Town of Warner – Planning Board

Minutes of Meeting

Monday, December 10, 2007     7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall , Lower Level

Members Present:              Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Wayne Eigabroadt, George Pellettieri,  Drew Serell

Members Absent:                Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical

Members Late:                     None

Alternates Present:            Stacey Cooper, Dan Watts

Alternates Absent:              None

Presiding:                             Barbara Annis

Recording:                            Jean Lightfoot

 Open Meeting at 7:05 PM

Roll Call  

Ms. Annis asked Dan Watts to sit in for Hank Duhamel and Stacey Cooper to sit in for Ed Mical.   

The meeting is a continuation of the December 3, 2007 , meeting which was continued due to bad weather.  

1.  LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT

      Property Owners:  Neil and Katharine Nevins, 433 Burnt Hill Road, Warner, NH  03278

              Agent:  Thomas C. Dombrowski, 19 Myrtle Street , Claremont , NH   03743

      Property Location:  Burnt Hill Road and Burnt Hill Court

              Map/lot:  11 - 9 & 11, R-1 zoning

            Description:  Convey 300 sq. ft. from tax map 11, lot 9 to tax map 11, lot 11, with lot line adjustments.  

Neil and Katharine Nevins were present.  Ms. Nevins explained that the lot line adjustment was to be made on lot 11 that had been owned by her mother and lot 9 which is the Nevins’ property.  The purpose is to include the shed from lot 11 in lot 9.  They also would add more to lot 11 to increase the road frontage on that lot.  Mr. Eigabroadt asked if this basically took away about 6000 sq. feet from the back of the lot 11 and added 6300 feet to the right lower corner.  Ms. Nevins said yes.   Ms. Annis asked if this was in an R-2 district.  There was discussion about whether it was R-1 or R-2 and determined with the Zoning Map that it was R-1 as shown on the map and the application.  Mr. Eigabroadt noted that they are increasing the lot size, as well as the road frontage, and there is a house on the lot, resulting in it being closer to conforming.  Mr. Serell noted it’s still non-conforming, but agreed that it would be closer to conforming with this requested change, which he said was the right direction.  Ms. Annis asked if the shed would now be too close to the new property line.  Mr. Nevins said that, with the setbacks, it is still more than 25 feet.   There was discussion with Mr. Eigabroadt and the Ms. Nevins about what the sets were on the map.  The discussion was unintelligible.  The checklist pages one and two were reviewed by Ms. Cooper and Mr. Pellettieri and by Mr. Watts and Mr. Eigabroadt, respectively.  

Ms. Annis asked for reports from the review of the checklist.  Ms. Cooper noted that there was no north arrow on the map; the types of bounds are missing; the closure error for the survey is missing.  Mr. Pellettieri said number 1 in the Plan References section refers to a state survey, it says, tied to state coordinate systems shown in the plat.  He said he thought that usually there was a notation with an arrow saying tied to the nearest point.  Mr. Eigabroadt agreed that it should be referenced to someplace on the map.  Mr. Watts noted that the actual building set-back line was not listed, but using the scale, we could measure and see that it is 32 feet or so back.  Other than that, he reported that page 2 was complete.   

Ms. Annis asked for further comments.  Mr. Pellettieri said that he thought that all of the missing items could be easily corrected by the surveyor and thought the Board could accept the application.  

Mr. Pellettieri MOVED to APPROVE the application, with the condition that the surveyor notations are properly added.  Mr. Eigabroadt SECONDED.   

Mr. Eigabroadt asked about the existing driveway right-of-way which is noted next to the existing driveway, but there is no reference to a 25-foot right-of-way on the plan or in the deed.  Ms. Nevins said that the driveway leads into lot 9.  Mr. Eigabroadt said with this lot line adjustment, instead of just the corner of the driveway being in Map 11, Lot 11, the whole 25 feet of it will be in Map 11, Lot 11 from the front of the lot line all the way to the back of the proposed new lot line, and there is no reference to that right-of-way in the deed.  He noted that that would protect the Nevins as the property owners, as well, since if there’s no reference to it in the deed, then it doesn’t exist.  Mr. Nevins noted that the deed needed to be changed and Mr. Serell agreed that it should be changed, for the Nevins’ protection.  Mr. Serell said the right-of-way needs to be conveyed in a deed because it is such a large part of Map 11, Lot 11.  Mr. Pellettieri said on the second page of the deed, there are references to other rights and privileges.  There was a short discussion, but it was determined that that referred to the larger lot, Lot 9.  

Mr. Watts asked who writes up the new deeds.  Ms. Annis replied it was up to the property owner.  

Ms. Annis asked if there were further discussion.  There was none.  She called for the vote on Mr. Pellettieri’s motion on conditional approval.  

It was VOTED unanimously to CONDITIONALLY APPROVE the application.  

Ms. Lightfoot noted that when the Mylar is brought in, a check for $22.66 will be needed to complete the recording and other costs.  Mr. Nevins wrote down the amount and the Nevins left.  

2.  MINUTES  

Ms. Annis asked for approval of the minutes of the Planning Board from November 5, 2007 .  Mr. Violette MOVED to APPROVE the minutes of November 5, 2007 .  Mr. Eigabroadt SECONDED.  There was no discussion.  APPROVED unanimously.  

Ms. Annis asked for approval of the minutes of the Planning Board from November 19, 2007 .  Ms. Annis MOVED to APPROVE the minutes of November 19, 2007 .  Mr. Watts SECONDED.  There was no discussion.  APPROVED unanimously.  

3.  PLANNING BOARD PROCEDURES  

Ms. Annis asked for comments, deletions, or corrections on the latest draft of the Planning Board Procedures.  She noted on page 8 that Public Notice, Paragraph B, that the applicant does not get a certified mail notice – only the abutters do.  The correction was made by Ms. Lightfoot.   

Ms. Annis asked about the Application/Decision section, paragraph B, referring to changes to an application or plan after the 15-day deadline prior to the meeting at which an application is to be considered.  Mr. Serell said to make it clear, you could put in after “Any plans” in the last sentence, “(including modifications)”.  It was agreed that that would make it clearer.   

Ms. Annis said the proposed changes have to be heard one more time at a regular meeting, and then in the following meeting, which would be February, we can vote on it.   

Mr. Pellettieri asked about the Business before the Board section on page 7.  He asked if “shall consist of the following” requires the Board to precisely follow that.  Mr. Eigabroadt said he understood it to mean that it would include at least each of those on the list.  Mr. Pellettieri said, as it was written, for example, we would have to accept or reject an application at a meeting, when indeed, we often will continue or do something else.  He suggested that the phrase be changed to “shall generally consist of . . .”  Mr. Serell said he thought adding generally would take care of Mr. Pellettieri’s concern.  It was agreed that “generally” would be added between “shall” and “consist.”  

There was no further discussion.  

4.  COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS  

Meeting with DOT  

Ms. Annis reported that Paul Violette, Ed Mical and she met very informally with DOT at McDonald’s so they could look out the window at the area, including the traffic flow and the park and ride.  She said that they wanted to know what our plans are, and we responded that it was our plan to work with DOT.  She said they told them it was a state road and we wanted to get their input on ideas and money, if possible.  It appears that the Town of Warner may have to foot it by themselves and that the State money may not be forthcoming to help out.  We talked about traffic lights, roundabouts – why you would consider roundabouts, how people don’t like roundabouts – what’s the difference between roundabouts and traffic circles.  They told us to get in touch with Keene , Rye , and Plymouth .  Mr. Violette added that these towns had roundabouts or are considering roundabouts.  And, the question is why they chose a roundabout versus a traffic light or some other sort of signal.  Ms. Annis said that letters have gone out to the other towns asking for their input, who they hired as an engineer.  We would need to hire an engineer to look at the traffic situation there and come up with what would be the best, least costly solution.  Mr. Violette said they would think about a conceptual plan at first, where they would look at all the various concepts and then we could make a decision about where to move forward.  He said this will be a slow process.  He also said that he didn’t rule out the possibility of getting money from the State.  He thought they meant that we would come up with some suggestions and then maybe they would take part in it.  He said that we may end up with wanting something on State-owned land.  The Board of Selectmen asked the Planning Board to look at this and come back with what we’ve learned so they could take it to the next step or ask us to proceed with the next step.  He said we’re gathering information right now, having sent out letters to people who have dealt with this recently.  We want to know who they used for engineering firms; did they do a conceptual; how they put theirs together, thinking that we could learn from them.  We think we could whittle it down from there to finding some people who could help us.  We would probably have to do a “Request for Proposal” to get the initial steps done.  

Mr. Eigabroadt asked about funding – specifically, he asked about the proposal for the expansion of Mt. Sunapee .  He said he thought if that does go in, it will increase our traffic and wondered if there was any way that we could exact fees from Mt. Sunapee to help.  He noted that when the racetrack was built, he was required to design roads and intersections so many miles out.  Mr. Serell said he didn’t know if we had the legal authority to do that, but if there are hearings at the State level on the expansion, we definitely should show up and say, “if you’re going to approve this, a condition of that approval should be X number of dollars to the Town of Warner to cover it.”  Mr. Violette said all the driveways will have to be re-aligned.  He said he was a skeptic about roundabouts, but has become less of a skeptic, having learned about it, and having ridden through one the other night in Keene .  He said he’s going to see some of the others.  He has found out that they’re more expensive to build than putting in lights.  Ms. Annis added that they also asked how much money we had set aside for it.  We told them that the $10,000 that we tried to set aside was denied at Town Meeting last year.  There was discussion about the fact that last year there were a lot of unanswered questions and we didn’t have that much information to offer to the Town Meeting.  Ms. Annis said that the people at Town Meeting couldn’t believe that a traffic light would cost about $150,000. Mr. Violette also noted that the State doesn’t pay for the electricity, too.  Ms. Annis said they asked about collecting impact fees.  She said she explained to the DOT people that we had added exaction fees in a conditional approval, but those parties haven’t developed, so we haven’t collected any of those fees.  

Mr. Pellettieri asked if the State ever reacted to the Corridor Study.  Ms. Annis said they had it with them.  Mr. Violette said they read the traffic data, agreed that it was valid and it fell within the category that required traffic signal controls of some sort.  Ms. Annis said Richard Radwanski, from Division 5, was also there and had asked why Demoulas had not been assessed when they came in.  We explained that they did the entire conduit.  They asked why we didn’t collect some money in escrow, but you can only hold in escrow for 10 years, according to the State, and Demoulas has been there more than 10 years.   

Mr. Violette said he could see the project taking a minimum of a couple of years to get through.  He said if we chose to go to the roundabout, the price would go pretty high.  Mr. Eigabroadt said he thought that, especially if we were going to intersect the river overpass, it might increase it.  Mr. Violette said he thought that because the Interstate off-ramps and on-ramps are fairly close to that intersection, the State has to deal with it.  There are going to be backups on to the interstate with cars trying to turn left, and they will have to deal with it.  Ms. Annis added that right after the meeting, she was trying to turn left and she saw a number of tractor-trailers which were backed up onto the ramp trying to turn left onto 103.  Mr. Pellettieri recalled the trouble that West Lebanon had with their intersection and the State ended up having to put up temporary Jersey barriers and temporary lights to try to control the traffic.  

Mr. Violette said that it appears that the roundabouts are safer because people aren’t stopping or trying to run amber or red lights.  And, the speed goes down because they have to slow down to about 15 miles per hour.  There are still a few fender benders, but you don’t have the injuries because you don’t have the speed.  The DOT did not say no.  Ms. Annis said she thinks they were interested and very willing to listen – asking us to do the plan and the research and then approach them again.  Mr. Eigabroadt noted that the State is under fire right now because of the condition of their roads and bridges and he has heard that they are going to the Federal Government for some assistance.  Mr. Violette said that we are gathering information so that eventually we can talk to an engineer or put something together that we’d like to see in a study, and then we would go to the Selectmen to see what they want to do.   

Master Plan  

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Violette about the Master Plan.  He reported that Sharon Wason from the Central NH Regional Planning Commission has re-worked the prior proposal, after meeting with the Board in November.  She changed the first phase cost from $7,500 to $9,000.  Ms. Annis said she compared the one from August to the one just received.  She said she could understand the community survey going from $1,000-2,500 to $3,000 because we want a paper survey.  But, in Phase I, before she had “community visioning sessions” and in this one she has “visioning sessions and the community visioning chapter,” and she’s charging for both of them. Mr. Eigabroadt wondered if she would be conducting the visioning sessions in Phase I, gathering the information, then in Phase III, she’ll be completing the paperwork for the actual chapter, based on the crunching of the information she gets in those sessions.  Mr. Violette said that that’s what he thought it was.  He added that before she had a total for the first phase of $6,000-7,500, and now she’s back with $9,000.  The overall total has gone up by $2,000 to $27,000 which is what she’s proposing.   

Ms. Annis said a decision has to be made about what we ask for from the Budget Committee.  Mr. Violette asked about going to the Selectmen and further discussing the unencumbered funds.  Ms. Annis said as of November 30, we had $11,000 left of the Planning Board budget.  The question is whether we would have $9,000 left on December 31^st so that we could authorize the Selectmen to spend our entire budget this year.  Mr. Violette and Mr. Eigabroadt agreed that if we could pay it before December 31^st, then we would not have to encumber anything.  Mr. Eigabroadt said that even if it doesn’t actually work out for the entire amount this year, we could ask for a little bit more in the next budget.  Mr. Violette said we were trying to get as much as we could into this year so we could get started and not have to ask for that big extra amount from the Budget Committee.  He said we don’t know exactly when she can start, anyway.  So, by March, she won’t have Phase I done. Ms. Annis said she was talking 12-18 months for each phase, and she said she would prefer that the whole thing be completed in no more than 18 months.  Ms. Cooper said she thought it might be largely dependent on what our responsibility for things would be.  Mr. Violette said we are going to be doing a lot of things through our own resources.   

Ms. Annis added that she didn’t think the Master Plan would have to be completely re-written from the last one, as Ms. Wason appears to be proposing.  For example, if we’ve done something then take it out, if we’re going to do something, add it, but our Transportation Section isn’t that bad.  There’s going to have to be some research on the population, etc.  Mr. Eigabroadt said he thought it was part of the charge to the Master Plan Subcommittee to review the current Master Plan to see how much we legitimately think needs to be changed so we can compare it with what they suggest.  Mr. Violette agreed and said they haven’t come to a conclusion on that yet.  Mr. Eigabroadt said he thought the proposal seemed like it was a complete cover-to-cover re-write.  Ms. Annis said she thought the first phase has got to be done, but she said she thought that the second and third phases could be modified.   

There was further discussion about whether the time frame of 12-18 months in the current proposal was for each phase or for the whole thing.  On the first page it says each phase to take 12-18 months and then on the last page it says the schedule is 12-18 months for the whole project.  It was thought that this may be different depending on Planning Board member involvement.   

Mr. Watts asked how we get the funds for this.  Ms. Annis explained that we go before the Board of Selectmen and ask them to spend the excess funds for this project.  She said that Laura Buono said if we could get a contract from her, then we could do it.  Mr. Eigabroadt said that in the past the Selectmen have not required that someone actually show up to request an encumbrance.  He said that they have let the request just be put in writing to them for the encumbrance.  There was further discussion that the preference is to pay it out this year and not have to encumber funds.  Mr. Violette said that the Selectmen had said the best way to do it was to bring in an invoice before January 1, and then it could just be paid.  He said that is what our goal is -- to get the contract and get the first phase paid in 2007.  Mr. Pellettieri pointed out that this is mandated by law, and we have to do it, and if we can do it within our current budget, that would be good.  He said we should ask Ms. Wason for a contract stating that we’re beginning Phase I for $9,000.  

Mr. Violette added this will give us more time to look at the other phases.  He said he would try to get a bill for the $9,000 so it can be paid this year.  

Other Business  

Ms. Annis reported that Mr. Mical has not been able to do the State Building Code vs. the Town Building Code so there will not be any warrant articles this year in regards to that.  She also said there will be no sign ordinances because of Mr. Eigabroadt’s and Mr. Watts’ inability to meet on those. She said the only ordinance to be addressed this year is the flood plain ordinance.  She suggested that the Board plan to discuss this, read what Don Gartrell had written about it and meet next Monday night on this ordinance.  She said that she thought that would be the only ordinance for the Town Warrant this year from the Planning Board.  

Ms. Annis announce that Ms. Cooper is moving out of town, so she will be resigning her position as of December 31^st.   

Ms. Cooper said she had some water quality information which she wanted to give to everyone to read from three different towns and the State.  Copies will be made for the Board.

Mr. Watts MOVED to ADJOURN.  Mr. Eigabroadt SECOND.  Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.