Ed. Note: Thanks to Secretary Pam Aslinger, here are the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of March 11. They will update you on the Chamberlain Machine efforts to build a new factory off Rt. 12, Bensonwood's plans for adjacent land, and other important town planning matters. CCB
Town of Walpole, NH 03608
PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 11, 2008 at 7:30pm Town Hall
MINUTES
Presiding: Jeff Miller, Chairman
Members Present: Eric Merklein, Henry Fletcher, Dave DeCoste, Charles Miller BOS,
Ben Daviss, Shane O’Keefe, alt.
Members Absent: Jeff White, alt., Fred Dill (in audience)
Recording: Pamela Aslinger, Sec./alt.
These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the April 8, 2008 meeting for errors, omissions and corrections. There were 25 +/- persons in the audience.
I. Meeting opened at 7:35pm
A. All regular members were present, no alternates designated.
B. Minutes from 2/12/08 were approved as presented by unanimous vote.
II. Review applications submitted:
Ch. Miller tabled the new applications until later in the meeting to allow for Mr. DiBernardo to arrive for the presentation and deliver survey maps. Ch. Miller called for:
VI. Unfinished Business
A. Walpole D & D, LLC - update. Mr. Dill reported they were still waiting on the State subdivision approval.
B. Chamberlain Machine Inc. - Conditional Use Permit - Well Source Protection and Site Plan Review for a machine shop located on Rte. 12 Map 12, Lot 4-2 in the Commercial and Rural Agricultural Districts. Ch. Miller announced the public hearing would be continued and asked Attorney Gary Kinyon to speak. Mr. Kinyon said they had made their presentation in full at the last meeting but noted Mr. Hitchcock their engineer from SVE had some additional information to bring to the Board, asking him to speak to the Board.
Mr. Hitchcock said they had contacted the Police Department for a written comment on traffic safety. They only were able to obtain a verbal response. The Police said they had never had a problem at the intersection and did not foresee any problems resulting from Chamberlain’s proposal. He said they spoke with the Water and Sewer Dept. they commented via e-mail (on file) that Chamberlain should connect t o the sewer line. The Water department would like more time to review the details of the water/sewer line. Mr. Hitchcock said it is a technical issue, they sent copies of the plans to the Water Dept. three weeks ago by e-mail and apparently they were not received and were not made aware until today. He said Chamberlain would accommodate whatever Mr. Houghton wants. He said in doing more research, he had been told by his staff the sewer line was quite far away but in fact the sewer line is closer but is still about 1600 ft. away. He pointed to the building and sewer main on the map, they would come along the back of the lots to Rte. 12 and cross Rte. 12. He said it is an option to connect but the sewer main is about 20 feet deep, it would be a very costly process, but it is possible.
Ch. Miller called for questions. Mr. DeCoste stressed that one of the reasons Chamberlain wanted this location was because it provided Town utilities and he is very surprised they may not hook into Town utilities. Mr. Hitchcock said it is a very costly alternative to a septic system when the flow for 60-70 employees is about 600 gallons per day. He said a septic system could be built for $8 - $10,000.00 versus $120,000.00 to do the sewer line. He said because it is so deep and the need for six manholes and to cross Rte. 12 by cutting the pavement - which DOT may not allow additionally they would need to drill under the highway.
Selectman Miller asked if they would be hooking up to the pump or sewer line? Mr. Hitchcock said not the pump it would be the sewer line where it starts the gravity run.
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 2
Ch. Miller asked if Pinnacle View was hooked in? Ch. Miller asked Mark Houghton Walpole’s Water Commissioner present in the audience to speak.
Mr. Houghton said because the plans were not received and they have not had time to review the plans together he thought there could be some solutions to the sewer and water hook up that hadn’t been previously considered. He said there is a lateral across Rte. 12 at Pinnacle View and that the whole scope of all development should be considered. He cautioned against allowing one operation to put in a private sewer system setting a precedent for the next project. He said the entire area is in the Well Source Protection District and one thing they don’t want are private industrial septic systems, although there are some, they don’t want to add to them.
Ch. Miller said on another matter the Board would be reviewing an abutting parcel for Bensonwood’s Site Plan Review, he asked if they would be tying in and if the costs could be shared? Have there been communications between them?
Peter Wotowiecz introduced himself as the representative for Bensonwood Homes. He said it is premature to be discussing the issue but they have been in contact with Chamberlain Machine on specifics related to the Town utilities. He said it was their intention to work together with them and not do things separately. Ch. Miller thanked Mr. Wotowiecz noting there did seem to be some viable options for connecting to water and sewer for both projects.
Ch. Miller called for further questions from the public stating the Board could ask their questions once the public hearing was closed. There were none. He then asked Mr. Kinyon for other comments.
Mr. Kinyon said they would take questions based on the February presentation and he said if the Board would agree to make a final decision at tonight’s meeting they would like to have an approval. If there is some uncertainty about the water and sewer hook up he could suggest some language that would allow the Board to vote tonight to protect those concerns, but he would like to wait until the review is over before offering them. Ch. Miller agreed and reminded him the Board has an additional 30 days to go before making their final decision. He called for further public questions.
Mary Lou Montgomery from the Conservation Commission asked to comment on the letter they sent to the Board when asked to comment after the February 12th meeting. She said she thought the letter had been circulated to all of the Board members. Sec. Aslinger confirmed it had been. She asked to present a summary so all present could be made aware of the WCC’s concerns. She said they believed in the interest of the Town, the Planning Board should undertake an in depth independent review of the methodology and data presented with this application. This is a momentous decision environmentally, politically, economically even legally with significant impact on our communal sources. They recommend there be further communication with the following from independent consultants working for the Town, not for the developer:
#1. A hydrologist to provide advice on procedures testing for the local flow of the water in the aquifer to access the need to install 3-5 monitoring wells on the site.
#2, That representatives from the DES and EPA be contacted to provide historical data on establishment of the boundaries for inclusion in the WSPO and to provide technical review of the studies and data.
#3. That an expert in storm water management be consulted to advise on particular practices that promote protection of underlying aquifer and soils.
#4. In the interest of having safety connected to the chemicals we have someone investigate fully the potential toxicity of all the chemicals used in the proposed manufacturing process and recommend procedures and requirements for cradle to grave handling of said chemicals.
#5. That a legal adviser be consulted to review the NH statutes and decisions regarding the alleged supremacy of the federal RCRA law over our stronger local ordinance.
She noted that they have provided some suggested consultants attached to the letter.
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes page 3
Ch. Miller asked if the WCC would have the same concerns if it were only the Bensonwood project? Mrs. Montgomery said they would have the same concerns on any and all projects within the well source protection area. He called for other questions.
Mr. DeCoste asked where the 3-5 monitoring wells would be placed? Mr. Schupack of the WCC said it would be for a hydrologist to determine. It would be insurance against any toxicity getting toward the well. Any contamination would be very detrimental to the well source protection area. Mr. DeCoste said a hydrologist had addressed contamination and believed there would be an incredibly small chance. Mr. Schupack said it is a hydrologist hired by the
developer. Mr. DeCoste asked if he thought they weren’t telling the truth? Mr. Schupack said he was only repeating what was told to him by EPA and DES they questioned the information provided, he doesn’t know if they are telling the truth or not because he is not a hydrologist. He said according to DES you couldn’t determine local flow by using just the plate shown. You have to put in test wells to measure it, it’s a very complicated procedure and with the well on the property you can suck water from many feet away. Ch. Miller said if that is the case shouldn’t Hubbard Farm have test wells for their current operation and Pinnacle View and the farmers spreading manure? Some agreed but Mr. O’Keefe said present operations are exempt and grandfathered. Ch. Miller disagreed saying in order to fully protect the well everyone in the area should be involved, how could it be determined which business was responsible for contamination? He said the same issue was raised when Berkshire had plans to expand North Meadow Plaza, they were able to satisfy it with their stormwater management plan in the long term. Mr. Schupack said the plaza was not within the source protection area, Mr. Miller said it was in the aquifer and barely 20 feet away. Mr. Schupack disagreed.
Mr. Sawyer asked if the monitoring wells would include everyone in the source protection area? Ch. Miller said why should Malnati’s farm be able to spread manure within the area? Mr. Schupack said talk to DES but as long as farmers are practicing best management they are allowed to spread manure. Ch. Miller thought common sense should be used.
Mr. Merklein asked if WCC’s recommendations pertained only to Chamberlain? Mr. Schupack said he thought anyone developing in the source protection area should be studied but reiterated the need for the Planning Board to consult with it’s own independent technical expert. Mrs. Montgomery said there is no desire on their part to look at past projects but only the one before the Board now because of setting precedent with whatever decision is made in this situation. She said what WCC is saying that the process by which the developer’s specialist’s are the ones on which the Board rely in an area that is so essential to the entire community that there may need to be some consulting with a non-developer provided specialist to review the proposal.
Mr. Bob Miller said he could not recall such in-depth discussions taking place when Pinnacle View moved into their location and questioned why - when they have a potential for contamination on a greater scale with all the diesel fuel and solvents for cleaning parts. He realizes the Board can’t go back but asked why not? Ch. Miller said he thought the issue was brought up and answered to the Board’s satisfaction at the time of Pinnacle’s site plan review.
Mr. Ben Daviss asked if the WSPO was in place at the time? Ch. Miller said no it wasn’t but the well was there and the same concerns were still considered. He referred to a storage site across from the Creamery, saying when it was presented a hot issue because of a possible spillage from electrical transformers and other equipment storage. They asked for containment and drainage because it was lower and further north of the well so it had a greater potential for contamination. He said over the years on all the projects such as Rite Aid the Board included the well protection as an issue.
Mr. Sawyer asked about the biased against the hydrologist Chamberlain used. He said the same hydrologist has done extensive work for the Town, if he’s biased in this case then the Town should be looking for someone else. He asked if there was any reason not to trust Mr.
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 4
Brackett’s assessment and questioned if another hydrologist was needed. He is flabbergasted at the suggestion he is considered biased.
Mr. Daviss said; as a general statement raising questions about looking for another opinion isn’t about who’s telling the truth or who’s biased. He likened it to seeking a second opinion from a physician; it isn’t about accusing the first doctor of lying or being incompetent or biased. It’s about making certain you have the best information to make a decision. He said he thought the Board did require interpretation and a professional opinion because it is complex. He thinks it is perfectly in line to ask for a second opinion, it does not imply anything but competence and honesty of anyone involved. It is simply prudence for a Board that’s charged with protecting the public water and with applying the ordinance and setting precedent. He didn’t think it isn’t necessarily something the Board couldn’t go ahead without but he thinks the Board can ask these questions without bias and without thinking they are trying to sink or promote Chamberlain. What should be done is to apply the ordinance earnestly and setting a precedent that we can all rely on into the future.
Ch. Miller agreed with Mr. Daviss, saying it is well within the Board’s rights to ask for a different opinion or follow up with concerns. He said the Board has used this in the past and feels it is very important for the Board to retain that right. He noted the Board had asked for an independent study on a recent application. It was very helpful to the Board and it had a positive result.
Mr. Merklein asked if the monitoring wells were appropriate and asked even though it is Chamberlain specific should they be considering the other development potential? Ch. Miller said monitoring wells could be revisited once the public hearing was closed and called for public comments or concerns.
Mr. Kinyon asked to respond to the Conservation Commission’s comments. He said what they presented at the February meeting was very detailed and costly because Chamberlain felt it was their obligation to put before the Board competent expert evidence that their proposed facility will not pose a threat to the well source protection area. While he agrees with everything that’s been said about the Board asking for more review, he thinks applying common sense and fairness; also keep in mind that Chamberlain is a business operating on a need to get this facility started at some point. Applying practicality and common sense to the evidence that’s been presented means a fair conclusion to draw is that last month the testimony of Steve Brackett because of the way it is regulated by the Federal Government does not pose a threat of contamination and even if it did the contamination is not going to move toward the well source. He said there was nothing presented at the last meeting to contradict or dispute Steve’s findings. Does that mean the Board has to accept it, no - but if the Board takes issue with the findings, they don’t have to be accepted on their face. He thought the Board found that his findings were very compelling. He said he didn’t think second opinions should be sought just for the sake of second opinions. But if the Board should look at the evidence, if there is enough there and it doesn’t pose a threat to the well source protection area, then in fairness the Board should vote in favor of the Site Plan and conditional use permit.
Ch. Miller called for comments.
Mr. Schupack, said he did speak to DES, they said the local flow cannot be determined from the information they provided; local flow is far more complicated than what was presented. He said a well could draw from several thousand feet and that DES will consult and will review the information for the Board; he thinks the Board should have it reviewed.
Ch. Miller asked how far the new facility is from the well. Mr. Kinyon asked Mr. Brackett to answer. Mr. Brackett said the well is approximately 1600 feet from the back west side of the building. He said he has no problem with being questioned or having a second opinion but he thought it was unnecessary. He said the information he presented was not his information but the information from USGS maps that is used in the WSPO. He does not think it
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes page 5
is fair that the information the Town used to develop the protection area that suggests the groundwater flow in the area is to the South - away from the well now does not serve the purposes of other people. That being asked for additional work doesn’t seem to be fair. He said if the WSPO map didn’t support his findings that would be a different circumstance. He said the way the source protection area was put together is exactly the way they are in the rest of the State. He said there is a DES file giving the steps to follow to base protection areas. He said you could not disagree with what DES says but there could be much more detailed information rather than just following reconnaissance data from USGS. He said when he came in over a year ago, he suggested to Chamberlain to do a hydrogeological study and monitoring wells because he thinks the source protection area delineation is bizarre. He said it is wrong, it should extend a significant distance up the river and there is a big area of influence that is missing. But at this stage in the game to have Chamberlain come in to redefine the well source protection area against the USGS maps - supports his contention that it is unfair.
Selectmen Miller said he thought Mr. Brackett’s impartiality was for the Town, not anyone else.
Ch. Miller said he remembered the map and delineation was hurried and not well prepared but they (ZBA) were trying to meet a legal deadline set by DES for aquifer protection so he thought Mr. Brackett’s logic was in line with the map being unclear. He called for further comments.
Mr. Schupack said he spoke with Doug Heath in Boston who developed the USGS map, he did not think it was as casual as Ch. Miller thought. He said he didn’t know the technical details but he thought the Board should get an expert opinion. Ch. Miller said his point was they used only a map and didn’t do the actual physical location in Walpole. Mr. Schupack said that wasn’t the impression he got from Mr. Heath at all.
Ch. Miller called for further comments or concerns, being none, closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting for Board deliberations.
Eric Merklein asked about the lighting plan Chamberlain presented. He thought the lighting in the parking lot used a 35 foot pole height thinking it was too high. He asked if they would consider a smaller version to avoid light pollution. Mr. Hitchcock answered with a new lighting plan submission showing more poles but at a lower 25 foot pole height. He said they would accommodate what ever the Board required. The new plan results in less light poles. Mr. Merklein asked about the previously discussed timer on the lights. Mr. Hitchcock said yes they would have the lights turned off at 7PM as agreed. He said the lights around the building for security would stay on.
Mr. Merklein asked about traffic concerns. He thought as the area develops the traffic increase may create problems. He made a point of driving in and out of the Shaw’s center and in both directions to study traffic paths. His concern is about employees leaving at night especially during rain and fog, that there isn’t any lit warning to Rte. 12 travelers of exiting traffic from Huntington Lane. He thought the added Bensonwood project would make it even worse. The most difficult turn is to the north across Rte. 12. He said speed is an issue also although the Police didn’t have concern. He asked if there could be lighting at the corner. Mr. Hitchcock asked if he was suggesting a traffic light or a street light? Mr. Merklein said lighting on the corner to illuminate it. He said he’s not demanding traffic light just some sort of safety lighting.
Ch. Miller asked Mr. Wotowiecz if Bensonwood was planning to use the same entrance and exit? Mr. Woteoweicz said yes but truck traffic would be restricted to Edwards Lane further North.
Mr. Hitchcock said in preparation for the Zoning Board’s special exception VHB had prepared a traffic study and copies were presented to the Planning Board with the Site Plan application. He said the State DOT rated the intersection as a category level of service A, the best available. Mr. O’Keefe asked if that was for all turning movements, he didn’t think a level of
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 6
service A would be for all turning movements. Mr. Hitchcock said he thought it was although he had not studied the report. Mr. O’Keefe said both Chamberlain and Bensonwood are good companies but it bothers him to have the property dealt with piecemeal and it should be planned out in a way that takes into consideration all the potential traffic on this site, a series of curbcuts one more dangerous than the next, it bothers him about the whole process.
Selectman Miller said because it wasn’t a specifically zoned an industrial park each project must be taken separately. Others disagreed thinking all the developments should be considered. Mr. Merklein asked how to address it.
Ch. Miller said two things need to be addressed in unison with Chamberlain and Bensonwood’s proposals being they are so close to one another and how they impact each other - one being the traffic and the other being the water and sewer hook up. He said another determination for the Board to consider are the concerns the Conservation Commission brought up. He mentioned the Board did not need to make it’s final decision at tonight’s meeting having 30 more days out of the 65 days to decide. He asked if the Board wanted to pursue the CC concerns, if so how and to what degree. He thought waiting until Bensonwood submitted their plans would help and to see how the two of them will work together. He said the Board could if they wanted to make a decision on the Chamberlain site plan could with conditions but felt the additional information pending to move forward was important. He agreed there was little contradicting information offered at the last meeting in regard to the conditional use permit required in the WSPO but if the Board wanted to ask for an additional independent opinion of what was presented -it should be considered by the Board. He asked the Board how they wanted to proceed.
Mr. O’Keefe asked to speak on a procedural matter and if he was on as a voting member. The answer was no to his status, all regular members were present. He thought according to the Well Source Protection Ordinance under Prohibited Uses J. it states no toxic or hazardous materials are allowed on the site. He said there is an appeal provision in the ordinance by way of variance to the ZBA, he asked if they had sought a variance from that prohibited use? Mr. Kinyon said the provision if read in context is not a provision that prohibits any hazardous waste being on the site. He said it prohibits a business whose primary use is the handling of the waste. Mr. O’Keefe disagreed and read “All on site handling, disposal, storage, processing, recycling of hazardous or toxic materials”. He said he’s not trying to put up road blocks he just wanted a resolution. Mr. Kinyon said it had been discussed at the last meeting as well, Mr. O’Keefe agreed but did not think it had been adequately resolved. He said he would like to get over it somehow maybe by appealing to the Zoning Board by variance, he thought the provision was problematic. Mr. Kinyon reiterated what was said at the prior meeting. He said if you read J. as prohibiting any use on the site which handles hazardous or toxic materials, you can’t do anything. Mr. O’Keefe said he didn’t disagree with him. Mr. Kinyon said a single-family residence would be excluded or a perfectly benign office or retail use. He said if looking at permitted uses in Section 4 the ordinance’s intent is not to prohibit all uses, it’s to prohibit uses whose primary and overriding use is going to be a threat to the Well Source Protection. Mr. O’Keefe said the ordinance didn’t actually say that. Ch. Miller said one member of the Well Source Committee’s interpretation was that it meant a business that handles, stores etc. hazardous material’s as it’s primary use, agreeing with Mr. Kinyon. Mr. O’Keefe said the ordinance wording was very clear although there could be many interpretations. Mr. Kinyon suggested reading the other sections of prohibited uses, such as solid waste disposal, it would make sense for a use devoted to that might be a threat to the well head protection area. Mr. O’Keefe said he didn’t need to have him go over everything he was simply concerned with the literal wording in the ordinance and how to get over the way it is written in the ordinance. Mr. Kinyon said remedy it by interpreting it reasonably within the context of the ordinance to understand it couldn’t possibly be construed in a reasonable manner to prohibit everything - it is not the intent of the ordinance when taken in context. Mr.
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 7
O’Keefe said he thought there was a problem with the ordinance and there is an appeal process. Mr. Kinyon said no it’s a problem with how literally Mr. O’Keefe is construing that one section out of context and in isolation of the entire ordinance. Mr. O’Keefe said he disagreed. Mr. Kinyon acknowledged his disagreement.
Mr. DeCoste said he was satisfied with what was presented to the Board at the last meeting in regard to how and what materials were used in their processes. He reiterated there are no floor drains anywhere in the building, Mr. Kinyon confirmed. He said he understands because of where they are located is of concern and it is very important to be careful but to think under normal circumstances they are going to loose something outside of the building to contaminate the aquifer is unlikely. But he thinks it might be worthwhile to install monitoring wells to insure nothing is going into the ground. He said if historically Chamberlain has not had issues and if the building is constructed properly and the fact they don’t dispose of hazardous materials, he doesn’t think it is as big an issue. He said there is no way for it to get out of the building in the event of a spill. He does think there should be monitoring wells especially to cover potential changes in ownership in the future. He also expressed concern on the sewer line stating it was very important to him to have them connect because when they approached the Board with their plans one of the main reasons for picking the site was because it had utilities. He thought with the added development they should all be on Town services.
Mr. Merklein agreed and thought the monitoring wells should be taken into consideration especially with the added development. He did not know how they would be located but thought they should encompass the entire parcel.
Mr. O’Keefe said he thought Chamberlain most likely runs a very good operation but is concerned about truck deliveries or other outside parties.
Ch. Miller said if there were an incident such as that there are statutes in place that must be followed for reporting and clean up. He said a monitoring well isn’t likely to pick up that type of contamination.
Mr. Fletcher asked if Chamberlain should have to pay for monitoring the other lots too?
Ch. Miller said he did not personally think the monitoring wells were necessary, nor did Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thought it would be unfair to have them pay for it when others benefit from it. Ch. Miller said however, if other members of the Board are unsure they should have the information that was presented independently reviewed and a recommendation made. He said before monitoring wells are requested the information presented needs to support the request.
Selectman Miller asked if the monitoring wells would just be set for Chamberlain Machine or for the entire aquifer? He said when the Board has approved projects in the past and been uncertain perhaps the monitoring wells should be placed throughout the entire aquifer so it can be monitored entirely so they could see where it any contamination was coming from. Ch. Miller thought the intent of the monitoring wells would be to see any contamination from Chamberlain, designed specifically for them not the entire aquifer. He said at Putney paper where he works, when they closed the landfill the monitoring wells were placed where the flow would go and every so often they are tested. Selectmen Miller said the solid waste facility also has monitoring wells in place.
Mr. Merklein agreed with having the presented information reviewed before deciding on monitoring wells and whether they are needed. Mr. Daviss said the wells are related to prudence, true if a spill happens there are regulations in place to expedite it’s handling but there can be problems that go unknown, a monitoring well checked periodically might be a good assurance. He thinks it’s erring on the side of caution when it’s right on top of the water supply; it is a valid need.
Ch. Miller recognized Mr. Steve Brackett. Mr. Brackett said the purpose of a monitoring well is to determine the direction of flow. It has nothing to do with determining contamination or future contamination. He said there is no way he would recommend his clients install monitoring
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 8
wells. He said they are a conduit from the surface directly into the aquifer, they breakdown over time and will more likely draw contaminants from the parking lot into the wells. He said on site’s he has been involved in once the site no longer needs monitoring they fill the wells in immediately because they make him nervous just sitting around. To think they would install monitoring wells and leave them in place indefinitely is not an industry practice nor will he recommend it to his clients. If they are needed to determine ground water flow, that’s different.
Mr. Daviss spoke to Mr. Kinyon directly stating that at the last meeting the Board was told the RCRA federal law superceded the Town’s own local ordinance, and because the Board doesn’t have a lot of experience with the ordinance we are tying to figure out what it does and doesn’t apply too. He asked Mr. Kinyon if he would be able to substantiate by using explicit language or case law indicating where the Federal or State law superceded the Town’s ordinance? He said he had spoken to a lawyer at the Local Gov’t Center who suggested the Board make this request to establish which law takes precedence so it completes the record and is part of the application. Mr. Kinyon was not clear on what portion of the ordinance is superceded by Federal Law. Mr. Daviss said he believed Mr. Brackett said because Chamberlain recycles they are excluded through RCRA from all State and local control. Mr. Brackett spoke to what he remember saying which was that the Town’s ordinance relies on RCRA which is a common practice among well source protection ordinances. He said the State of NH does not do toxicity studies on their own. They rely on the technical data that’s within the RCRA; he presumed Walpole does the same thing. It is RCRA that gives exemption through federal law for chemicals that are processed in certain ways; commonly State’s and Town’s follow the same lead. He did not say they supercede the Town’s ordinance. Mr. Kinyon said he thought Mr. Brackett was focusing on the definitions section of the ordinance that defines hazardous and toxic materials which refers to RCRA.
Mr. Daviss contacted DES about the reach of RCRA specifically about the difference in hazardous waste being RCRA’s purvue and hazardous materials. DES regulates hazardous waste and DOT hazardous materials so he is even more confused about RESTRA and RCRA. Mr. Brackett said DES under State hazardous waste laws follow federal RCRA hazardous waste laws for use, storage and disposal. The State laws regulate use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. DOT regulates the transportation of hazardous wastes.
Mr. Daviss said that was not his understanding from the person he spoke with, he will contact him again for clarification.
Ch. Miller asked the Board if they wanted to think about a final decision for another 30 days? Members agreed. Mr. Fletcher moved to delay final decision for an additional 30 days. Ch. Miller said a motion was not in order. Mr. Fletcher withdrew his motion. Ch. Miller said the matter would be taken up at the April meeting. Sec. Aslinger asked if the Board could follow up on how the sewer connection is to be addressed with Mark Houghton. Ch. Miller agreed saying he thought Chamberlain understood the need for them to hook up and to work on an alternative. Mr. Daviss asked if Bensonwood had a timeframe of when they would be presenting their plans. Mr. Wotowiecz said he was submitting their plans tonight.
8:35pm Ch. Miller returned to New Business at the beginning of the agenda.
II. Review Application Submitted: Accept/Reject/Delay
A. Toby Tousley - Minor 3 lot subdivision located on 14 Darling Lane aka “Huntington Farm” off Rte. 12, Map 12, Lot 4-1 in the Commercial and Rural Ag. Districts. Purposed is to create Lot 1 of 23.81 acres, Lot 2 of 5.67 acres with existing leased business and Lot 3 of 1.98 acres. All lots meet frontage, acreage and setbacks for the zones. Mr. DiBernardo presented new maps with Lot 1 amended to 24.48 acres. Mr. Tousley presented the subdivision.
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 9
He indicated how the remaining lot was divided explaining Bensonwood would like to purchase all of it except for one small commercial lot near Chamberlain with the existing farm house Lot 3 Mr. Tousley plans to retain the lot. He said Bensonwood will purchase Lot 1 and 2, Lot 2 will be occupied by Hubbard with a 10 year long term lease with three of the buildings. Once the lease is up Lot 1 and 2 will be merged. Lot 2 allows Hubbard to operate on their own legal lot. Lot 1 is “u” shaped with frontage non-continuous but meets more than what is required.
Ch. Miller thought frontage had to be continuous; upon checking the ordinance the definition of frontage does not require it to be continuous, nor does the State definition. Mr. Tousley said he had brought up the question a few months earlier and continuous was not required. There was some discussion as to how much frontage is required with the lots being in two zones. The commercial zone frontage requirement is 150 feet, rural agricultural is 200 feet. All of the lots have 200 feet or more. The Secretary’s report indicated one discrepancy on Lot 1 shown as 23.81 acres was amended to 24.48 acres because the surveyor forgot to add in .6 acres. All abutters were properly notified the application and fees submitted, notices posted and hearing notice appeared in the Keene Sentinel.
A motion to accept the application as complete was made by Mr. Fletcher, it was seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
8:45 pm Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. He called for questions or comments from the audience. Being none closed the public hearing at 8:50pm and re-opened the meeting. He called for Board question or comments.
Mr. DeCoste asked for further explanation of the frontage issue. Ch. Miller said he thought frontage had to be continuous but understands that is not as it is defined. He said the frontage is all on one road, which is a plus. Mr. Dill added that at the preliminary hearing Ch. Miller was absent so that could have been why he doesn’t remember already addressing the question. Ch. Miller was relieved to find out his memory had not completely failed him. Mr. Tousley said Ch. Miller might not have been aware that Bensonwood is planning to recombine Lot 1 and 2 so eventually the frontage will be continuous.
Mr. O’Keefe asked why Lot 1 and 2 were separated? Mr. Tousley explained that the ordinance does not allow two separate businesses to operate on one lot in two separate buildings. Mr. O’Keefe thought it had happened in the past such as the Plaza. Ch. Miller said the plaza buildings are separate lots of record.
A motion to approve the application for a 3 Lot subdivision as presented was made by Mr. Daviss. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Further discussion: Mr. O’Keefe thought it was a shame the developments weren’t being looked at all together instead of piecemeal. Mr. Daviss said when Bensonwood submits their plans tonight it will be helpful. Mr. O’Keefe said it could have been a master planned site and it was not - unfortunately. Mr. DeCoste said the difficulty was each entity has to go through the special exception process to have their allowed use, so it separates the proposals. Mr. Bob Miller asked what was left after Chamberlain and Bensonwood present their plans? Mr. Tousley said only Lot 3 of 1.98 acres would be left in the commercial district. Ch. Miller called for the vote, motion carried unanimously.
The maps and mylar were signed with Mr. Tousley agreeing to record the mylar and report back to the Secretary with the book and page numbers.
B. Henry B. Cabot Trust - Lot Line Adjustment located on Rte. 12, Map 12, Lot 12-4 in the Commercial and Rural Ag. Districts aka “Ballam Farm”. Purpose is to remove the western boundary line between Town of Walpole to the east by 8 acres. The 8 acres will be annexed as a gift to the Town of Walpole parcel Map 12, Lot 3 to protect the “River Well”.
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 10
Mr. DiBernardo presented additional copies of the map. Secretary Aslinger reported the application was complete all abutters were notified, fees collected, notices posted and the public hearing notice published in the Keene Sentinel.
A motion to accept the application as complete was made by Mr. Daviss and seconded by Mr. Bob Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
9:05pm Ch. Miller closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing, he called for questions and comments. Mr. DiBernardo explained that the intent of the lot line adjustment is to give the Town 8 acres to protect the well. It leaves the farm with 60.97 acres.
Mr. DeCoste asked where the well was in relation to the 8 acres. Mr. DiBernardo said it was approximately under the location map but not shown on these plans.
With no further comments Ch. Miller closed the Public Hearing at 9:10pm and re-opened the meeting. He called for Board discussion and action.
A motion to approve the application for Lot Line Adjustment as presented was made by Henry Fletcher and seconded by Ben Daviss. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. DiBernardo will record the mylar and report back to the Secretary as proof.
VII. New Business
A. Bensonwood Homes - Preliminary discussion and application submission for a special exception recommendation to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Peter Wotowiecz a timber-framer and part of the management team for the company presented a completed application, abutter list and fees to the Secretary to be processed for the April 8, 2008 meeting and Public Hearing. The application was signed by the owner Mr. Tousley. He noted that some of the addresses are incorrect on the abutter list but he will forward the changes by e-mail tomorrow. He explained they have built out their present location on Blackjack Crossing Road so are planning to expand to the Huntington Farm parcel. He noted it is the same “u” shaped property as previously subdivided. He said the plans show their intent to expand over the next 3-5 years. He said they would begin with an existing chicken house in the center. They would renovate it immediately. They are planning to build modules to the base over the next 3-5 years for production. The total square footage for all is 70,109 sq. ft. They have looked around Town for an adequate site, have spoken with the owners of the Industrial Park and are very interested in staying in Walpole, but this time around want Town utilities. He said at Blackjack Crossing they do have a generator - in fact they are on the second one apparently they only last 10,000 hours so it’s turned out to be a costly endeavor. This time they felt it was vital to have Town water/sewer and three phase power. He said it is not available at the current industrial park so they have decided on the Huntington Farm property because it is offered although the parcel is not zoned industrial therefore they are applying for a special exception to grant the allowed use in the rural agricultural zone.
Mr. Daviss asked if the new location would be like the operation at Blackjack Crossing. Mr. Wotowiecz said the offices would remain at the Blackjack location and they will continue using that facility as is. They are planning to move some of their more carpentry based production facilities to the new site. The engineers and offices will remain at Blackjack.
Ch. Miller asked about the number of employees for the first year. Mr. Wotowiecz said they would be phasing in the project so the first year would be 10 - 15 employees, the total concept over 3-5 years would be 40 people with 20 already employed at Blackjack and the rest to be hired. Ch. Miller noted that would mean about adding 10 more employees per year for traffic consideration. He asked about entrances and exits. Mr. Wotowiecz said they would use both locations, Hunting Lane for employee traffic and Edwards Lane for truck traffic. He said they hired a traffic engineer who may have some recommendations on best flows for the traffic. Ch. Miller asked if they had contacted DOT yet, answer was not yet - but they will be doing so once the traffic study is prepared. Sec. Aslinger said she had been contacted by VBH, Nick Sanders earlier in the week regarding the study, he was interested in knowing about any other
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 11
development in the area to include in his projections. Mr. Wotowiecz said they purposely used VBH because Chamberlain had used them, so they will be building off the Chamberlain report. He said they do understand the importance of comprehensive planning. He said they are residents and taxpayers in the Town and they want to do the right thing for the Town. Mr. Merklein asked if the traffic study could be based on the maximum build out for the site. Mr. Wotowiecz said he spoke with the engineer earlier in the day and they decided to do just that. Sec. Aslinger reminded members that copies of the Chamberlain traffic study are available to review.
Ch. Miller asked if it was their intent to hook into Town sewer? Mr. Wotowiecz said yes it is their intent. Mr. DeCoste asked if he thought they could work something out with Chamberlain? Mr. Wotowiecz said they had been discussing the idea with Chamberlain but haven’t gotten very far because of what they thought existed before tonight’s meeting, but it is feasible. He said Chamberlain’s hook up plans would pass over their parcels so it make sense to work together rather than having two pipes running along side by side.
Mr. DeCoste asked if the buildings would be placed on a concrete slab. He asked what kind of materials might be handled that are toxic or hazardous because of the well protection area? Mr. Wotowiecz said they will be production facilities, they’ll be building pre-assembled wall, floor and brick units. Part of the strategy is to build large pieces and to put it together quickly. They will also have a millwork production woodworking shop for fine quality millworks. He said in reality there would be none (hazardous or toxic materials) but they will use wood finishing products such as citrus oil. He said he contacted the Fire Department to do a walk through of their current facility; a letter will follow. He said the Fire Department has been to their facility over the years to do inspections. He has asked them to make an inspection particularly looking for hazardous materials and compiling a report to become part of the public record. He thought it was a good idea to have them look over the operation and make a report.
Ch. Miller read from the ordinance regarding a special exception recommendation specifically the two criteria the Board is to consider at the public hearing for April. He asked the Board to look back at the Chamberlain proposal and consider asking for related information such as traffic, the sewage, lighting etc. Mr. Merklein reminded they would need a conditional use permit under the well source protection ordinance. Mr. Wotoweicz agreed they would be applying for that along with the Site Plan Review if the special exception is granted. Mr. Wotowiecz said if anything is missing from the application he will respond to it immediately.
Mr. O’Keefe said the traffic analysis should reflect information for five years into the future rather than what is immediate. Ch. Miller agreed the total buildout is what should be considered for review to include Chamberlain’s 60-70 employees and Bensonwood’s 40-50.
A motion to place the application on the agenda and hold a public hearing in April for a special exception recommendation was made and seconded, motion carried unanimously.
B. Larry Burdick - Village renovations, Hubbard brick hatchery building on Upper Walpole Rd. Mr. Burdick asked the Board if the brick hatchery building on Rte. 23 could be used for processing and making chocolate. He buys chocolate and makes things from the chocolate, what he is proposing would be to bring in cocoa beans in from the Carribean, roast them and make chocolate from them. He would then use it in the other building to make chocolate items. He said he would know more by the end of April but wants first to determine if it is allowed and whether the Town would favor the use and if it is permitted. He described the building as being about 30,000 sq. ft. on about 12 acres. He might need to add on to it. Ch. Miller said part of the land is in commercial and also in rural agricultural so he would need to go through a similar process as Chamberlain and Bensonwood. He would need a special exception and site plan review, but it is a permitted use by special exception. Selectmen Miller questioned whether he needed a special exception because it is an agricultural product. Members felt even though it is an agricultural pod the processing use is industrial so would not be exempt from special
Walpole Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/11/08 page 12
exception. Selectmen Miller was concerned about the fumes, some thought it would be better than dead chickens and cow manure. Mr. Burdick said it is a very clean process basically creating a paste and adding sugar and vanilla. The beans come directly from farmers in burlap bags. The shells are re-useable as animal bedding. Sec. Aslinger will send him a letter outlining the procedures.
D. Other - Joe DiBernardo from DiBern
Here are some quick snapshots of the busy volunteers and some happy customers. CCB
