|
Town of
Warner – Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, June 1, 2009
7:00 PM Warner Town Hall, Lower Level Members
Present:
Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, David Hartman, Rick
Davies, Ed Mical, Dan Watts Members Excused:
None Members Absent:
None Alternates Present:
Peter Wyman Alternates Excused:
None Alternates Absent:
Harold French Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at 7:00 PM Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 7:00
p.m. The roll call was
taken. 1. CONCEPTUAL
CONSULTATION Property Owners: Al and
Maryann Plass Property Location: 88 West
Main Street, Warner, NH
Map 34, Lot 20, R-1 Zoning Description:
Conceptual consultation regarding a 4-lot subdivision Ms. Annis recognized Al and Maryann Plass.
Ms. Plass said they have been before the Planning Board before
about the planned subdivision and now have two different scenarios that
they would like the Planning Board to review.
She said that she assumed that they need to choose one to go
before the Zoning Board and would like the input from the Planning Board
about the two different options. She said that they know they will need a variance on at least
one of the lots, if not two of them.
Ms. Annis asked to identify the plans as A and B.
She said Plan A will be the one with lot 3 having 2.0 acres and
lot 4 having 2.3 acres and Plan B will be the one with lot 3 having 2.2
acres and lot 4 having 2.1 acres. Ms.
Annis said that she understands that this would require a 100-foot
frontage. Ms. Plass said
yes. Ms. Annis said that if
Plan A were selected, then only one variance would be required for the
50-foot frontage. She said
if it were to be Plan B, then two variances would be required because
each would be 75-feet. Mr.
Plass said they though that Plan B would be preferable because the
driveway was already there and is nearly right in the middle of the
75-75 foot frontages. Ms.
Plass added that this would require less of a variance for each from the
100-foot requirement. Ms.
Annis asked if there would be a common driveway on Plan B.
Ms. Plass said on both plans there would be one.
She said on A, there would be a driveway easement, with the main
access to lot 3 would be through lot 4.
She said on B, it would be almost right in the middle of the two
lots. Ms. Annis asked if
the State has been contacted about the plan. Ms. Plass said that their surveyor is in the process of doing
that. She added that he
does not think there will be a problem in using the existing driveway.
Ms. Annis asked if there were any
questions or comments from the Board.
Mr. Davies asked what the buildable area would be, considering
the wetlands, on Lot 3 of Plan A. Ms.
Plass said it is at least an acre, but she did not know how much more
than that. Mr. Davies noted
that they only need 20,000 square feet in that zone, so an acre is over
that. Mr. Mical said that
he thought that one of the things that he thought the Board was trying
to avoid was the narrowness of the entrance to lot 3. Ms. Plass said that the first time they came in the proposal
was a horseshoe shaped lot with 50 feet of frontage on one side and 50
on the other. She said that
they understood that night that it would not be looked on positively by
the Zoning Board. So, she
said, that is why they moved to this idea so it wasn’t so irregularly
shaped as the horseshoe proposal. Mr.
Violette asked if this is not putting the cart before the horse because
the Zoning Board needs to rule on the frontage variance first.
Ms. Annis said yes. Mr.
Davies said that the Zoning Board in their instructions has asked that
applicants go to the Planning Board first to get feedback in case there
is something that will help their decision.
Ms. Annis said, therefore, the Zoning Board likes help.
Mr. Davies responded yes, if there is help to be had, for
example, if there is a preference or suggestion from the Planning Board. Mr. Violette said that he has no preference for either plan.
He said that he would go with the more workable one for the
applicants. Ms. Annis said
it is a little overbearing to have a mutual driveway on Plan A because
it runs across one person’s property and the line to the left of the
driveway leaves a tiny piece of property that is of no use to the owner
and he is going to be assessed for it.
Mr. Watts commented that Plan B is the better design to him.
Ms. Annis said that Plan B would be more equal to both parties as
far as the driveway is concerned since it would not be disrupting to
either party. There was a
short discussion about the difference in the driveway design of each
plan. Mr. Violette said
Plan B would take care of the sliver of land not being usable in Plan A.
Mr. Plass said that they were leaning to Plan B, as well.
Mr. Violette said that with Plan B they will need two variances
for the frontage requirements. The Plasses indicated that they understood.
Mr. Davies told them they could use one application for the two
variances. Ms. Annis said that perhaps it could be
done in a joint session with the Zoning Board.
She said she would speak with Martha Thoits about that idea. She asked if there were any other comments from the Board
members. Mr. Duhamel said
he had no problems with either plan, but asked what the square
represented that is bisected by one of the proposed property lines. Ms. Plass said it is a concrete bed of an old garage, but
there is no building there now. Mr.
Wyman said that he thought that Plan B is the better option.
Mr. Watts agreed that Plan B is the better option.
Mr. Hartman asked if they would be tying into the Precinct water
and sewer. Ms. Plass said
yes. Mr. Hartman said that
both plans look equal to him, with the understanding that either way, a
variance from the Zoning Board will be required. Ms. Annis asked if the Plasses were aware
that a letter was received from an abutter.
Ms. Plass said yes and they would talk with him as the project
proceeds. Ms. Annis said
that the Board will not address it at this point, but it will be
addressed at the time of the subdivision application.
There was a short discussion about the runoff and how to deal
with it. Ms. Annis said that it appears that the
Planning Board members would prefer Plan B, but it is up to the Plasses.
She said that they cannot guarantee what the Zoning Board will
do. Ms. Plass said that
Plan B was more appealing to them.
They thanked the Board and left. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant
and Property Owners: Philip
and Donna Reeder Agent:
Jeffrey Evans, Evans Land Consultants
Property Location: 127
West Main Street, Warner, NH
Map 34, Lot 10, R-1 Zoning
Description: Minor
subdivision of existing single family home lot from 4.48 acres to two
lots: Existing house lot
0.57 acres and new house lot 3.91 acres. Ms. Annis recognized Jeffrey Evans.
Mr. Evans said this is a minor subdivision that is almost
directly across Main Street from the parcel that was just being
discussed. He said the lot
goes down to the Warner River. He
said that the house has always been on a very small piece of property.
He said he has spoken with the Sewer and Water Commission and
they have no issue with the subdivision since the pipe goes right by the
lot and the owners will only have to pay for the hookup.
Ms. Annis recognized Lynn Perkins and James McLaughlin who were
attending. Mr. Perkins is a
commissioner and asked how far back the house would be and said that if
the building is more than 100 feet from the line, they are not required
to hook into the system. Mr.
Evans said he wasn’t sure how it would work and how any septic would
fit in. There was a further
discussion on this issue with the general understanding that a septic
would not work in the lot because the frontage on the lot would not be
sufficient to allow it. In
addition, there was concern about the proximity to the town water supply
for a septic system in the area. Ms. Annis asked if Mr. Evans had
contacted NH DOT. Mr. Evans
said he has but has not yet received a reply regarding a driveway
permit. He said he has an
application in and noted that one of the two driveways that currently
serve the lot will have to be removed so the new lot will be able to
have access. He said that
there are no issues with sight distance for the new driveway.
Ms. Annis asked if there were any other questions.
There were none. She
asked the Board members to review the checklist attached.
Mr. Mical said that the application is
missing the signature page. Ms.
Annis said it was turned in tonight.
Mr. Mical said that everything else on page 1 was all right.
Mr. Violette said that all of page 2 was all right.
Mr. Hartman said they had a question on the water and sewer and
percolation tests. He said
that there is no percolation test or state approval for any septic, but
if they want to hook up to the Precinct water and sewer, it is all
right. He asked Mr. Mical
if it is in compliance with the Town of Warner Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance. Mr. Mical said
the 100-year flood line is shown on the plan, so he said he would assume
that it is in compliance. Mr.
Hartman said the only restriction would be that they could not build in
that zone. Mr. Mical said
yes, or certain criteria would have to be met in order to do that and
they would have to come back to the Planning Board before they could do
it. Mr. Hartman asked if
that is just understood or should it be stated on the plan.
Mr. Mical replied that if the plan is approved, it could be added
as part of the approval process. Mr.
Hartman asked about one figure, 205’, which is on the plan and what it
means. Mr. Evans looked at
the plan and said it was not supposed to be there.
Mr. Hartman noted that the Natural Heritage Inventory letter
which was included in the application said that the opinion was valid
until December 5, 2008. Mr. Evans responded that the project was started some time
ago and he will get an updated approval.
Mr. Davies asked about the correct spelling of the Karls’ name.
He noted on the plan that it was Karles and it was confirmed that
it should be Karls. Mr.
Evans said he would correct that. Ms. Annis summarized questions as
follows: there is the
misspelling, the errant 205’, the Natural Heritage update.
Mr. Evans said that the question about DES can be answered in
that DES will not grant an approval because it would be serviced by
water and sewer. Mr. Violette MOVED to accept the
application. Mr. Watts
seconded. There was no
further discussion. The
vote was taken. Mr. Mical,
yes; Mr. Duhamel, yes; Mr. Violette, yes; Mr. Davies, yes; Mr. Watts,
yes; Mr. Hartman, no. The
motion was PASSED. Ms. Annis closed the Planning Board
meeting and opened the public hearing.
There were no abutters who wished to speak.
Ms. Annis asked for comments from the general public.
She recognized James McLaughlin.
Mr. McLaughlin said that he would hope that the Planning Board
would require hooking up to the Precinct water and sewer as a condition
of approval of the subdivision. He
said that the District is a small entity with limited user space and one
way it can expand is by subdividing existing lots within the Precinct. He said that any expansion of the user base will be a benefit
to all the users. In
addition, he said the Precinct has invested about $1 million in a new
storage tank which provides fire suppression services to all of Main
Street, of which this parcel would be one of the lots benefiting from
that service. He said it
would be logical that they would also be included in paying for that
through their water rents. He
said that the lot is in the wetland protection area for the district’s
wells and he said he thought it would be a bad precedent to allow a
septic system in the area. He
added that the lot is adjacent to the Warner River so it is subject to
the State’s Shoreland Protection Act.
There were no other members of the public who wished to be
recognized. Ms. Annis closed the public hearing and re-opened the
Planning Board meeting. Mr. Evans said that all of the
Shoreland Protection Act lines are shown on the plan, along with the
floodplain. He added that
most of the land in the protection area is also in the floodplain so any
development there will be restricted.
He said that DES will not allow any construction of new
residences in the floodplain. Ms. Annis asked if there were any
further questions. Mr.
Watts said that he had three possible conditions to add to any approval:
update the Natural Heritage letter, fix the name Karls, and fix
the errant elevation 205’ marker near the road.
Mr. Davies said that if they chose to go to a septic system, they
would need a variance. Mr.
Evans said they would have to come back before the Town because if they
come within the radius of the actual well head, then they will get
denied for that. Mr. Violette asked Mr. McLaughlin if he knew the protected
area from the wellhead. Mr.
McLaughlin said it is a circle that varies.
Mr. Violette asked if it is a thousand foot radius. Mr. McLaughlin said yes.
Mr. Wyman commented that the radius actually changes with the
water table. There was a
short discussion about this issue.
Mr. Violette said he was actually looking for the information for
future reference. Ms. Annis
said that Mr. Reeder had told her that the best place to build could be
back over 100 feet from the road. She
asked how much more money it would cost to hook up.
There was a discussion conjecturing about the elevation and how
much the piping would cost. Mr. Watts MOVED to approve the
application with three conditions:
(1) Fix the errant elevation mark; (2) fix the name Karls; and,
(3) get an updated acceptable Natural Heritage letter.
Mr. Violette seconded. Mr. Mical MOVED to amend the motion to
add two other conditions: (1)
No building within the 100-year base flood elevation; (2) The lot must
hook into the Precinct water and sewer system.
There was a discussion about whether
it was important to put the hookup to the water and sewer on the plan. Mr. Mical said it should be added. Mr. Watts said that if it were going to be done that way,
then it should be put on the plan that it has to be part of the Precinct
unless the Zoning Board variance approval is secured.
He asked why a reiteration of the laws and regulations need to be
put on the plan. Mr.
Hartman seconded Mr. Mical’s motion.
Ms. Annis asked if there was
discussion on the amendment. Mr.
Mical MOVED to amend his amendment by adding:
(3) The driveway permit to be secured for the second lot. Mr.
Hartman asked if it is required that a driveway permit be secured before
approval of the subdivision or is it just understood.
Mr. Watts said that in the past a permit has been required.
Ms. Annis agreed. Mr.
Hartman agreed to include the third item in his second to the motion.
There was no further discussion on the amendment.
Ms. Annis summarized the amendment to include:
(1) No building within the 100-year base flood elevation; (2) The
lot must hook into the Precinct water and sewer system; and, (3) The
driveway permit to be secured for the second lot. The vote was taken on the amendment:
Mr. Mical, yes; Mr. Duhamel, yes; Mr. Violette, yes; Mr. Davies,
yes; Mr. Watts, no; Mr. Hartman, yes.
The amendment was PASSED. Next, Ms. Annis said the vote will be
on the amended motion. She
said the other three conditions from the original motion are:
(1) Fix the errant elevation mark; (2) fix the name Karls; and,
(3) get an updated acceptable Natural Heritage letter. There was no further discussion. The vote was taken on the amended motion:
Mr. Mical, yes; Mr. Duhamel, yes; Mr. Violette, yes; Mr. Davies,
yes; Mr. Watts, yes; Mr. Hartman, yes.
The motion was PASSED. Mr. Evans thanked the Board and left. 3. FOLLOW UP ON PLANNING
BOARD WARRANT ARTICLES FROM 2008 Ms. Annis said that Mr. Hartman
requested that a discussion take place about what to do about the 2008
Warrant Articles that were defeated at the Town Meeting.
Mr. Hartman said that since there was so much time and effort put
into the articles, it was clear that the Board thought the amendments
were important and, rather than have all the effort wasted, he thinks it
should be re-submitted. He
said because of the defeats, there are still a contradictory Zoning
Ordinance and a Building Code that is out of date that should be
corrected. He said he
thought the Board should discuss the results and think about
reconsidering the efforts and how to do it.
Mr. Watts said he thought they should be re-submitted to the
Town. He said that the
Planning Board should submit a write-up to the Warner Newsletter to
explain why they are being brought back for reconsideration.
He said it needs to be explained to the voters why they are being
amended – for the contradictions and to update the Building Code. He said that it should be explained that it is only a fix and
not an attempt to change the character of the town. Mr. Davies said he agrees with Mr. Watts and added that it is
confusing for people because it was so long and asked if there is a way
to compact the information so it’s a little more “user friendly.”
He said that perhaps to not have all the cross-outs would help,
but to add explanations to simplify what is being requested.
He said it does need to be considered that it’s possible to
have too many issues, too. Mr.
Watts said the footage discrepancies in the tables vs. the words really
need to be corrected. Mr. Wyman said that, as a voter who
had not been on the Board, it would help to try to sell it more.
He said that because it wasn’t sold to the voters, there was a
point where he thought that people felt they had had enough change.
Mr. Mical said that the Board knows that our Building Code is not
in compliance and the work that was done would have brought it into
compliance. He noted that
it is the State Building Code that has to govern now, because the
Town’s is out of compliance. He
agreed that somehow the public has to be educated on what is trying to
be accomplished. He said he
thought that a couple of years ago there was a short explanation on the
ballot to try to convey what we were trying to do.
Mr. Duhamel said he agreed with the others, and added that to
wait until the voting day to educate is too late.
He said that people want to have a chance to digest the changes.
He suggested putting together a one or two page explanation that
could be sent out and/or handed out at the Market Basket for a weekend
or the Post Office. He said
that this could cover how it’s impacting the town and future tax
revenues. He said it is difficult to reach the public and we need to
figure out how to do it. Mr.
Violette said no matter what is done with the Building Code, we’re
still governed by the State Building Code.
He said that whether you put in writing that you are complying or
not makes no difference because you have to comply anyway.
So, he said it is not a priority for him.
He said there are other issues that we would like to add for this
year which will add to the confusion.
Mr. Watts said let’s look at what’s important, and, if the
State trumps the local Building Code, anyway, set that aside, and the
contradictions in the Ordinance are important because people need to
know which one to go by. Mr. Violette said that he thought people didn’t vote for
the articles because they didn’t understand them.
Ms. Annis said she thought it was too long. She suggested picking out one or two parts of the Building
Code and then present those. There
was a short discussion about how the contradictory numbers were agreed
upon and it was agreed that they still need to be reconciled. Mr. Davies said that he had looked at
some of the other towns’ ballots.
He said that New London, for example, had a small explanation
paragraph after each item. He
said that the items were not expanded with the cross outs and the
underlines. Mr. Mical said
two or three years ago, a similar attempt was made where the complete
ordinance wording was posted and people were upset because they
couldn’t see what was happening.
He said that is why it was changed and with the extra information
in it, now people think there’s too much information.
Mr. Violette noted that in 2008, people said they liked the
lining out the deletions and underlining the additions.
Mr. Davies said perhaps with just a few items it’s good, but if
it gets longer, it gets too convoluted.
Mr. McLaughlin said that he agreed with the Board that the
articles were too long and people did not understand them.
Ms. Annis said it would have been better to get just two through,
rather than have five shot down. There
was a discussion about how to approach re-submitting the articles. Mr. Hartman said the Building Code was a complete re-write
and it would not make sense to try to pull out sections. He said it is a statement of what the Town uses as its
law. Mr. Watts suggested
that the Board use a hybrid of things used in the past and, for the
Building Code, for example, refer to the posting of the actual new code
and say “bring the Building Code into compliance with the State
Building Code.” Ms. Annis
asked Mr. Hartman if he would work on this.
Mr. Hartman said that there are two different things to consider:
the Building Code should be submitted in total as it was
re-written; and, the Zoning Ordinance can be amended in pieces as it
applies. Mr. Davies agreed that the Building Code must be kept
together to make sense and picking it apart would lose its completeness
that was achieved. He said
there must be a way to streamline how it is presented, but still giving
the voters the ability to get the information and to read it at the
polls if they wanted to. Ms.
Annis recognized Jan Dyment from the public who commented that it was
confusing at the polls and she had not seen the articles before she went
to vote. There was a
further discussion about the Building Code and the changes that had been
proposed and why the members thought they hadn’t passed. Ms. Annis asked when this will be
discussed further. She
noted that the next work session will be taken up with the Master Plan.
There was a consideration and discussion about scheduling various
items that the Board felt need to be addressed.
Mr. Hartman suggested that if it is agreed that the 2008 articles
should be re-submitted, the work has been done on those and it should
not take too much to get it ready for re-submission.
He said he will look at the issues and come back with some
suggestions. 4. MINUTES Mr. Violette MOVED to approve the
minutes of Monday, May 4, 2009. Mr.
Hartman seconded. Ms. Annis
asked if there was any discussion.
Mr. Davies said that it was noted that Mr. Watts came in late,
but it was never shown in the minutes when he came in.
As a result, he said, it was confusing because at the beginning
of the minutes it said that Mr. Wyman was sitting in for Mr. Watts, but
it was Mr. Watts who voted. He
suggested that it be noted in the minutes when Mr. Watts arrived so it
will be less confusing about who is participating in the meeting.
It was agreed to try to note when a late-arriving member arrives.
Mr. Mical said that on page 7, he voted yes and that was not
noted. The addition will be
made. There was no further
discussion. The motion was
PASSED unanimously. Mr. Violette MOVED to approve the
minutes of the work session of Monday, May 11, 2009.
Mr. Hartman seconded. There
was no discussion. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. 5. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Mical said that the CIP Committee
had its first meeting at the end of May.
He said the committee members are:
Planning Board Members: Barbara
Annis, Peter Wyman, and Ed Mical. From
the Budget Committee: Martha
Bodnarik. From the
Selectmen: David Karrick. And, Laura Buono and Jeanne Hand. He reported that they decided who will do what and have
decided to change the form that has been used for the last 3-4 years.
He said that Ms. Buono is working on that and it will be sent to
the CIP members and then to the departments.
He said it will go with a memo to the departments and it will be
followed up with a face-to-face meeting with a CIP committee member.
He said the hope is to have things in place in August so the
Planning Board can hold the public hearing in September, so it can be
presented to the Budget Committee and the Selectmen.
He said he thought it was important that the three groups get
together to go over it. He
said that they hope to include some population information that they can
get from the Master Plan data. Mr. Violette said that the Master Plan
Committee will be meeting on June 15 at the Work Session when Sharon
Wason and Vanessa Bitterman will be attending.
He said they are tying up loose ends on Phase I and it is nearly
complete. He said they are
moving into Phase II and they have a draft of Scope of Work to be done
for Phase II, along with a budget of $6500, with some options that could
be added. He said it includes natural resources, housing, economic
development, transportation and completing the existing land use
chapter. He said that it
has not been decided on whether to take on the option of the buildout
analysis. He said that the
transportation chapter is paid for primarily by the NH DOT.
He said another option could be to add functional road
classifications. He said
this will all be discussed at the next meeting.
He said he was checking to see that the funding would be
available. Ms. Annis asked
when something in writing would be produced as a chapter.
She said she wants to see the chapters and see the sequence of
the subjects in the chapters. Mr.
Violette said he will ask that of Ms. Wason at the next meeting.
Mr. Mical asked if there has been any further discussion on how
the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be integrated.
Mr. Violette said yes and it will be included most likely as a
separate entity. Mr. Mical said that the Hazard
Mitigation Plan that was approved last year and is good for five years
must have a semiannual review. He
asked Mr. Duhamel if he still wanted to be part of the process and Mr.
Duhamel replied yes. Mr.
Mical said there is a copy of the report in the Planning Board office
for anyone to review. Mr. Davies said he attended a
workforce housing presentation in New London with Ben Frost.
He said it was in-depth and gave a short report of what he said,
suggesting that Warner may be in good shape as far as the workforce
housing law goes. However,
he noted that interpretation could change, and the recommendation is to
have an ordinance in place. He
said that a lot of the information is on the various towns’ websites
and it was agreed that he would look at some of them to see what was
passed last year. There was
a discussion about how to proceed, recognizing that the time is getting
close when there must be something written and agreed upon about the
workforce housing issue. Mr. Hartman reported that the Connors
Mill Bridge is due to have steel put across from one abutment to the
other next week and that is on schedule.
In addition, he said that the Odd Fellows Building is progressing
with a meeting with the consultant which is scheduled for next week to
determine the feasibility of keeping that building alive.
He said the study is a short-term project.
He said that the School District and the Town applied for Safe
Sidewalks and got funded for a project to install sidewalks on Geneva
Street and at the foot of Mill Street and add line markings across the
bridge toward the ball park. He
said the hope is to pursue a sidewalk proposal that will connect from
the Old Graded School towards Exit 9.
Ms. Annis said that Central NH RPC did an excellent job on that
because at the TAC meeting she learned that out of the total of $800,000
granted, Merrimack County towns got $600,000.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis said there is a proposal
from the Energy Committee and asked if this is what the Planning Board
wants them to do. Mr.
Duhamel said he thought they were going to come to a meeting and give
the Board a briefing. Ms. Annis said she didn’t think that was so, but said that
Mr. Carson has suggested that he would like a representative from the
Planning Board to sit in on their meetings.
Mr. Duhamel said he would pursue that.
Ms. Annis said that she thought that we just wanted the basics
for the next Town Meeting, and not what seems to be a proposed massive
overhaul. She said she
thought they wanted something about wind power, solar power, large scale
and small scale for Town Meeting. Mr.
Hartman asked how these items would fit in an ordinance, since these
technologies are what they are – and he said he didn’t think an
ordinance was necessary to re-state the definition.
Ms. Annis said she thought it would be to cover things like how
tall are the towers going to be, how close will they be to an
abutter’s property line, etc. Mr. Duhamel said that is in the State regulation that was
recently published for windmills. Ms.
Annis said that we could be more stringent.
Mr. Duhamel said that the starting point is to get a copy and
have them review it and offer suggestions.
Mr. Davies said he thought that was what they were going to do
– take what the State has in force and react to it to see if there is
anything that the Town needs to do in regard to wind or solar.
Mr. Duhamel said the other issue is the outside wood burning
furnace stacks. There was
an agreement that the Energy Committee would be asked to look at the
State regulations and come back to recommend additions, if any, that the
Town might want to make. Mr.
Davies said there was also the question of incentives for green
technologies. He said there
are a lot of industries doing this themselves, but there might be some
situations where the Town might want some language in place that allows
for some flexibility on the Town’s part. Ms. Annis said she understood that the
consensus was that the Board would like them to hone in on solar and
wind for next year. Mr.
Violette suggested taking their item #5 that says where Zoning does not
address green technologies, propose guidelines for Zoning and ask them
to comment on that and offer proposals.
Mr. Davies suggested adding their #6 to that which would offer
suggestions for incentives. There
was a discussion about the timing of when and how to re-connect with the
Energy Committee to assure that they are doing what the Planning Board
thinks they are doing. Ms.
Annis said she will contact Mr. Carson about this.
There was then a short discussion about geothermal energy.
Ms. Annis then opened a discussion
about the timing of addressing the various issues which have been
discussed, including the road regulation changes, workforce housing, the
Energy Committee. She asked
if the Board wanted to have the Master Plan meet on another night and
the 3rd Monday be a work session for the Zoning changes.
Mr. Violette said that the Master Plan meetings with the whole
Board could be every other month and the committee itself could meet in
between. There was a
discussion about communicating with the Board about the progress of the
Master Plan before it is finalized and allowing for input from the
Planning Board. Mr. Hartman
wondered about when there will be some work product from the CNHRPC
which the Planning Board can discuss and that can be read beforehand.
Mr. Violette said that there is nothing being produced as of yet
that can be reviewed by the whole Board.
Ms. Annis said the easiest thing would be to have the Master Plan
Committee meet on a separate night and the Planning Board to meet on the
3rd Monday in work session to discuss the zoning issues.
Mr. Violette said there will be pieces of the Master Plan
produced that will have to come before the whole Planning Board on
occasion and that could be done as part of the work session nights.
Mr. Wyman asked what the goals are for
getting warrant articles for March.
He noted that there are a lot of things being discussed and said
there must be a limit as to what the Board would want to present to the
Town Meeting. He suggested picking and choosing exactly what is to be
accomplished for just this year and choosing to put something else off
until next year so the voters aren’t overwhelmed.
Mr. Hartman said that the Subdivision Regulations and the Master
Plan do not have to go to the Town Meeting – they only need to go to
the Planning Board for approval. Mr.
Wyman asked if it would make sense to work on things that have to be
done for Town Meeting, get that done and then move on to the other
things. He said that he thinks it must be organized, given that there
are only so many meetings and days available.
Mr. Davies suggested preparing a timeline schedule and trying to
stick to it. He said he
would prepare a suggested timeline schedule for the Board and send it to
the members. There was a
further discussion about all the issues that need to be covered and when
and how they will be addressed. Ms. Annis said that the driveway
discussion will be in July based on what Mr. Davies has provided.
Mr. Davies said that the wording is based on the previous
discussions. He apologized
for not getting it out to the Board earlier than today. Ms. Annis reminded Mr. Davies to give the completed proposal
to Allan Brown for his comments. Mr.
Davies agreed to ask Mr. Brown if there are any differences in how he
wants the roads to end as shown on Mr. Watts’ drawings.
He said it will be done before the first meeting in July.
Mr. Mical said that it is his
understanding that the June 15th meeting will be for the
Master Plan and the July 20th meeting will be to finish up
the road and driveway regulations.
Ms. Annis said that it could be continued on the first meeting of
July if there are few or no applications and that would be on July 6th.
Mr. Davies said he would try to prepare it for that meeting.
He mentioned reconciling the definitions, too. Mr. Mical asked if there has been any
more information from Warner Aggregates about their Site Plan.
Ms. Lightfoot said the only thing that has been received is from
DES that was handed out tonight. Mr.
Mical said that that approval is still pending, then. He asked if there was anything from the Akins’ Site Plan
Review conditions. Ms.
Lightfoot said she had heard nothing further from them.
Ms. Annis reported on the contacts
with the State and Congressman Hodes’ Office about Exit 9.
There was a discussion about what has been done to follow up with
the DOT and suggestions on how to proceed.
Mr. Mical noted that we had sent NHDOT the draft of suggested
solutions to the Market Basket Plaza intersection.
Ms. Annis agreed and said that everything has been done that they
requested. Mr. Mical said
there has never been a written response from them and it has been
requested. He said that he thought that another letter should be sent
saying that we had the courtesy to send you some suggestions and ask
them to at least have the courtesy to send us back a letter saying what
you think. More discussion
followed about funding of the project.
It was agreed that Mr. Violette, Mr. Mical and Ms. Annis would
contact State Representative Chris Hamm for a meeting about what she may
be able to do to assist. Mr. Hartman MOVED to adjourn. Mr. Duhamel seconded. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
|