|
Town of Minutes of Meeting Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical, Wayne Eigabroadt, Members
Absent:
George Pellettieri, Drew Serell Members Late:
None Alternates Present:
Stacey Cooper, Dan Watts Alternates Late:
None Alternates Absent:
Harold French Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 1. CONFIRMATION OF
NON-CONFORMING Property Owner: Louise “Sissy” Brown
and Thomas Baye Property Location:
Map/lot:
28/47, R-2 zoning Description:
Request for letter stating that this is a non-conforming lot. Ms. Annis recognized Ms. Brown who began
her presentation. Ms. Brown
said that the lot that she and Mr. Baye own on Tom Pond is
“non-conforming” as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
She said they are simply asking for a letter from the Planning
Board stating that fact, in case it should ever be needed.
She said they have no specific plans, but would simply like to
confirm that it is “non-conforming” as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance. The lot was
subdivided some years ago. They
bought the lot in 2001. It
is in the R-2 zoning district. It
has 2 acres which is required, but it does not have the frontage to be
conforming. So, that is the
non-conforming part, since the frontage is less than 200 feet.
Mr. Eigabroadt asked when it was subdivided.
Ms. Brown said 1996, based on the plan she had.
She said it was a lot line adjustment.
Mr. Eigabroadt said he thought that with the lot line adjustment,
it was taken out of its “lot of record” status because the lot line
was adjusted. He said that prior to that, the lots were accepted as
“lots of record.” He
said that he thought if in 1996, it was adjusted, then it lost its
status as a “lot of record.” Ms.
Annis said the frontage could have been a “lot existing.”
Mr. Eigabroadt said that he had had two lots; one of them was
2.66 which had a house on it, with plenty of frontage.
Then, there was another lot that was beside it and had 12+ acres
that had only 140 or 150 feet of frontage.
He said the buyer of the lot was able to build on it because it
was considered a “lot of record,” and there was no variance
required. Ms. Brown agreed,
saying that she did not think that they needed a variance to build on
their lot, either. She said
she just wanted a letter stating that “it is what it is” -- and,
that is, non-conforming. Mr.
Eigabroadt asked if it is a lot of record, is it then a “conforming
lot”? Ms. Brown said that
she did not know, and that is one reason she requested the letter.
Ms. Annis read from the plan provided by Ms. Brown, saying that
it was for the widening of Ms. Annis asked what the Board would like
to do. Mr. Eigabroadt said
he would defer to the Board because he did not know the answer to the
question. Mr. Violette said
that it would be a letter stating that it is a non-conforming lot and
Ms. Annis added, as a result of the zoning.
She said, “This lot does not conform to the present
requirements for zoning so therefore it is a non-conforming lot.”
She said that could be put in writing if the Board is agreeable
to it. She suggested
that it also be added that any building must conform to the current
setbacks. Ms. Brown agreed
and said they have septic and the setbacks, too.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that if he, as a Selectman, received a letter
from someone requesting a building permit, and the letter said it was a
non-conforming lot, then he thinks the Selectmen would say no.
Ms. Annis disagreed and said that as long as they can meet the
setback requirements and the right-of-way, then it would be okay.
Ms. Brown said that they’ve already submitted the building
permit request with the setbacks and the septic design as required in
our current Ordinances. The
only problem, she said, is the road frontage; it’s not the size of the
lot. Mr. Eigabroadt asked if
it didn’t have enough frontage, wouldn’t the proper route be to go
to the Zoning Board for a variance.
Ms. Brown said, since the frontage was already there at the time
the Ordinance was passed, then there is no variance required.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that his understanding is that Ms. Brown
wants a letter saying that the lot was an existing non-conforming lot.
Ms. Brown said, yes. Ms.
Annis said it was a “lot of record,” prior to zoning and, as a
result of zoning, it became a non-conforming lot.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that the buyer of his lot did not gave to get
a variance since the lot was a non-conforming lot of record, but he also
did not have to come to the Planning Board for a letter.
Ms. Brown said she doesn’t have to have a letter, but she
wanted it for confirmation, so it would not come up somewhere down the
road and create problems from that.
Ms. Annis asked for a vote from the Board
that they would write a letter stating that it is a non-conforming lot
of record. Mr. Mical asked
if there should be a motion. Mr.
Eigabroadt said that it was simply asking for agreement to write the
letter. There was no motion.
All, except Mr. Eigabroadt, voted to authorize writing the
letter; Mr. Eigabroadt abstained since he did not understand why it was
necessary. 2. MINUTES Mr. Eigabroadt MOVED to approve the
Planning Board Minutes for Mr. Eigabroadt MOVED to approve the
Planning Board Work Session Minutes for 3. REPORT FROM
SUBCOMMITTEES Ms. Annis asked Mr. Duhamel about the CIP
Subcommittee. He said that
he has received some things from Mr. Mical and will be getting together
with Ms. Lightfoot this week to compose a letter and then convene after
that. Mr. Eigabroadt said that he and Mr. Watts
have only to get together to prepare a presentation to the Board of what
they have found in their committee. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Violette to report
the status of the Master Plan. He
said that they have a draft survey from 4. COMMUNICATIONS AND
MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis said the Annual Meeting of the
OEP at the Radisson in 5. DISCUSSION ABOUT
PROJECTS TO BE TAKEN UP THIS YEAR Ms. Annis said that she thought that the
groups on each subcommittee were so small that they ended up not being
workable since if one person were not available, then no work was
accomplished. She said that
Ms. Cooper is nearly done, but is still waiting for more information
from the State. The Master
Plan Committee is working well. She
said that, other than those two, we did not accomplish what was hoped
for. She said that the
Master Plan Committee will be meeting on the Work Session night and
suggested that the balance of the Board meet and take up some other
topic. She said that having
just two people on a committee did not work out.
She suggested that if there were three or four people on a
committee, then they could still accomplish something if one happened to
be absent. She said that we did not complete the
Temporary Sign work last year. She
pointed out that there are things on the subdivision checklist that no
one knows what they mean. This
needs to be clarified, why did we include it, why is it on the list.
She said that we learned this last week that the deadline for
having minutes of meetings available has changed from 144 hours to 5
business days after the meeting. If
this is correct, then everywhere the 144 hours appears in our zoning
will have to be changed to 5 business days.
That will take some time. She
said there is confusion over what is required for a site plan and she
thinks there needs to be more detail on that.
She noted that a few years ago we clarified what the 5 year rule
for a subdivision meant – it is now clear that the rule goes with the
land and not the owner. She
said that the Zoning Board often has to do an interpretation of what is
written in the Ordinance. She
said she thinks the Planning Board needs to focus on some of these
things. Mr. Eigabroadt said
that he thought there should be “statement of purpose” for each
individual ordinance or law. This
would be the intent behind it, like legislative intent – what was the
purpose for this particular item. He
said that this will require some research into the Zoning Ordinances to
find out what was the actual intent when it was passed.
He said that this way the intent could be found, and, if not, it
could at least be discussed as a Board to try to identify what the
intent is and put it down in writing as a purpose.
Mr. Duhamel said that his frustration is being unable to find the
most up-to-date information, and, in particular, to get a feel for what
our fellow residents want. He
said he hopes the Master Plan will help with this issue.
Mr. Violette said he agrees that there are things that need
definition and we need to identify why something is written as it is.
For example, business expansion – he said it’s not clear.
Mr. Eigabroadt said he would be willing to work with Mr. Violette
during the day to try to do the research necessary.
He said that even if he is not re-elected as Selectman, he would
work voluntarily on the research. Ms.
Cooper suggested that we reach out to get volunteer members who are not
on the Planning Board to try to get more tasks accomplished faster.
Ms. Annis asked that the majority of any committee be Planning
Board members. It is the
Planning Board responsibility, so it might be difficult. Ms. Cooper said
that others could do the research and gather information. Mr. Eigabroadt
said that so long as it is steered and controlled by a Planning Board
member, he thought it would be all right.
He reiterated the importance of clarifying the zoning that we
have now. He cited the
Hotel, saying that if it were very specific and had a clear purpose
behind it, as to what the intent was, it might have cost the people all
that money and time and aggravation and the court, because the footing
that the Town of Warner was on would have been a lot more solid than it
was, if the clarification had been there. Mr. Mical said that he thought by
breaking down into committees, we are losing something as a Planning
Board. He said that the Work
Session used to include the whole Board looking at some item and
discussed it as a Board. He suggested that some of the other things be
put in other time slots so the Board could work as a Board.
He said that the third Monday was set up so we could go through
and talk about something that had come up that needed clarification.
He said with all the subcommittees now, that isn’t happening.
Ms. Annis said the Master Plan Committee plans to meet every
third Monday until the end of the year.
And, if the entire Board dealt with the Master Plan every third
Monday, then nothing else would be accomplished for the rest of the
year. Mr. Mical asked if
that were set in stone. Mr.
Violette said that it wasn’t, except that Mr. Violette said that one of the parts
of the Master Plan is to review our Ordinances to make sure that they
track with each other. He
said it’s in the first phase and should be started pretty soon.
He said that perhaps some ideas will come out of that on how to
address some of these issues we’ve been discussing.
Ms. Annis said she thought they would be looking more at
coordination between the local and the state.
Mr. Violette said he thought there would be some suggestions to
improve wording, for example, that we might want to take a look at.
Obviously, if there are to be zoning changes, it would have to be
taken to the voters. Mr.
Eigabroadt asked if Mr. Violette had an idea of when that portion would
be addressed by Ms. Annis asked how the Board wanted to
work the timing for the March 17th meeting.
Mr. Eigabroadt said he would like to wait and see how much time Ms. Annis asked if there were any other
business. Mr. Eigabroadt
asked if there were any forward progress on the flood zone issue on the
subdivision for A&P Investments on Mr. Eigabroadt MOVED to adjourn.
Mr. Mical seconded. PASSED
unanimously. The meeting was
adjourned at
|