agent’s satisfaction but it might not be the case in the future with another developer.  Mr. Sawyer argued the Board did not have the right to ask for it based on it’s regulations, asking if the Board had read the regulations, asking if they were ignoring it.  Ch. Miller said the Board wasn’t ignoring the regulations and felt they were within their authority to ask for it to insure the

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 5

work was done.  He said despite the lack of performance bond the work has been done with the exception of final approval in the Spring.

Mr. Dill clarified one other point, the Board had not given final approval of the plans, so the Board has the power to withdraw its approval.  He did not think they had done something without that in consideration.  Ch. Miller agreed, saying the conditions were not addressed the way he thought they would be.  He said the work got done to the specifications required by the Road Agent.

            Mr. Merklein asked about the letter from the BOS stating why they did not require the performance bond based on the Sub. Reg. “N.” disallowing bonding on existing Town roads.  He asked if all lots fronted on a Town improved road?   Answer was yes, either on Hooper, Wentworth or Old Keene roads.  He voiced his concern over the BOS power to go against a Planning Board condition for posting of the bond.

            Ms. Susanne Steisel an abutter asked if the performance bond was required, yes or no?  Ch. Miller said yes although the Selectboard said no.  He said the rationale for the bond was to make sure the work was done according to the Town road agent’s specs, the work has been done pending a Spring inspection so the bond would have been released anyway.  She asked about future developers, how would the Board be able to enforce bond posting in the future.  Ch. Miller said the Board would address future applications as they appeared.  Ms. Steisel asked about the drainage plans?

            Mrs. Krystyna Marcom an audience member asked if the Board had required a performance bond and the applicant agreed to it but the Selectboard didn’t think it washed, who is right?  Ch. Miller said the roadwork was done and updated at no cost to the Town, thereby meeting the condition.  She stressed the importance of having the Planning Board’s approvals upheld. 

            Sec. Aslinger noted Walpole D & D, LLC had submitted a written formal request for waiver of the performance bond (on file) due to the Subdivision Regulation “N.” disallowing a bond on an improved Town road.  She said while it was after the fact, having it voted on and agreed to would prevent setting a precedence on future developments that may involve a similar situation and the regulations do allow for waivers by the Board.  She read the letter into the record, (each member was mailed a copy prior to the meeting).  Mr. O’Keefe asked if the warning procedure for the public was proper for the Board to reconsider a condition.  Ch. Miller said it appeared on the agenda and it was properly posted.  Mr. O’Keefe asked if the abutters had not been notified and if it hasn’t been properly warned the applicant can be adversely affected.  Ch. Miller said as long as it appears on the agenda, the public and abutters are properly warned.

            Mr. Daviss asked if the Board agreed to waive the condition, does the Board need to site a specific reason besides the applicant simply requesting it?  Ch. Miller said yes, there should be rationale. 

            Mr. Dill asked if his daughter Attny. Cynthia Dill representing him could speak.

Ch. Miller agreed to have her speak.  Ms. Dill said the reasoning would be because the Subdivision Regulations General Requirements “N.” does not require bond posting on a Town improved road.

            Mr. DeCoste said whether it is in the regulations or not, the Board made the request and it was agreed to by D & D.  For whatever reason instead of coming back to the Planning Board, they went to the Selectboard who incorrectly waived the bond based on how they perceived the situation.  He said the problem lies in the fact D & D should have come back to the Planning Board to have the condition addressed, instead the Board did not know about the BOS action and the road was done without a bond.  Again he didn’t think anything was done intentionally, but the procedure was not adhered to and it made it very difficult on the Planning Board because the Selectboard had given D & D approval not to post a bond without the Board’s input on a condition it had placed on an approval. 

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 6           

Ms. Dill said looking at it from fresh eyes and re-reading the condition it appeared the Road Agent didn’t require a bond.  Mr. DeCoste said except D & D agreed to it and the Board placed it on as a condition.  She thought it might have been a misunderstanding but if the Board was looking for a reason to grant the waiver they could use the regulations not requiring it and the road agent not requiring it.  Mr. Dill thought the waiver set a procedure to insure future applicants did not fall under a set precedence.

            Selectman Sawyer asked if the Board was going to change the regulations, he read the regulation stating no bond required on an existing improved Town road.  He thought the Board wasn’t aware of the regulation and set a bond anyway.  Mr. DeCoste asked Mr. Dill if he agreed to posting the bond, Mr. Dill said yes.  Mr. Sawyer argued the BOS sets the amount and decided not to set one at all based on the Subdivision Regulations.

            Ch. Miller said the procedure was wrong, D & D should have come back to the Planning Board to request waiver of the condition, not the Selectboard.  They have no authority to waive a condition set by the Planning Board and the Board should not have found out about it by driving by to see the road was already done.  He said it is not going through the proper channels and all are elected officials of the Town to uphold decisions.  The Board had an agreement with the developer the process would have been taken care of if it had gone through the Planning Board.

            Ms. Aslinger added the regulations provide for the Board to protect the health, safety and welfare of the Town.  In this case where a project is proposed on a road that is barely improved and as the Road Agent stated in the minutes only up to the standard to maintain the traffic for two houses, when the developer came in with 8 or 10 houses it created more traffic and the road was not able to handle it.  That is the reasoning behind having the developer pay for the improvements and to post a bond to insure the work was done to the Road Agents specs.  The Planning Board knew the regulations exempted bond posting on a Town road, but because the road was in such poor condition the Board had the right to impose the condition.  Mr. Sawyer disagreed.

            Mr. Daviss asked if Town Counsel should be consulted?  Ch. Miller said in order to go forward and prevent future problems, waiving the bond requirement based on a technicality that the work had been done and the regulations exempt bond posting on lots that front on an improved Town road would be adequate reasoning.

            Mr. Daviss said he would like the record to show it does not set a precedent that someone can come in with a waiver after the fact because it has already happened without a condition being met.  He said rather the waiver in this case was considered because this is a unique set of circumstances coming together at a certain time, not to set a precedence for someone in the future to ask for a waiver after the condition has been set.          

            Mr. DeCoste said with Mr. Daviss’ s comments on the record, he moved to grant the waiver.  Mr. Fletcher seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.

            Mr. Bob Miller regarding the performance bond issue asked Mr. Sawyer to look at “N.” stating “an improved Town road”, he asked if he thought Hooper Road was actually an existing “improved” Town road before the Board asked D & D to bring it up to Class V standards?  Mr. Sawyer said it is a Class V road that had some improvement on it in the past, the work done did not come out the way they wanted it to but it is a Class V road.  He said the regulations require 250 ft. of frontage on Class V roads in order to subdivide, so it qualifies.  Mr. Miller asked if it meets the Class V standards.  Mr. Sawyer said there are a lot of roads in Town that do not meet the standards for newly built Class V roads, the Old Drewsville Road is an example, Carpenter, Whipple Hill.  He said even with substantial improvements made by the Town, they wouldn’t meet the specs for someone building a new road.

            Mrs. Marcom asked if infact Hooper road was improved enough for 12 house lots?  Mr. Sawyer answered yes according to what the Road agent and D & D agreed to. 

To determine Condition #1:  Ch. Miller asked if all were in agreement that the first condition has been met pending a Spring inspection by the Road agent?  Answer was yes.

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 7

To determine Condition #2:  Ch. Miller asked for the Stormwater Drainage plan requested in condition #2.  Mr. Warren Stevens provided additional copies of the plan showing existing conditions. Sec. Aslinger had received a copy prior.  Mr. Stevens said they showed existing paths, three primary culverts across Hooper Rd.  No changes are proposed for any of the drainage, the culverts are all new plastic pvc, they did replace one, all are 15” culverts.  He showed the direction of the drainage.  He said existing lot with house has no changes, water from that lot drains onto lot 4 through a culvert on the westerly side, across 5 to a brook.  Lot 2 and 5 have a wetlands, they outlet across the road, the subdivision is not impacting the wetland and houses would be sited to the west of the wetlands.  Once a house is sited, they will have to conform to the Town’s regulations for drainage.   Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 will not have a need for a culvert to access the lots except lot 6.  He said it was hard to do a drainage plan when they weren’t developing the lots.  He questioned the requirement in the regulations.  He said they do them on site plans, but not on subdivision unless a new road is involved.  Mr. DeCoste asked if the Road Agent was aware of the culverts, answer was yes.

            Mr. Daviss referred to the regulations under “K.” reading it asked how the condition was being met under the requirement.  Mr. Dill thought it pertained only to building a new road.  Mr. Daviss said roads were not mentioned in the requirement.  Ms. Aslinger thought it was to prevent site grading from creating run-off onto abutting properties similar to what happened to Mr. Steisel’s property when a neighbor built a house and her property was badly affected.  She added mentioned in the State Planning Board handbook even though a developer isn’t planning to build on the lots the Board cannot ignore they are created to build houses on.  In order to protect everyone this type of plan indicating existing and potential changes must show the entire subdivision can support 8 - 12 new sites before they are built.  She said the current plans show only what’s existing and asked if any of the lots would not support a house or would create a drainage problem?

Mr. Stevens said all of the lots could support a house site and mentioned that EPA has further requirements to be met once a site is disturbed, adding an additional review to protect abutting properties.  He thought it triggered at 40K sq. feet.  They would need to file a stormwater plan at that time.  Ms. Steisel asked if someone began building a house on one of the lots would the abutters be notified?  Answer was no but the owner would need to file with the EPA once they applied for a building permit.  Mr. Stevens said the permit would be filed on the site once a contractor or engineer is ready to do the site work.  He said they are currently waiting on State subdivision approval on a couple of the lots, but due to weather they are not able to reset the markers.

Ms. Aslinger said she was satisfied Mr. Stevens had addressed whether each lot could support a building site without creating a stormwater drainage issue on abutting properties.  Mr. Daviss said the regulation leaves the developer responsible for any stormwater drainage problems affecting abutting properties by obtaining easements.  He questioned whether D & D was aware of the liability when the houses are built, 10 - 12 lots of 40,000 sq. feet each is a large amount of disturbed surface drainage.  Mr. Dill said it was impossible to make a provision for every situation it’s better to rely on some people to use better judgment and to be able to give and take.  He pointed to the 25 year old subdivision in the area, how it is still being built on with success.  Mr. Daviss said his concern was how the Board can apply the regulation properly.  Mr. Dill said sometimes the regulations are difficult to apply to every situation.  Attorney Dill suggested the Board decide based on whether they met the terms outlined in the condition.

To determine Condition #3:  Ch. Miller moved on to Condition #3 regarding the deed restrictions, members were mailed copies of the deed restrictions submitted by D & D.  Sec. Aslinger read the condition - “approval of submitted plans to increase recharge, conservation and water recapture drainage as recommended in the Weston Sampson report and criteria”.  She said

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 8

Weston Sampson report asked for all plumbing fixtures and appliances shall be in high efficiency and low flow, any swimming pools installed on any lot cannot be filled from onsite wells, the irrigated area on any lot cannot exceed 2.5 acres.  She said D & D deed restrictions do include the recommendations.  Ch. Miller read from the Weston Sampson report page 5 about the plumbing fixtures, swimming pools and irrigation.  Roof drains to be directed to separate leachfields, drainage swails installed to induce recapture and install a separate non-pumping bedrock well to monitor ambient groundwater levels in the area. 

Mr. Daviss asked if the deed shows all restrictions mentioned?   Answer was not all.  Mr. DeCoste said the recharging was not addressed.  Ch. Miller asked if they were going to include the other three criteria.  Mr. Dill said they did not know how to address them since they weren’t doing the building.  Ch. Miller said he thought a general statement could be added to the deed restrictions.  He thought the recommendations were very important.  Mr. Stevens said most of the water usage once a house is built would go back into the ground.  Ch. Miller agreed but thought because of the sensitivity of the area, a general comment to increase recharge was highly recommended and should be incorporated into the deed restrictions.  Mr. Daviss asked if all were incorporated?  Answer was not the non-pumping well.  Ch. Miller said the monitoring well was talked about but he did not think it was going to be helpful.  Mr. Dill questioned who would monitor it and one of the reasons they went from 13 lots to 8 to address the water issue.  He questioned what it would yield for information.  Members thought the well would give a trend for use up or down and the Town water department could monitor it.  Ms. Steisel asked if the purpose of the monitoring well would show if the water goes down after the subdivision, would the Town bring water up to the area?  Ch. Miller said no it is a separate issue.  He questioned whether the information would be useful.  He thought the restrictions protect future buyers so they are aware of the water issue, unlike many people who have recently built on Wentworth Rd.  Mr. Daviss thought the purpose would be for an early warning system so water could be brought up although he wasn’t insisting Mr. Dill provide the well.  Ms. Aslinger read from the minutes of the power point presentation meeting where Mr. Goetz mentioned an ambient well could be used to show adequate and seasonal water supply.

Ch. Miller asked to have drainage swails added to the deed restrictions to induce recharge perhaps addressed when the sites are laid out and landscaping plans designed.  He also asked about roof drains. Mr. Dill thought the roof itself acted as a collection surface directing the water back into the ground, members agreed.  Mr. Daviss asked if the condition states everything recommended in the Weston Sampson report the well would be part of it or are they doing it selectively?   Ch. Miller said the condition was for them to provide the deed restrictions it was for the Board to decide if the condition is met so far.  Attny. Dill asked if the Board would accept the exact wording regarding the drainage swails incorporated into the deed restrictions?  Answer was yes.

Selectman Miller asked Mr. Dill if putting something in his deeds to help a buyer if their well goes dry, to protect their investment.  Mr. Dill said he didn’t think persons purchasing a lot would be first time buyers and would thoroughly research it prior to buying it.  Mrs. Marcom asked if the Town would consider bringing water to the area if wells went dry and is the Town liable for not providing water?  Ch. Miller said it was up to the Town, he said many areas in Town have water issues, if for some reason several homes were without water they could approach the Town and see what happens.  Ch. Miller said there is no liability to the Town.  He said there is no protection or requirement by the State that Planning Boards have to guarantee water, there is in Vermont but not in NH at this time.  Mrs. Marcom said any potential buyer would be aware of the water issue because of the discussions at the Planning Board meetings, the record will show the area has water issues. 

Ch. Miller said condition #4 regarding fees has been met.  Condition #5 State subdivision approval is still in process.  He said still pending, is another draft of the deed

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/8/08 page 9

restrictions, asap.  The final signing off on the road by the Road agent after his Spring inspection and State subdivision approval.  The plans cannot be signed until the latter two are complete.  A follow up letter will be sent.

V.         New Business

            A.  Chamberlain Machine - Preliminary Consultation

Mr. Gary Kinyon, Attorney presented an application for the Board’s review at the February meeting.  Mr. Kinyon stated Chris Miller, Scott and Bob Boynton were present.  He submitted two applications, first being Site Plan Review, second a conditional use permit for the Well Source Protection Ordinance.  He reminded the Board about its special exception recommendation and granting of the special exception by the Zoning Board in November.  The site plan application includes 12 pages with extra sets for the Board.  He said the conditional use permit is required because the site is within the well source protection area.  Their thought was to take up both applications together.  Along with the conditional use permit they have included information from Steve Brackett of Brackett Geosciences, a geologist commenting on the standards in the well source protection ordinance as applied to the site and also provided an inventory list of the chemicals used at the present facility in Rockingham that will be similar to the list used at the new site.  Fees were also presented. 

            Mr. Daviss noted the DOT driveway permit described the intersection at Dearborn Circle Rd. as incorrect, assuming it meant Upper Walpole Rd.  All were in agreement.

            Ch. Miller asked if there would be drawings?  Yes, 12 pages.  Members asked if they could have their own copies of the miniature versions prior to the meeting.  Mr. Kinyon said they would have them made and will contact Ms. Aslinger once they are prepared, she will make arrangements to get them to the members.  She asked to have 3 large sets for the files.  Mr. Kinyon will check with SVE, Ms. Aslinger said she would need them prior to 1/28/08 in order to stay within the deadlines. 

            Ch. Miller called for a motion to place the applications on the agenda for the February 12, 2008 meeting and schedule the public hearing, so moved and seconded.

Motion carried.

VI.            Communications and Miscellaneous

            A.  Master Plan Update - Survey Results - Sec. Aslinger handed out copies of the graphs prepared by Mel Schupack.  Ch. Miller announced in order to help the Board stay within its budget, the Secretary will no longer do minutes of the work sessions.  He said if the Board schedules the work sessions, other arrangements would be made.  He said the money left over in the budget for the update of the master plan was rolled over into the general fund.  He said in order to get monies added into the 2008 budget he assigned Ben to contact SWRPC to write a contract showing what the cost will be by 1/10/08 Selectmen’s meeting.  Ben mentioned SWRPC had quoted $3500.00 to provide some extra services to revamp the regulations and master plan.  Ch. Miller thought SWRPC should quote for completion in 2008.  He thought asking them draft the update from suggestions made by a small subcommittee would be best.  Mr. Daviss said the  normal process would be to have SWRPC write a vision statement, set of goals and draft an update of the land use section.  Ch. Miller agreed. Mr. Daviss said the next step would be to hold the public hearings once the draft is prepared.  Ch. Miller thought the Planning Board would review the initial draft and then present it for the public hearing.  Ben will confirm with SWRPC if $1000.00 would cover those services and let the secretary know so it can be presented to the BOS by Thursday evening.  Mr. Sawyer said the BOS has had a difficult time with keeping the taxes down for the Town, they are trying to maintain only a 3% overall increase. 

            Mr. Schupack asked if the work session is scheduled for 1/22/08?  Ch. Miller said yes as long as members agree and without minute taking.  Sec. Aslinger asked if the Master Plan update

Walpole Planning Board Minutes 1/08/08 page 10

items could be added to the regular meeting agenda?  Ch. Miller said he didn’t think it was reasonable because of the meetings being too busy.  Sec. Aslinger said a work session is an official meeting and agenda still needs to be posted and minutes taken.  A member suggested taping the work sessions and storing the tapes.  Mr. Sawyer said what Ms. Aslinger was suggesting to drop the work sessions was because the Zoning and Planning secretary budget has gone from 1500.00 to over 6000.00 for both in just three years.  Sec. Aslinger said infact the Boards’ business has tripled in 3 years resulting in the increase, she offered to put some figures together, Mr. Sawyer asked her not to spend more time doing that.  Sec. Aslinger said half of what she does is on a volunteer basis like all of the members because of her alternate member status and she only bills for the secretarial duties, period.  She said she didn’t like being excluded from doing what is legally and procedurally correct and forcing her to do more volunteer work when the Board’s fees cover it’s budget and can be increased when the budget increases due to its workload. 

            C.  Other - Ch. Miller called for other business:  Mr. O’Keefe said because of the performance bond matter and the subdivision regulations ambiguity he suggested rewriting it to reflect the Board’s preference, in order to prevent future confusion.  Sec. Aslinger asked if he would like to be on a subcommittee to update the entire Subdivision Regulations, bringing them in to conformance with the State RSA requirements.  The Regulations are 20 years old and she would make every effort to see they are completed this year.  Mr. O’Keefe agreed as well as Mr. Daviss and Mr. Merklein.

VII.              Meeting Adjourned 9:45pm.  Work session scheduled for Jan. 22, 2008 at 7PM.

            Next regular meeting February 12, 2008, 7:30pm Town Hall

1-13-08

Board Declines to Back Open Space Warrant Article

By Chuck Bingaman, Contributing Writer

          Walpole’s Planning board voted six to one not to support a proposed zoning ordinance amendment it already agreed to put on the upcoming town meeting warrant that would mandate a set aside of 30% open space for future commercial developments. 

Board member Eric Merklein argued at length for the proposal as necessary strengthening of the current zoning language and for making it it parallel to a provision for open space recently inserted in zoning requirements for multi-family housing developments.

          Board Chair Jeff Miller argued that the current site plan development regulations requiring open space minimums provide ample authority, with necessary flexibility, for the board to maintain reasonable open space.  Further, Miller noted, mandating minimum open space in commercial developments forces developers into variance actions that are costly, time-consuming and inflexible. 

          In the end, only Mr. Merklein voted against a motion not to recommend the proposed amendment.  Selectman Sheldon Sawyer, an observer at the meeting, noted that he saw it as “contradictory to put it on the ballot and then to vote not to recommend it.”

            In other action, the board reviewed Walpole D&D’s compliance with conditions it previously imposed on its proposed 8 lot subdivision between Old Keene and Wentworth Roads.  Despite questions from several in the audience, including at least one abutter, Chairman Miller refused to consider further D&D’s having authorized the work on Hooper Road based on an agreement with the town road agent but not with the full board.  “The work was done according to the town,” Miller repeatedly ruled.

          Miller and other board members were not so willing to drop the ongoing issue about D&D’s requesting and the Select Board’s waiving the performance bond that the planning board had required as a condition to D&D’s repairing Hooper Road.

          Board member Dave DeCoste, expressing frustration previously stated by several board members, said, “The problem was that people should come back here to get a condition changed.  I don’t think the process was adhered to.  They just didn’t come back to us.”  Chairman Miller added “The board shouldn’t have found out about the construction and the bond waiver by driving by the [Hooper] road.” DeCoste pursued the matter by asking Fred Dill of Walpole D&D. “Did you agree to a bond?”  Dill replied, “Yes.”

Selectman Sheldon Sawyer reiterated the select board’s reasoning behind waiving the planning board’s performance bond requirement without consulting the planning board.  He said that the town’s subdivision control regulations require performance bonds except, as in this case, where each lot is “on an existing improved town road.”  When audience members suggested that Hooper Road might not have been an “improved road”, Sawyer replied that the town had previously installed culverts under Hooper Road, had regurgitated it and that “a lot of Walpole Roads are not up to the standards we require for new roads.”

In reviewing other conditions for approval of the proposed development, Walpole D&D engineer Warren Stevens, commenting on the required storm water drainage plan, said it is “tough to do a drainage plan for a subdivision where we’re not building it.  I’ve never done a subdivision storm water drainage plan.”  Mr. Stevens did distribute a map of the property showing existing culverts and ponds.  In related discussion, Mr. Dill, speaking for Walpole D&D, agreed to add to proposed deed restrictions language seeking to insure building practices that will promote conservation ground water recharge.  Dill also agreed to submit a new draft of proposed deed restrictions as soon as possible.

In new business, Chamberlain Machine of Rockingham, VT submitted applications for a site plan approval and for a conditional use permit for its proposed new factory on the Huntington Farm property west of Rt. 12.  The board scheduled a public hearing on the application for its February 12 meeting.

In other new business, Selectman Sawyer noted “we’ve had a tremendous outbreak of concern about the increases in taxes.  We can’t control county taxes or school taxes, but we have decided to do all we can to hold town expense increases to 3%.”  That, he said, would limit how much the planning board could spend in 2008 on secretarial and other expenses.  Sawyer’s approach was challenged by planning board secretary and alternate member Pam Aslinger who argued that all of the planning board’s expenses were covered by fees collected and that cuts in its budget would simply force the increased use of volunteer time.

Finally, stating that Walpole subdivision regulations “are completely obsolete and do not comply with RSAs,” secretary Aslinger asked for volunteers from the board to begin preparing an updated set of regulations to be completed by the end of 2008.  Board members Eric Merklein, Ben Daviss and alternate Shane O’Keefe agreed to serve on the project.

                              --30--

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

PUBLIC NOTICE

You are hereby notified of the following Public Hearing, to be held on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 7:30 PM at the Walpole Town Hall.  All interested parties are encouraged to attend.

Signage Red Brick House, LLC 57 Main Street, Map 20, Lot 49, represented by James Vitous d/b/a Custom Designs requests an appeal for a Variance from Article IV D, of the Walpole Zoning Ordinance.  Mr. Vitous is proposing 3 signs on the North Side of the building totaling 36x18 inches, which violates the setback requirements and will be installed within 100 feet of an existing sign. The property is in the commercial zone.

All abutters and interested parties are encouraged to attend.  To be heard on the matter, you must either attend the hearing in person or by duly authorized agent or you may submit your comments in writing, prior to the hearing, to the Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment, PO Box 729, Walpole, NH 03608.  If final action is delayed, or the hearing continued, the application will remain on the agenda for the following Zoning Board meeting, or until a decision is reached, without further notice. Meeting minutes are posted at the Town Hall, outside Walpole Village Grocery, and the Town website, www.walpolenh.us.

For the Board,

Myra Mansouri, Chairperson

TOWN OF WALPOLE

MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN

DECEMBER 27, 2007

Selectmen Present:  Charles Miller, Sheldon Sawyer, Whitney Aldrich

Mr. Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM with one person present in the audience.

PUBLIC BUSINESS:

RYAN OWENS –NH CONSERVANCY– MARCIA GALLOWAY:  Ryan Owen pick-up the Board of Selectmen signature page for the Marcia Galloway Conservation Easement Deed. 

NORTH WALPOLE RESIDENTS – PEARL ST., NORTH WALPOLE:  The North Walpole residents who reside on Pearl Street will attend the next meeting.

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Accounts Payable check register and manifest in the amount of $1,201,256.91.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the voided check register for check numbers 051457 and 051380.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

PAYROLL:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the payroll voucher for the week ending December 22, 2007, for gross wages in the amount of $25,417.46 or net wages in the amount of $13,969.82.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the electronic fund transfer for the Withholding, MEDI and FICA taxes in the amount of $6,814.04.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

Mr. Aldrich moved to approve hiring Charles R. Kingsbury, II to the Highway Department at $12.00/per hour.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

MINUTES –SELECTMEN’S MEETING- DECEMBER 20, 2007:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Minutes of the public Board of Selectmen’s meeting of December 20, 2007, as printed.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

DEPARTMENT / COMMITTEE REPORTS:

The Board of Selectmen received and reviewed the following meeting minutes:  1) Planning Board – December 11, 2007; 2) Zoning Board of Adjustment – December 19, 2007; and 3) North Walpole Village Board of Commissioners – December 18, 2007.

ABATEMENTS:

ROBERT AND CHRISTY ADAMS, JR. – MAP 012-024-001:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Abatement for Property Taxes in the amount of $3,255.00 for Robert and Christy Adams, Jr.  due to a revised assessment on the Valley Road.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

GREGG, WILLIAM AND JOAN HOFFMAN – MAP 025-030-000:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Abatement for Property Taxes in the amount of $1,790.00 for Gregg, William and Joan Hoffman due to a revised assessment on the Old Cheshire Turnpike.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted. 

Board of Selectmen Meeting – December 27, 2007 – Page 2

REFUNDS:

GREGG, WILLIAM AND JOAN HOFFMAN – MAP 025-030-000:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Refund for Property Taxes in the amount of $79.17 for Gregg, William and Joan Hoffman.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

VAN TENEYCK, INC. – MAP 026-017-000:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Refund for Property Taxes in the amount of $2,411.22 for Van Teneyck, Inc.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

JOHN AND SHIRLEY LAWTON – MAP 009-034-000:  Mr. Sawyer moved to pass over this Refund to allow time to ask the assessors about the value of the pond.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted. 

PAUL McGUIRK – MAP 005-026-000:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Refund for Property Taxes in the amount of $31.26 for Paul McGuirk as the result of removing a deck.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

ANDREW AND BELINDA McLEOD – MAP 005-049-003:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve the Refund for Property Taxes in the amount of $838.06 for Andrew and Belinda McLeod due to an over-assessment.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

OLD BUSINESS:

LANDFILL –GRANT APPLICATION- STEVE BRACKETT:  Mr. Sawyer moved to have the Office Manager communicate with Steve Brackett to find out if the office has to do some of the work on the Landfill Grant application before sending it to him.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

RECYCLE – CONTRACTS FOR PAINTING AND SLAB:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve and sign the following two contracts for the Recycling Center:  1) North East Satellite and Security for the painting in the amount of $1,625.00; and 2) Michael Beam for the cement slab in the amount of $1,800.00.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

POLICE PURCHASE OF 10 NEW GLOCK .40 CAL. HANDGUNS:  The Board of Selectmen acknowledged that the Police Department purchased ten new .40 cal. handguns without their authorization.  Police Chief David Hewes has now been informed that the Town Purchasing Policy requires that the Board of Selectmen need to approve purchases in excess of $2,000.00. 

SALE OF LAND – ATTORNEY HOCKENSMITH AND ATTORNEY KINYON:  The Board of Selectmen advised that this agenda item is still pending.

NEW BUSINESS:

SET BUDGET HEARING DATE:  The Board of Selectmen set the Budget Hearing date for Thursday, February 7th, 2008, at 6:00 PM.  This will allow sufficient time to have a second Budget Hearing on Friday, February 8th, 2008, at 6:00 PM, if it is needed.

CEMETERY DEED – DAVID AND ELLEN ADAMS:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the Cemetery Deed for Lot D399 for David and Ellen Adams.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

Board of Selectmen Meeting – December 27, 2007 – Page 3

TIMBER CUT – CHARLES MILLER:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve and sign the Notice of a Timber Cut for Charles Miller.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.   Mr. Miller abstained.  With Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Aldrich in favor, the motion was approved.    

VETERAN’S EXEMPTION –MRS. PATRICIA FRITZ- MAP 029-043-000:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the Veteran’s Exemption for a Widow for Mrs. Patricia Fritz.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

VETERAN’S EXEMPTION –MICHAEL GROGAN- MAP 011-010-003:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve the Veteran’s Exemption for Michael Grogan.  Seconded by Mr. Miller.  All in favor, so voted.

OLD FURNACES:  Elaine Moore advised that someone expressed an interest in purchasing one or both of the old furnaces in the Town Hall cellar.  There was a consensus of the Board of Selectmen to investigate selling at least one and to ask Mark Houghton about a price.  They will ask Jim Terrell if there is a chance that one furnace could be used in the Town Garage. 

HOOPER COTTAGE:  The Board of Selectmen agreed to have the furnace at the Hooper Cottage cleaned and paid for out of the Hooper Maintenance Fund.

LETTERS:

JEFFREY MILLER –PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN- PERFORMANCE BOND:  Mr. Sawyer moved to approve and sign the letter to Jeffrey Miller, Chairman of the Planning Board, advising that D & D does not need a Performance Bond.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.

KOPACZ ESTATE –MAP 030-046-000- ABATEMENT REQUEST DENIED:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the letter to the Kopacz Estate, c/o James Byrnes, regarding the denial of an Abatement request.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

MR. & MRS. CHARLES LENNON –MAP 021-023-000- ABATEMENT REQUEST DENIED:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the letter to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Lennon regarding the denial of an Abatement request.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

MR. & MRS. HENRY BECK –MAP 017-020-000- ABATEMENT REQUEST DENIED:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the letter to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Beck regarding the denial of an Abatement request.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

MR. & MRS. MICHAEL BARRE –MAP 029-012-000- ABATEMENT REQUEST DENIED:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the letter to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Barre regarding the denial of an Abatement request.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

MR. GEORGE KAY AND Et Al –MAP 001-008-000- ABATEMENT REQUEST DENIED:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the letter to Mr. George Kay and et al regarding the denial of an Abatement request.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

MR. BERNARD KARNACEWICZ –MAP 028-116-000- ABATEMENT REQUEST DENIED:  Mr. Aldrich moved to approve and sign the letter to Mr. Bernard Karnacewicz regarding the denial of an Abatement request.  Seconded by Mr. Sawyer.  All in favor, so voted.

Board of Selectmen Meeting – December 27, 2007 – Page 4

Mr. Sawyer moved to adjourn this meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Aldrich.  All in favor, so voted.  The time was 9:54 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Regina Borden, Recording Secretary

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Walpole, NH  03608

Minutes-----19 December 2007

PRESENT:            M. Mansouri, Ch., J. Galloway-Leclerc L. Carignan, L. Weber, B. Webb, D. Calhoun, P. Pschirrer Absent: L. Britton, MT. Lester 

Note:  These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed on 16 January 2008 for errors, omissions and corrections.

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

  Continued Public Hearing—Frank W. Whitcomb Construction Corp. Proposed Gravel Pit, Old Drewsville Road.  Ms. Mansouri opened the continued Public Hearing and requested Mr. Webb and Mr. Calhoun, who were originally appointed to hear this matter, to resume their positions as voting members of the Board for this hearing. Mr. Carignan joined the alternates for this hearing and did not participate as a voting member.

  Mr. Fraser, representing Frank W. WhitcombConstruction Corp. stated that as of the last meeting two issues remained unresolved.  Mr. Fraser said that he and Ms. Weber met with Richard Mock of DES in October.  Mr. Mock stated at that meeting that the DES policy of including the roadway for purposes of determining the need for a site-specific permit was just that, a policy and not a Department rule.  Mr. Fraser said that there would be no remaining issue after January 1st of 2008.  Ms. Weber said that she remembers the conversation as talking about March 2008 as the ten-year date.  Ms. Weber read from the minutes of the Special Meeting on October 9th.   At that meeting, the Board approved a motion “that the applicant be requested to meet with DES to determine if a site-specific permit is needed, and if not, to provide the Board with a letter to that effect.”  Mr. Fraser suggested that the Board could email DES about the issue.  Ms. Weber stated her recollection of the conversation with Mr. Mock was that after Mr. Fraser had gone over the proposed project in detail, Mr. Mock had said that he was not willing to provide a letter stating categorically that no site-specific permit was required.  She said that Mr. Mock had stated after a review of the plans that he thought DES would have no problem issuing a permit for the project as proposed.  Ms. Weber reiterated that the Board had requested either a permit or a written statement from DES that no permit was required, and the applicant has, to date, provided neither.

  Mr. Fraser then turned to the Board’s request for a report on possible impacts on known aquifers or existing wells.  He presented the Board with a letter dated December 19 from Jeffrey P Cloutier, LPG #654, of North American Reserve, LLC, Laconia New Hampshire.  Mr. Fraser said that because of the bad weather, Mr. Cloutier had declined to drive to Walpole for the hearing.

  Mr. Fraser then asked the Board about the letter from Attorney Slason of Salmon & Nostrand, Bellows Falls, VT, dated 9 November 2007.  At this point, Attorney Hockensmith, town counsel, suggested the Board meet want to meet privately with him for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.  The hearing was suspended for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel.

  The Board returned at 7:59, and Ms. Mansouri resumed the hearing.  Ms. Weber stated her opinion, after meeting with counsel and considering Mr. Slayson’s letter, that the Board had been correct in requesting the applicant to obtain a Special Exception in addition to the earth excavation permit.  In this case, the property already has a Special Exception for a different use, with a shared road for both uses.  The impacts of a gravel pit on the surrounding area are very different from the impacts of the existing storage operation.  Although there are some inconsistencies between the language of the Zoning Ordinance and the Earth Excavation Ordinance, she does not believe that the town meant to subject gravel pits to a lesser standard for review than that for other commercial operations.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc stated that it has always been the policy of the Board that whenever any Special Exception is granted the applicant is told that if they make any changes whatsoever to the operation, the applicant must come back to the Board for further review.  Mr. Webb agreed and Ms. Mansouri reiterated this had always been Board policy.  Ms. Mansouri confirmed that she wanted to see the letter from Concord (DES) previously requested and the special exception applied for.  Ms. Weber said she also wanted to raise the issue of the geologist’s letter, which she had not yet seen, and would the Board perhaps want to review that letter and review it at their next meeting?  Ms. Mansouri said she would entertain a motion.  Ms. Weber moved that the Board continue the hearing to their 16 January, 2008 meeting for purposes of receiving the documentation they requested on October 9th from DES, and to review the geologist’s letter, and futher moved that the Board restate its position that a Special Exception is required for the property in addition to the earth excavation permit.  Mr. Webb seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Mr. Fraser offered to have Mr. Cloutier attend the January 16 meeting.

  Mr. Fraser then expressed his frustration with the Board’s process.  He formally submitted, for the record, the letter from Pamela Aslinger, dated _____________ to ensure it was part of the record.  He stated that he had started with the Board in July, had attended three hearings and held a site visit.  At the eleventh hour, the topic of a special exception was brought up, and he is bothered by the timing.  He will file for the special exception, but under a reservation of rights, as he believes it to be unnecessary.  Third, he wanted to know what the protocol is if he is to obtain a special exception?  He inquired about time frame and whether the Board would start the earth excavation hearings all over again.

  Ms. Weber said that the issues raised by the letter from Ms. Aslinger were discussed and responeded to at a prior meeting, and the letter is, as a result, already part of the record.  With respect to the time lapse, she reminded Mr. Fraser that a number of the delays in this case have been at the request of the applicant.  The Board at its October 9th  meeting had three very specific requests from the applicant.  The Board offered the applicant the opportunity to address any or all of these issues at its hearing on 17 October, and the applicant declined due to the lack of adequate time.  The applicant also chose not to attend the November Board meeting, requesting instead that the matter be continued until December.  The applicant has yet to comply with two of the requests the Board made.  Mr. Fraser said the Board should have responded to the Slason letter sooner.  Mr. Calhoun stated that the Board has made every attempt to work with the applicant at all times.

  With respect to time frames, the Planning Board will have to hold a Public hearing before making its recommendation to the ZBA for the Special Exception.  The Board members were in agreement that they would not be rehearing the application after the special exception was obtained, but would proceed on the basis of the record already made.  Mr. Bill Lundgren asked from the audience if abutters would be notified of the Planning Board hearing, and was assured that they would.  Ms. Mansouri continued the hearing to the regular meeting of the Board on January 16, 2008.

New Business:

Mr. Carignan resumed his seat as a voting member of the Board, and Ms. Mansouri appointed Mr. Calhoun to continue as a voting member.

Bob Kimball, re Sandri Oil gas station and convenience store, Corner of Main Street and Westminster Street.  Mr. Kimball inquired about an enforcement action with respect to the gas station and convenience store on the corner of Main and Westminster Streets.  His clients think it is unsightly with the chicken fence on the corner by the sign.  The chicken fence and the curbing force pedestrians out into the road.  The rectangular planter was installed, but nothing has been planted there.  The Hubbards and Burdicks have spent money on fixing up their properties to benefit the town.  This situation is not becoming to the town, and he wants the Zoning requirements to be completed.  Ms. Weber noted that she had searched the ZBA records back to 1994 in preparation for the meeting and found no zoning applications pertaining to this property, so she is unclear what is to be enforced.  Mr. Sheldon Sawyer said that the selectmen had been asked for permission to install the planter, and they had asked the property owners to check with the road agent for  safety issues.  He had no knowledge of completion or lack of it.  Ms. Mansouri noted the height of the granite curbing forces older people to walk in the street, and said there had been no plantings to her knowledge.  Mr. Sawyer said he believed the planter was on private property, not on the public sidewalk.  Mr. Calhoun said the sidewalk is outside.  Mr. Kimball said that in the past, a path was shoveled from the bank building into the Sunoco station and that was used by pedestrians, but that does not happen now.  Mr. Sawyer noted the project was presented as a beautification effort.  Mr. Kimball asked who to go to about the problem.  Ms. Mansouri suggested the selectmen. Mr. Kimball said the property is up for sale, and it doesn’t look good for the town.  It was noted that only the contents of the store were to be sold, not the actual real estate, which will continue to be owned by Sandri and leased.  Mr. Calhoun said that someone at Sandri would have to have approved the project if it is on their property.  Mr. Kimball said he would bring the matter up with Sandri and with the Seledctmen.

  Larry Woolbert, 9 Burrows Lane, Hobby Shop in Basement.  Mr. Woolbert sells used model railroad equipment over the internet.  He would like to be able to sell new hobby equipment as well, as there is a huge demand for the product.  In order for sales reps to give him an account and sell him new inventory, he must have a physical shop location.  The sales people want some kind of bricks and mortar with a sign in front so as to count as a store front.  Mr. Woolbert would continue to do his business from his basement, and would not have shop windows or window displays. He sells on the internet, and does not really want to have customers come to the house, but would have to have a sign advertizing at least 20 open hours a week.  The property used to be zoned commercial but was just changed back to Residential B.  Ms. Mansouri read the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to home businesses in the residential district, and noted that if customers were coming in, that was beginning to look more commercial.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc noted that attorneys or doctors would also have clients or patients coming and going.  Mr. Woolbert said he did not want customers to come to his house, he wants to do his selling over the internet.  Mr. Calhoun asked if the road is private.  It is.  Mr. Carignan noted that the business will need to obtain a sign permit., and Ms. Mansouri confirmed he will need to present a sign to the Board, and meet setback requirements.  Ms. Weber will email an application to Mr. Woolbert.  Mr. Woolbert also noted there are deed restrictions with respect to signs.

Gravel Pits.  Discussion put off until better weather.

Minutes.  Mr. Calhoun moved the approval of the minutes from 21 November and 5 December as presented.  Mr. Carignan seconded the motion, and all voted in favor.

Appointment of new regular member.  One of the alternates needs to be appointed as a regular Board member to fill the space left by Ms. Weber, who is retiring after this meeting.  The appointment will last until Town Meeting at which time there will be an election for the one year balance of Ms. Weber’s term.  Ms. Mansouri has told Ms. Sandy Smith, Town Clerk, about the one year vacancy, and will speak to her again about it.  Mr. Carignan moved the appointment of Mr. Calhoun to fill the vacancy.  Ms. Galloway-Leclerc seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

  The Board then went into executive session to discuss personnel matters.  At 9:10, the Board came out of executive session.  It was stated for the record that personnel matters had been discussed at the executive session, and that no action had been taken.

  Ms. Mansouri passed out information from the Local Government Center about a Land Use Clerks Workshop.  Planning Board, Zoning Board and Conservation
Commission members are encouraged to attend.  There will be a foundation session held on Saturday, January 9th  for all the boards, and then a session in May for ZBA members. Sessions will be held at the local Government Center in Concord. Any Board members interested in attending should contact Ms. Mansouri well before Jan 4th  when the registration is due.

  The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM.

  The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, 16 January, 2008 at 7:30 PM at the Town Hall.

Respectfully submitted,

Lucy Weber,

Secretary.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING          

January 8, 2008            7:30pm         Town Hall 2nd Floor

AGENDA

I.          Open Meeting

            A.  Roll call - designate alternates

            B.  Approve minutes from November 13, 2007 and December 11, 2007

            C.  Other

II.        Close Meeting/Open Public Hearing on Seventh proposed Zoning

            Amendment for 2008 Town Vote.  Add the following new provision to:

            Article VI - Commercial District E.  Land Standards:  “Undeveloped Open

Space Standards:  Not less than thirty (30%) of the entire lot to be developed shall be retained as “undeveloped” open space, unencumbered by buildings, parking lots, accessory structures, other impervious surfaces or other manmade improvements except those improvements that protect natural features and/or support undeveloped open space that can be used for lawns, gardens, landscaping, and human recreation.  Said undeveloped open space may include setback areas as defined in the zoning ordinance for each zoning district.”  Purpose is to match the exact wording as appears in the Site Plan Review regulations to create a balance of Undeveloped Open Space in the Commercial District.

III.       Close Public Hearing/Re-open Meeting - Action on amendment #7:  Approve-Disapprove-Edit, hold a second hearing.  Recommend or Not Recommend.

IV.       Old Business

            A.  Walpole D & D, LLC - Update on conditions pending.

            B.  Other

V.        New Business

            A.  Chamberlain Machine - Preliminary Consultation

            B.  Other - no other scheduled as of posting - may change

VI.            Communications and Miscellaneous

            A.  Master Plan Update - Survey Results

            B.  Budget discussion

            C.  Other

VII.            Adjourn Meeting - next meeting will be held on February 12, 2008