15 July 2010
 
Tuesday's Planning Board Story
Post a comment (login required)
Ed. Note: Here's my story that appeared in the Eagle Times yesterday reporting Tuesday evening's Planning Board meeting.  CCB

7-13-2010

 

Walpole Group Proposes Condo/Commercial Development

 

By Chuck Bingaman

 

            Four Walpole residents Tuesday evening gave the Planning Board a preliminary look at a 48-unit condominium development with possible added commercial pieces they are seeking to create on a 12+ acre site off Rt. 12 behind the new Tractor Supply store.

 

            Prior to hearing the development overview, the Board approved a lot-line adjustment clearing the way for the condominiums to be built.  Before the Board approved the adjustment, a sale, really, of 2 acres of abutting land to the developers, the primary abutter, Ralph Murray, claimed that he was the “most affected” abutter and told Board members that he was opposed to the project on so many levels, both ethical and moral, that he couldn’t express them all.

 

            After the Board approved the lot line adjustment, local attorney Rob Kasper, one of the four proposers of the development, gave an overview in which he said he wanted to put to rest some of the innuendos that had been circulating about it.  First, he wanted to clarify that all of the development group were local Walpole residents: Jack Franks, Jason Dunbar, Jedd Pellerin and himself.  He stressed that they were merely “local people trying to do what’s best for Walpole and not popping up a ‘big box’ store as have already been approved twice recently here!”

 

            Kasper further noted that all of the plans more than complied with local zoning and planning regulations and that the group was more than prepared to fully accomplish the multi-phase work.

 

            The condos, according to Kasper, have been designed to serve an “adult community” meaning that at least one of the residents will be required to be over age 50 and that underage persons would be allowed residence only for limited periods.

 

            Partner and group architect Jedd Pellerin showed drawings and renderings that left about 57% of the section of the development set for condominiums as open space, nearly twice the required amount in Walpole regulations.  He noted that they would be 600 feet back from Rt. 12, have shed-roofed parking areas and both a berm and plantings to limit views to the west that would be the rear of the new Tractor Supply building. The buildings would be built in phases based on how quickly they sell.

 

            Pellerin’s rendering of the three buildings showed large, barn like structures with tall, peaked roofs and cupolas on each.  They would have16 units in each, eight on each of two floors.  Entrances would be at both ends of each building with common lobbies at each end.  Common hallways on each floor would lead to interior entries to each 1100 square foot, two-bedroom, 1.75-bath unit.  Middle units in the each building, he said, would be at the most 82 to 100 feet from an entrance. There would not be elevators because, he said, there would be sufficient accessible units on the first floors.

 

            Planning Board members and audience members peppered Kasper, lead developer Jack Franks, Pellerin and engineer Tom Duffield with questions about the buildings, units and estimated pricing.  Franks said, “we’re still getting numbers, and my goal is to make the units affordable locally.” He emphasized that the design of the buildings and the units in them had prefabrication and price control in mind.  Board Chair Jeff Miller asked that Franks be prepared at the August public hearing to discuss specifics of what he considers “affordable.”  Former Board member Eric Merklein asked if some units might be reserved as rental units for people unable to afford to purchase.

           

As to future development of condominium amenities such as common rooms, a health club, etc., Franks said, “We see ourselves as just the vehicle putting these units in place for the future people who will govern the development through a condominium association and who can choose to create such things.” 

 

In addition to the condos that would be the first phase of the overall plan, Mr. Kasper discussed two other parcels in the 12-acre development.  In the lot closest to Rt. 12, he said the group was considering a possible coop food store on the order of those in Littleton and Hanover NH, both of which the group had studied.  Such stores sell not only locally produced foods but also commercially imported foods to broaden their inventories and deal with seasonality.  In the lot between such a coop grocery store and the condominiums, he said the group was looking at a number of options and invited Walpole residents to make suggestions.  Among the possibilities, he said, were a health club, a dentist’s office, a possible bank or coffee shop or even a resurrection of the old Fall Mountain Brewery as a brewpub and restaurant.  Those plans, however, would wait until after the condominium buildings are completed or well on their way to being sold.

 

The Board voted to accept the group's complete site plan application and to set it for public hearing at its regular meeting August 10.

 

                                    --30--


Posted by Chuck Bingaman at 9:27 AM | Comments (15)
 
Subscription Options

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

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
What two "big box" stores have already been approved here recently??? Mel Schupack

Posted by mbs on July 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
I believe Mr. Kasper was referring to the dollar store and Tractor Supply, which don't technically qualify as "big box" stores in size but are similar to big-box chains in the way that they bring cookie-cutter designs to a community and allow little, if any, budget to customize the stores' appearance to suit the community of which they're becoming a part. -- Ben Daviss

Posted by bend on July 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
"wake up"?...so people who are in favor of runaway development have insight and intellgence the rest of us lack?...or could there possibly be issues beyond "taxes" and jobs" that we understand and they haveen't "woken up" to?

Posted by jackneary on July 17, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
I agree with bigjim. A town that does not grow (either residential or commercial) becomes stale. The planning board, select board and other community groups are here to govern the "runaway" development. They also have the right to reject any store due to its appearance.

I have 2 kids, and there is NOTHING in walpole for them. We need to begin to think of the future. The jobs, and the housing that will be greatly needed.

I am not saying that we should become a city, but there is a happy medium between growth and overgrown. Route 12 is a prime commercial district that should be used as such. Todd Patch.

Posted by todd p on July 19, 2010 at 7:09 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
I hate it when I hear people say, "there is nothing for kids to do" in Walpole. There is the town pool, swim teams, tennis courts, basketball hoops, baseball(all age levels) Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H, church youth groups and reading programs at the Walpole Library. Probably several more activities that I don't know about. It's not so much that there is nothing to do as it is getting children and parents to sign up for the activities. Parents also have to make a commitment to get their children to the activities and take an active (part of the word activities) part in the event(s). William Moses

Posted by william on July 19, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
Actually I'm retired "bigjim", (at least for the time being), and if you mean the high school bond, have you ever been up there when it is raining? And Bill, I have lived in a sprawling city, where all rural places became shopping centers or "developments"..."progress" begats more services begats more taxes.

Posted by jackneary on July 19, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
Actually I'm retired "bigjim", (at least for the time being), and if you mean the high school bond, have you ever been up there when it is raining? And Bill, I have lived in a sprawling city, where all rural places became shopping centers or "developments"..."progress" begats more services begats more taxes.

Posted by jackneary on July 19, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
Mr. Moses, I did not say that there is nothing for my kids to do now. I was referring to the future of all of our kids. They will need jobs, and decent housing.

My kids have participated in the areas recreational activities that they choose to participate in (baseball, softball, soccer, football, boy scouts, girls scouts, etc...). Many of these activities only happen during a certain time of the year.

Posted by todd p on July 21, 2010 at 6:33 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
What happened to "bigjim's" comments? I don't recall that he said anything out of line.

Posted by jackneary on July 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
I think maybe Chuck just wants you to sign your real name Jim.

Liberals and proressives aren't always the same thing.

Posted by jackneary on July 24, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
bigjim, can you explain what you mean by "objective journalism is taking over"? -- Ben Daviss

Posted by bend on July 25, 2010 at 5:47 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
I know Chuck has asked us to sign our full name and I have no problem with that. If I have an opinion and really believe in that opinion why would I be ashamed to sign my name to it. Hiding behind an alias gives less credence to the opinion. Of course that's just my opinion. William Moses

Posted by william on July 25, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
With due respect to previous posts here, the statement that “growth means jobs and taxes” is true but not complete.

Growth, in terms of new buildings along Route 12, does mean those things, but it means other things as well, not all of which are blessings. Some of the drawbacks could be as great, or greater, than the advantages.

For example, the jobs that Chamberlain Machine brought with it to Walpole are skilled jobs that pay relatively well and carry fringe benefits. Although few Walpoleans worked at Chamberlain when the company moved here, future Walpole residents who are, or want to be, skilled machinists will have opportunities there for a career. In contrast, anyone who has looked into the kinds of jobs that the dollar store or Tractor Supply are offering is going to find a large number of poorly-paid jobs with a thin benefit package, if any.

All jobs are not created equal, so saying “growth means jobs” is only positive if there are people in our town who need work and have no alternative but to accept low-wage, low-skill jobs that typically have rapid turnover and little future. Although our town should include part-time work or jobs with “mothers’ hours”, as well as entry-level jobs and jobs for people with skill deficits, chain-store clerk jobs are not the kinds of jobs we should unquestionably welcome.

Yes, new retail buildings mean that the town collects higher taxes on those properties than if they were left unbuilt. But there’s a reason why towns that are growing typically see residents’ taxes increase instead of decrease. For example, Ocean State Job Lot added jobs to Walpole, but also sharply increased our police department’s workload: the store received a significant number of bad checks, which is a form of theft, and so the police department handles each case. These cases require a large amount of tracking and paperwork. Chief David Hewes said that with that extra load, additional retailers in town might require the police department to add another officer. That’s not cheap. So taxes come in from new properties, but go right back out to the additional police officer, the greater number of traffic accidents that need EMT and police services, higher costs of road maintenance due to increased wear and tear at intersections, and so on.

Meanwhile, residents deal with increased traffic, the loss of time waiting at stop lights or to make left turns, the increased risk of accidents, the loss of open space for recreation or the growing of local crops, and so on.

A study by the state Office of Energy and Planning found that towns with a large commercial tax base also tended to have higher property tax rates on homes. The study concluded that the reason is that commercial development attracts residential development as well as vice versa. With residential development come children in schools and demands for road, fire, and other services. The study ends by stating that “commercial development increases a town’s population and a large population increases the demand for town and school services.” Other studies have shown that residential growth always costs a town more than it returns in taxes. If it didn’t, people in Keene would be paying dirt-cheap property taxes. They’re not.

According to this state study, the best way for a town to maintain a low residential property tax rate over time “is to promote and encourage open space. Even though open space pays the least amount of tax dollars, it requires few if any town services, and no school services. No services required, no tax dollars needed.”

So, while jobs and retail convenience are good things, they require some judgment and discretion as well as long-range planning. “Jobs and taxes” aren’t always as simple, or as purely positive, as they sound. -- Ben Daviss

Posted by bend on August 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
Well, the co-op issue provided the smoke and mirrors needed to pave the way for the 48 unit "active adult community" which was really the first purpose of Mr. Franks' development; though when he intially came to the PB in March it was for a "supermarket" and about 5 or 6 other buildings. More money in Fred Dill's pocket from the sale of the agricultural land that will now be forever paved. Why are the people of Walpole not moved by the idea of a massive, precedent setting group of condos? None of the principles are Walpole natives, and I know, being a flatlander myself, that these guys are erroneous in representing themselves as local business men. Once the construction begins, I am envisioning a future of a half full, "phase one" with weeds growing through the rest of the infrastructure they are planning. To Mr. Franks, the so-called (by his lawyer partner, Mr. Kasper) "visionary" behind this project, I ask: what exactly is your experience as a developer? I heard what you said at the last PB meeting, but you never mentioned whether or not you endeavors were successful. Scuttlebutt says they were not; so perhaps you can reassure those of us directly affected by your lastest scheme by telling us exactly what you invested in as a developer and how it did financially. Also, the idea of a co-op is a good one, but don't come before the PB in March and tell them that you are tired of driving into Keene to buy diapers and want a store on your Fred Dill property that will compete with Shaws. Any co-op will not be able to do that. The Putney co-op is failing, and the co-ops you base your research on are for cities/towns that are completely different from Walpole. You have, from the "Permission Board" the green light to go ahead with your condo project with minimal restrictions. After you have built any or all of this project, as I understand it from your limited vocalization at PB meetings, you and the rest of your gang will waltz away from any responsibility for how these condos are managed; leaving abutters and nearby residents with lowered property values and who knows what in their "back yards". I ask Mr.Franks and all three of his cohorts whether or not THEY would ever consider living in these condos? What about their children? Does the "visionary" envision these condos as a place where he would want anyone in his family living? Food for thought. I know that I had promised not to offer my opinion on the Walpolean's website after a long run of thoughts that kept a naysayer in the mix whenever I spoke - but after two years, I'll be damned if I will be quiet about this. Ironically, the person that tends to fight me the most seems to be in agreement with this issue. Thanks for letting me speak up about issue, Chuck. Cathy White

Posted by cathywhite on August 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Re: Tuesday's Planning Board Story
"Permission Board"...lol :)

Posted by jackneary on August 20, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Post a comment (login required)