|
Town of Minutes of Meeting Members
Present: Paul
Violette, Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical, David Hartman Members
Absent:
George Pellettieri Members Late:
None Alternates
Present: Stacey
Cooper (Sitting and Voting for Mr. Pellettieri), Alternates Late:
None Alternates
Absent: None Presiding:
Paul Violette Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open
Meeting at Roll Call Mr. Violette opened the meeting at 1. Property Owner: William D.
and Julia J. Chapin and JKW Trust, William D. Chapin, Trustee, Agent:
Dennis D. McKenney, New England Forestry Consultants, Inc., Property Location:
Description:
Mr. Violette recognized
Dennis McKenney of New England Forestry Consultants who was representing
the owners. Mr. McKenney
explained that Mr. Chapin owns a number of properties in the area, some
with Mrs. Chapin and some under the name of JKW Trust, for which he is
the trustee. He said the
proposal is to rearrange the lot lines of lots 51 and 53 on Map 12.
He explained that both lots are owned by either Mr. and Mrs.
Chapin or JKW Trust. The
proposal is to add land from the 22 acre piece, lot 51, and add that
land to the 1.6 acre piece, lot 53.
This would leave the house standing on 3.3 acres and lot 53 would
end up being 21.2 acres after the adjustment.
He said it’s on Mr. Duhamel said he’d
reviewed the checklist and it appeared to be complete.
Mr. Violette asked what “included in part” referred to on
page 2, V.A.14. Mr. McKenney
said it meant that there are no contours on the plan; most of the
wetlands are not shown; it does show some of the streams.
The survey was done in January and because of the snow, it was
hard to pick up every natural feature.
So, he said there may be a stream or two that are on the land,
but are not shown on the map because they couldn’t be seen because of
the snow. Ms. Cooper asked if the
application should also be for a merger.
Mr. McKenney said it should not be a merger because there will
still be the two separate lots of land and two separate map and lot
numbers. He said his
understanding of a merger was to combine two lots into one lot and one
of the lot numbers disappears. Mr.
Hartman asked if lot 53, map 12, stays.
Mr. McKenney said there will still be a Map 12, lot 53 and a Map
12, lot 51. He explained
that it was just the acreage of each one that would change.
There was further discussion with Mr. Hartman about whether it
should be considered a merger, rather than a lot line adjustment.
Mr. McKenney explained that in the end, there will be a smaller
lot with a house on it and a larger lot with no house on it.
Mr. Mical asked what the
size of the house lot will be after the proposed lot line adjustment.
Mr. McKenney replied it will be 3.3 acres.
He said it presently is on a 29.9 acre parcel.
Mr. Violette asked for clarification on the lot numbers.
Mr. McKenney said the house lot will stay as lot 51, and the
resulting larger lot will be lot 53.
Mr. Hartman asked for further clarification on what is a merger
versus a lot line adjustment. He
said that the line that is currently on lot 53 disappears, which he said
he thinks would create a merger of the two pieces of land into one.
Mr. Watts explained that the lot line was being moved up to be
around the house and there are still two pieces of property.
Mr. Hartman asked if the rules would call it a merger.
Mr. Watts said that what is happening is land is being taken from
one to give to the other, and that is a lot line adjustment.
Mr. Violette said if you were merging, you would end up with one
lot. Mr. Hartman said he
thought it would be taking out a piece of the big lot and the remainder
of that lot is then combined with the smaller lot.
Mr. Watts explained that instead of doing that extra step, and
having to come back again, the applicant is able to simply move the lot
line since he owns all the property.
Ms. Cooper asked to clarify
where the R-3 and OC-1 Zoning District line is.
Mr. McKenney showed it on the map.
Mr. Watts noted that the acreage required for the house is 3
acres, so the 3.3 acres planned is appropriate.
Mr. Violette asked what the frontage would be for lot 51.
Mr. McKenney measured it and said it was about 260+ feet.
Mr. Violette noted that the required frontage for a building lot
was 250 feet. Mr. Duhamel
noted that lot 51 would result in about 307 feet of frontage.
Mr. Violette asked if there
were any other questions on the application.
There were none. Mr. Duhamel MOVED to accept
the application. Mr. Mical
Seconded. Mr. Violette asked
if there was any discussion. There
was none. The motion was
PASSED unanimously and the application was ACCEPTED. Mr. Mical said that there
did not have to be a public hearing.
Mr. Violette agreed, but said he would like to allow any abutters
who were present to speak. Mr.
John Johnson said since Mr. Chapin owned the land, he thought he should
be allowed to change the lot line if he wanted to.
Mrs. Johnson said she would like to know for what purpose the lot
line was being proposed to be adjusted, but said she understood she
would need to ask Mr. Chapin. There
were no further comments. Mr. Violette noted that the
boundaries on the road frontage there need to be monuments.
He said those need to be square granite or concrete boundary
posts. He said that usually
they have an iron rod in them. He
said on the rear boundaries, it is okay to use iron pins.
He said he thought that Mr. McKenney could insert those once the
weather permits. Mr.
McKenney said that he usually uses ¾ inch iron rods which are 40 inches
long and are driven into the ground.
Sometimes, he said, they will use 80-inch long rods if the ground
is very soft or swampy. He
said with these, they are locatable with a metal detector.
He said the issue with granite bounds is that if you can’t get
them into the ground very well, they’re not very permanent.
He said that the iron rods work better since they can be
installed to be almost permanent. He
said it’s also a lot easier to get the iron rods in the ground than a
two-foot granite bound. So,
he requested that the granite bound requirement be waived and allow a ¾
inch iron rod instead. Mr.
Violette asked how much of the iron rod would be left out of the ground.
Mr. McKenney said they usually leave about 10 inches sticking up,
unless it’s a place where it needs to be flush, like a driveway.
However, he said, you can still usually find it with a metal
detector. Mr. Hartman asked about the
rebars to be set at the property with the house on it.
He asked if the iron bars that are there now need to be replaced
with an iron rebar. He also
noted that the property line appears to not be straight because the
stone wall is not straight. He
wondered if it is necessary to put a rebar boundary put on the northern
boundary of lot 53 because the stone wall along the road is not
straight. Mr. Violette said
that actually there are 6 pins that need to go in around the house lot.
Mr. McKenney agreed. There
was a short discussion about placement of the pins.
Mr. Watts asked if the
motion should be to accept the lot line adjustment, assuring that the
rebars are put in, and waive the granite monument requirements.
Mr. McKenney pointed out that it is against state law to disturb
a boundary marker, which the iron bar is.
Mr. Watts MOVED to approve the application with the condition
that the rebars be installed as required and to waive the granite
monument requirements. Mr.
Duhamel Seconded. Mr. Violette asked for
further discussion. Mr.
Wayne Eigabroadt from the audience asked if, as a matter of process,
there should be separate motions. Mr.
Mical said that that has been done in the past.
Mr. Mr. Watts MOVED to waive the
requirement of granite pillars, and accept instead rebar poles.
Mr. Duhamel Seconded. There
was no discussion. The
Motion PASSED unanimously. Mr. Watts MOVED to approve
the plan as submitted. Mr.
Duhamel Seconded. There was
no discussion. Mr. Violette
called the role: Mr. Duhamel,
Yes; Mr. Mical, Yes; Mr. Watts, Yes; Ms. Cooper, Yes; Mr. Hartman, Yes.
The motion PASSED. Mr. McKenney said he will
set the markers and get the Mylar copies to the Planning Board office.
Ms. Lightfoot asked Mr. McKenney to bring two Mylar copies and
two paper copies, with the name of Mrs. Chapin corrected.
2. COMMERCIAL MAJOR
SUBDIVISION Property
Owners: Alan & Lee
Ann Wagner, Jr., Agent:
Stefan Toth, P.E., Toth Engineering, PLLC, 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 b. Public
Hearing held in March 2007 Mr. Violette said there was a letter dated April 2, from
Stephen Toth, regarding the project which was sent to the Planning
Board. He read:
“The above-reference[d]
project is scheduled for a public hearing “Given the above the
applicant respectfully requests to continue the public hearing to Mr. Violette noted that there is some work going on at
the moment near the site, but it is the State Highway Department
cleaning up some ledge. It
is not work being done by Mr. Wagner.
Mr. Violette said that the result of granting this
request would be that it would be on the agenda for the May 5 meeting,
with an extension to completion to June 2.
Ms. Cooper said that it made sense to extend it since it appears
that they are very close to getting all that they may need from the
State. She suggested capping
the deadline so it doesn’t continue on for another year or more, since
it has been over a year already. Mr.
Violette said he thought they would like to move it along, but they are
at the mercy of the State. Ms.
Cooper said she understood. There
was a short discussion. Mr.
Violette said there would be a public hearing in May and then another
month between the hearing and the deadline, so they could complete
anything that they might need to do.
Mr. Mical clarified that the current 65-day period ends
in May and they are asking for an extension of that date.
Mr. Mical MOVED that the 65-day deadline be extended to 3.
MINUTES Mr. Violette asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Mr. Violette asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Mr. Hartman said it was not clear to him from the
minutes who actually is sitting and voting on the Board that night.
He said it doesn’t show which of the alternates are serving for
that night or not. He said
that on March 3, there were some alternates present, but it was not
stated if they were sitting in. Mr.
Violette said that the Chairman usually designates who will sit in for
whom that particular evening and it has appeared in the minutes before.
Ms. Lightfoot said she would make it clearer from now on.
4.
REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEES Mr. Violette asked Mr. Duhamel to report on the Capital
Improvements Program. Mr.
Duhamel reported that he’d had conversations with Mr. Mical and one of
the Selectmen, hoping to convene the subcommittee in the next few weeks.
He also wants to begin to contact the various departments to have
them begin thinking about it, and possibly meet with them.
He said when Ms. Lightfoot gets back in two weeks, an e-mail will
be sent to all the departments. Mr. Violette reported on the Master Plan Committee.
He said that we are applying for a Housing Conservation Planning
Program grant. He said the
draft application has been sent in and reported that we are asking for a
grant of $19,000. The total
cost of the application would be $21,500.
$2,500 will be matching funds raised by the Town.
This would take us through the research, mapping and data
analysis, all of which we need for and will be useful to the Master
Plan. He said it will
provide a lot of the data that we would have to gather in Phases II and
III. He said this would
result in our saving some money on the cost of the whole project.
He said there was feedback from the NH Office of Energy and
Planning, where the grant originates.
As a result, we are working on adding and changing things that
they suggested. The $2,500
matching funds will come ½ from the Planning Board and ½ from the
Conservation Commission. The
Conservation Commission has agreed to that because a lot of the work
will dovetail into work that they are doing.
He said the deadline for submitting the application is April 14th.
We had to have support letters from the Board of Selectmen, as
well as a Warner resident. He
added that this grant would be used to hired one or two consultants to
do the work. Sharon Wason
has people to do the work who are trained and experienced in the work. The next meeting of the Master Plan Committee will be at
the Work Session on April 21st.
Ms. Wason and her assistants will be here for that meeting to
work on the survey and other things we have underway.
Hopefully, the Board members will be e-mailed the updated survey
based on feedback given to them at the last work session.
There were no other committee reports. 5.
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD APPOINTMENTS AND ELEVATION OF
ALTERNATES Mr. Violette said there are a number of applications
that have been submitted to the Board of Selectmen.
Drew Serell has decided to resign at the end of his term this
year, after 15 years of service. He
said there are, therefore, two full member slots and one alternate slot
that are open. There are
five applicants: Barbara
Annis, Harold French, Robert Ricard, Rick Davies, and Wayne Eigabroadt. Mr. Duhamel said that there is a lot to this Board and
the rules and regulations. He
said that Ms. Annis has a wealth of knowledge and experience and should
be re-appointed. He added
that having worked with Mr. Eigabroadt, he sees that he brought a vast
amount of Warner knowledge and opened up some discussions that were
necessary. Therefore, he
said he hoped the Selectmen would also appoint him.
Finally, he said there are also issues of land use, whether its
markers or driveway issues, that are considered by the Board.
He said he would suggest that the knowledge and experience that
Ms. Annis and Mr. Eigabroadt bring are valuable to the Board and would
hope that they would be appointed to the full member positions.
On the alternate position, he said he thought that Mr.
French brought a good knowledge of real estate since we deal with land
and dwellings. He said he
knows the land in town because of his real estate work.
As a result, if, for example, some land area comes before the
Board and is known by Mr. French, he knows that it is very wet or very
steep and will ask the questions that others might not recognize.
Mr. Violette asked for further comments.
Mr. Watts added that Mr. Davies is doing a good job serving the
Town on the Zoning Board of Adjustment and agreed that he probably could
serve on both boards, but said it was hard for him to make one meeting,
let alone the meetings of two active boards.
He also added that he thinks that Ms. Annis should be
re-appointed because of her knowledge of the history and process.
Mr. Violette added that he thought Ms. Annis’ “institutional
knowledge” was very valuable. Mr. Mical added his support to the re-appointment of Ms.
Annis. He said that it
seemed that the Board worked well these last few months with Ms. Annis,
Mr. Eigabroadt and Mr. French. He
said Mr. Eigabroadt brought valuable insights and was a welcome asset to
the Board. He recommended
that all three be re-appointed. Mr. Violette asked Ms. Cooper if she had anything to
add. She said no.
Mr. Mical MOVED that a letter be sent to the Board of
Selectmen recommending that Barbara Annis and Wayne Eigabroadt be
appointed as full members and Harold French be appointed as an alternate
to the Planning Board. Mr.
Duhamel Seconded. There was
no discussion. The Motion
PASSED Unanimously. Mr. Violette said he would compose the letter to the
Selectmen for the 6.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Violette said Mr. Richard Stanley had sent a letter
to the Planning Board explaining that he wants to change the Video
Pursuit retail store at Mr. 7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Connors said that there was confusion about what
the Planning Board was asking for at town meeting, with respect to Exit
9. She said there are many
ideas around and she would like to know specifically was the request for
planning in that corridor, or if it was for an actual design by an
engineer for the Market Basket intersection.
Mr. Violette explained that it was for a feasibility study or
conceptual design. He said
we were looking for at least two different ways of handling that
traffic, and that was put in the RFP.
He said the first two to come to mind were a traffic light or a
roundabout. He said we were
looking to handle the traffic in that strip, primarily at the junction
of Ms. Connors referred to the Corridor Study where she
said a lot of the area was looked at very carefully as far as lining up
driveways, for example. She
said that she thought that part of the study that is being proposed has
already been done and she said she thinks that people don’t want to
spend that much money on it. She
said that perhaps people would be more amenable to going directly toward
a specific design. Mr.
Violette said that we would have probably have preferred to go for the
design, but the State says that we may not do that before doing the
preliminary study. Barbara
Annis asked how would we know what was going to be designed.
Ms. Connors said an engineer could look at the Corridor Study as
an alternative. She added
that there is a difference between a written plan and an actual
engineered design of the intersection.
Mr. Violette said that we do not have the option of just picking
what we want to do, because the road would have to be designed
differently for each option. He
added that the conceptual study or feasibility study plan was a result
of the last meeting with DOT about what was needed to be done to provide
them with the updated data to look at the whole corridor, including Mr. Violette thanked Ms. Connors for her comments and
information. Ms. Connors said she believed that the article was not
passed at Town Meeting because there was such confusion about what was
being planned and asked for by the Planning Board.
Mr. Violette said if this is going to be pursued, a different
approach will be used to communicate more clearly what is being asked
for and why. Ms. Connors
said she thought a lot of people felt that the Town should not have to
pay. Mr. Violette said
it’s been made very clear by the State that the Town will have to pay
for it. There were no other public comments. 8.
DISCUSSION ABOUT ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Mr. Hartman MOVED that the election of Chair and Vice
Chair be postponed until the full Board was appointed and could meet.
Mr. Duhamel Seconded. Mr.
Violette agreed that it should be postponed until the new members could
be appointed and sworn in. There
was no objection to the motion. Mr. Mical MOVED to adjourn. Mr. Watts Seconded.
The motion was PASSED unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at
|