|
Town of Minutes of Meeting and Public Hearing Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, George Pellettieri, and Ed Mical. Members
Late:
None Members Absent:
Drew Serell, Wayne Eigabroadt Alternates Present:
Stacey Cooper Alternates Absent:
Dan Watts Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at Roll Call Ms. Annis asked everyone in the room to
turn off their cell phones. 1. COMMERCIAL MAJOR
SUBDIVISION Property Owners: Alan Jr. & Lee Ann
Wagner, Agent: Stefan Toth, P.E., Toth Engineering
PLLX, Property Location: Intersection of Route
103 and I-89 Southbound off-ramp, Map 14 Lot 10, C1 District Description: Subdivision of existing 13.03
acre lot into 4 commercial lots: 2.90 acres, 3.44 acres, 2.75 acres, and
2.56 acres. This is continued until the December
meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION Property Owners:
Peter & Elizabeth Lovejoy, Agent:
Jeffrey Evans, Property Location:
Map/lot:
13-30, R-3/OC-1 zoning Description:
Subdivision of 78 acres into 3 single family house lots:
2 lots to be between 13.13 acres
and 13.81 acres and one lot of 51.29 acres Ms. Annis explained that this is a
revision from what was originally a major subdivision and the applicants
have already paid a subdivision fee for that application.
They also had paid the abutters’ and lot line fees.
They know that the application had to be re-posted and
re-advertised, but have requested a waiver of the subdivision and lot
fees since we did not take action on the other application. Mr. Violette made a MOTION to grant the
waiver; Mr. Duhamel seconded. A
discussion followed about the amount of money involved.
Ms. Annis said that they had paid the $250 application fee and
$250 for the lot fees. It
was referred to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and then it was withdrawn
from them and they did nothing on it.
The MOTION to GRANT THE WAIVER was PASSED unanimously.
Mr. Evans provided a check in the amount of $129.50 to cover the
advertising and posting of the new application. Jeffrey Evans, Evans Land Consultants,
explained that this was a conversion from an earlier-proposed 6-lot
major subdivision to a minor subdivision of 3 lots. We
were referred by the Planning Board to the ZBA.
And, at the ZBA, we got a lot of opposition, so we changed the
concept, trying to maintain the integrity of the property, but also to
get some sort of a capital return on the investment.
So, we’ve come in now with a three-lot minor subdivision of 13
acres, 13 acres and 51 acres. Ms. Annis asked the Board members to
review the checklist that was submitted with the application for
completeness. She said that
the Department of Public Works Director had previously approved the
driveway and it could be transferred.
Mr. Mical said he thought it should be re-looked at and referred
to the fire chief for fire protection.
Mr. Violette and Mr. Duhamel said that everything on their part
of the checklist had been submitted.
Ms. Cooper asked if the deed had been included in the other
application and Ms. Annis responded that she had been unable to find it.
Mr. Evans said they could provide that immediately.
Ms. Cooper asked about the location of the driveway and Mr. Evans
responded that because of the size of the lot, there were numerous
places at which they could locate a driveway and, therefore, it is not
shown on the plan. Mr. Mical said that the existing well and
septic are not shown, as well. Mr.
Pellettieri asked if there were any test pits on the lots.
Mr. Evans said none had been done because they thought for the
size of the lots and the nature of the larger one being almost all
gravel, it wasn’t necessary. He
said they would expect there to be good drainage in the 13-acre lot,
number 30-1, and there was already a septic system in lot 30. Mr. Mical asked if there were any other
waivers associated with the application and Ms. Annis responded that she
hadn’t heard of any others. Mr.
Mical asked if someone had put monuments in and Mr. Evans responded that
monuments were set in the new plans.
Ms. Annis said the stone bound set could be seen on the corner of
Lots 30 and 30-1 on the roadside. Mr. Violette MOVED to ACCEPT the
application. Mr. Mical,
seconded. Ms. Cooper said
she didn’t like accepting an application that is not complete.
Mr. Pellettieri said he agreed with Ms. Cooper.
Mr. Mical voted no, as well.
Ms. Annis asked what was missing besides the deed.
Mr. Mical said the existing well and existing septic were missing
from the plan. Ms. Cooper
said she thought it would be a good idea to show the driveway and
proposed building location because of terrain and wetland restrictions.
Ms. Annis said she knew of nothing that gave the Board the
authority to tell some unknown person where they must build.
Mr. Evans said they’ve noted the buildable area on the map.
He said it was up to Zoning to determine where a person was going
to build a house or building. Mr.
Pellettieri asked why not do a test pit on 30-1, given the size of the
area. Mr. Evans replied that
it’s over 5 acres and it’s not required.
And, he said that historically, the area is very buildable and
the soil conditions are not going to be an issue.
And, he said the 51-acre lot is nothing but sand and gravel.
Mr. Pellettieri agreed the 51-acre lot was no problem and the
existing lot number 30 was no problem, but he said it looked like if you
took out the steep, sloped areas and the wetland areas, there’s only a
couple of essential building areas.
Mr. Evans said that they more than meet the requirements.
Mr. Pellettieri asked if the open area is over 5 acres in lot
30-1. Mr. Evans said in
30-1, it is 3 acres. Mr.
Pellettieri said, “We have a prohibition against building on steep
slopes and wetlands. Are you
saying that the remaining areas on 30-1 exceed the 3 acres?”
Mr. Evans said yes. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical what bothered
him about accepting the plan. Mr.
Mical said the missing deed and the existing well and septic not being
on the plan. The other thing
Mr. Mical said he would like is to have the Public Works Director
re-look at the plan and go to the Fire Chief to have them look at it.
He said that he thinks this is a new plan and things should be
reviewed again. Mr. Violette
asked if we could do a conditional permit.
Ms. Annis said conditional permits had been done before.
However, Ms. Annis said that we have to accept the application
before we can approve it with conditions. Mr. Pellettieri asked Mr. Evans if he
deducted the wetlands and the steep slopes from the total acreage in lot
30-1, the white area total more than 3 acres.
Mr. Evans replied that yes, he believed there were about 7 acres,
though 3 acres is the minimum requirement. Ms. Annis said that it was the vote of
the Board not to accept the plan and if the things missing could be
corrected, the plan could be put on the agenda for next month.
She said she did not think on a 13 acre parcel that we have the
right to say where the driveway and the house are going to be.
That is a personal opinion. She
said that she believed that a lot that was over 5 acres does not have to
have a perc test done. Mr.
Evans said it was a DES requirement that any lot less than 5 acres
required a perc test and subdivision approval.
Mr. Lovejoy delivered the deed.
Mr. Evans said that he believed there was someplace where the
septic would work. However,
he said if someone wanted them to do test pits and perc tests, he would
like to know that so they could get it done. Mr. Duhamel asked if, now that they have
the deed, the only thing missing was the existing well and septic.
Mr. Mical said that if those were the only two items missing, and
they can be provided, he would MOVE to ACCEPT the application as
presented. Mr. Violette
seconded. The MOTION to
ACCEPT the application was passed unanimously. Ms. Annis opened the meeting up to the
public and asked if there were any abutters who wished to speak. Frederick Arnold commented that he urged
the Planning Board to require bonding of all contractors who are doing
anything on the road [unintelligible] so that we do not have Nancy Ladd, who is an abutter asked that
the owners’ names on the plan be corrected before the errors become
part of the public record. Mr.
Evans said they had been corrected on the map provided at the meeting
tonight. Ms. Annis asked if there were any other
abutters wishing to speak and there were none.
She then asked if there were anybody else wishing to speak and
there were no others. She
then closed the public meeting. Mr. Violette said he thought a motion
should be made to approve subject to the items missing.
Ms. Annis said that would be a conditional approval, which would
require a new mylar or plans showing the existing well and septic on lot
30 and any other conditions. Mr. Violette MOVED to APPROVE the
APPLICATION. Mr. Duhamel,
seconded. Ms. Annis asked for discussion on the
motion. Mr. Pellettieri
said, “This is a requirement of the checklist.
I don’t know that we should be approving applications that
don’t fully comply with the checklist, setting a precedent.
The next applicants coming in can have something missing from the
checklist.” He said he’d
be happy to approve it on
the condition that the application has the existing septic on it. Mr.
Violette asked if that would amend his motion and Ms. Annis said that
Mr. Pellettieri could not amend Mr. Violette’s motion.
First, Mr. Violette’s motion would have to be voted on.
Mr. Violette and Mr. Duhamel:
Yes. Ms. Cooper, Mr.
Pellettieri and Mr. Mical: No. Mr. Pellettieri MOVED to APPROVE the
application with the CONDITION that the existing well and septic be
shown on the plan, which would complete the application.
Mr. Mical, second. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Property Owners:
Roshan L. Puri & Anuradha Saini, Agent:
N/A Property Location:
Map/lot:
04-005, R-3 zoning Description:
Subdivision to 2 single family house lots to be between 5.79 and
5.39 acres. Ms. Annis said this is a minor
subdivision on Route 114. David
Eckman from Eckman Engineering represented the applicants.
He explained: The
property’s owned by two individuals, Puri and Saini.
They’re related. Basically,
they’re getting a little crowded in one house and they wanted to build
a second house. They’re
proposing to use a common driveway off of 114, so the state driveway
permit will be the same drive. So,
that won’t change. There
are two parcels. You can see
there’s a shared driveway coming in for the first family now – you
can see that the driveway is shared so we put in an easement for the
existing driveway to access the proposed Mr. Eckman said they had one question
since the property had been subdivided on Mr. Mical added that this is in the
subdivision regulations, as well, and read as follows under B.
Subdivision:
Specifically, a parcel of land which has been subjected to minor
subdivision shall not be eligible for further subdivision under the
minor subdivision procedures within a 5-year period measured from the
date the subdivision is recorded. If
such a subdivision is proposed for further subdivision within the 5-year
period, it shall be subject to the requirements for major subdivision as
outlined in these regulations in the Town of Ms. Annis said that this came up with
Pumpkin Blossom Farm and it was with that that the Board determined that
the rule went with the land, not the owner.
Mr. Violette asked if that meant that they would have to wait
until Ms. Annis noted that the 18th
of February is Presidents’ Day and we haven’t decided whether to
meet on Monday holidays. She
said this application will be on each agenda between now and February,
but with the words “continued to February” on each date.
She said to Mr. Eckman that we would schedule him for February 18th
and notify him about the final decision on Monday holidays.
She said that before the Board would hear him he would owe more
money. Ms. Annis said there was a letter from an
abutter and Mr. Eckman asked for a copy of it. Ms.
Annis agreed to give him a copy and asked because of a comment in the
letter, if they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
She said in the second paragraph, it said, “building
a second large house for multiple family members.”
And, she noted that multi-families in an R-3 zone must have a
special exception form the ZBA. Mr.
Eckman explained that it was only a single family home.
Right now, two families are sharing the same home and each would
like to have their own house. Ms.
Annis said she just wanted to clarify that so it’s not a problem later
on. Mr. Pellettieri noted
that on the plans, they have placed the proposed house, well and septic
areas, so it is possible to do that and not have them restricted to
those plans. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Annis recognized Chris Connors for a
question from the audience, noting it was not public session.
Ms. Connors said she thought there had been a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance in the Lovejoy application.
Ms. Annis said she should have said something at that time during
the Lovejoy hearing. Ms.
Connors said it didn’t appear that the lot had enough frontage.
Ms. Annis responded that on the second page, it has the frontage
noted. 5. MINUTES 6.
PLANNING BOARD PROCEDURES Ms. Annis asked if everyone had had a
chance to read the Planning Board Procedures that were sent out.
Mr. Violette asked if there had been any changes and, if so, why
weren’t they highlighted. He
said he thought the changes should be highlighted and it would make it a
lot easier to go through the document.
Ms. Annis said one thing she noted was
that there was no actual procedure of how we do our meetings – roll
call, application, etc. Mr. Duhamel MOVED to table the document
and review it in a working session and have the changes highlighted.
Mr. Violette agreed saying that he wanted to see what the
revisions are. Mr. Mical
noted that there were items in the previous one, specifically, the Order
of Business, which are not in this one.
He said he thought the Order of the Meeting ought to be put back.
He also said there’s no mention of subcommittees and the
approval process for subcommittees.
He noted that in another document it referred to subcommittees,
vacancies on committees and the procedures for having somebody else
appointed. Ms. Annis asked
Ms. Lightfoot if she could take the original and prepare a document
showing the changes for the next meeting in two weeks.
It was agreed that Ms. Lightfoot would do that for the next work
meeting. 7. REPORT FROM
SUBCOMMITTEES Ms. Annis asked for subcommittee comments.
Ms. Cooper said she had a communication with the DES this week
regarding the residential water quality standards.
She said that the one thing of note was that DES is currently
drafting suggestions to adopt as far as residential drinking water
standards are concerned. It’s
something that they’re concerned and working on.
How much progress can we make on our own – and they’ve
offered to work with us to draft our own.
Mr. Violette asked when they might have that. Ms. Cooper said
they had said several months, perhaps in January or February.
She said they’re coming out with recommendations, not
regulations for the towns. Ms. Annis responded to a question on the
Master Plan Committee report regarding encumbering funds.
In order to encumber funds, it must be for that purpose.
In other words, you had put in your 2007 budget Master Plan and
2008 came along, and you hadn’t spent all of it, you could encumber
the funds to continue the project. But,
you can’t encumber just any funds.
Mr. Duhamel asked if since the Master Plan is a function and duty
of the Board, and even if it weren’t stated, and it’s long overdue,
you couldn’t change that. Mr. Mical asked if there wasn’t a line
item in the budget for Professional Services and if it had been used.
Ms. Annis said that it had not been used as far as she knew.
Mr. Mical asked if that could be carried forward.
Ms. Annis said it was $500 and that she would ask the Selectmen.
There was further discussion on the line item and it was agreed
that Ms. Annis would write a letter to the Selectmen requesting that the
funds under Professional Services be encumbered plus any additional
funds within the budget so that we could use it toward the Master Plan
next year. Mr. Pellettieri said that perhaps it
should be in even more specific terms, identifying why we’re doing it
this way for the Master Plan – we have a budget in mind.
Mr. Duhamel said we are going to have to come up with $5,000 and
estimate a total of $25,000. All
we really need is enough money to get jump started.
Mr. Violette said it’s a matter of getting into the right
budget years – we know we’re going to need $5000 for 2008.
Ms. Annis said she had a call from Sharon Wason again, asking
what our progress was. She
told Ms. Wason that we couldn’t guarantee anything until after Town
Meeting to see if it’s voted in. Mr. Duhamel asked if we wanted to still
pursue some of the other things we’d talked about – the Business
Association, the Men’s Club, and the Fall Foliage Festival.
Mr. Mical said it was too late for the Fall Foliage Festival.
Ms. Annis said we could put it on the calendar for next year at
the first of July. Ms. Annis
also said we could write a letter to the Board of Selectmen for the
Nancy Sibley Wilkins Trust for money from that fund.
Mr. Duhamel said he would speak to the Men’s Club and it would
be helpful to have an official letter go to them as well.
Ms. Annis asked if there were any more
issues on the Master Plan. She
asked if the subcommittee could start on pulling together what they want
on the survey. Mr. Violette
said that he thought that Sharon Wason was calling to try to establish a
schedule and asked if we sign a contract with her.
Ms. Annis said that yes, we do have to with this.
Mr. Violette said we could get a services contract and spell all
that out and it would give us an indication of the funds we’d need.
He said he would contact her and ask her to submit a contract for
the first phase. Mr. Duhamel noted that if the Selectmen or
the Town weren’t going to provide the funds, the money has to come
from someplace and he thought the idea of an opening meeting to discuss
this with the residents was essential, asking, “if you don’t have
your government behind you, then why would you do it?” Mr. Pellettieri
said he was sure we’d have everyone behind us,
but it was just a question of whether or not they’d be willing
to back it up with dollars. Mr.
Duhamel asked how much we need to do Phase I.
Ms. Annis and Mr. Violette both thought it was $7,000. Mr. Duhamel said he though it would be
helpful to find out what we already have.
Mr. Pellettieri said that’s why Mr. Violette is going to get a
contract to spell out her services in Phase I. That way, if there were
something we already had available, then she wouldn’t have to provide
it. Mr. Duhamel said the other thing he
thought was important was to contact other towns that have just
completed their Master Plans with the CNHRPC and see what’s been done
and see what would or would not be helpful to us.
Mr. Pellettieri said he’d contact the Sutton Planning Board.
Mr. Violette said he’d contact Webster.
Mr. Duhamel said it would be ideal if they had an electronic way
of showing us what was done and that they could share. Mr. Duhamel asked about utilizing the
latest surveys that the Conservation Commission has.
Ms. Annis said she thought that would be in Phase 2 or 3.
Mr. Duhamel thought it would be helpful to be collecting the data
and seeing what we could use. Ms.
Cooper added that if we could initially rule out areas that are already
covered, that we could bring down the number that we’re asking for.
Mr. Violette said he thought that was the plan in the first phase
to go through the review process and see what we already have, or can
get on our own. Ms. Annis said we will do the Planning
Board Procedures on the third Monday, November 19th, and if
we finish that quickly, we could do a little more on the Master Plan.
Ms. Cooper asked if she was going to post for subcommittees.
She said that she would say Workshops for Subcommittees, but plan
on Planning Board Procedures, primarily. 8.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis reported there was an e-mail
from Rick Davies inviting all to hear a presentation by New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services, Arlene Allen, on the new CSPA
changes. That’s
Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act which will take effect on Another bit of correspondence that we got
was from Gloria Andrews from the Land Resource Management Program,
Department of Environmental Services. Dear Ms. Andrews: This letter is confirmation of our telephone conversation from earlier
this morning at which time you granted us an extension to respond to
your June 27 letter concerning Warner Aggregates.
If you have any questions or you need any information, do not
hesitate to contact me. North American Reserves, LLC Jeffrey Cloutier This is in regards to Warner Aggregates
and they’re seeking some information. Ms. Annis reported that there is an
applicant to fill the slot of the Alternate Planning Board member. Hank
was moved up which gave us an alternate position that is vacant.
His name is Harold French. We
do not appoint. We
recommend. Harold – his
comment is, “Having lived in
Warner for 20+ years, I feel it is time for me to give my time to the
community. My background
will allow me to lend a well-needed voice to this Board.”
She asked if Mr. Violette knew Mr. French and he replied that he
does. Other Board Members
did not say they knew him well. Mr.
Violette said, “[Mr. French] lives in the Davisville area on Route
127. He built a house there
a few years ago. He’s
lived in various other places in town previously.
He’s an auctioneer. He
does some work in real estate all over the State.
But, he’s primarily an auctioneer, with a little bit of real
estate mixed in with it. I’ve
known him for 20 years. My
first impression is he’d be a good idea.
He has a lot of experience from seeing things change and grow.”
Mr. Duhamel said he believed Mr. French was well-traveled and had
a good education. Mr.
Violette said they’ve always lived in the area.
Ms. Annis said his daughter goes to Kearsarge.
She said his uncle is Compton French who was an appraiser for the
Town of Ms. Annis asked if there were any further
business. Mr. Mical said
that the Town had created Warner’s Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2003,
which is a FEMA-approved plan. It
was approved by FEMA in December 2003.
The plan is required to be updated every five years and the
process is beginning. He
said that the Planning Board needed to provide a representative.
Mr. Duhamel volunteered and the Board agreed that he would be the
representative. Mr. Mical, MOTION to ADJOURN.
Mr. Duhamel, second. MEETING ADJOURNED
|