|
Town of Meeting Minutes Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, David Hartman, Rick Davies, Ed Mical, Dan Watts,
Hank Duhamel Members Excused:
None Members Absent:
None Alternates Present:
Robert Ricard Alternates Excused:
None Alternates Absent:
Harold French Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 1.
VOLUNTARY MERGER
Applicant and Property Owners:
Daniel P. and Noreen S. Fifield
Property Location: 19
East Roby
Map 17, Lots 30, 33, 29 and 36, R-2 Zoning
Description: Voluntary
merger of 4 lots Ms. Annis recognized Martha
Mical who was present to speak on the merger for the Fifields.
Ms. Mical explained that they plan to merge 4 lots into one.
She said it is one house lot, two very small lots and one where a
trailer and garage were, but she believes that the trailer has been
removed. Ms. Annis asked if
there were any questions or comments.
Mr. Mical asked if the house is on Mr. Violette MOVED to accept
the merger. Mr. Duhamel
seconded. There was no
discussion. The motion was
PASSED unanimously. Mr. Davies asked if there is a
difference between accepting the application and approving the merger.
It was decided to vote on approving the merger.
Mr. Mical said there is no public hearing required.
Mr. Violette MOVED to approve
the merger. Mr. Duhamel
seconded. There was no
discussion. The motion was
PASSED unanimously. Ms. Annis signed the Voluntary
Merger approval. 2. CONCEPTUAL
CONSULTATION
Applicant and Property Owner:
Michael Dillon
Property Location:
Map 14,
Description: Convert
a single family home into a two-family home Ms. Annis asked if Michael Dillon was
present. He was not.
Ms. Lightfoot said she had not heard that he was not coming.
Ms. Annis said it will be passed over in case he does come.
She said that she thought that most of the Board members would
like more information on his plans.
3. DISCUSSION ABOUT
SELECTING AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE Ms. Annis said that the Technical Advisory
Committee on Transportation is part of the Central New Hampshire
Regional Planning Commission and they recommend that each member of the
CNHRPC have a representative on the board, but that also there be an
alternate representative from each member.
She said that she was appointed as a member by the Board of
Selectmen earlier in the year. She
said that the appointment of an alternate would have to come before the
Board of Selectmen again. She
asked for comments and suggestions for someone to fill the alternate
position. Mr. Hartman asked
if the purpose of the alternate was in case the representative was not
able to attend. Ms. Annis
said yes. Mr. Hartman said
there are precedents for having alternates on boards and cited the
Regional Trash Co-op as an example where he is the designated member and
there is an alternate. He
also cited the CNHRPC where there is a member and an alternate.
Mr. Davies said that he and Jim McLaughlin are the member and
alternate and it appears to work well with almost always having one or
the other of them being able to attend the meetings.
He said that there are votes taken regularly at those meetings so
it is important to have a representative there.
Ms. Annis said that she does not know how often the TAC votes,
but there is a vote to be taken at the next meeting.
Mr. Violette asked if the alternate necessarily has to be a
member of the Planning Board. Ms.
Annis said she did not believe so. Mr.
Davies said that in the past the CNHRPC member has not been a member of
the Planning Board. He said
that after attending a few meetings, he recommended to the Selectmen
that they find someone from the Planning Board to serve as a member.
Mr. Duhamel asked if the use of the word “transportation” in
this context means a busing route or roads or anything else.
Ms. Annis replied it is all transportation and it is a regional
committee which includes roads in 4.
CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF SUGGESTIONS FOR ZONING AND OTHER ORDINANCE
CHANGES FOR 2009 Ms. Annis said that
the Board members all have the proposed ordinance and regulation changes
ranked with 1, 2 or 3. She
said that some are ordinance changes and some would be regulation
changes. She said if it is
an ordinance change, then it will not be acted on by the townspeople
until March of 2010. She
said if it is a regulation, then it can be changed during the year after
a public hearing. She asked
if it made sense to go through and find the regulation changes and work
on those first so they can be implemented during the year.
Mr. Davies said that
there may be a number of things that could be prioritized.
Mr. Mical said that some of the proposed changes have been talked
about for 2-3 years and nothing has been done.
He said that now that we’re not as busy as we have been in the
past, it would make sense to get these items cleared up, and then move
forward on some of the other items.
He added that the Master Plan is going to continue and it is good
to have the whole Planning Board involved and appraised regularly on
what is happening with the Master Plan, rather than always dividing up
and a good portion of the Board not hearing what is going on with the
Master Plan. He said that
his suggestion is to go through the items, finish them up, schedule a
public hearing and get them changed and then move on some of the other
ones. Mr. Davies said that some of the items
relate to wind generator issues and there are other towns that already
have some ordinances or are going through the process and in a couple of
months, we may have results of approved language and to have that
language might make it a more efficient process.
He said that some of the items that are ordinances could possibly
be worked on concurrently with the regulations.
Mr. Mical said that he thought the ordinances should wait until
later in the year because they can’t be acted on until next year.
Mr. Davies said that another thing to consider is that it could
well take a lot longer to come to a conclusion on these issues than
might be expected. He said
that there were a number of things that could be grouped together –
like the building size, square footage, footprints, etc.
He said if we wait until September or October to work on these
things, then we have three months to work on something that might take a
while to conclude. He
suggested working on some of the regulations and by April or May,
evaluate where we are and see where we’re headed in regard to whether
it will take more time or less time.
Ms. Annis said that the issue of enlarging the commercial area at
Davisville will take a long time. Mr.
Duhamel said that Mr. Davies had a good idea in that we have a cluster
of issues where one may play off another.
He said when those groups are put together and addressed all at
once, it makes sense, in that they impact on each other.
He said that it made sense to aim for April or May to finish the
priorities but not one line at a time and then put off others until June
or July. Mr. Davies added
that there may be research required, as well.
He said that you could also through the discussions get an idea
of how things will proceed through the group.
He agreed with Mr. Duhamel that it makes no sense to take them
one line at a time, rather than grouping the interacting and similar
ones together. Ms. Annis
said that color coding plans is a very valuable tool and it would be
part of the site and subdivision regulations.
She said that the CNHRPC must receive these kinds of maps often
and a telephone call to them might result in their being able to
recommend colors to us for various features.
She said it could be done in one session.
Ms. Annis continued talking about the
update of road specifications for subdivisions and driveway regulations,
saying they could be combined and then we could ask the Fire Chief and
the Superintendent of Public Works to come and talk with us.
She said that Allan Brown has provided to us what he wants.
Mr. Davies said someone needs to type it out and put it in front
of him and have him edit it. Ms.
Annis said it’s been typed out and we’re waiting for him to respond.
Mr. Davies suggested that someone sit down with him and work
through an initial draft. He
said he would volunteer to do that with Mr. Brown.
Mr. Mical said he would be willing to sit down with him, too, and
has the information from last year’s meeting with Mr. Brown.
Ms. Annis said that it could be scheduled for discussion at the
meeting on March 2nd. Mr.
Mical said that he thought it would make sense to do these changes, but
then also do the changes to the subdivision and site plan regulations
that are being talked about, like the checklist, color coding, tying
into the State grid and monuments at the same time.
Then he suggested doing one public hearing to address all of
these at the same time and then make the changes to those regulations.
Mr. Violette agreed. He
said that when it comes to monuments, it might make sense to do a little
more research on that and what we would want.
Mr. Davies suggested calling a few surveyors to see what the
issues are and what options there may be that we don’t know about.
There was some discussion about different ways to get monuments
placed. It was agreed that
what might be wanted is some guidelines, recognizing that there may be
more than one workable solution. Mr. Davies said that it had also been
discussed putting off until after the March Town Meeting the review of
the definitions in our regulations that depend on definitions that are
in the ordinances. He said
in April, after the voters have made their decision on some definitions,
the Planning Board could move to coordinate the definitions in the
regulations to those in the ordinances.
Ms. Annis said that the March meeting
could be used to work further on these issues.
Mr. Mical said that it will be before Town Meeting, so the
definitions question, for example, would have to be put off to the work
session on March 16. Ms.
Annis asked Mr. Mical if he could talk with Mr. Brown before the
February 16th work session to discuss the road issues.
Mr. Mical said he would try.
Ms. Annis said that this will be worked on at the February work
session and Sharon Wason will be notified about the Master Plan
Committee to meet on that day, too.
Mr. Davies asked about a workforce housing
vote that was supposed to take place in the legislature.
Ms. Annis said she hadn’t heard anything and it was not in the
update that was received today from the Mr. Hartman asked Ms. Annis to identify
which of the items in the list being considered were ordinances where
the town must vote and which were regulations where the Planning Board
after a public hearing may institute.
Ms. Annis identified the ones in the list as follows:
Mr. Hartman asked why the sign
ordinance is not a regulation, instead of in the Zoning Ordinance.
He suggested that perhaps it should be removed and added to the
Site Plan Review regulations. Ms.
Annis said it is her understanding that Laura Buono would like to see it
removed from the Ordinance and allow the Selectmen to design a Temporary
Sign Regulation. There was discussion about
Number 11 – grants for sidewalk repair and it was agreed that it is
being worked on by the School, so it is removed from the list. Mr. Duhamel said he would like
to add one to discuss the outside wood burning stoves and asked if the
State has done anything on them. Mr.
Hartman said they have. Mr.
Mical said there are new State regulations that went into effect the
first of January. He said
they cover things like distances from the property lines.
Ms. Annis said she thought it should come under the Building
Inspector and not the Planning Board since it is a State law.
Mr. Hartman said it is up to the Selectmen to enforce not only
local, but the State laws, as well.
He said in one of the Town’s newsletters, they explained how it
will be phased in. He said
that he thinks that there is nothing more to do, unless the Planning
Board chooses to make more stringent rules than the State has.
Mr. Ricard asked if people are told when they buy the stoves what
the rules are. Mr. Hartman
said that it is in the state law that the vendors are told that they
shall supply this information to the buyer and that they shall only sell
approved models. He said
that the standards for the models will change over the next two years
and it is his understanding that those standards will significantly
reduce the amount of particulates coming out of the chimneys.
He said that if they don’t, then someone must file a complaint
and it might be a health code violation, for example, which would
require the State to come in and order a correction to the violation.
Mr. Davies asked if this is similar to the wind tower where the
locality may address some setback issues, for example.
Mr. Mical said there is information available as handouts on what
is required. Mr. Davies said
that there may or may not be some things related to it that the Planning
Board would want to look at. Ms. Annis said that two weeks
from tonight we will ask Allan Brown and Dick Brown to come and talk
about roads. Mr. Mical said
that Dick Brown has already submitted some information.
He said he will try to talk with both of them about this issue
and get something written and hand it out before the meeting.
Ms. Annis said that they will concentrate on driveways and Allan
Brown’s updates. Mr.
Hartman said the discussion of the driveway regulations in relation to
the needs and desires of the fire and emergency protection requires a
great deal of discussion around the theory of what you get yourself into
when you move into an inaccessible place and what does the town want to
do about either preventing that or allowing it.
He said that it can be an issue of “you can’t tell me what to
do with my land,” and it is not a simple discussion.
He said that everyone knows that an ambulance or a fire truck
cannot get up a 30° hill, and, especially if the driveway is not
plowed, no one can get up there. Mr.
Violette agreed and he said he had thought about making people sign a
responsibility waiver who want to build in those inaccessible areas.
Mr. Hartman said the State law says that the Town does not have
to provide safety services to inaccessible properties.
He continued that it says that you can provide service up to the
entrance onto the public road, but from there on, if you cannot get in,
then you don’t have to. Mr.
Violette agreed that it will be a big discussion.
Mr. Watts suggested having a guideline but not something with the
force of law. Ms. Annis said
that is where it might be a regulation and not an ordinance.
Mr. Hartman said that the regulation ends up having the force of
an ordinance. Ms. Annis
asked if the regulation could be worded something like, “we recommend.
. .” Mr. Hartman said he
did not know. Mr. Ricard
said that not only is the grade an issue for fire equipment, but the
turning radius needs to be considered, as well.
Mr. Hartman said that he thinks that this kind of discussion is
different from Allan Brown’s discussion about the shape and size of
allowable cul-de-sacs. He
said he thinks those kinds of things are less controversial or
theoretical. Ms. Annis said
that the night of the discussion one issue was under whose jurisdiction
was the driveway. She said
that the Building Inspector just does the building; the Public Works
Director just does the public roads.
She said the question is who is going to be responsible to see
that a driveway is not built at a steeper grade than may be wanted by
the Town. Mr. Hartman asked
if it should come under Site Plan Review.
Ms. Annis said there is no site plan review required for a house.
Mr. Hartman suggested that an additional layer could be added for
“access to house.” Mr.
Mical said that he thinks that the State Building Code references the
National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code and he thinks it
is there where it talks about driveways; as a result, since the Mr. Hartman said that some of
the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance seem to be obvious “ordinance
breakers,” and if they are do we want to enforce it or should we
change things about definitions that are more adequate to meet current
needs. He said he thinks
that “home businesses,” for example, are limited as to how many
people can work there. He
said that he thinks that there are home businesses in town that have
many more people working in those home businesses than are allowed and
that is a law that the Selectmen are supposed to enforce.
He said that if someone complained, it would probably be
enforced. But, he said, so
far, he thinks there have been no complaints about having too many
people working in a home business. Ms.
Annis quoted from the Ordinance: “not
involving the on lot full-time employment of persons not dwelling in the
home.” There was some
further discussion about home businesses, as an example.
Ms. Annis added that there is a discrepancy on home occupation,
on page 7 and page 37. She
said there is a whole list on page 8 in regard to home occupation.
She said it was a long discussion at the time because they did
not want homes turning into a business and someone calling it their
“home business.” She
said it was decided that a percentage of the building could be the
business and the rest was the home.
Mr. Violette said that it basically took away the opportunity for
anyone to have, for example, a small engine repair shop.
He said that even though he lives on 30 acres of land and no one
can see the buildings, he may not convert his barn to a small engine
repair shop, and which he disagrees with.
Mr. Hartman said that he agreed with Mr. Violette that more
regulations may not be the answer – he said it isn’t good to just be
piling more regulations on people, but, on the other hand, it is good to
try to determine what the ones we already have do or have the potential
of doing. The discussion
about the enforcement of current regulations continued.
Ms. Annis concluded by saying
that Allan Brown and Dick Brown will be invited to the next meeting and
Mr. Mical will contact them. She
said that in the meantime, Mr. Mical will be talking with Allan Brown
about his list of requested improvements for roads and cul-de-sacs.
5. CONCEPTUAL
CONSULTATION CONTINUATION (DILLON) Mr. Violette asked if he was
told that he needed to come since the last sentence in his e-mail seems
to be ambiguous. Ms.
Lightfoot said that she had told him that he needed to come.
A number of Board Members said they had questions about the
plans, and Mr. Dillon was still not present. It
was agreed to contact him and schedule another date.
At that time, the abutters will not be re-notified.
If it is not re-scheduled, it will not be on the agenda.
Mr. Watts asked if it could be opened for discussion, even if Mr.
Dillon isn’t here. He
suggested that the abutter sitting in the audience may have a question.
Ms. Annis said that Mr. Dillon was not there, so he could not
answer questions anyway. Mr.
Davies said that it is strongly recommended by the Zoning Board that an
applicant come to the Planning Board first for a conceptual consultation
before going to the Zoning Board. Mr.
Mical said that his plan to convert an existing dwelling to a
multi-family dwelling is permitted in the Commercial Zone, so he does
not have to go to the Zoning Board. Mr. Hartman MOVED to pass over
the conceptual consultation requested by Michael Dillon.
Mr. Mical, seconded. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. 6. MINUTES Mr. Hartman MOVED to approve
the minutes of the 7. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Violette said there is a
work session coming up on February 16 when Sharon Wason will bring
everyone up to date and plans for moving forward.
He said he will not be here that night.
Ms. Annis said that George Pellettieri is no longer on the
Planning Board and he was on the Master Plan Committee.
She asked if he was still going to be on the Master Plan
Committee. Mr. Violette said
he didn’t know, but they needed someone else from the Planning Board
on the Master Plan Committee. Mr.
Violette asked for volunteers. Mr.
Davies asked if there will be a Regulation Committee as well.
Ms. Annis said yes and the committees will still be breaking down
at work sessions as they have been.
Mr. Davies and Mr. Watts said they preferred to work on the
Regulation Committee. Ms.
Annis said that Mr. Duhamel and Mr. French are already on the Master
Plan Committee. She said the
other members are Jim McLaughlin and Ted Young.
Ms. Annis asked if someone from the Zoning Board would be
interested in working on the Master Plan Committee.
Mr. Violette said that Ted Young is an alternate for the Zoning
Board. Mr. Violette said he
hesitated to go back to Mr. Pellettieri because Monday nights had become
a problem for him to meet. Mr.
Violette asked Mr. Ricard if he was interested.
Mr. Ricard said that he would work wherever he was needed.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical about
the Hazard Mitigation Plan. He
said it is complete and he is waiting for final approval from FEMA.
He said that the Hazard Mitigation Committee will be meeting at
least twice this year to review some of the recommendations and to
prioritize them, and that will probably be in April.
Mr. Violette said that the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be adopted
by reference in the Master Plan. He
said the natural resources inventory section will be treated the same
way. Ms. Annis said that she, Mr.
Violette and Mr. Mical have been working on what can be done about the
intersection of Route 103 and Ms. Annis said she has received
from CNHRPC a notice saying that the TIP update is a biennial process
that traditionally begins in the fall of even numbered years (2008) and
concludes the following year. She
said they are announcing right now a whole new Transportation
Improvement Program. She
referred to the booklet that she had brought back from her TAC meeting
and which was distributed. She
said they will come up with a list of new projects that they will submit
to the State. She said that
the new ones are going to have to have a clear and immediate need to
help address a public safety issue.
She reviewed a rating sheet that is used to rank the projects to
be considered and there was a short discussion about how the project
could be ranked. Ms. Annis
said the application needs to be in by February 25th. The
Board agreed that it made sense to apply for this program.
Mr. Davies asked if this is a matching situation where the town
comes up with 20% of the cost. Ms.
Annis said she did not know, although the application asks if there are
funds available to match. She
said there will be a meeting on February 26th to evaluate
existing and new projects and then on the 27th advertise for
a public hearing, March 30th hold a public hearing and then
deliver the completed package on April 9th to NHDOT.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Hartman if
the next budget meeting on Thursday is when they will decide what is
going to go into the budget. Mr.
Mical said that is the public hearing.
Ms. Annis said that, therefore, we will know then whether the
Budget Committee and the Selectmen are going to endorse the $5000 for
the Planning Board. She
asked if it is approved, how much publicity the Board would want to put
out for it. There was a
short discussion and it was decided not to put up the different schemes
from Hoyle and Tanner in public places without explanation as to what
they were because of the real possibility of resulting misunderstanding
by the people viewing them. Ms.
Annis said that the traffic counts had impressed Ms. Levine from
Congressman Hodes’ office in that we average about 4600+ cars per day
and the population of the Town of It was agreed that if the
Selectmen and Budget Committee do not support the $5000, then the whole
project will be dropped. Mr.
Mical suggested that a letter be written to Ms. Levine to thank her for
her time and assistance. 8. COMMUNICATIONS AND
MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis said a letter was
received from the 2008 New Hampshire Arborists’ Association Community
Beautification Awards Program. She
said they are asking for nominations for the award for projects, no
matter how small. She said
it is for trees, shrubs, and flowers.
Mr. Mical suggested that the WBA and the Men’s Club have
provided money for beautification. Mr.
Watts said that the WBA did the tree in the front and Mr. Mical said the
Men’s Club did work for trees and the Festival put some money toward
trees. Ms. Annis passed the
form to Mr. Watts. Mr. Davies asked about
construction by a public entity, like the Library.
He said that the RSAs strongly require you to consider having a
public hearing for any public thing that gets created, as, for example,
if the Library were to put on a big addition that is a change of use or
has potential major impact. He
said that an example is something over 2000 square feet, there are
requirements for us to consider having a public hearing, although there
is nothing binding. He
suggested that if there is a large public entity project, the Planning
Board get involved at least for comments and to hold a public hearing.
There was no other business.
Mr. Mical MOVED to adjourn. Mr.
Hartman seconded. The motion
was PASSED unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at
|