Town of
Warner
– Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
Monday, January 7, 2008
7:00 PM
Warner
Town Hall
, Lower Level
Members
Present:
Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Drew Serell, Hank Duhamel, Ed
Mical, Wayne Eigabroadt
Members
Absent:
George Pellettieri
Members
Late:
None
Alternates
Present:
Dan Watts, Harold French
Alternates
Late:
None
Alternates
Absent:
None
Presiding:
Barbara Annis
Recording:
Jean Lightfoot
Open Meeting at
7:00 PM
Roll Call
Ms. Annis opened the meeting at
7:00 p.m.
and asked Mr. Watts
to sit in for Mr. Pellettieri. She
then recognized Mr. Jacques Belanger, who was representing A&P
Investments.
1.
CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION – COMMERCIAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION
Property Owner: A&P
Investments, LLC,
14 Knox Road
,
Bow
,
NH
03304
Agent: J. E.
Belanger
Property Location: West
side of
Warner Road/Kearsarge Avenue
near
Old Warner Lane
Map/lot: 03-39,
C-1 zoning
Description: Subdivision
of 16.48 acre parcel into 4 commercial lots:
4.70 acres, 3.84 acres, 3.39 acres and 4.61 acres.
Mr. Belanger explained that A&P Investments had
subdivided 2 commercial lots on the other side of
Warner Road
about 2 or 3 years
ago. Now, they are seeking
to subdivide the west side into 4 commercial lots.
Currently the area is a mixed use – with a residential
subdivision just over the line in Hopkinton, to the west is vacant, and
to the north is Dimond Flag Station.
The acreage is 3.39 to 4.7 acres.
He explained the various parts of the plan, including separate
driveways for each lot as projected.
He said they have the National Heritage Inventory approval.
Ms. Annis pointed out that on the Locus of the map it reads
Todd Pond, and it should be Tom Pond.
In the Legend, there is no key for Wetlands.
In the Notes, Number 5, the 5 year timeframe for when a
subdivision will be considered a major vs. minor subdivision begins with
the date of being recorded, not from the date of the approval.
She noted that it appears that there are 2 abutters (lots within
200 feet) that were not included – lots 33 and 43.
Those are owned by the State of
New Hampshire
, and Ms. Annis
believes that one is owned by Forestry and one by DOT.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical to review the Monuments.
Mr. Mical said he couldn’t tell if there were any.
Mr. Belanger said there were some to be placed.
Mr. Eigabroadt noted some that appeared to be missing.
He also noted that the existing drill hole was not clear since it
didn’t tie with the legend key. He
reviewed the proposed bounds on the map.
Mr. Serell asked what the buildable portion of the lot on the
upper right is. Mr. Belanger
said it was 110,870 sq. feet, about 2-1/2 acres.
There were no further questions from the Board members.
Ms. Annis noted that the applicant had submitted the deeds and
the checklist with the conceptual and inquired if the Board would accept
that these have been submitted, so that when the application is filed,
the applicant will not have to submit them again.
The members agreed. Mr.
French asked which zone it was in. Ms.
Annis said it was in Note Number 2, C-1.
Ms. Annis asked what the deadline date is for submitting the
application for consideration at the February meeting.
Ms. Lightfoot said it is January 19th. [Ms.
Lightfoot called Mr. Belanger on January 9th to correct this
date to January 16th.] Ms.
Annis said she would have Ms. Lightfoot get in touch with the Public
Works Director, the Fire Department and the Police Chief, send them the
map and see if they have any comments.
Mr. Mical said that with other subdivisions, we’ve
considered cross-traffic easements.
Ms. Annis said that would be part of the site plan.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that Mr. Belanger should keep it in the back
of his mind. Mr. Belanger
asked if the Board would do a site walk.
There was some discussion, and Ms. Annis said she didn’t think
a site walk was necessary. Mr.
Belanger said he would flag the corners.
Mr. Eigabroadt said he believed the Public Works Director would
want to see where the proposed driveways are.
He also said that sometimes some of the Selectmen want to do the
site walk, as well.
Mr. Watts said that in reviewing the Major Subdivision
regulations, he saw that it was necessary to identify all the utilities
on or adjacent to the lot, and he said he didn’t see those on the map.
Mr. Belanger said he had the telephone poles on the map, but they
are hard to see.
Ms. Annis thanked Mr. Belanger for coming in for a
conceptual before submitting the actual application.
Ms. Annis noted that as of tonight a new procedure will be
implemented by the Planning Board – that being that if an application
is submitted and then changed on the day of the meeting at which it is
to be considered, it will not be accepted until it has been re-posted
and will not be considered until it has been re-posted.
2.
COMMERCIAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION
Property Owners: Alan
& Lee Ann Wagner, Jr.,
33 Newmarket Road
, Warner, NH 03278
Agent: Stefan
Toth, P.E., Toth Engineering, PLLC,
5 Bernards Rd, Suite
37
,
Merrimack
,
NH
03054
Property Location: Intersection
of Route 103 and I-89 southbound off-ramp
Map/lot: 14-10 10, C-1 zoning
Description:
Subdivision of existing 13.03 ac. lot into 4 commercial lots:
2.90 acres, 3.44 acres, 2.75 acres & 2.56 acres.
a.
Application Accepted
2/5/07
b.
Public Hearing held in March 2007
c.
Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove
Stefan Toth represented Alan and Lee Ann Wagner.
Ms. Annis noted that there are 6 new members since the
application was first considered. She
suggested that Mr. Toth review the points from the March 28th
meeting. She said this was
based on the February 8th Provan and Lorber report.
She recalled comparing the January 2nd report to the
February 8th report and then using the February 8th
report. Mr. Toth said he had
forgotten to bring the two sheets of comments since he has a new set of
plans. Mr. Toth said he had
thought the review of the comments would be at the next meeting, and the
Board members agreed to review the plans tonight and then review the
comments at the next meeting. Ms.
Annis asked Mr. Toth to have the written documents necessary in response
to the comments to the Planning Board by January 19th.
Mr. Toth described the project as being bound on I-89 on the
eastern side and Route 103. He
proceeded to review each page within the new plans.
He identified the exposed ledge and the property line, noting
that there was a significant area. He
identified the tree line which extends significantly beyond the property
line toward I-89. Mr.
Eigabroadt asked how much of the tree line was to be retained.
Mr. Toth said it belonged to the State and is about 100 feet, so
it would not change. He said
the name,
Hudson Lane
, had been approved
last year, so it has been added to the name of the subdivision plan.
It is hoped that the road to be constructed will become a public
road. It will be 60 feet
wide. There are different
easements for each lot. On
one lot, there is a common driveway easement to benefit the parcel
behind it. There are slope
and drainage easements from the roadway design.
Along the front, there is an existing utility easement.
Finally, there are easements in place so that if the Town decided
to continue the road. Ms.
Annis said that if it becomes a public road and developed beyond this
parcel, then the other parcel beyond would have the road available for
use. There is a drainage
easement with an infiltration system to be put in.
The buildable area for a lot is the lot area, less the easements,
less the one wetland, less slopes greater than 25%.
He said he has broken down each individual easement for each lot
and will provide that to the Board. He
said the vote will be for the subdivision itself and the road, not for
the buildings to be constructed on each lot.
That will be the responsibility of the future owners.
Mr. Mical asked if the road was large enough so that a tractor
trailer could get in and move around on it.
Mr. Toth said that the cul-de-sac had been re-designed so that
they could make the turn and stay on pavement.
Mr. Toth continued to explain that the notes say
specifically that any future owner of the lots will have to get a
site-specific plan and will have to go to the State to update the
Driveway Permit. Each owner
will have to design their drainage so that they don’t increase the
capacity expected of the system. Mr.
Eigabroadt asked about the driveway permits – and, why, if this
becomes a town road, the owners would have to go to the State. Mr. Toth
explained that the State driveway permit for the road off of Route 103
would specifically have to be updated, as provided by the permit.
This requires that each additional driveway to the driveway
approved off of 103 would have to be approved by the State to control
the traffic flow onto their road. Mr.
Toth said that the Town of
Warner
approval would be
implied because of the site plan approvals required.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that he believed that it was in the Town’s
purview to approve any driveways onto a town road.
He said he wanted to be sure that there was a reference to that
in the Plan Notes. Mr. Toth
said that this was a plan for the subdivision only, not for the specific
lots, so each lot as it proceeds to development will have to go before
the Town for approval, including the driveways.
Mr. Toth said that they are just waiting for the final word
from the State subdivision approval.
He said they’re just waiting for the site-specific approval.
Each lot has on-site well and septic.
Ms. Annis said she recalled that they had increased the drainage
easement on lot 10-3 and asked for the reason.
Mr. Toth said he would cover that when he got to the specific map
that covers it.
Mr. Toth explained that they’ve been working with the
State Department of Transportation on the access to Route 103.
He pointed out the entrance to I-89 South from Route 103 where
there is currently an island, and, the State is concerned with people
leaving the proposed road and getting on the ramp.
The applicants will be extending the island, so that the people
exiting from the proposed road will take a left and then will have to
turn right to get on to I-89 South.
He said that they will also be widening the ramp to help to ease
the DOT traffic concerns. Mr.
Duhamel asked if this would be contracted out by the State or if this is
something the applicant would do. Mr.
Toth said that someone else would do the work, but would have to be
inspected, bonded and approved by the State.
He said there would be a separate bond for
Hudson Lane
to the Town.
Mr. Duhamel asked if this would be a State project, rather than
the applicant’s project. Mr.
Toth said it would be a State project.
Ms. Annis asked if the utility poles would be at the top.
Mr. Toth said they would because they are for the use of the lot
owners. She said she wanted
to clarify these poles as opposed to the lighting for the actual
roadway.
Mr. Toth continued to explain the drainage system which is
an underground infiltration system with plastic chambers with stone
around it. The water will
percolate in the ground and there’s an emergency overflow that goes
into the State system. He
said the size of this has been increased and the easement has been
increased for future lot development.
He reiterated that anyone developing the lots will have to submit
this to the Town for review since it will be their responsibility to
assure that the Town system and the State system is able to take care of
it. Mr. Eigabroadt asked how
much it was increased. Mr.
Toth said it had been increased by about 25%, mainly to accommodate a
new system that is being proposed. Mr.
Eigabroadt asked if this is basically an “enviro-septic” system but
only used for drainage. Mr.
Toth said yes. He said there
is an isolator on it which is meant to capture the silt and is easier to
clean than pipes. Mr. Mical
and Mr. Eigabroadt asked who is responsible for the cleaning and
maintenance. Mr. Toth said
once the road is accepted as a Town road, then it will be the Town’s
responsibility, but as the lots are developed, he thought the Town might
use some kind of “fair share” or some other way of having the owners
being responsible. He said
that he thought that when someone came with a site plan, their impact on
the system would have to be assessed and the money would have to be
worked out then. Mr. French
asked if it had to be the Town’s responsibility or would it be on the
projects. Mr. Toth said the
Town would always have to be involved since they own the easement for
the infiltration system. Mr.
Eigabroadt said that would all have to come before the Selectmen, too,
when it comes to accepting the road.
Mr. Toth said they’re working with the State because the
State system is going to have an increase of 5 or 6 cubic feet after the
development. He said that in
order to be able to tie into the State system, they’ve been working
with the State to upgrade and improve the State system to accommodate
the increase.
Ms. Annis asked how the State is saying it will affect
things downstream. Mr. Toth
said no, because it goes into the
Warner
River
, so it is negligible.
Mr. Eigabroadt clarified that the majority of it is being treated
before it goes in. Mr. Toth
said yes, it’s treated through a mechanical system for runoff and
there is also at the outlet point what is called a “vegetative filter
strip.” There is enough
vegetation downstream to filter out any extra sediment before it gets to
the
Warner
River
.
The State’s minimum is 75 feet, and he believes it is actually
300 or 400 feet before it gets to the River.
Mr. Toth then started to talk about the road through the
ledge area, identifying how the wide the drainage would have to be to
accommodate the height of the cut. He
said this had all been reviewed with the Road Agent, who accepted the
plan. Mr. Duhamel asked if
the road could really handle 30 miles per hour.
Mr. Toth said it was used to design the road, and that speed
limits could be posted at that or lower.
Mr. Eigabroadt said the Highway Safety Committee would be tasked
with making a recommendation to lower it, if needed.
Mr. Toth said there will be speed limit signs along the road.
He talked some more about the placement of the driveways.
Mr. French asked if it was crucial to the plans to have the
Town accept the road. Mr.
Toth said that the plans would not change if it was not accepted by the
Town. Mr. Eigabroadt asked
if there was any wooded buffer being maintained within the property line
for the development. Mr.
Toth said it would be up to each individual lot owner, but reiterated
that there is a good 100 feet of woods that the State owns just on the
other side of the line that will not change.
He also said with the utility poles, there’s about 100 feet of
woods that he didn’t see anyone being able to utilize.
Mr. Eigabroadt said it was an issue he’s been hearing about and
wanted to clarify that it will be a future thing with the developers.
Mr. Toth described the erosion control and what work has
been done with the State. Ms.
Annis asked if he had received anything from the State yet.
He said that he had received nothing further since the September
2007 letter. He reviewed the
different profiles of the road and driveways.
He said it is a 10% slope maximum.
He said they had increased the lower platform so it would allow
tractor trailers to stack. Mr.
Duhamel asked how long the platform is.
Mr. Toth said it is about 180 feet.
He pointed out the cross-sections for the sections of the road
and driveways. He said that
water will not run over the ledge, it will be captured before it gets
there and be directed away from it.
In working with Allan Brown, it turns out they cannot put the
light poles where they were originally planned.
Ms. Annis said she thought they had decided not to use poles.
Mr. Toth replied that because of the intensity of the light, they
have to use poles, and, in order to adequately light the road, which is
70 feet below, the light must be intense.
The lighting will be changed, and they are working on it with
Allan Brown. To put the
lighting in the ledge just won’t work because of getting the wiring
in, and with the shifting of the ledge and freezing and thawing, it just
was not practical.
Mr. Toth referred to Sheet #22 that details the infiltration
system. He pointed out the
plastic chambers surrounded by stone and filter fabric.
There is a manifold that equally distributes the water to each
chamber. Mr. Eigabroadt
asked what the life of the system is expected to be.
Mr. Toth said he wasn’t sure, but projected that it would last
at least 25 years, and possibly more, so long as they’re maintained
properly. He said there’s
an isolator that makes things come back and calls your attention to the
fact that it needs to be cleaned out.
Mr. Eigabroadt asked how long it would take before it went into
the emergency overflow into the State system.
Mr. Toth said it would take about 6-8 feet because of the
different layers before it would start outflowing.
He said it is designed for the 50-year storm.
He said each chamber is 51 inches wide and the height is 30
inches, so you could jet it out to clean it.
Ms. Annis asked if he could provide a list of places where this
system is already in use. Mr.
Toth said it’s all over the place under parking lots.
He said he has designed them in Hooksett and other towns.
Mr. Violette asked specifically what underlies the system.
Mr. Toth said the manufacturer is clear in its specifications on
what needs to be used, the diameter of the stone, etc.
Mr. Toth then referred to Sheet #25 which shows curb cuts
and the potential of how the road could be extended.
He said he wanted it to be clear that this is not part of what
the Planning Board will approve – it is merely to show how it might be
done. Mr. Duhamel asked if
the word “conceptual” is on the sheet.
Mr. Toth said he would change the title to include Conceptual to
be clear it is not part of the plan to be approved.
He also said he would add Conceptual to another sheet that was
the profile for the potential extension of the road.
Mr. Toth said he had spoken with the State and it looks like
they’ll be able to get the site-specific and DOT permits by the end of
the month.
Ms. Annis asked if we would be able to have everything by
February. Mr. Toth asked if
there was anything more needed from Provan and Lorber.
It was agreed that they were done with Provan and Lorber and
would need nothing more from them. Mr.
Toth said he would send the permits when they are received for the Board
to review. Mr. Mical asked
about re-visiting the drainage since it’s been changed.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that these changes have been done as
recommended by the State. Mr.
Mical agreed that if the State addresses the drainage issues, their
permit will cover it.
Ms. Annis asked if Mr. Toth should return in February to
review the March 28th issues or do we want to wait until,
possibly, the March meeting so we’ll have everything from DOT and it
will be a longer session. There
was discussion by the members and agreed that it would be better to keep
it all in one meeting, and that by March, all permits should have been
received from the State. Ms.
Annis noted that the application was extended until the February
meeting. Alan Wagner asked
that the application process be extended to the March meeting, which
would be on March 3rd.
Mr. Violette MOVED to extend the application from Alan and
Lee Ann Wagner to the March 3rd meeting.
Mr. Mical Seconded. There
was no discussion. PASSED
unanimously.
Mr. Toth said there will be new plans provided in March, to
show the permits that have been received, but no other changes will be
made. Ms. Annis asked him to
send permits to the Planning Board office as they’re received so the
members can review them before the March meeting.
3.
CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION
Property Owner: Evans
Group, Inc.,
P. O. Box 246
,
Lebanon
,
NH
03766
Agent: N/A
Property Location: Evans
Expressmart, 23 Route 103 West
Map/lot: 35-005,
C-1 zoning
Description: Consultation
regarding the addition of a 7 ft. by 18 ft. exterior cooler to the
existing Evans Expressmart.
Douglas Evans from Evans Group, Inc., distributed drawings
of the proposed addition to the Evans Expressmart building.
Mr. Evans explained that they are getting ready to refurbish the
building to improve the food service area, leaving the Subway there, and
to add a pizza operation. They
are negotiating with Pizza Chef and, in order to accommodate them, an
exterior freezer/cooler unit which would be added to the west side of
the building toward the Interstate.
It would be in an area that’s already curbed, so the parking
lot would not change. Mr.
Eigabroadt noted that there’s a new entrance to the building proposed
and a new out-cropped roof over the entrance.
Mr. Evans said the proposed entrance would enter into where some
of the restaurant seating is. Mr.
Duhamel asked how far the cooler will be from the lot line.
Mr. Evans said there is no problem with the distance to the lot
line, and the traffic pattern will not change.
Mr. Mical asked where the propane tank is.
Mr. Evans said it’s on the back side and will not be moved, nor
will the volume be increased with the addition of the pizza business.
Mr. Mical asked about the ice cream business that used to be
there. Mr. Evans said they
had decided to remove that and have only packaged ice cream available.
Mr. Duhamel asked if parking was going to be expanded for the new
business. Mr. Evans said
there was no plan to expand the parking area.
Ms. Annis asked if one would still be able to go around the back
of the building. Mr. Evans
replied yes, because the addition would be within a curbed area and
would not affect current traffic flow at all.
Ms. Annis said that she recalled that in the original plans, it
was specified that there would be no parking in front of the building,
and, yet, people are parking and backing out into the traffic and it’s
a hazard. Mr. Evans agreed
that it wasn’t designed for that.
Mr. Eigabroadt said he thought that he’s already doing the
business of a restaurant with the Subway and that, technically, he’s
doing away with one business and adding another, and doing a little
refurbishing. He said he did
not see this as adding any site-specific businesses.
Mr. Mical commented that he would like to see the cooler itself
blocked off from sight off of Route 103.
Mr. Evans said they were looking at a few possibilities and are
open to suggestions. He said
a fence or a wall were in their thoughts and they said they didn’t
want to detract from what they think is a fairly attractive building.
Mr. Mical said the contrast of the aluminum of the cooler and the
condenser unit to the brick in the building is distracting. Mr. Evans
said that the cooler would actually be a pre-fabricated unit from the
Pizza Chef people, and they typically will put something around it to
hide it. He said he had told
the Pizza Chef people that if they were to have this done, they would
want some kind of exterior wall or fence around it.
Mr. French noted that it’s not even really an addition since
it’s a pre-fab cooler. Mr. Eigabroadt said that by our definition, it
is a building, since it is a structure being used to house equipment,
people, etc. Mr. Violette
asked if there was a roof on it. Mr.
Evans said yes, it is designed for snow load, etc.
Mr. Eigabroadt summarized that he thought that everyone was
saying they do not want it to look like a cooler stuck on the side of a
building – we want it to look like an addition that fits the building.
Mr. Evans agreed that that was their intention, as well.
Mr. Mical asked if the lighting was going to change.
Mr. Evans said the exterior lighting would remain the same and in
the interior, they will probably change the lighting to fluorescent
lighting, which will be more efficient than what they have now. Mr.
Eigabroadt wondered how to put those provisos on without having to do a
full site plan review. Mr.
Evans said he would include it in the building permit request, and Mr.
Eigabroadt agreed that it could be addressed there. Mr.
Eigabroadt MOVED that this plan does not require a site plan review.
Mr. Mical Seconded. PASSED
Unanimously.
Ms. Annis told Mr. Evans that there is going to be some kind
of traffic control put in near the Expressmart on Route 103.
She said she hoped Mr. Evans would attend the hearings as this
idea is developed. She said
he will be notified when they’re scheduled.
She said that when the Corridor Study was done 3 years ago, the
Evans Group was invited, but no one came and participated.
She said she hopes at this time, someone will come and
participate. Mr. Evans said
they will respond this time around.
4.
MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Annis asked for any discussion regarding the
December 3, 2007
, minutes.
Mr. Mical MOVED to approve the
December 3, 2007
, minutes.
Mr. Eigabroadt Seconded. Ms.
Annis said there is a correction on page 2, Barbara Paul from DOT should
be changed to Barbara Annis and Paul Violette and DOT.
Mr. Mical said on page 3, the heading for number 2 should be
changed to Motion to CONTINUE to another night.
APPROVED Unanimously, with amendments.
Monday, December 10,
2007
, minutes.
Mr. Violette MOVED to accept the minutes of
December 10, 2007
.
Mr. Eigabroadt Seconded. There was no discussion.
APPROVED Unanimously.
Monday, December 17,
2007
, minutes.
Mr. Violette MOVED to approve the minutes of
December 17, 2007
.
Mr. Mical seconded. There
was no discussion. APPROVED Unanimously.
5.
PLANNING BOARD PROCEDURES
Ms. Annis noted there were several changes made the last
time and have now been included. She
asked if everyone has had an opportunity to review them again.
Mr. Mical asked about under Meetings, item b, does it mean that
the meetings must last until
10:00 pm
?
Mr. Eigabroadt said, no, you could end it anytime before
10:00
– just not after
10:00
. Ms. Annis asked for
comments. There were no
further comments. She asked
if we have now completed a review for two meetings and we will vote now.
It was agreed that a vote can be taken tonight to adopt the
procedures. Mr. Eigabroadt
MOVED to approve and adopt the Planning Board Bylaws and Rules of
Procedures as amended
December 10, 2007
.
Mr. Violette Seconded. There
was no discussion. PASSED
Unanimously. Mr. Mical asked if the Board Members have to sign these
before they’re sent to the Town Clerk.
There was a short discussion and Ms. Annis said there was nothing
in the RSAs about being signed, referring to Section 676:1; it only says
that it would be delivered to the Town Clerk, once adopted.
6.
2008 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WARRANT ARTICLES
Mr. Violette asked if the wording was correct.
Ms. Lightfoot said she had just mimicked how it was worded last
year. Mr. Eigabroadt said it
changed from the old method to this wording when Laura Buono came on
board and was in consultation with DRA.
It’s another way of wording it.
Ms. Annis said it’s not what the RSAs require.
Mr. Mical said in 675:3, pages 462-463, it gives the correct
wording: “Are
you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. ___ to the Warner … as
follows, as proposed by the Planning Board?”
There was further discussion about how to include the Flood Plain
Insurance Program compliance and as proposed by the Planning Board.
Mr. French asked what would happen if one was not approved.
Mr. Violette thought they would pass.
Ms. Annis said because this should not be controversial, the
definitions sections could all be combined in one question.
It was decided to combine all definition changes in one
amendment, with all other changes listed separately.
Mr. Serell suggested wording as follows:
“Are you in favor of the
adoption of Amendment No. ___, as proposed by the Town of
Warner Planning Board
to the Floodplain Development Ordinance, in order to continue to comply
with the National Flood Plain Insurance Program, as follows:”
Ms. Annis asked about Number 8 related to removing the
phrase “new and substantially improved structures” – it’s not
made clear what was actually deleted.
It was agreed to show what was deleted and what is put in its
place. Also, on Item 9, it
was agreed to show that 75% or more has been reduced to 50%.
Ms. Annis said Ms. Lightfoot will make the corrections and
e-mail the corrected proposed articles to each Board member.
She asked them to get back to her with any changes quickly so
they can be posted for the public hearing.
7.
REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEES
Mr. Violette reported on the Master Plan and that
Sharon
from the CNRPC wanted
to schedule a meeting to get started and they’re waiting to get that
scheduled. He said that
New London
is updating their
Master Plan and Mr. Duhamel had attended one of their workshops.
Mr. Duhamel said it went well and got a copy of their
“vision.” He said they
wrote the draft as though it were a look-back, say, from 2020, as to how
things have changed and how the plans had gone.
He said they’re still working on the questionnaire for the
community and they said they would send a copy to him when they get it.
Mr. Duhamel said there were about 100 people there and the
possibility of a wind farm was raised, and it seemed to be well
received. He said they had formed a Citizens Energy Group to look into
energy conservation. Mr.
Eigabroadt said that the Warner Selectmen are doing something similar by
looking at energy conservation, lessening our carbon footprint, etc., by
looking at what our current practices are and make recommendations of
what we can do to use less energy.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical about progress on the building
code. He said he had a
letter from the
Local
Government
Center
and would forward a
copy to her.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Eigabroadt and Mr. Watts about the sign
ordinance. Mr. Eigabroadt
said now that the holidays are over, they will proceed.
Ms. Annis suggested that all the committees plan to meet
after the public hearing on January 21st.
She said she hoped to have more progress this year than last
year. She said that we’ve
always started the CIP and the Zoning Ordinances after the appointments
in April, and it makes for a very short time to get the work done
without having to hurry. She
noted that 3 of the Board Members have their terms expiring this year,
and Mr. Eigabroadt is up for re-election, but that still leaves a
majority of the current members who will still be active for the whole
year.
There was no other business.
Mr. Eigabroadt MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Violette Seconded. Passed
Unanimously. The meeting was
adjourned at
9:25 pm
.
|