PLANNING BOARD
Walpole, NH 03608
MINUTES: Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - 7pm Town Hall
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Ch. Members Present: Bob Miller, V-Ch., Ben Daviss, Dave DeCoste, Henry Fletcher, Sheldon Sawyer, Sel., Eric Merklein, Alternates: Donn Lounsbury, Jeff White, & Steve Dalessio. Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the March 09, 2010 meeting for errors, corrections and omissions. There were 7 persons in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:00pm
A. Roll call, all members were present, no alternates designated.
B. Minutes - Mr. DeCoste made a motion seconded by Mr. Daviss to approve the
minutes as presented. All were in favor, motion carried.
C. The board reviewed board openings for 2010, Bob Miller and Eric Merklein’s terms
expire in 2010. Mr. Miller has filed for re-election and Mr. Merklein stated he would not be running for re-election. Mr. Lounsbury and Ms. Aslinger’s terms as alternates expire in 2010. Ms. Aslinger asked not to be reappointed as an alternate.
II. New Business
A. Cliff Harper, PG of Harper Environmental was present to ask questions about developing the Potato Barn, specifically about the site plan and town requirements regarding the recent installation of a private septic system and whether they violated a town ordinance.
Ch. Miller gave an overview of the proposal based on information from a Site Plan Review for a restaurant and office space granted on 11/14/1995 to Cynthia Reeves. It showed the commercial development was to tie into town water and sewer and on the condition a traffic study be performed to ascertain whether a driveway cut could be obtained from the State for access. He said he believed the access was granted and Mr. Sawyer agreed, but questions whether it is still in effect, thinking there might have been a time limit. He said that the cut was granted by a Town vote via a warrant article because the Town was given a one time cut when Rte. 12 was built. He thought there was a 1 year limitation if it has not been vested.
Ch. Miller reported that a meeting between various town departments took place last week to address a number of miscommunications in the building permit process in general and specifically on the Potato Barn project especially in regard to the incorrect installation of a private state approved septic system. The town has a “Sewer Use Ordinance” that requires properties within 100 ft. of the municipal sewer system be connected but it seems the engineers on the project were not aware. Despite the issue of the septic system he urged the board to consider the age and validity of the 1995 Site Plan approval and thought a new Site Plan Review was warranted. The board agreed that the 1995 site plan is out of date and invalid. Ch. Miller asked Mr. Harper to update the board on the status of the project.
Mr. Harper stated he is the geologist/principal for Harper Environmental in Bridgewater Corners, VT. His involvement in the project began a couple of years ago while helping the owner Steve Rudek of Sacramento California resolve drainage issues and the environmental residual impacts with NH Dept. of Environmental Services on the site. Because he himself has an interest in restoring old barns he remained a part of the project advising Mr. Rudek on how to proceed in developing the property into commercial office space as well as preserving the structure. He said Mr. Rudek met with Cynthia Reeves the previous owner in December and they talked about her intentions for the site. His question for the board is whether they were supposed to tie into the town sewer system. He said he is well qualified to work with regulations and also works with
Walpole Planning Board February 9, 2010 page 2
other engineers familiar with the state requirements and permitting process. He showed the site plan design for the septic system submitted to the state. He gave the septic system project to Chris Leister from Hogg Hill Designs to design and install. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Leister what his procedure is in order to apply for the state permit. Mr. Leicester is required to check with the town before he submits a plan to the state. In late August he spoke with a woman at the town office and asked if the town needed a copy of the plan, the response was no so they filed the application. Once the application is reviewed by the state they (the state) sends three copies of a form letter known as an “Approval for Construction” as a notice. One each was sent to the owner Steve Rudek, Walpole Board of Selectmen and Chris Leister. He handed the board a copy of the form that was dated 9/16/2009, (on file). Mr. Harper said usually by calling the town, if the town wants to see the plan they send a copy of the plan and get feedback before the application is sent to the state, in this instance the town did not ask to see the plan so they filed the application.
Ch. Miller in summary said, because you and/or the state recieved no feedback then it was assumed you could do the install once permitted. But now that there has been discussion on the septic system it’s become known about the Sewer Use Ordinance from 1985 and the requirement to tie into the municipal systems if you are within 100 ft. of the lines. He thought the lack of communication between the town departments had led to this situation. If upon their initial call they were told an ordinance existed requiring them to tie into the system they would have avoided installing an expensive septic system that violates a town ordinance and secondly if the “Approval for Construction” letter had been brought to the attention of the Selectboard they could have notified the state and prevented the install. He thought because of the miscommuni-cation at the Selectboard’s office Mr. Harper was not at fault and hopes the Selectboard and water and sewer department can resolve it bearing in mind the expense Mr. Rudek has incurred by installing a private septic system.
Mr. Sawyer said the BOS never received a copy of the “Approval for Construction” for review and defended the office staff. He was aware that a change in personnel might have added to the lack of communication. Mr. Harper said they called in late August. Mr. Sawyer said if the Selectboard had received the state notification they would have sent it on to Mark Houghton the water/sewer commissioner, who would have sited the requirement in the ordinance.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Harper how he was planning to proceed. Mr. Harper said they’ve done some investigation and rehabilitation in the ell, drainage in the piggery and granary sections. The owner isn’t clear exactly what he will do with it but wants to develop it into some type of commercial space and wants to put some money into it to prevent it from deteriorating or falling down. Because Mr. Rudek wanted to begin by getting water/sewer and electric in place Hogg Hill Design engineer Mr. Leicester created a site proposal and went to the fire and water departments to get an idea of what the costs would be to bring in electric and water, then they could decide what to develop first. He called the town office in December and asked if he needed a permit to pour cement for foundation work. He was told he did not because they were not changing the footprint. Right after the septic was installed in early December they poured the foundation and put in radiant floor heat in order to create a couple of office areas. The intention of the owner is to bring in water and electric to begin phasing the project. They want to use the carriage house as a beginning point for the water lines to the basement of the piggery and power to the barn for temporary lighting over the next couple of years. He said Cynthia Reeves contacted Mr. Rudek last week about renting the ell section for an art gallery in the spring. Taking Ms. Reeves needs into account they thought the piggery, granary and ell could be their focus. Mr. Harper asked the board if they could develop a site plan by using the carriage house as a beginning point to access water and power for the basement of the piggery. He said they would sprinkle it but may not have the water pressure at first to operate it. His engineer has a subsurface license. He submited a preliminary design/drawing to bring the water to the site and questioned where the water line came in from? Mr. Sawyer asked if he had
Walpole Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2010 page 3
spoken with the water superintendent, that he would have the final say. Mr. Harper said they have an ongoing discussion with Mr. Houghton and the fire department that his engineer was in the process of designing the plans when the septic install became an issue.
Ch. Miller recommended that Mr. Harper and Mr. Rudek formulate the overall plan for the project and include a phased development if needed and submit a completely new site plan review application to the planning board so the process can go through the proper channels and include all the town departments. He said if it is a phased project time limits will need to be set and they need to check with the state about the access off Rte. 12 to determine whether it is still in effect. Mr. Harper said they checked with the state about 6 months ago and found it was granted possibly with a one-way only access. Mr. Sawyer thought it had been approved for two-way traffic. Sec. Aslinger said they could download a copy of the site plan review regulations from the town website. Submission of the application must be made at a meeting held on the second Tuesday of the month.
Mr. DeCoste asked for clarification on the septic and how a private system was allowed and where it stands? Mr. Harper said it was installed in early December and is an “enviroseptic” system. Ch. Miller said the system is in question because it violates the town ordinance and that it’s possible they may want to tie into the town’s system at some point because it may not be adequate for the scale of development they may propose. Mr. Harper said the design of the system allows for expansion. Ch. Miller and Selectman Sawyer agreed that the town and water commissioner need to work out where the issue stands in regard to the violation of the ordinance even though Mr. Harper was not at fault. Ch. Miller reiterated that a new site plan review is required, that it is the town’s obligation to work with them in regard to the septic system and if the development is phased, time limits with exact details of what work will be done at each phase is spelled out so it doesn’t create a larger impact than intended and that all town departments are aware of the projects scope. The first phase should be the overall intended concept with more specifics on the future phases. Mr. Harper asked if he could borrow a copy of the 1995 plans, he was given one of the plans from the folder. Mr. DeCoste asked if they were going to do basically what was originally planned? Mr. Harper said the restaurant was not going to be part of the plan, most likely just office and retail space.
Mr. Sawyer said they must speak with the water commissioner as soon as possible and resolve the issue of the septic. Ch. Miller said now that everyone knows what actually happened and how it happened the various town departments could adjust their procedures to prevent this kind of error in the future. He said there were at least two places they could have been informed and were not, if the Selectboard had given them the correct information they probably would have preferred to tie into the municipal system at a lesser cost. He suggested that the procedures within the Selectboard’s office should be reviewed, when a call comes in it should be referred to the actual department head for a final and correct answer. He thought in this case because they installed a state approved septic the town should make an exception.
Mr. Sawyer said they would work with them to mitigate the situation mentioning a past experience with the zoning board who gave out erroneous information that led to a lawsuit, something he wants to avoid, so it will have to be considered carefully and fairly.
Ch. Miller instructed Mr. Harper to work with the town to mitigate the septic issue and to submit a site plan review application to the board. Sec. Aslinger asked Mr. Harper if he was aware that the kind of development they were planning requires a site plan review approval prior to any construction taking place? Mr. Harper asked about the concrete they poured. Ch. Miller said preservation or maintaining the building within the existing footprint of the building would not trigger a site plan review. However a change in use or expansion of use at a cost of more than $10,000.00 requires a site plan review approval from the planning board on all commercial development.
Walpole Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2010 page 4
Mr. Hurlburtt thought the Selectboard’s office may have misinformed them when they called about needing a permit for pouring the concrete and were told as long as it was within the same footprint and cost less than $10,000.00 they did not need a permit. He thought once they poured the concrete with a change of use in mind they would in fact need a site plan review. Ch. Miller, Ms. Aslinger and Mr. Sawyer agreed saying the change/expansion in use is what constitutes a site plan review before other facts are considered such as cost and footprint. Ms. Aslinger gave the example of going from a storage barn to a commercial office or retail space as a change in use that triggers the site plan review approval. The approval must be granted before any construction takes place on the site, which in the potato barn case is in a grey area because of the maintenance on the building. She thought it was good to be discussing the project at this time in its planning stages.
Mr. Harper asked if by using the carriage house on Homestead to run power and water to the barn and converting it to a single family residence whether it would need a site plan review approval? Ch. Miller said he thought the property is all in the commercial district and single-family residence is an allowed use. Ms. Aslinger said if it remains as part of the entire project as a caretaker’s residence then it would need to be included in the site plan review proposal unless it was subdivided onto its own lot and used for a residence only. Mr. Sawyer agreed. Ms. Aslinger thought the site plan review regulations would spell out the needed information required to obtain an approval. They should come in with as much information as possible on the plans encompassing the entire site plus present and future plans.
Mr. Harper thanked the board for their time and will be in contact about submitting the application at an upcoming meeting. He was reminded that the board meets the second Tuesday of each month.
B. Shaw’s Supermarket - Sec. Aslinger presented the board with a cover letter and plan from Susan J. Belcher, Yarosh Associates Inc., Mashpee, MA in regard to Shaw’s Supermarket on Rte. 12 N sent to the Selectmen’s office as part of an application for a building permit. Ms. Janet Clough, the Office Manager for the town shared the information as part of her effort to keep the various boards and departments aware of projects that may involve them. Sec. Aslinger reported she had spoken to Ms. Belcher several weeks ago about the project and whether they needed a site plan review. The plans submitted with the building permit confirm that they are doing an interior remodel with no expansion of product offerings or floor space, no exterior changes except for improving the existing entrance cart ramp and 2 stairways in the rear. They are planning to paint the exterior. Sec. Aslinger said that she and Ms. Belcher reviewed the site plan regulations and determined that the remodel would not require a site plan review. Sec. Aslinger thought it important for the board to be aware of the plan and be in agreement that the proposal does not require a site plan review before the building permit is issued.
Mr. Herb Hurlburt commented that it was commercial construction and the building is badly in need of a fire alarm. Sec. Aslinger read from Ms. Belcher’s letter stating, “At this time, we have also applied for Health Department review and have requested review by the Walpole Fire Chief, Richard Hurlburt. All approvals will be forwarded upon receipt”. Mr. Hurlburt said they have not yet received a request. He said this is what was discussed at the group meeting about how a letter can state something but it doesn’t mean it’s been done. Mr. Sawyer said a building permit is never granted unless the departments involved have given their approval especially involving the fire department. Mr. Hurlburt said trailers have arrived and forklifts are moving at the site.
Sec. Aslinger said the next step is to return the plans to the Selectboard with the board’s acknowledgement that it does not require a site plan review. Zoning Chairperson Myra Mansouri said she had spoken to them by phone a month ago about potential zoning issues and she wanted to make sure they weren’t expanding into another part of the building, they had discussed the possibility and that she referred them to the planning board. Sec. Aslinger said she extensively
Walpole Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2010 page 5
grilled Ms. Belcher on the plans both parties using a copy of the site plan regs as reference and she has double checked the plans in detail to make sure they are as discussed. The plans indicate no expansion or change in use it is only an interior remodel and will not requiring a site plan review.
III. Planning Discussion (7:50pm)
A. Master Plan Update - Lisa Murphy from SW Regional Planning Commission was present to discuss the draft of the updated Land Use Section for the Master Plan. She handed out copies of the draft and asked the board to consider the tables on the land use categories pages 9, 10 & 11. In order for her to compare apples to apples she is working with the Selectmen’s office to get the accurate data on critical information. She said her GIS person has clearance to access the assessment information from Avatar. It will take a couple of hours to extract and compile it. She mentioned some changes and has discovered a discrepancy in the number of houses and acreages with OEP’s records, the town may be missing several parcels.
Ch. Miller suggested the board review the first draft and discuss it at the work session to be held February 23, 2010 and forward the results to Lisa, perhaps she’ll have the other info gathered and can incorporate it into one final draft, the board agreed.
Mr. Delessio asked why the comparison dates were 1985 and 1999? Ms. Murphy said those were the dates of the original plan and the last update. They would remain in place to create a data baseline and growth trends. Mr. Schupack asked how do they determine the current data? Answer was through the assessment data. Mr. Lounsbury suggested adding an 11 x 17 town map to the document. Unfortunately there are no base maps for Walpole and they are quite costly, $60K - $90K. Mr. Sawyer said they have considered having maps created and recently held a presentation given by Cartographics. Ms. Murphy said SWRPC also provides mapping services usually at a lesser cost because of membership. She said there is some limited data sharing among the assessors that can help reduce costs.
Ms. Murphy asked the board to consider items on page 12, to please update the information in a general way and to forward comments to her after the work session. Mr. Schupack asked if the board could access the building permits to determine what types of changes have been made to commercial and industrial operations. Mr. Sawyer said yes they are in the office. Ms. Murphy said she was looking for a general idea, not an inventory of every use. However, if the board wants a more detailed list, it can be added. Ms. Aslinger offered to search the building permits and make a list of changes for the board to consider at the work session.
Ms. Murphy asked the board to extend the completion date to March, the contract states it as February. The board agreed to the extension.
C. Other - Mr. Daviss asked Ms. Murphy about another question raised at a work session on “spot zoning”. Is it always a bad idea or can it be done better? Mr. Sawyer asked for a definition of “spot zoning”. Ms. Murphy said it can be a single building use that is surrounded by other uses sometimes it occurs as a grandfathered zoning but not always. It isn’t a good idea to create new areas. Mr. Sawyer thought an instance of spot zoning was good when it provided for an employer to locate a business within reach of its employees. Ms. Murphy said that was considered a “mixed use” zoning. Mr. Daviss said they were thinking of taking each undeveloped lot along Rte. 12 South and designating it as separate zone based on its potential, he asked if they should consider mixed use or clever spot zoning? Ms. Murphy said mixed use would be the way to go. The trouble with spot zoning is it will affect someone in a negative way and the buffering requirements could be very difficult. Mr. Delessio thought spot zoning could lead to conflicts with the Master Plan. Ms. Aslinger said another type of spot zoning was when someone owned a piece of residential land and decided to make it industrial by petitioning the town to vote to change the zone, if the town voted in favor then spot zoning occurs. There are
Walpole Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2010 page 6
legal problems with spot zoning because it doesn’t protect the surrounding property owners and leads to lawsuits. That is the negative outcome of spot zoning and why it should be avoided. Mr. Sawyer thought the zoning change from commercial to residential on Dearborn Circle was spot zoning that worked. Ch. Miller said the board recommended the change that was requested by the property owners to reflect the actual use and to protect the residences so it was not a spot zoning per se. Ch. Miller said the ordinance allows spot zoning by the special exception provision. Ms. Murphy said the special exception process is favored over spot zoning because it adds many more layers, restrictions and safeguarding such as buffering. She warned against use variances that can also allow spot zoning. Ms. Mansouri thought use variances were no longer allowed, but Ms. Murphy disagreed.
Mr. Daviss asked Ms. Murphy to provide the board with suggestions on ways to zone mixed uses that are compatible with the law for lands along Rte. 12 South. She said she would compile some information and forward it to him. Eric Smith will be coming to the work session in March, he can offer some examples also. Mr. Schupack thought it is very important how mixed use defined.
Ch. Miller thanked Ms. Murphy for her time and reminded the board to review the materials and attend the work session being held 2/23/10 at 7pm in the basement office.
IV. Communications and Miscellaneous - none
V. Meeting was adjourned 8:15pm