|
Town
of Warner – Planning Board Minutes of Meeting Monday, July 7, 2008
7:00 PM Warner Town Hall, Lower
Level Members Present:
Barbara Annis, Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical, Richard Cook (for David
Hartman), George Pellettieri, Dan Watts Members Excused:
Paul Violette, David Hartman Members Absent:
None Members
Late:
None Alternates
Present: Robert
Ricard, Rick Davies (Mr. Davies sitting and voting for Mr. Violette) Alternates
Excused: None Alternates
Absent: Harold
French Alternates
Late:
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.
The roll call was taken. She
asked Mr. Davies to sit in and vote for Mr. Violette in his absence. 1. 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, 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 3/5/07 c.
Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove/Continue Ms.
Annis said that she and Mr. Violette had called NH DOT to find out what
was going on with regard to the Wagner subdivision.
She said it is NH DOT that is holding it up, not Mr. Toth.
She added that they are going to go one more time in regard to
the drainage. She said that
the official said that difference is miniscule and would be difficult
for other than professionals to see the difference in the plan.
She said that hopefully they will be on the agenda for next
month. Ms. Lightfoot said
she had asked Mr. Toth to send the updated plans two weeks before the
meeting so they could be posted and he said he would do that. Mr. Pellettieri asked if there would be a re-notification of
the abutters for another public hearing.
Ms. Annis said there would not be a public hearing unless the
Board chose to have one. She
said there has been a public hearing where there was input from the
public. Mr. Duhamel said he
thought it was voted a few months ago to not have one.
Ms. Annis said yes, but the Board makeup has changed. She said there is a lot of information that the members have
received on this subdivision. She
said that the list of questions prepared in February of 2007 and
submitted to the applicant has never been answered.
She said the last time Mr. Toth met with the Board, he chose not
to answer them and proceeded to explain what had been done in the new
plans. She said that she
still wants to know the answers to all of those questions.
2.
MINOR SUBDIVISION Property
Owners: Ronald E. &
Bethany J. Bourcier, 31 East Sutton Road, Warner, NH
03278 Agent:
None Property
Location: 31 East Sutton
Road Map/lot: 17/4-6, R-2 zoning Description:
Subdivision of one lot into two lots to be 2.589 acres and 3.394
acres for single family residential
a. Review Application – Accept/Reject/Continue
b. Public Hearing
c. Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove/Continue Ms. Annis explained that after the notices were sent by
certified mail and the ad appeared in the newspaper, some abutters
appealed the decision of the Zoning Board.
She said that nothing could be heard by the Planning Board until
after the Zoning Board has met to decide if they will reconsider their
decision on the area variance. She
said the application could be continued so that all abutters will not
have to be re-notified by certified mail and the ad re-submitted to the
newspaper. She said the
abutters then could be re-notified by regular mail.
Ms. Lightfoot said the abutters have been notified that the
hearing before the Planning Board would not be tonight and that they
will be notified when it will be heard before the Planning and Zoning
Boards. Mr. Mical asked why
there should be a continuance since the application has not been
accepted. He asked how it
could be continued if there has been no action taken on it.
Ms. Annis asked how it should be handled.
Mr. Davies said the applicants “jumped the gun” before the
window for the appeal had closed. Mr.
Mical said it has to be accepted as complete before we can do anything
on it and we haven’t had the opportunity to go through it and hear
what the applicants have to say. Ms.
Annis said that, therefore, nothing will be done tonight about this
application. It was agreed that it will be advertised again and the
abutters will be notified by certified mail, once the Zoning Board has
acted and the next 30-day period has passed.
It was suggested that the applicants may ask for a waiver of the
application fees, but the notifications would still have to be paid for
again. Mr. Pellettieri said
that it is possible there would be some changes based on what the Zoning
Board says and those would have to be included in another application.
Mr. Duhamel asked if the application and check could be returned
to the applicants. Ms.
Lightfoot said that the funds have already been expended for the
notifications. Mr. Watts
added that because they had “jumped the gun” then they will have to
pay again for the new notifications.
He said a letter could be sent to them explaining this and
telling them they will have to re-submit once all the Zoning Board
issues are settled. Ms.
Annis the letter will be sent to the Bourciers to that effect.
3.
COLOR CODING OF SUBDIVISION PLANS Ms. Annis said that she and some of the Board members have
been at workshops where other towns have shown plans where wetlands and
other features are color coded. She
said she had asked Mr. Pellettieri to color code the wetlands on the
Bourcier plan to show an example of what it might look like.
She reiterated that the comparison is intended to be an example
only and not to be considered as an application.
She said it is only to show how much clearer things can be using
the color coding. The Board
Members agreed that it is much clearer with the color coding.
Ms. Annis said it can be put in the Subdivision and Site Plan
Regulations that the engineer must do this for all plans.
Mr. Mical said that you can develop a key that you want the
engineer to use, showing a certain color for a road, another for
wetlands, etc. Mr. Watts
asked if there is a standard that is used.
Mr. Ricard said that each company varies on what they use, but it
is very easily shaded in with the software that is used.
There was further discussion about the cost to go in color and
how to get the plans electronically, as well.
Mr. Davies said that additional printing could be done at
Kinko’s, if necessary. Mr.
Pellettieri said it would be good if they provided three copies in
color, one that could be posted. He
said it’s a lot easier for the public to understand the plans when
they’re color coded. Ms.
Annis then referred to the Wagner subdivision plan and said that she
hoped that Mr. Pellettieri would color code the final plan submitted so
it could be more easily understood.
She said there might be different colors for the easements and
the slopes. Mr. Davies
noted that some of the less sophisticated plans that are received can
also be scanned and color coded, too.
The discussion continued on how much easier it could have been to
look at and understand some recent plans if they had been color coded.
Ms. Annis said that what she has seen is blue for water, green
for foliage, brown for roadway or pavement, etc.
Mr. Duhamel said that we could standardize what we want and have
it available. Mr. Watts
suggested having something that is suggested, but not required.
Mr. Mical said that in the class he attended a couple of years
ago the woman who presented it is from the Exeter area and the color
coding is part of their subdivision and site plan regulations.
He said those could probably be accessed to see what is being
used by other towns if it is decided that is something we would want to
do. Ms. Annis asked Mr.
Pellettieri if he would be willing to color code things for now.
He agreed. There was no further discussion about coloring and putting
it into the subdivision and site plan regulations. 4.
MINUTES Mr. Davies MOVED to accept the June 2, 2008 minutes.
Mr. Mical seconded. There
was no discussion. The
minutes were APPROVED with all voting yes, except for Mr. Cook
abstaining. Mr. Mical MOVED to accept the June 16, 2008 work session
minutes. Mr. Davies
seconded. Mr. Watts said
that his name had been left off those in attendance and it was added.
There was no further discussion.
The minutes were APPROVED as corrected, with Mr. Cook abstaining.
Mr. Duhamel MOVED to accept the June 16, 2008 Master Plan
Committee minutes. Mr.
Mical seconded. There was
no discussion. The minutes
were APPROVED, with Mr. Cook abstaining.
Ms. Annis said that the next Master Plan Committee meeting
is scheduled for July 21st.
She said she believes that Mr. Violette will be back for it, but
if he is not, she asked for a volunteer to chair that meeting and Mr.
Pellettieri volunteered. 5.
PLANNING BOARD CIP REQUESTS Ms. Annis said this must be done annually.
She referred to last year’s CIP request from the Planning Board
and asked the Board members to review the list and think about what we
would request for the next six years. Mr. Mical said he thinks that the listing needs to be
changed. He said that as a
result of last year’s Town Meeting, the heading should be changed to a
study to determine what is best for that area.
He said that it needs to be made clear that all possible
alternatives will be considered, whether a traffic light or a roundabout
or whatever else might be suggested.
He said it has never been studied as to what would be best for
Warner. He said the
Corridor Study said that if things continued as they were, traffic
signals would be required in specific spots. He said it didn’t look any further than that.
Mr. Duhamel added that if the Wagner project goes forth and the
roadway is added, then something more will have to be done with the
State along Route 103, by moving the Exit 9 ramp divider.
He said that that needs to be taken into account on a further
study of the area. Mr.
Davies clarified that this is what the $10,000 was for that was put
before the Town Meeting last spring.
Mr. Cook asked if this would then remove number 1, “Traffic
Signal Light Installation,” or change its name.
Mr. Mical said he would suggest adding a new item that is
identified as a study of that area to determine the best approach to
take. Mr. Duhamel asked if that would replace number one.
Mr. Cook said that we need to consider if this will be done
within six years because if it won’t be, then it should not be in the
CIP. Mr. Mical agreed.
He said that the article that went before the voters last year
requesting the study was not specifically listed on the CIP from last
year. Ms. Annis said that
when she asked the Board of Selectmen about the $10,000 that currently
is in our Capital Reserve Fund; they said that money could be considered
as being for the study of it since that would be part of the development
of it. Mr. Mical said that
that was specifically voted for a traffic signal.
Mr. Cook agreed and said that he understands that Mr. Mical is
looking to have a study that looks more broadly at traffic control
ideas. Ms. Annis agreed and asked what the dollar figure should be.
Mr. Mical asked if there was ever a response from any of the RFPs
that were sent out for the study. Ms.
Annis said no. She said there were eight sent out to various companies
asking what their expertise was in traffic controls, roundabouts,
traffic lights and so on, and not one response was received.
Mr. Pellettieri said it might be good to consider re-sending the
RFPs because of the economic slowdown.
He thought there might be a better response now.
Ms. Annis agreed. Mr. Davies asked about calling other towns or cities.
Ms. Annis said they had been contacted and did respond quite
readily and were very willing to talk about their experience.
Mr. Mical said that what we’re looking for is the potential
cost. He suggested getting
that information from the towns and cities that have done it and add 10%
or so to put in our CIP for the study.
Mr. Davies said that New London has a large one, but Hanover has
some smaller roundabouts on Route 10 that might be more applicable.
Ms. Annis said that they were specifically studying for a
roundabout. Mr. Watts asked
if the specific question of whether they had done a study and how much
did it cost. Ms. Lightfoot
said she thought there was no request for cost, but she believed there
was a question about who the engineer was for the project. Mr. Watts suggested that we re-contact the towns and ask
about cost. Mr. Pellettieri
agreed and suggested asking what the content of the RFPs was for their
projects. He added that we
have the Corridor Study and what we need are recommendations based on
that study and what types of traffic controls would be recommended.
He said we would then choose one from those recommendations and
then design specifically for that.
Mr. Mical said that the RFP was to look at different approaches
to come up with some suggestions and make recommendations concerning
traffic controls in that area. Ms. Annis said she didn’t know if Mr. Duhamel had to have
the figures right now. She
said she was thinking of calling it a study and development of a traffic
control. That way, she
said, you could incorporate the $185,000 and you’re not designating
$10,000 or $15,000 for the study. You
would be designating the entire amount so you’re not going to be bound
and have some flexibility. Mr.
Cook said that the voters seem leery to vote money for a plan that is
not yet developed. He said that the question will be what the development is
going to be. The answer
will be we don’t know yet because we don’t have the plan and they
will not vote for it. Mr.
Watts suggested re-naming number one to Traffic Control, not traffic
signal. He further
suggested that the Budget Committee be asked for the $10,000 for this
year to kick it off, that representing the feasibility analysis.
Mr. Cook said that there will be a question about where the
$185,000 came from. Ms.
Annis said that she had something from traffic engineers saying that
traffic lights in central New Hampshire vary in cost from $135,000 to
$185,000. Mr. Cook said
that if it’s used again, the comment will be that they thought you
didn’t want a traffic light and that you wanted a broader study, so
how can $185,000 cover something that you don’t know what you’re
going to build. Mr. Mical
suggested that we come up with something with a study and use those
results to justify the money you’re requesting.
Mr. Watts said that we could be sure that the Budget Committee
understands that the initial $10,000 is the tip of an iceberg.
Mr. Cook said it will be on the Warrant.
Mr. Watts said it would help if, as the Budget Committee is
considering the CIP and the six-year plan, they are told there is a much
larger request coming for the development of whatever ends up being
recommended. Mr. Cook
suggested putting in a question mark for the cost of the development,
explaining that once a recommendation has been made and accepted, and
then the number will be added. Mr.
Mical said he would put in a request for the study and something for the
capital reserve fund for implementation of whatever is recommended.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Duhamel if it is okay to get the
verbiage to him, but not the number for a couple of weeks. Mr. Duhamel said yes. He
suggested also using a PowerPoint presentation with pictures of the
various projects that are in the CIP to be used at the Town Meeting.
He added that he thinks the study is going to be more than
$10,000. He suggested
saying that whatever is selected is going to cost the Town $250,000 or
so, anyway. Mr. Watts said
that we need to start putting that money away and we need to sell it to
the townspeople. He said to
sell it to the townspeople, it must be kept short and simple; don’t
talk about traffic lights or roundabouts or bridges.
He said everyone agrees that something needs to be done.
He continued that everyone knows there is a Corridor Study but
nothing specific has been done to study what the various options are
available as of today. He
said he supported getting the $10,000 and get the study done to tell us
how best to deal with our traffic and how much it will cost.
Mr. Pellettieri suggested changing the wording to Exit 9 (Intervale
District) Traffic Control Analysis and Recommendations.
Mr. Watts agreed. Mr.
Mical suggested talking with someone to find out what would be a
reasonable cost for the study. Ms.
Annis said the Corridor Study was $25,000, which was covered by a
federal grant. Mr. Davies
said the Corridor Study was a larger project than we’re talking about
for this traffic control analysis.
Mr. Pellettieri agreed that $10,000 is not going to pay for very
much. Ms. Annis asked Ms.
Lightfoot to telephone some of the towns to see if they had a study done
on which approach and how much the study cost.
Mr. Mical suggested that there also be a capital reserve
fund set up this year, as well, as the funding for the study, to begin
to pay for whatever the study recommends.
It was agreed that there will be two items in the CIP for the
Planning Board. There was
some discussion about how much to set aside and it was agreed to use
$50,000 for the first installment and then to be adjusted when the
amount is known. Mr.
Pellettieri suggested that it be explained that we don’t know what
will be the cost of the final recommendation but that probably the least
cost would be a traffic signal and we have estimates that that will be
$185,000. Therefore, he
said, starting out with $50,000 would begin to fund the reserve. Mr. Mical added that DOT will not even talk with the Town
about traffic control there until we have a study in hand with
recommendations. The title
of the second item was agreed to be Capital Reserve Fund to Implement
Traffic Control Study Recommendations. 6.
REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEES Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical to report on the Hazard Mitigation
Committee. Mr. Mical said
they are currently involved in updating Warner’s Hazard Mitigation
Plan. He said in 2003, FEMA
said in order to be able to apply for different grants; there must be a
plan that looks at natural hazards.
He said that Warner was one of the first ones to do that and
every five years it has to be reviewed and updated.
So, it is now time to update the plan.
He said that Mr. Duhamel has been the representative from the
Planning Board. He said that because we were one of the first plans, Joe
McDonald from the American Planning Association in Washington called to
talk about what we have done to integrate the Hazard Mitigation Plan
into the planning process. He
said that Mr. McDonald sent a long e-mail discussing a lot of things
that we haven’t considered. He
said he was going to forward the e-mail to Mr. Violette and provide
copies for the Master Plan Committee.
He also said he has the updated State Hazard Mitigation Plan
which was updated in 2007. He
said that the State recently adopted NH RSA 674:2 which states that a
master plan adopted under this statute may include
“a natural hazards
section which documents the physical characteristics, severity,
frequency and extent of any potential natural hazards to the community.
It should identify those elements of the built environment at
risk from natural hazards as well as extent of current and future
vulnerability that may result from current zoning and development
policies.” He said that that is what the American Planning Association
is reviewing to see how communities are working on this and they are
considering a nationwide study on this issue.
Mr. Duhamel said the Hazard Mitigation Plan was discussed some at
the last Master Plan Committee meeting.
Mr. Mical said the Hazard Mitigation Plan Committee has been
expanded to include police, fire, Selectmen’s representative, Planning
Board, Health Officer, Town Administrator, the Business Association, the
Precinct, a Warner resident and the School.
He said to meet the criteria for the new FEMA standards, the
committee needed to be expanded as was done.
Mr. Duhamel said he is impressed by the dialogue that goes on
among all of the members. Ms. Annis asked if there were any questions.
There were none. She asked Mr. Duhamel about the CIP Committee.
He reported that he is meeting with all the department heads.
He said he is due to meet with Bill Chandler this week and he
hopes to meet with others soon. Mr.
Mical asked when there is going to be a CIP meeting.
Mr. Duhamel said he hoped by the end of the month.
He said he didn’t see a need to have a committee meeting until
there are some submissions. Mr.
Cook asked what date would be the deadline for getting the information. Mr. Duhamel said the letters went out a month ago and they
requested a response within two weeks.
He said that there has been one response.
Mr. Mical said that it also says that “you will be contacted
shortly by a committee representative.”
Mr. Duhamel said that he was to meet with one of the Selectmen to
get some visions as to what they would like to see.
Mr. Cook responded that it would be better to meet with all three
at a meeting because each one does not speak for the other two. Mr. Duhamel said he would ask to be put on the agenda for the
Selectmen. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Duhamel for a report from the Master
Plan Committee. Mr. Duhamel
said they’re meeting on July 21st.
Ms. Annis said that the survey was supposed to be out in May.
She said she’d made a few telephone calls and there was a mis-communication
between Sharon Wason and Brayshaw Printing.
She said that it was supposed to be out last Thursday.
As of now, they have not been sent.
She said that Ms. Wason cannot meet in August and the Planning
Board cannot meet on the Master Plan in September because of the meeting
with the Budget Committee on the CIP.
She said she’ll be meeting with Mr. Violette when he returns to
see how long the process will take and what money has been spent so far
and what the general status is. Ms. Annis asked if anyone had gone to the Shoreland
Protection meeting. Mr.
Davies and Mr. Mical said they went.
Mr. Mical said it was hard to follow because the man had no
handouts. He said there was a lot of good information and there were a
lot of questions from the 40 or so people who were there, but it was
disappointing that there were no handouts.
He said that the information is available on the website. Ms. Annis asked if it is finalized now. Mr. Mical and Mr. Davies said it is now finalized – it
started the first of July. Mr. Davies said it is based on severity of
restrictions, with 50 feet, 150 feet and 250 feet – there are certain
requirements with the biggest thing being impermeable surface
percentage, which depends on how large an area it is and how far it is
from the water in those different increments.
He added that when trees are to be cut, you can only cut a
certain amount, depending on a number of factors.
He said if you’re going to build something, there will probably
have to be a checklist to be sure to consider everything.
He said that Chris Connors has a list of all the abutters to the
Warner River, which is the area affected.
He said that list was going to be e-mailed to the Planning
Office. He said there is a
website, as well, that has the areas that are included in the
restrictions. It also
includes “great ponds” which are greater than 10 acres.
Mr. Pellettieri said the information is on the website for the
Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, http://des.nh.gov/cspa/
. Ms. Annis asked if there were any other committees to
report. Mr. Pellettieri
asked about the Water Quality Standards Committee that Stacey Cooper and
Drew Serell. Ms. Annis said
she thought they had completed their work and Ms. Cooper has turned the
information into the Planning Office where it is filed. 7.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis announced that today we received notice that we
did not get the HCPP grant. She
said the original funding was $500,000 which was reduced to $100,000 for
2008-2009. She said that
OES had assigned points for various criteria, with a minimum of 44
points required out of 53. Warner
received 39 points. Ms. Annis said there was a letter dated June 6, 2008
received from some abutters to the Madgetech property. Mr. Watts recused himself and moved away from the table.
The letter follows: “Letter of Request “Date: June 6, 2008 “From: Joan and George
Packard, 126 Waterloo St., Warner “To: Barbara Annis,
Chairman, Warner Planning Board “(cc: Warner Selectmen,
Warner Zoning Board, Laura Buono “Re: Vote on June 2nd,
2008 to maintain approval of Norm Carlson’s request for building and
parking lot “Dear Barbara: “We strongly object to the decision of the board to maintain their
approval of the parking lot (and any approval for other building
changes) behind Madgetech – if constructed as described by Norm
Carlson in the May 5th conceptual consultation. “We request reconsideration of this issue and a re-vote. “As abutters, when we presented our letter (see attached) [reproduced
in 6-2-08 minutes] to the board of
our objections to Mr. Carlson’s proposal – and the board’s
approval of that proposal – we presumed that the board was aware of
Madgetech’s current zoning status, i.e. approval from March 2000 of a
‘home business’ with a half-dozen employees.
(Until this month, Madgetech had never asked for any changes from
that original permit, and on June 4 Mr. Carlson withdrew his request for
a Light Industrial variance.) “Late into the evening of the June 2, 2008 planning board meeting –
after the vote – we learned that the board was not aware that
Madgetech still only had that original permit obtained at the zoning
board meeting in 2000. “At that ZBA meeting on March 30th, 2000, Mr. Carlson and
his wife, Stephanie Brown requested a Special Exception to the R-2
zoning for ‘professional and business office and services’ Stephanie Brown stated that: “—They would not be making changes to the building “—Office space would be used to write software “—Proposed use would blend in with existing uses “—They will keep the 2 apartments currently there “—No manufacturing would occur on site “—The company is a virtual company “Abutters raised no objections because we felt that, as the business
was described, there would be no change in the property and the business
would keep a ‘low profile’ --
would be a good neighbor and would ‘feel like’ a residence.
We knew Norm and Stephanie and trusted they would do what they
said at the meeting. Also,
we felt protected by the zoning status established at that meeting.
“During the past 8 years, Madgetech has grown to 30 employees parking
more than 20 cars on the property, and manufacturing a wide range of
products. The company has
never asked for a variance that would make this expansion legal. “As we stated in our May 15, 2008 letter to the planning board
(attached)
[reproduced in 6-2-08 minutes], we
feel the planning board acted in error in giving approval for a parking
lot and a building addition to Madgetech.
Madgetech under no conditions or stretch of the law can or should
be given approval for these changes based on its current permit to
operate as approved in 2000. “When the planning (sic) granted approval for the
parking lot and building, it apparently assumed that Madgetech possessed
a variance that would allow such changes.
Madgetech did not have that variance on June 2, 2008 and does not
have that variance now. “The planning board’s standing decision granting construction of a
parking lot is clearly in error and sanctions Madgetech’s potential
violation of zoning laws. “Again, we oppose your decision to uphold your June 2 ruling and
request reconsideration and a re-vote. “Sincerely, Joan Packard /s/ George Packard /s/ Richard B. Hall /s/ Sadhana Hall /s/ Duane Souder /s/ Lori L. Souder /s/” There
was also a letter date June 3, 2008, from Duane and Lori Souder to the
Warner Planning Board which requested that the Town of Warner not allow
a parking lot to be built on the Madgetech site. Ms.
Annis asked the Board members if they wished to reconsider the
previously reconsidered vote of June 2, 2008.
She said the matter to be discussed will be only the matter of
whether to reconsider or not. She
said there will be no discussion of the pros and cons and the facts of
the decision of May 5, 2008. Mr.
Pellettieri asked if the point is mute now that Mr. Carlson is in the
process of moving. Ms.
Annis said it is her understanding that all of the machinery has been
moved and there are a few employees left, but they will all be leaving
very shortly. They are
going to a place at Exit 6 off of I-89.
She said that because we are being asked to reconsider the
reconsideration, then she thinks there needs to be a response.
Mr. Cook said that the Selectmen have asked Mr. Carlson to come
in for the last two meetings and he has not come in.
He added that Mr. Carlson is not on the agenda for the meeting
this week. He said he drove
past today and noticed there are still quite a few cars parked on the
site. Mr. Duhamel said that he would vote not to reconsider is
because of the precedent that would set in how far back other residents
might ask us to go to reconsider decisions.
He said that the Board acted in good faith that night based on
the documentation that was in front of us and what knowledge different
board members had. He said
you can only do the best you can. He
asked why it even needs to be reconsidered if they are leaving town.
Mr. Davies asked if the decision is reconsidered what the
implications are for a new entity moving onto the site.
Ms. Annis said any new entity must come before the Planning Board
because it would be a change of use.
Mr. Cook asked if Mr. Carlson could build a parking lot now, even
if he’s not there and were going to rent out the building.
He asked if Mr. Carlson could take the action approved by the
board even if his business were no longer there.
Ms. Annis said that is not part of considering whether we’re
going to reconsider. She
said that a decision was made and we were asked to reconsider the
decision. She said that the
Board voted not to reconsider their original decision.
She said that now they’re being asked to reconsider the
reconsideration. So, she
said, the question is whether to reconsider the reconsideration, not on
what basis the decision was made. Mr.
Duhamel said that his understanding would be that Mr. Carlson could not
build a parking lot for some other business.
The decision was made strictly for the short-term business needs
of Madgetech. He said if it
were to be leased out to someone else, if the parking lot does not exist
right now, then it could not be constructed for someone else without a
site plan. Mr.
Cook said that he has read a letter that was sent to Mr. Carlson about
what was approved and it says, “We request that if you are not going
to adhere to the sketch and your description to us at the May 5th
meeting of your plans that you come back to the Planning Board for
further review.” He said
that he understands that if Mr. Carlson is going to do what his sketch
shows, then he can still do it. Ms.
Annis said it does not show a parking lot in the back.
It shows a parking lot on the side.
Mr. Cook asked if it is the only thing shown on the sketch.
Ms. Annis handed Mr. Cook a copy of the sketch.
Mr. Cook suggested that the Board make a statement that if they
want to leave, what was approved does not apply to any use other than
Madgetech’s use. Ms.
Annis said, yes, that is right. Mr.
Cook said he thinks the concern is that Mr. Carlson is the owner and,
even if he were not going to be in there for business, he could still do
it for another use. Mr. Duhamel said as a clarification that it was done for that
business, not for an individual owner.
Mr. Pellettieri said that it was his understanding that it was
temporary, in order to give him time to deal with growth and to build
another structure elsewhere in town.
He asked Mr. Cook what the Selectmen’s actions would be if
someone else were to move into that site.
Mr. Cook said the Selectmen discussed this at the last meeting
with no decision. The
concern, he said, is that there was a structure erected without a
building permit. He said
that he personally believes that that structure must be removed because
there is no building permit for it.
He said that they have not had the chance to discuss this with
Mr. Carlson, yet. Mr. Cook
continued to say that when Mr. Carlson came to the Selectmen, it was to
approve a temporary structure for the business.
He said they approved a temporary structure and when he saw what
was built, it didn’t look like a temporary structure.
He said it’s joined by a roof to a permanent structure. He said there was no talk of parking lots or any other
changes to the building. Therefore,
he said, the Selectmen have had no discussion about the possibility of a
parking lot, and he said he thinks the Selectmen may not have a role in
allowing a parking lot or not. He
said he thinks it is a site plan review issue.
Mr.
Pellettieri said that the Planning Board has put Mr. Carlson on notice
that if he plans on doing anything other than what is shown on the
sketch; he needs to come back to the Board.
Mr. Davies added that they had come to the Zoning Board for a use
variance and decided not to. He
said they therefore never got the variance to use that temporary
building for manufacturing. Ms.
Annis asked if the Board wished to reconsider the reconsidered vote of
June 2. Mr. Duhamel MOVED
not to reconsider the June 2nd vote.
Mr. Mical seconded. Ms.
Annis asked for discussion on the motion.
There was none. She
called the vote, with a yes vote being to not reconsider the vote
of June 2nd. Mr.
Davies, yes; Mr. Pellettieri, yes; Mr. Mical, yes; Mr. Cook, no; Mr.
Duhamel, yes. The motion
was PASSED to not reconsider the June 2nd vote. 8. PUBLIC
COMMENTS Ms.
Annis recognized Mr. George Packard.
Mr. Packard said that he thinks there has been a bad decision on
Madgetech that is still on the books.
He asked if he needed to write another letter asking for a third
reconsideration. He said it is housekeeping.
He said that the members knew that they did not have all the
information when they voted two meetings ago to leave the decision on
the books. He said that he
did not think that any of the board members knew that Mr. Carlson did
not have a usage variance. He
said that, despite the fact that the members say they do their best (and
is a really uncomfortable thing for him to hear) . . . Mr. Duhamel said
that he did not think that the members should have to sit there and
listen to criticism because they do the best they can.
Mr. Packard said he understood that, but the Planning Board has
increasing responsibility for an increasingly complex job.
He said he has a huge amount of sympathy, having been an
alternate on the Planning Board in 1985 or so.
He said he could not keep up since there was so much to do.
He said he understands the business of the Planning Board, but he
said he thought if the members are going to take on the responsibility,
saying that we did not have enough information becomes less and less of
an excuse and more and more of a worry to those of us who are taxpayers
who may have to bear some liability at some point because of a bad
decision. He added that the
decision is now probably moot, except that it is still on the books and
there is nothing that will prevent Mr. Carlson from building the parking
lot. Mr. Pellettieri asked
if he meant the one out back. Mr.
Packard replied that he meant the parking lot that was approved. Mr. Pellettieri said that the one on the sketch was approved,
not the one out back. Mr.
Packard said that the fact that it’s a sketch has always made him
uncomfortable, as well, because if you look at the property, the sketch
is open to interpretation, whether it’s for 14 cars and involves 3 or
4 feet of fill or whether it’s for 5 or 6 cars that abuts Duane
Souder’s. He said that
the letter of request was to ask the Planning Board to think very hard
about the kind of decision that was made and to do the housekeeping.
He said that he felt a little embarrassed to seem to be lecturing
the Board, but it is probably his intent because he thinks the decision
was a very bad one. He said
he thinks it was made badly and assumes that that kind of decision will
never be made again and handle it so badly, by not informing the
abutters of a fairly major movement on a property.
He said that it is clear that the Selectmen are already having
difficulty because something was taken at a businessman’s word as
being temporary is, in fact, not temporary.
He said it is probably going to be difficult, if they decide to
have it taken down, to actually have it taken down.
He continued to say if the parking lot had actually been put in,
including cutting down trees and grading, and he was asked to remove
that parking lot, it is not just a temporary parking lot – it becomes
a permanent scar on the land that he could not, in fact, pull back.
He said that a little decision perhaps has big implications.
It is still on the books. Mr.
Carlson could still decide that he has the okay to build a parking lot
and go ahead and build it before he moves.
Ms.
Annis thanked him for his comments and asked if there was any other
matter he wanted to discuss. Mr.
Packard said no. Mr. Davies
said that there is a section in the RSAs, 677:15 that does deal with
Planning Board decisions appeals, where the appeal is to the Superior
Court. He said the RSAs are
clear. Mr. Pellettieri
asked if there are time frames specified. Mr. Davies responded that it is 30 days from the approval or
disapproval. Ms.
Annis asked if there was any other business to come before the Board.
There was none. Mr.
Ricard MOVED to adjourn. Mr.
Mical seconded. The motion
was PASSED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
|