The Walpolean

Agenda for Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday,  October 18, 2017

Walpole Town Hall

 7:30 pm

Roll Call: Appointment of alternates if needed.

Minutes: Review minutes.

New Business:

Paula Burdick: new driveway Elm Street

Signage: Bruce Bergeron, representing Irving Oil, new sign at Jakes Market

Bob Mandich, 33 Prospect Hill – home business

Old Business:

Gravel Pit Inspections

Corrections to last month’s minutes about Carmody property, 6 Ames Lane

Executive session – minutes

Next meeting Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town of Walpole

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

7:30 pm

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Tom Murray, Judy Trow, Mary Therese Lester. Alternate: Pauline Barnes. Absent: Ernie Vose. 

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the October meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. There were five board members present so no one was needed to fill in.

Minutes:  Corrections to the minutes are as follows: page 4, first paragraph – center of the road was changed to edge of the road; page 2, paragraph 2 second sentence should be in quotes and in the same paragraph the last word, “with” should be followed by “selling excess materials.”

Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and the Board voted in favor of the motion.

The August Executive Session minutes will be voted on next month.

New Business:

Paula Burdick wants to put in a new driveway at a home she owns on Elm Street. Ms. Burdick could not make the meeting so it was postponed until next month.

New signage at Jakes was postponed until next month.

Gravel Pit Inspections:

Every year gravel pits must be inspected by the Zoning Board. This year the assignments are as follows:

Cold River and Whipple Hill – Ernie and MT

Hodgkins – Drewsville and Industrial Park – Judy and Myra

Graves – Jan and Tom

Sawyer – Jan and Tom

Inspection forms will be turned in at the October meeting.

Ms. Barnes asked about inspections. Ms. Trow suggested she check RSA 1:55, which is in the Planning Board manual on page 119.

Letter to the Zoning Board

The Zoning Board received a letter from a Walpole resident living in Dearborn Circle. The person was  concerned about the September Zoning Board minutes and was writing about the discussion of a storage facility at 6 Ames Plaza Lane.

The letter said that in March 2007, Dearborn Circle and Burrows Lane was changed by referendum ballot from Commercial to Residential A.

The letter also mentioned that the trees, mentioned in the minutes, were not tall, nor adequate in their implementation. “They do not provide adequate screening, as the lower branches die off in the single-row planting. No tree is greater than 30 feet tall, and three trees in that row have died in the past five years.”

The tax card was looked at and it was found that that property is zoned Residential B, not commercial, as was stated at the prior meeting. A person could not build a storage facility there without a Special Exception or a Variance. And an owner of the property could not built a four or six apartment house structure as an apartment in Residential B can only have two apartments.

Warrant Article 

Ms. Trow and Ms. Barnes will read through the Zoning Articles and find road names that have been changed. Changes to the Zoning Articles will then be presented at two public hearings regarding the name changes and be put on the 2018 warrant.

A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded by Ms. Lester and approved by the Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Agenda for Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday,  September 20, 2017

Walpole Town Hall

 7:30 pm

Roll Call: Appointment of alternates if needed.

Minutes: Review minutes.

New Business:

Paula Burdick: new driveway Elm Street – Tom Aldrich will explain

Maybe Pro Signs: New signs at Jakes

Gravel Pit Inspections

Old Business:

Letter to Zoning Board

Next meeting Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town of Walpole

Wednesday, August 21, 2017

7:30 pm

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Tom Murray. Alternate: Ernie Vose. Absent: Judy Trow, Mary Therese Lester and Alternate Pauline Barnes.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the September 2017 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:36 pm. There was a quorum of three board members and Alternate Ernie Vose was asked to act as a regular Board member.

Minutes:  Mr. Murray made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Ms. Mansouri seconded the motion and the Board voted in the affirmative.

Old Business: Public Hearing for an Expansion of a Non-Conforming Use. Map 18, Lot 18, Residential B, owners of the property at 56 Old Keene Road are Andrea-Vickers and Griffin Sivret.

Mr. Chad Thurston of Griffin Construction explained that he wanted to add 7 feet to the existing building, continuing on in the same line and run it parallel to the road.

Ms. Leclerc asked if it would be closer to the road. Mr. Thurston said no. The original setback was 60 feet from the center line of the street instead of the current ordinance requirement of 65 feet.

With no further questions from the Board or the audience, Ms. Mansouri closed the hearing. Mr. Vose made a motion to accept the Expansion as presented. Ms. Leclerc seconded the motion and the Board voted in favor of the motion.

New Business: Mr. Ben Northcott wants to excavate on his property off of Old Cheshire Turnpike where he stores and repairs his large earth moving equipment. He received a permit from the Selectmen to excavate 5,000 yards and sell about 3,000 yards to the Town of Walpole to the Highway Department.

Mr. Northcott explained that he wanted to put the his large equipment behind the red barn and it was about 8 feet higher than all the buildings around it. He wants to make it level to the red building in one of the pictures he provided and put doors in the back so trucks and equipment can enter from the back instead of from the road side. It would keep it farther from Cheshire Turnpike and cut down on noise. He was going to use some of the gravel for the parking areas, the road on the property and the driveway and other places on the property where it was needed. “We don’t want a high pile of gravel for a number of years,” he said.

Mr. Vose asked if this is a finite amount that he wanted to sell. Mr. Northcott said the area is about 100 to 150 feet. Mr. Vose asked if he was in the business of selling of gravel from the property – or is this a one-time deal. Mr. Northcott said once he did what he had to do with gravel around his property, that was his intention.

The photograph shows the back of building with about 4 feet of gravel removed and if one walked into the building now he/she would walk into the middle section of the building. By removing more gravel     one could walk into the building on level ground and that is where the larger machines would be stored and repaired during the winter months.

Ms. Mansouri said he already had a permit from the town. So why are you here, Mr. Vose asked. Mr. Northcott said, “So we can sell the excess material.”  It would be similar to what Mr. Franks did. Mr. Vose said that the Zoning Board didn’t have to deal with that, it was a one-time deal, the town collects the taxes and the Board had nothing to do with.

Ms. Mansouri said Mr. Northcott was doing it as a courtesy to the Board because the Board worked on a similar project with Mr. Northcott last year when he bought the property. The neighbors wanted to make sure the equipment wasn’t seen from the road and wanted to be assured that he wasn’t opening a quarry.

Mr. Vose asked who he crushed crush gravel for. Mr. Northcott answered mostly for towns. The large equipment is only there during the winter.

Ms. Mansouri said the Board wanted a written account of what’s going on. The Board thanked him for coming to the Board to explain what he was doing.

Mr. Doug and Mrs. Laura Palmer came into ask a lot of questions about property the couple are thinking of buying behind Ocean State Job Lot in Ames Plaza. The property is 6 Ames Lane and next to a store Mr. Palmer rents. The property and the store building are owned by William Carmody. They are zoned commercial.

The Palmers said that if they buy the property, they will either put up an apartment building or mini storage units. It is Lot 18 and there is both a water line and a sewer line going under the property the setback rule is 10 feet from each line. Tall trees create a border between the lot and Dearborn Circle.

Mr. Palmer wanted to understand the limitations of the land regarding setbacks from other properties and the center line of a the access road. The setback ordinances say 20 feet from the property line on the sides and in the back, 65 feet from right of way the access road. Ames Plaza Lane is a private road. Dearborn Circle is the road frontage line.

Mr. Carmody is putting in a driveway that will access into Ames Plaza Lane, a private road, not Dearborn Circle, because of the trees and because it is Residential B. The actual deed for the Dearborn Circle development was that it was commercial land but would be returned to residential B after 20 years and it was approved by the voters.

Which road should they use? Because Ames Plaza Road is a private road, they don’t have to follow the 65-foot rule.

If we put a building 20 feet off the property line, can we put in a driveway between the building and the property line? Mr. Palmer asked. The answer was yes.

It is 2/3 of a acre or about 30,000 square feet, minimum is 25,000, so a building could be put on the property.

An apartment is allowed. Storage units are not mentioned in the ordinance. Mr. Palmer wants to put in 30-40 units, 10 by 10 or 10 by 20. Would this be allowed? The Planning Board said at a previous meeting that storage is not permitted in a commercial district. Mr. Robert Miller read the ordinance at the Planning Board’s last meeting. The Planning Board said that they would need a Special Exception to build storage units.

Mr. Murray said, “That is their opinion.”

Ms. Mansouri asked, “How many apartments and what would they be like?”

Mr. Palmer said they would look like the building next door. It would look like a square colonial. Four to six apartments would be the goal.

Mr. Palmer said he would like it in writing or in the minutes what is accepted in the commercial district. Ms. Mansouri said she wasn’t sure if the Board could do that ahead of time. There are specific uses in the commercial ordinance. And in the ordinance there is an avenue for a Special Exception.

Ms. Leclerc said but the ordinance was written in the 60s when storage units were not being built. She said she would consider this a retail use, which is considered in the ordinance.

Mrs. Palmer asked it they could get a Variance. Mr. Palmer asked what is difference between a Special Exception and a Variance? Ms. Mansouri said a Special Exception is a lot easier to get.

The logic is that if we want to know what we can do before we buy. He would like to put in 40 storage units but the land wouldn’t allow it. There is the sewer line, which no one can build on and has a setback of 10 feet. So the new layout is 32.

If the access road is a private right of way, you need permission from the owners, Ms. Mansouri said. Mr. Palmer said it was part of the subdivision – a deeded right of way.

“It’s my opinion that it’s a retail situation,” Ms. Leclerc said. It’s retail in that people can come and go, Vose said.

You are not generating a lot of traffic and you should establish reasonable hours of operation, but that’s a Planning Board issue, Mr. Murray said.

After all the discussion, Ms. Leclerc made a motion to call mini storage a recognized use as a retail business in the commercial district. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and the motion was passed by the Board.

So the next step is for the Palmers to go back to the Planning Board for a site plan.

Bruce Bosworth/Rob Hemmings, 46 Old Cheshire Turnpike, Drewsville, Residential A, 570 square-foot cabin on .66 acres, inherited the property from his father 41/2 years ago, paid taxes as well as mortgage, wants to sell.

Ms. Mansouri handed out a letter with a tax card of the Hemmings property.

Mr. Bruce Bosworth of Westmoreland is interested in buying property but can he build on this property because of its size. Mr. Bosworth intends to tear down the building and construct a new home.

Ms. Mansouri asked about the well and a septic. Water is obtained from a spring from the house across the street in Drewsville. He is uncertain where the septic is but realizes that the has to put in a new septic system. Regulations are that a septic system and source of water must be 75 to 90 feet apart. The road frontage is 213 feet. What size house house would you like to build? Mansouri asked. He answered 1250 to 1500 square feet.

The lot size is smaller by zoning but is it larger enough to build on? He doesn’t have to build on the same footprint.

He must deal with setbacks, 65 feet from center of road to the front of the house, and 20 feet from each side and back.

The first thing you have to do is deal with the septic to make sure it’s going to fit on the property. The selectmen would need to see the house plan and would have to deal with the septic site. The state is responsible for septic regulations.

It was suggested that Mr. Bosworth check with the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds to see if the deed says the property can get water from the spring. Then he must prove that there will be the correct distance between the water source from the spring or a new well and his septic system. Because the lot had a home on it previously, he can build anywhere on the lot and does not have to build on the footprint of the house.

Criteria for Special Exception for Signage – Ms. Leclerc clarified that in rural/ag the setback from the center of the road is 20 feet. She also pointed out that 100-foot rule is the only time a Special Exception is needed so the other points were just points that had to be on a sign form. If a sign is 6 square feet or smaller you can put it closer than 100 feet to another sign.

Mr. Murray said he would like the issue of obscuring another sign from view of pedestrian or car traffic considered when making a decision. These are things that we should just keep in mind when considering signage.

This might be good to hand out if someone asked to someone getting a Special Exception for a sign, Ms. Leclerc said. It will be given out to applicants considering a sign that is greater than 6 square feet.

Ruggiero Decision – there was motion to go into Executive Session at 8:30 pm. The motion was seconded and approved by the rest of the Board. The Board came out of Executive Session at 8:38 pm.

Mr. Murray made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Leclerc seconded the motion and the Board vote to approve the motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Hall –  Walpole, NH

Wednesday,  July 19, 2017

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Mary Therese Lester, Tom Murray, Judy Trow.  Alternate: Pauline Barnes. Absent: Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc and alternate Ernie Vose.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the August 2017 meeting for corrections, additions or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. A full Board was not present so Alternate Paula Barnes was asked to fill in.

Minutes: Ms. Barnes made a couple of corrections. On page 1,  last paragraph, third line the word place was changed to placed. In the section on Mr. Robert Kimball’s hearing, Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the Special Exception. The next line should read, “the motion was seconded the Board approved the motion.” Ms. Lester made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Ms. Trow seconded the motion and it was approved by the Board.

Old Business:

Public Hearing: Special exception for Mascoma Savings Bank, 53 Main Street, Map 20, Lot 47, commercial district  – Signage – Article IV, Part D-6. Sign must be 100 feet from another sign.

Public Hearing: Variance for another sign for Mascoma Saving Bank, 53 Main St., Map 20, Lot 47, commercial district. Proposal to add a 12.5-square-foot sign on new bank drive-up.

Zoning Ordinance IV, Part D-6. More than one 32-square-foot sign is allowed if they were 100 feet apart. The ordinance does not allow signs to be closer than 100 feet except for narrowly defined special exceptions for signs of 6 square feet or less. So any sign not conforming to the Special Exception criteria requires a variance.

Mr. Craig Moore was representing Barlo Signs for Mascoma Bank. Mr. Moore originally represented the bank in May and his colleague Mr. Barnard followed up last month and it was determined at that meeting that not only was a Special Exception required but also a variance was required due to the size of the sign.

The sign that is proposed at the 22-foot-wide teller drive-thru is a 12.5-square-foot sign. It was also determined at the last meeting that the sign have dimmers to change the intensity of the light. The intention of the sign is to draw attention to the sign after hours.

Ms. Barnes said she remembered that the company had also agreed to dim the sign that is already there. Mr. Moore said she was correct and that information has been turned over to the bank.

Ms. Mansouri asked Mr. Moore to read the questions and responses. Mr. Moore asked the Board members if they had seen the sign. They responded in the affirmative.

1.

Special Exception Criteria:

Mascoma Savings Bank: 53 Main St.

1. Describe the sign – shape dimension – submit a drawing.

Installation of one internally illuminated/Halo-lit wall sign, 12.5 square feet. Mr. Moore explained that Halo-lit means that instead of light projecting forward, it goes backward.

2. Is it free-standing, on posts, on the building?

It is on the peak of the building/ATM – Teller Drive-Up

3. Is it 60 feet away from the traveled roadway?

The proposed sign is 118 feet from the traveled roadway.

4. What is the construction of the sign?

Bea (aluminum, led lighting). BEA means prefinished aluminum.

5. Where will it be placed?

On the building/ATM – Teller Drive-Up

6. Why do you think you need this sign?

The proposed sign helps to quickly and safely identify the additional service/after-hour services of the Drive-UP/ATM to both those familiar with Walpole and those who are not.

7. Will this sign adversely affect any abutting businesses or neighbors?

The Proposed sign is minimal, aesthetically completes and updates this property. Proposed sign includes dimmers, which will diminish light output. Attractive signage does not adversely affect abutting properties, regardless of the use of said properties.

Ms. Barnes asked, Does that mean the dimmers will go on at certain hours or every night? Mr. Moore responded that the dimmers are manual and the sign company recommended that the lights be always be set at the same dimming setting and that way if the bank is ever approached about the light being too bright, they can be further dimmed.

Ms. Mansouri then asked him to read the questions from the variance and the Board will respond to each question individually.

Variance Criteria A from Article IV Part D, (6) (9) to allow the installation of an internally illuminated wall sign which will be greater than 32 square feet and closer than 100 feet from existing signs currently on this property.

Would you say that that type of light is similar to other banks in the area? Ms. Lester asked.

It’s all relative to the community. Mr. Moore responded. He thought there would be less light than elsewhere because many banks are in much larger populated areas and have larger signs. They need electronic signs. In his experience, this fits into the this community.

Mr. asked if there was going to also be a sign saying ATM. Mr Moore said no. It is a two-lane passage, this sign will be in the center of the canopy, and there will be no other sign.

Ms. Mansouri asked if there were any other questions from the Board and then from the public. Being none, she closed the hearing.

Ms. Lester said that all banks have some kind of sign and with some kind of lighting and she thought this was satisfactory.

Ms. Barnes said she took the opposite approach where it is important for light to be low so the bank is not the center of an inhabited area. It is important not to shine light into people’s windows so your solution of the dimmers is a good one.

Motion: Tom Murray said he thought Mr. Moore fit all the descriptions well and he made his case for a Special Exception and Variance very well. He made a motion to approve both. The motion was seconded and approved by the Board.

The Variance questions and answers were: 

The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because:

The proposed sign is part of a modification/beautification of an existing business, attractive, clean, clear signage does not diminish surrounding property values.

Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of the following special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned because:

The sign as proposed identifies the bank drive-up, which is unique to businesses within this zone; motorists unfamiliar with the location, seeking an ATM machine will easily locate the new drive-up. It is reasonable for this business to want to properly identify both their building entrance, and their drive-up, which offers services after bank hours.

Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:

Granting the variance will allow Mascoma Bank to complete its site updates and allow the way-finding public clear access to its destination; the sign is to scale and aesthetically pleasing, and I no way harmful to the public. There is no gain to the public in denying this variance request.

The proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:

The proposal fits into the visual environment of this property;

Promotes balanced growth, as it allows for an updating of an existing business;

Is in character with proper development;

Protect the economic and aesthetic interest of the town: simple design and back-lighting of the sign protects the historic nature/interest of the town;

Provides an aesthetically pleasing and compatible design.

New Business:

Request for a variance: Chad Thurston of Griffin Construction will be in for a variance for a setback for a house at 56 Old Keene Rd., to expand a kitchen at the house. The owner of Griffin Construction, Griffin Dussault, was also at the meeting.

Mr. Thurston showed a design of how the kitchen was to be expanded. The kitchen was already only 60 feet from the center line of the road and the kitchen was to be expanded to the north, not out toward the road. So it was decided that this was not a variance issue but an issue having to do with a building that was already not conforming to the zoning ordinance in Article V, Residential District A and B, Part C, 2 Yard Requirements: “No building may be erected closer than sixty-five (65) feet to the center line of the abutting right-of-way nor closer than twenty (20) feet to any side or rear property line.”

Article X, Non-Conforming Uses states in Part B, “When any existing non-conforming use of land or building has been discontinues for one year the land and building shall thereafter be used only in conformity to this Ordinance, except that the Board of Adjustment, after public hearing may permit the resumption of said non-conforming use.”

There were some questions about the matter. Ms. Lester said the use was the same. Mr. Murray said that the construction was just being extended along the same line to the north and not coming any closer to the road. In the end the Board agreed a Public Hearing was needed. A motion was made, seconded and approved by the Board to have a Public Hearing for a Non-Conforming Use in August.

Criteria For a Special Exception for a Sign

The Board decided at the May meeting that a list of criteria would help people applying for a Special Exception for a sign navigate the Special Exception form.

The secretary made up a list for the Board to consider.

Criteria for a Special Exception for a sign

1. Describe the sign – size, shape, dimensions. Submit a drawing.
2. Is it free-standing, on posts, on the building?
3. Is it 60 feet from a traveled roadway?
4. What is the construction of the sign?
5. Where will it be placed?
6. Why do you think you need this sign?
7. Will this sign adversely affect any abutting businesses or neighbors?

Ms. Barnes suggested adding “Limitations – does it obscure the view of pedestrian or car traffic?”

Ms. Lester said she didn’t think that was necessary because if the applicant read the ordinance he/she would know that. The rest of the Board agreed with Ms. Lester.

Ms. Mansouri mentioned that criteria No. 3 isn’t always so. If a sign is placed on Route 12, the distance is usually 75 feet from the center, although it can change depending on where the structure on Route 12 is placed.

So criteria No. 3 will now read: “Is it 60 feet from the center of a traveled roadway? Or 75 feet for a  structure on Route 12? For more information on Route 12 rules contact NH Department of Transportation.”

Solar panels

North Walpole Commissioner John Foster suggested to Mr. Cunning that he come to the Zoning Board to see if he needed a site plan for the solar panels he planned to put on his roof because the cost was more than $10,000.

Ms. Mansouri said that this would be under the purview of the Planning Board.

Both Ms. Mansouri and Ms. Peggy Pschirrer said that at this time they knew of no ordinance about solar panels, either on the ground or on a roof. The secretary will check with the Chair of the Planning Board.

The meeting was adjourned at  8:25 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Hall –  Walpole, NH

Wednesday,  June 21, 2017

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Tom Murray, Judy Trow.  Alternates: Ernie Vose and Pauline Barnes.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the July 2017 meeting for corrections, additions or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. A full Board was present so an alternate was not needed to fill in.

Minutes: Ms. Barnes made a couple of corrections. On page 1, last paragraph, anybody was changed to anybody’s. On the second page first paragraph, the word on is used twice. And in the third paragraph on page 2, it reads “did Ernie ever get an answer to his question as to whether there was another sign 100 feet away?” The answer was yes. There is another sign near the current drive-up teller spot.

Ms. Lester made a motion to pass the minutes as correct. The motion was seconded by Ms. Leclerc and the Board voted in the affirmative.

Old Business:

Public Hearing: Special exception for Mascoma Savings Bank, 53 Main Street, Map 20, Lot 47, commercial district  – Signage – Article IV, Part D-6. Sign must be 100 feet from another sign.

Mr. Bill Barnard was representing Mascoma in place of Mr. Moore. He said the sign would be illuminated with LED lights and would be behind the letters. It would say Mascoma Savings Bank and the purpose of the sign is to show where the entrance to the drive-thru is. The bank needs a Special Exception because it was within 100 feet of another sign. The other sign is on the side of the bank near the current drive-thru and there is another free-standing sign close to that. The drive-thru sign is 12.5 square feet.

Mr. Kimball asked, “How many signs can you have? The bank already has five.” There is no ordinance that limits the amount of signs a business can have. Ms. Mansouri said some of the others were preexisting. “So I could have seven signs on my property.” “If that was what you wanted,” Ms. Mansouri answered.

Ms. Mansouri asked if the sign would be illuminated like the one in the front of the building. Mr. Barnard said yes. Ms. Mansouri said she thought it was extremely bright because she could see it from her house on High Street. Mr. Barnard said that sign could be put on a dimmer and the one at the drive-thru could have a dimmer as well. Both Ms. Barnes and Ms. Mansouri thought it was a great idea.  Mr. Barnard said it would be done.

Then Ms. Leclerc read the ordinance for the commercial district – Article IV No. 9 in the commercial district reads “Special Exceptions. Signs of six (6) square feet may be placed between 10 (10) and sixty (60) feet of traveled roadway and between twenty (20) and one-hundred feet (100) feet of another sign by Special Exception from the Board of Adjustment when the Board is satisfied that the provision of Article IV will be met and that the sign as place will not have any adverse effect on abutting properties.” It was determined that the bank would need a Variance to approve a sign of this size because there were a couple of signs already larger than 6 (six) square feet. Mr. Barnard said he was not aware of this part of the ordinance.

The Board voted to postpone a vote on the Special Exception until next month and decide on the Special Exception for a sign within 100 feet of another sign and a Variance for the size of the sign at the same time.

Public Hearing: Special exception for Robert Kimball, 311 Main Street, commercial district, Map 24, Lot 10.  Signage – Article IV, Part D-6. Sign must be 100 feet from another sign.

Ms. Trow recused herself from this hearing and Mr. Vose was asked to take her place.

Mr. Kimball changed the size of his sign from 32 inches by 36 inches to 36 inches by 24 inches to adhere to the six square foot rule. He said one 94-inch-by-20-inch sign would be on the peak of the garage facing north. The sign would be the same sign that is at his current office. The second sign would be placed near the driveway, facing Main Street and parallel to the road.

Mr. Vose asked if Mr. Kimball was going to own the building. Mr. Kimball the building would be in his LLC. There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Murray made a motion to accept the request to reduce the size of the sign and approve the Special Exception for the sign.

New Business:

Seth or Tyler Quail, Quail Financial Group, 42 Main Street, commercial, Map 20, Lot 12, Signage. Across the street from Post Office. Former Mortenson Insurance building.

Both Mr. Seth and Mr Tyler Quail were in attendance. It was pointed out that there had been a sign there before and the Quail sign would be added to an existing sign between two posts. The Quail request conformed to the zoning ordinance so it was approved. They will fill out a sign form and return it with a photograph after the sign is installed.

Ms. Snow Frye – signage at 40 Main Street, signage. Ms. Frye was at the April meeting and received permission from the ZBA to place a sign for her business in the green space in the front of the building, near the driveway. There is a sign there now but the post is rotten. The sign will be replaced in the same space with two posts and three signs of equal size: one for Dr. Steven Pena, Chiropractor, One for the Walpole Wellness Center, which provides yoga classes and massage,  and either a blank one or one for Mazziott Bakery. Ms. Frye said that this is what the owner of the building wanted. The Board approved the three signs.

Enokido/Crouse Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, March Hill Road – Mr. Barry Bellows of Bellows Construction was at the meeting at the request of the Selectboard regarding the number of parking spaces for the project. Mr. Bellows pointed out that there were up to 7 spaces around the circle in front of the house, another 4 are planned below the structure and two cars can fit in the space in front of the garage doors.

The Board agreed that there was more than enough space for parking and it more than fulfilled the conditions for the principal unit and the detached dwelling according to the DADU ordinance.

Bylaws – The Board looked over the Bylaws and made no further changes.

Special Exception form – After looking at the introduction to the Special Exception form and the actual Application it was decided that the written ordinances regarding Special Exception in the Zoning Book should be included with the application. As it is now, if an applicant fills out a Special Exception form, the person has to also check what the ordinance is in the Zoning Booklet, but it doesn’t state that on the form.

Food vending trucks – A person has received permission from the Selectboard to park her food vending truck, called Phat Racks, near the middle bay of the former RN Johnson building on Main Street. It was decided that there was plenty of parking and customers could pull off the road without causing a problem.

The Board discussed whether or not the Board should think about writing an ordinance about food trucks. The final decision was that the Board would not do anything now but might consider it later if needed.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Hall –  Walpole, NH

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

7:30 pm

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Tom Murray.  Alternates: Ernie Vose and Pauline Barnes. Absent: Judy Trow.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 2017 meeting for corrections, additions or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. One Board member was absent so Mr. Vose was asked to fill in. Mr. Vose recused himself because he was going on a trip to a Mascoma-sponsored tour of Alaska next week. Ms. Barnes agreed to fill Ms. Trow’s seat.

Minutes: There were a couple of typos and sentence structure corrections. Ms. Lester made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and it was approved by the Board.

New Business:

Chris Whiton, 128 Valley Road, home business, growing herbs and them selling them to the wholesale market.

Ms. Whiton did not come to the meeting.

Mascoma Savings Bank – Signage – new sign for the Drive-thru is within 100 feet of a sign on the north side of the building, near the existing canopy.

Mr. Craig Moore represented Barlo Signs of Hudson, NH. He requested a Special Exception for a sign for Mascoma Bank. Mr. Moore brought some copies of the sign and said it will be on the canopy of the drive-thru.

Article 4 Section 6 in the Commercial and Industrial Districts of the Walpole Zoning Ordinance states that

“Signs shall be permitted no larger than thirty-two (32) square feet. Signs shall be placed not less than sixty (60) feet from the edge of the traveled roadway and not less than one hundred (100) feet from another sign.  Construction signs shall not exceed the allowed size in this district.”

Any change from this ordinance requires a Special Exception.

Ms. Barnes asked if the canopy means the roof of the drive-thru. Mr. Moore answered “yes”.

Mr. Murray asked about where it would be. Mr. Moore said it will be attached to the peak of the building. There is nothing that would be hanging down or projecting out.

Mr. Vose asked if all the other signs on the building were going to stay where they are. The answer was yes.

The sign will read Mascoma Savings Bank, in three-dimensional letters, with the word Mascoma being 12 inches high and larger than the other letters in the rest of the sign. It will be centered on the peak of the drive-thru canopy and facing drivers as they enter one of the two lanes. One lane will be for an ATM and the other a tube-type conveyance that goes to a teller. The sign will be LED edge-back lit. It will glow, Mr. Moore said.

Ms. Mansouri asked if the light would be a distraction. Mr. Moore said no. It really isn’t very large or bright, just a back glow. You can see it better at night. Ms. Barnes asked about disturbing a neighbor at night. “It isn’t shining in anybody eyes when they’re going to sleep?” she asked. The sign faces toward the Edward Jones building next door.

There was some confusion where the drive-thru lanes were but Mrs. Lynn Kimball was in the audience and had a schematic of the location and the matter was cleared up. The new drive-thru is at the corner of the building towards the back. Cars may exit on either on Westminster Street or go north toward an exit on lower Main Street. The total square feet of the sign is 12.5 feet.

Mr. Robert Kimball said there was a similar sign on the front of the building and it’s minuscule.

Mr. Vose had a question about whether or not the sign was 100 feet from another sign.  There is a sign on the north side of the building, just past the present canopy.

Mr. Murray made a motion to have the Public Hearing at the regular June meeting. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and the Board approved the motion.

Mr. Robert Kimball was at the meeting to ask for a Special Exception to have his Certified Public Accountant business at 311 Main St, the former home of Jim and Joanne Smith.

Mr. Vose said if the business is in residential B zoning, Mr. Kimball doesn’t need a Special Exception.

Zoning Ordinance  for Residential A and B Uses states:

“Residences may be used to house such customary uses by the owner or tenant as offices for doctors, lawyers, real estate and insurance, or other recognized professions, or such home occupations as hair dressing or dress-making, except that the number of persons employed at any one location shall not number more than two persons in addition to the owner or tenant. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided on the premises.”

Mr. Kimball then asked permission to have two signs on the property. One sign would be attached to the peak of the garage on the side that is facing north. It would be the same sign he currently has at his business on Main Street. That sign is 96 inches by 20 inches and says ROBERT KIMBALL PC all in capital letters and in smaller capital letters below it CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT.

A second free-standing sign would be placed somewhere on the property, perhaps near the driveway. The sign is 24 inches by 36 inches and hangs between two granite posts. It says Robert Kimball PC., 311 Main St., Certified Public Accountant.

Article IV states that signs in the Residential District:

“Signs shall be permitted no larger than six (6) square feet in the Residential District.  Property owners or tenants in the Residential District with business, professional, or other service enterprises shall be allowed one advertising sign on the premises relating to the use or uses conducted in the building. One sign of the same size will be allowed with the name and address of the contractors of the structure during the active construction period or a sign pertaining to the lease, sale or use of the lot or building on which it is placed.  Construction signs shall not exceed the allowed size in this district.”

“Free-standing signs shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet from a front, side or rear lot line. A free-standing sign shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height.”

Because the signs would be within 100 feet of one another, Mr. Kimball needed a Public Hearing for a Special Exception.

Ms. Leclerc made a motion to have a Public Hearing for a Special Exception for signage for Mr. Kimball at the next meeting in June. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and the Board approved the motion.

Old Business:

Bylaws – The Board suggested a few changes to the bylaws and the secretary will make the corrections and bring a new copy of the bylaws to the next meeting.

DADU petition – Ms. Mansouri distributed a copy of the final version of SB 146, which is the NH House version of the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units. Between this meeting and the next one, the Board is to compare this version with the version that passed by vote on the warrant in March 2017.

Mr. Murray asked if one of the units had to be owned by a Walpole resident. The answer was yes. Ms. Barnes referred to No. 7  “The owner of the property shall occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the detached accessory dwelling unit as their “Principal Place of Residence.”

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

ZBA Secretary

Zoning Board of AdjustmentTown Hall – Walpole, NH

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

7:30 pm

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Judy Trow, Mary Therese Lester, Tom Murray. Alternates: Ernie Vose and Pauline Barnes.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the May 2017 meeting for corrections, additions or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. A full board was present.

Minutes: Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Ms Trow seconded the motion and the Board approved the motion.

Election of Offices: Ms. Leclerc nominated Ms. Mansouri for chair. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and the Board voted in favor of the nomination. Ms. Trow nominated Ms. Leclerc for vice-chair. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and the Board approved the nomination for vice-chair. Ms. Trow was nominated for clerk. The motion was seconded and the Board approved her nomination.

New Business: Snow Frye, Wellness Center sign, 40 Main Street. Ms. Frye wants to put up a sign for her business in the oval grassy area in the front of the building at 40 Main Street. She said she was “grandfathered” because there had been signs there before. She would replace the sign that was at the south side of the grassy area, near the driveway She will have to replace the post because it is rotted and falling down. This will clean it up and make it look more professional, Ms. Frye said.

The sign will be 29.5 inches by 39.5 inches and say ‘WALPOLE WELLNESS CENTER.’’ Beneath that, the sign will say in smaller letters “YOGA & MASSAGE” and be on one post.

Ms. Frye also submitted a second sign that added Dr. Steven Pena, FAMILY CHIROPRACTOR. This was a possible sign if Dr. Pena wanted to put a sign below her sign.

Ideally what the owner would like, Ms. Frye said, is one sign in the middle advertising the three businesses – the Wellness Center at the top, Dr. Pena below that and then Mazziott. Mazziott was approved for his sign, which is the pink cupcake, in 2015.

Ms. Lester said she shouldn’t need a Public Hearing for 100-foot rule of one sign being 100 feet from another sign because the Mazziott was already approved for the same area.

Ms. Frye said at one time there had been three signs. One in front of the what is now the bakery, was one for Nathan Lynch, a lawyer, one for Dr. Pellegrino, and one for Dr. Pena.

One was one at the north end of the grass, one in the middle and one at the south end. Ms. Fyre said that the Mazziott sign was move four feet closer to the center and wasn’t sure if it would affect signage of the two other businesses there in the future.

Ms. Leclerc said the Board can approve this sign (by the driveway) because there was one there before and it replaces it. However, if she or Dr. Pena want to do something different, they must come back to the Board. If the three businesses decided to get together and do one sign, that would also be considered a separate issue.

Liz Collinsworth, 71 Elm Street, Driveway on property line and one that doesn’t have water flowing into the street.

Ms. Collinsworth recently purchased the Victorian at the end of Elm Street. Her parking area, behind the house and around the corner on South Street, is a bit of a walk to get to. She would like to have a parking space for one car on the left side of the house (as you are facing the house) that leads to a side door and mud room. That space is in the setback area between her house and the property line to the north. There is a split rail fence that marks the property line.

Ms. Collinsworth said it would be for one car only and she does not intend to pave this space.

She also said she spoke with Mike Rau, the road agent, and he seemed okay with the plan.

She would also like to put in a temporary ramp in the same area. The ramp would go from the side door to the car area. The ramp would be there when Ms. Collingsworth‘s father, who is in a wheelchair, lives with her.

Ms. Leclerc said the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over driveways and it appeared she would be allowed to do this.

Quentin Hess – corner of North Rd. and Old Drewsville Rd., rural/agricultural – assisted living home.

Mr. Hess wants to convert his current home into an assisted living area for six to 10 people. He would make the home handicap accessible, put in a sprinkler system. He thinks there is a need for this in this town and any other small town to have a place to stay.

Ms. Mansouri asked him to explain what he meant by assisted living. Mr. Hess said it was a place for people who may need someone to be with them, or are not comfortable living alone. Someone who may need help with their medications or recovering from surgery. They would have basic care – food, meals, transportation, some medical attention. A nurse would be available.

Mr. Hess said he and his wife have worked in healthcare all of their adult lives.

He has had some history working in cardiac rehabilitation and said there is a need for those people. It would be a place where a physical therapist could come. I don’t think it would create a huge impact to the town.

Ms. Mansouri explained that the state has a multi-page RSA that spells out what the requirements are for this type of place. It is RSA 151.

Ms. Mansouri said there are a lot of regulations and she suggested that he go to the Web site and download the material and then see if he can fulfill the requirements of the state.

Then there are all the hearings that he would have to have. He would need a Special Exception from the Zoning Board, a recommendation for a Special Exception from the Planning Board and a site plan review approval from the Planning Board. That’s three hearings.

Ms. Leclerc said if it is something you want to proceed with after he understands what the requirements are, then you can fill out a Special Exception application and get a recommendation from the Planning Board to come for a hearing and then come back for another hearing.

Mr. Murray said he should keep in mind the he would have to have a commercial kitchen, and if you have employees you will have to change the landscape of the yard for parking for several cars. Ms. Mansouri said the rooms would have to be handicap accessible and there would need to be an elevator. He would probably have to hook up to the sewer system, which is not too far from his house, but there would be a cost to bring it to the house for that many people.

Besides following state guidelines, Mr. Hess would also have to get a special exception from the Zoning Board. The Planning Board would need to recommend or not recommend the project to the Zoning Board. In addition, he would also need to have a site plan approved by the Planning Board. That’s when you need to sort out the details of parking etc.

DADU – The Board will read the final draft of the petition that was on the warrant and was passed by voters. This may be a slight addition to the ordinance. Mr. Hockensmith notified Mr. Jeff Miller, chair of the Planning Board, that it might need a few clarifications. You may add changes as long as it doesn’t change the intent the document.

There was a question about renting and No. 7 addresses that question. You can rent the accessory building or whatever dwelling the property owner is not living in.

That’s a state law, Ms. Pschirrer said. The wording is supposed to reflect what the state said.

That refers to an attached dwelling, Ms. Mansouri said, and we have an ordinance about an attached ordinance. We don’t need to put the language into our ordinance, we just have to follow the state ordinance.

At the next meeting, the Board will discuss what the petition does and doesn’t allow or any questions any Board member might have about the meaning of any part of the ordinance.

​

Old Business:

Bylaws – The Board looked over the corrected Bylaws and decided there were a few more items that needed correcting, so the Board will bring those corrections to the next meeting and a final draft will be printed and given out at the June meeting.

Rodrigues Letter – The Board received a copy of the letter that Patricia Rodrigues and John Corduff brought to the April Planning Board meeting. They were complaining about trucks that were passing their home from 9 pm to 3 am on a particular day in April.

A day or two later, Ms. Sarah Downing learned from Mr. Tim Graves that he was responding to an emergency situation regarding a washout of the railroad bed in Westminster, Vt. Ms. Downing’s response said, “Hi all: I have confirmation that the reason why there was last night/early morning trucking from the Graves Gravel Pit on April 10-11. There was an emergency in Westminster VT where the railroad bed was washing out into the Connecticut River. Now we have the detail as to what the transportation safety issue was related to.”

The secretary, per instruction from Mr. Jeff Miller of the Planning Board, called Ms. Rodrigues and relayed this message.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

cc: ZBA, Town Offices, The Walpolean

 Zoning Board of Adjustment

January 18, 2017

Town Hall

7:30 pm

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Judy Trow, Tom Murray.  Alternate: Ernie Vose. Absent: Mary Therese Lester.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the February 2017 meeting for corrections, additions or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Since Ms. Lester was absent, Mr. Vose was asked to take her place.

Minutes: Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Ms. Trow seconded the motion and it was approved by the entire Board.

The first order of business was a vote to seal the minutes of December’s Executive Session. A motion was made to seal the minutes, seconded and then passed by the entire board.

Ms. Mansouri read aloud the letter that the board sent to Ms. Patricia Rodrigues and Mr. John Corduff reading their claims about the Tim Graves Gravel Pit on Wentworth Road. The letter says:

“Zoning Board of Adjustment

PO Box 729

Walpole, NH 03608

“January 8, 2017

“Patricia L. Rodrigues

John M. Corduff

52 Old Route 12 North

Westmoreland, NH 03467

“Dear Ms. Rodrigues and Mr. Corduff:

“The Zoning Board of Adjustment, in conjunction with Town Counsel, has reviewed the letter and documents you gave the Board and read into the minutes on November 12, 2016, as well as has considered the additional information you presented to the Board on December 21, 2016. There are two pits: one is located in Walpole, and one in Westmoreland. We can only address the one that is located in Walpole.

“The regulations and permit requirements, are beyond the municipality’s authority. In accordance with RSA 155-E, the Graves’ pit meets the requirements of a “grandfathered site,” and is exempt from permitting requirements. The excavation continues on the land it planned and intended to excavate in 1989. In his excavation report the boundaries listed are the Westmoreland Town Line, B&M land and on the north and east by the Graves property. This describes the entire portion of the 18-acre tract located in Walpole. This is a continuation of his grandfathered excavation activities as allowed by RSA 155-E:2 and RSA 155-E:2 I (b).

“There have been a number of State and Federal agencies that have inspected the site and determined that it is in compliance with their requirements.

“Therefore, the ZBA has looked into this matter for you, and the above mentioned RSAs take precedent. We have no further action to take.

“Yours truly,

“Myra Mansouri, for the Board”

1.) Ms. Rodrigues was at the meeting with Mr. John Corduff. She read a letter in response to the ZBA letter. Her main point was –  “you state, in your decision to consider the Graves Gravel pit still “grandfathered’ and hence, RSA 155E permit exempt, you only took into account the letter and documents presented/referenced by ourselves in our November 12, 2016 and December 16, 2016 presentations to your board – see Walpole ZBA letter to us attached, and rec’d as Walpole ZBA GravesPit StillGranfathered-010817 001.jpg

2.) We contend that your board (s), in making your decision, must also take into account other documents in the town’s possession, including the entire George Graves Revocable Trust’s AoT application – see December 16, 2013 letter confirming you received this application, as required by NHDES’  AoT application administrative rules, which is included in the application document itself, attached, and rec’s as

GgravesAoTAppl-ProofofDeliveryToGoverningBody-Dec`162013.rtf

The remainder of the 21/2 page letter will be posted with the minutes. If anyone wishes to examine the documents she presented. They are available at the select board office.

In addition to the letter, Ms. Rodrigues also read from the RSA 155-E-  the introduction and number 1, (a) and (b) and (e). The exemption from local zoning or site location regulations  as stated in subparagraph (a) shall include the quarrying or crushing of bedrock for the production of construction aggregate; provided, however, that no owner shall, after August 4, 1979, permit any such quarrying or crushing of bedrock to occur for the first time on any excavation site without first obtaining a permit therefore under this chapter.

She brought a map that she said marked the areas of illegal expansion.

After almost 45 minutes, Ms. Mansouri thanked Ms. Rodrigues for her documents and said they will be distributed to the board and that the board would get back to her.

Mr. Vose that Mr. Graves had all his permits in place. Mr. Graves, who was at the meeting with his wife and daughter, said yes and that the blasting was required by the Department of Environmental Service to divert stormwater and he was not removing bedrock.

Right-to-Know law

Ms. Mansouri passed out copies of the new additions to the Right-to-Know law that have recently gone into effect and pointed out that at the end of the document there is a worksheet that the secretary can fill in step-by-step as the meeting proceeds. Those include:

The names of those present

The specific reason for the nonpublic session

Roll call

The time entered into nonpublic session and the time that the board comes out of           nonpublic session

The name(s) of any person(s) present other than the board

A description of matters discussed

The final decision made

Motion to leave nonpublic session

Motion: Passed/ Did not pass

Nonpublic meeting tape removed, public meeting tape replaced (if applicable).

Public session reconvened at ………

Motion made to seal these minutes?

Roll Call Vote to seal minutes – list names

Motion Passed/ Did not Pass

These minutes recorded by: ……………..

Matrix

The ZBA has been working on a Matrix to the Application Process for certain variances and special exceptions that must be voted on by the ZBA and recommended by the WPB. It was presented to the Planning Board at last week’s meeting. Randal Walter, head of design for Bensonwood, was at the meeting and offered a couple of very good changes.

The one that was incorporated was to add – “Go to Planing Board and Request a Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review.” This was the first step on the left after “yes.”

Ordinances

Ms. Mansouri said there were some streets in town that have been renamed but are not listed in the Zoning Ordinance manual and that they would begin looking through the manual to put these new street names on a petition on the warrant for 2018.

A motion was made to adjourn, seconded and passed by the board.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Zoning Board of Adjustment

December 21, 2016

Town Hall

7:30 pm

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Judy Trow, Tom Murray.  Absent: Ernie Vose.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the January 2017 meeting for corrections, additions or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. There was a full board so an alternate was not needed to fill in.

Minutes: Ms. Trow made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded and approved by the entire Board.

Old Business:

Public Hearing 1

Special exception Signage – Dr. Steven Pena, 40 Main Street, Map 21, Lot 40,           commercial district.  Zoning Ordinance Article IV, Part D. Dr. Pena would like to put a sign on the building above the window on the front of the building similar to the building that is for the Mazziott cafe.

Jesse Carr was representing Dr. Pena. Ms Mansouri asked if the application was complete – if all the fees paid, abutters notified, etc. The secretary replied yes. Then Mr. Carr was asked to read his responses to the questions for a special exception.

State how the proposed use will meet the criteria for special exception listed in the ordinance – list all criteria, using extra sheets if necessary

Criterion #1: We would like a sign on the building equivalent size and readability in relation to the other signs in the neighborhood, which are on buildings. Particularly relevant is the sign on the other side of the front of the our building for Mazziott.

Criterion #2: Our sign would be similarly on a board, with raised capital letters attached, as shown in the sketch. We propose a sign within 100 feet of this sign, and therefore need to have an exception.

Criterion #3: This would not diminish property values – like the Mazziott sign. This sign is on a background board painted the same colors as the building next door to the north – blue-gray.

Criterion #4: The sign CHIROPRACTOR will confirm that the doctor’s clients have found the right place and serve to bring in other new clients. He will probably retire the sign on the post out front.

Ms. Mansouri asked if the Board had any questions. The Board did not. Then she asked if the audience had any questions. They did not.

When Mr. Carr was asked how the sign would be affixed to the building, Mr. Carr said that there is air between the sign and the building, which is made of wood.  Bolts go into the sign and then into the wood siding. Mr. Carr was asked to bring in a photograph of the sign after it is up. He agreed to do so.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the special exception as presented. The Board voted in the affirmative.

Old Business:

Final Draft of Matrix

The Board looked at the matrix and voted to approve it as the final draft. It will be given to anyone applying for a Special Exception so that they may see what path to follow, especially when they have to go to the Planning Board for a site plan. Ms. Leclerc suggested that it be presented to the Planning Board. The secretary will put it on the Planning Board agenda and present it at the January meeting. Mr. Steve Dalessio, a selectman, suggested putting a date on the document.

Patricia Rodrigues complaints about Graves pit.

Ms. Rodrigues read from a list of documents, which she said were relevant to this situation.

They included information from a manual titled “Grandfathered Land Uses” and “The Elements of Grandfathering.” These books, articles or manuals discuss grandfathered land when there have been violations.

Ms. Rodrigues say the Selectboard gave Mr. Tim Graves a building permit on Nov. 7, 2013, to build a “Winter Sand Shed”. This building permit will allow Mr. Graves to operate during the winter months, when generally the pit would be closed down, she said.

Ms. Rodrigues asked if the Board had made any decision. Ms. Mansouri said that there were a lot of documents to read and digest. She said it may be a couple of months or could be as early as some time in January when the matter is settled.

She then said that the Board was going into executive session under attorney – client privilege. That was at 7:50 pm. The Board came out of executive session at 8:30 pm. After that a motion was made, seconded and approved by the Board to close the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine