Town of Warner – Planning Board

Work Session Minutes

Monday, January 19, 2009     7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall , Lower Level

Members Present:      Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Dan Watts, David Hartman, Rick Davies, Ed Mical

Members Excused:      None

Members Absent:       Hank Duhamel

Alternates Present:    Harold French

Alternates Excused:   Robert Ricard

Alternates Absent:     None

Master Plan Committee Member Present:  Jim McLaughlin

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.  Ms. Annis said that Sharon Wason had called to say she had car trouble, so the Master Plan Committee would probably not be meeting.  

1. COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS  

Ms. Annis thanked the members who prepared suggestions for the zoning changes.  She asked Mr. Mical if he had any updates on the Hazard Mitigation Plan.  Mr. Mical said the plan has been conditionally approved and the only outstanding item was the acceptance letter after the public hearing and the Selectmen have prepared that.  He said they had identified some items that will have to be addressed in the next plan five years from now.  He added that there is also another update after the December storm.   

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Violette if there were any updates to the Master Plan.  He said they are trying to find some funds.  He said there were no funds left over from the Hazard Mitigation Plan.  He said that Sharon Wason was to bring tonight some plans for going forward.  

Ms. Annis said that she is the Town of Warner ’s representative to TAC , which is part of the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, and she attended her first meeting last Thursday.  She reported that there were about 25 members there from Bow, Bradford , Henniker, DOT, DES , and several others.  She showed a booklet that she received, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which shows how Central New Hampshire advises DOT on what projects to be done and how to consider what should be done.  She said that it looks like a good amount of it will be done in Concord .  She said that she was not aware that this was all going on and had never seen this report, although it appears to have been going on for some time.  She said she has never seen a project come before the Planning Board that is going to Central New Hampshire that should be considered.  She said she spent some time talking with Rodrigo Marion from Central New Hampshire about the Exit 9 traffic control situation.  She said that he would get information to her about submitting projects for consideration.  She suggested that copies be made for each member.  Mr. Hartman said that it is his understanding that the way things get into the program is that they are brought by the Planning Board or the Selectmen, at the Planning Board’s suggestion.  He said that he does not recall being asked to do anything, but he had assumed that at the opportune, the Planning Board will express an opinion about what the State needs to do at that critical intersection.  Ms. Annis said that DOT is still in limbo about what to do with the money which is from the incentive package.  She said she got an e-mail from the grant writer saying if we have something in front of DOT, it means it’s in the ready-to-go mode.  She said she will contact him and try to follow through with something on that.  Mr. Davies asked if the TIP program includes some that are imminent and some that are in a 10-year program.  Ms. Annis said yes.  She said there are some projects in Warner, but they are all on I-89 – paving and bridges, etc.  Mr. Violette said that the grant writer said that Warner’s project could be submitted to the Local Government Center for Senator Shaheen’s review.  Mr. Violette continued to say that the grant writer said this is exactly the type of project that the stimulus plan is designed for.  There was some discussion about the timing on this.  Mr. Mical said that he believed that the Capital Improvement Program items were submitted.  Ms. Annis said that Laura Buono would know if it had been included.  There was a discussion about the Park and Ride location and usage.  Ms. Annis said that the TAC committee is going to have a special meeting in February where a number of issues will be considered.  She said there will be a review of their rules and she will raise issues about the quorum required and who constitutes the membership because 7 members are required for a quorum and 5 members are actually from Concord and not the outlying towns.   

2.  DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ZONING AND OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION CHANGES  

The Board began discussing the various suggestions that had been submitted (the listing is included at the end of the minutes).  They agreed to rank them as 1, 2 or 3, depending on how long it would be anticipated to make the proposed adjustments.   

Driveway regulations was the first item.  Mr. Mical said that the Fire Chief had suggested this and related to slope, turnoffs and some other items related to ability of fire and other emergency equipment to access a building.  He read some of the suggestions:  driveways will not be more than 1500 feet travel distance from the intersection with a town-maintained road; driveways shall have a minimum width of 10 feet; no driveway shall exceed a 10% maximum grade; driveways shall not terminate more than 50 feet from the primary occupancy; driveways over 800 feet in length shall have at least one turnoff placed ½ the length of the driveway to accommodate the need for emergency apparatus; the turnout shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum length of 40 feet; suitable parking for emergency apparatus at the top 800 square feet, with the shortest side not being less than 20 feet; it shall be constructed of sufficient strength and material, including bridge and culverts, to support vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of at least 25 tons; driveway construction plans must be submitted for approval to the Director of Public Works; no more than two houses shall be placed on a single drive; changing direction of any driveway shall have a minimum radius of 60 feet.  Ms. Annis said that the Allan Brown, the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector came in and talked with the Board about this issue.  She said it became a question of who would be responsible for each item and the follow-up to be sure that the turnoff is still there, for example.  Mr. French said that he did not think that the Planning Board should be involved in defining grades for driveways.  There was a discussion about accessing buildings for emergency purposes.  It was agreed to rank it as #1 because of the life safety considerations.   

Ms. Annis said she had included the following after the visioning session.  The items read as follows:  

Zoning  

            Height regulations

            Multi families (work force housing)           also see Use Regulations

            B-1—    new construction 2,000 square feet for shops, restaurants & other retail

                        10,000 square foot lots

            C-1       20,000 square feet up to 40,000 square feet (2 buildings)

                        No definition how far apart, do we allow 3 buildings up to 40,000?

            C-1 should there be a formula so large lots could have multiple businesses on the    same lot (see Charette illustration)

            Signs-   temporary (define) see use table Agriculture section on definition

                        Should compare zoning to site plan regulations for any irregularities.

            Use Regulations—multi family in an R-1 with Special exception ?????

            Wind turbines—height-distance to abutters, where allowed, etc  

???Enlarging the Commercial area at Davisville  

Subdivision

            Application--???tying into state grid (this has caused problems because no one                                knows   what it means)

            Section III Part C—clarify difference between preliminary conceptual                                               consultation and

            Design Review phase—neither one results in a decision but the Design Review                                 phase requires abutters to be notified by certified mail. 

            Section III Part C,5-E  ???change shall to may and why do we designate only CNHRPC

            Monuments have given us problems  

She said that her impression from the visioning session was that people would like the center of town to remain as the small, antique-ish, business area, but they need help with the taxes through some commercial growth.  She said that is why she aimed at the commercial area.   

At this point, Sharon Wason arrived.  There was a discussion about whether to discuss the Zoning Ordinance changes as a full board and whether to include the full board in the Master Plan update discussion.  It was agreed that the full board would participate in the Master Plan discussion and then continue the review of the Zoning Ordinance proposed changes, which will be discussed at the February 2 meeting.  

3.  MASTER PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION  

Ms. Wason handed out a summary of the various items that have been concluded and what the CNHRPC has produced.  She said that she believes that Task I is totally complete and Task II is not completed yet because the land use section still needs work.  She said she will have Vanessa Bitterman, a newly-hired permanent planner of the CNHRPC, start on that.  There was a discussion about the next visioning session and it was agreed to conduct that visioning session with town boards, officials and committees.  The Boards that were mentioned to be included were the Zoning Board, the Conservation Commission, Recreation Committee, Selectmen, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Police Chief, etc.  Mr. Violette said he thought it would be good to hold a session with the town boards before having another wider visioning session.  There was some discussion about the work being done on the Safe Routes to School program by the town.   

Ms. Wason said that once the land use section is fleshed out identifying very clearly what the different land uses currently are and identifying which land may be available for development, then a second visioning session could be conducted with the town boards and officials.  This would focus not on the survey but specifically on the regulatory audit and the existing land use to identify where there are loopholes and gaps and where there are over- or inappropriate regulations.  She proposed a schedule for the next couple of months.  She would provide the existing land use report at the February 16 work session.  The land use visioning session would be held on April 20 after the Town Meeting and the new members of the various boards have been appointed or elected.   

Mr. Violette said that the town boards and officials who will be included will have to have time to review what has been done so far.  It was discussed and Ms. Wason said she will have the packet she prepared for tonight converted to PDF, e-mail it to Ms. Lightfoot and she will have it uploaded to the website and let the various invitees know that it is there for their perusal.  This will also allow the public to see the update.  Mr. Violette said that there should be something written to explain where we are and what we are trying to do with this project when the other boards are contacted.   

Ms. Wason continued saying that it has been discussed having an energy chapter and a chapter related to economic development in the region, which would not be only centered on Concord, but should include New London and the other surrounding towns.  She also mentioned the issue of workforce housing and there was a short discussion on that and what may be expected for the Town of Warner .  She said that the CNHRPC is working on producing the data necessary for each town and provided a preliminary summary of the various numbers for Warner.  There was a general discussion about the numbers related to Warner.  She explained that if someone who makes the median income cannot afford to buy a home in Warner, then there is deemed to be no workforce housing.  She said if the income is tripled, then that is what one should be able to afford to buy.  She said that there have been various models developed and these models have been used by the CNHRPC and they will provide a report to the town showing where they stand in regard to workforce housing.  

Ms. Wason then discussed what else needs to be completed in Phase II beside the Existing Land Use Chapter.  She said there will be a Natural Resource chapter which can be shortened because of the Natural Resources Inventory ( NRI ).  She said there will be a Transportation Chapter, a Housing and Population Chapter and Community Facilities.  She said that it was decided that the History and Culture Chapter is probably not needed.  She said there should be an Energy Section and the Economic Development section.  Ms. Annis asked where the Hazardous Mitigation section will come in.  Ms. Wason said it will be like the NRI where it will be referenced and there may be a couple of page summary about it.  Mr. McLaughlin said that the Conservation Commission has nearly completed the NRI and the hope is to prepare a Natural Resources chapter which will be a conservation plan for the town.  He said this would include policies and practices related to conservation.  Mr. Violette said that the NRI section will give an idea of what can be built where or what may not be built where.   

Ms. Annis said that there was not $8000 placed in the budget for Phase II which is scheduled on Ms. Wason’s list.  She said that $7500 was budgeted.  There was a short discussion and since the actual cost for various chapters will be less than projected, the $7500 should cover the cost.  Ms. Wason said that she estimates that it will actually be about $5000 for Phase II:  $1000 to finish existing land use; $500 for natural resources; $1000 for housing; $1000 for community facilities; $1000 for energy and $500 for miscellaneous.  DOT will pay $2000 for the transportation chapter.  Mr. Hartman asked about the functional classification of roads.  Ms. Wason said it looks at the roads in towns, the traffic volume and the condition of the roads and identifies linkages which are too small for the amount of traffic that they cover.  She said if the town were moving into a pavement management system or wanted a lot more sidewalks, then it would be used, but because the Road Agent considers all of this for Warner, it would not be needed in the Master Plan.  Mr. Hartman suggested that the Road Committee’s work be considered, as well.  Ms. Wason said that that could be included in the Master Plan.  Mr. Mical said that the committee developed a priority matrix for all the roads in town and a number of the roads have been done or broken down into sections.  He said that that resulted in the priority list of the ten roads.  Ms. Annis suggested that this could be included if money can be found in the budget.  Mr. Violette said he would contact Laura Buono to see what has been budgeted for the Land Use Boards for 2009.   

Ms. Wason said she will return on February 16 and it was agreed to extend the contract to the end of June of 2009.  She said they will work on existing land use and try to get information to the Board 4 or 5 days before the meeting.  She then left the meeting.  

Mr. McLaughlin said that on Thursday, February 5 there will be another, more detailed presentation of the Natural Resources Inventory by Dan Sundquist at the Town Hall at 7:00 p.m.  

4.  CONTINUATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE POTENTIAL CHANGES DISCUSSION  

In addition to Ms. Annis’ suggestions at the beginning of the meeting Mr. Davies and Mr. Violette also provided the following suggestions:  

From Mr. Davies:  

1.    Following up on the results of the coming March Warrant Article vote by checking the Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations for continuity and consistency with definitions and other changes to the Zoning Ordinance.  Follow through with the 2007 CNHRPC audit suggested changes in the same.

2.    Changes to Zoning Ordinance regarding commercial building size

·   use measurable incentives

·   overlap gross area, footprint, height, density and architectural provisions to keep rural town appearance and promote growth

·   kick this off early so review and suggestions from citizens can comment as wording progresses

3.   Review Zoning Use tables and provide more specific  items for the ZBA to check to allow Special Exceptions – give ZBA more options and directions (Mike Tardiff had some illustrations)

4.   Work Force Housing:

·    Prepare prior to a future developer requesting special WFH related ordinance relief

·    See what other towns are doing

·    Review ordinance restrictions – apartments (size, number of units), multifamily housing, lot density, etc

·   Determine Warner’s % of housing within WFH cost range – is this our “fair Share”

·   Perhaps add site plan review guidelines for WFH review

·   Get Ben Frost to come speak to us

5.   Coordinate Shoreline Protection Act issues with Zoning Ordiance

6.   Update sign ordinance – not sure what the issues are, but I understand the Selectmen have concerns.

7.   Ask Conservation Commission and ZBA if there are any items they would suggest

8.   Review Intervals Area exaction fee structure and cost escalation

9.   For Open Space Development, set requirements for maintaining common area – maybe Site Plan review item.

10.  Investigate grants for Interval Traffic and larger Park & Ride (federal money)

11.  Sharon Wason said there are grants for sidewalk repair – some of Warner’s need help

12.  Get Allen Brown to update road specifications. Get drawing of Cul-De-Sac updated.

13.  Solar power issues not covered by the State.

14.  Wind generator issues not covered by the State.

15.   Building Code or Site Plan Review – require professional review of commercial building design documents

16.  Incentive provisions to encourage Green and energy efficient construction

17.  Demolition ordinance for historic structures

From Mr. Violette:  

 1.  Follow up on audit performed in 2008 by Planning Commission on all of our ordinances and regulations for uniformity.

 2.  Change Zoning Ordinance to increase commercial building size in C-1 Zones.  

 3.  Look at the State Regulations regarding Solar & Wind power and determine if they fit the bill for us.

 4.  Look at what others are doing in the area of "Green" incentives and regulations.

 5.  Update road specifications for sub-divisions.

 6.  Update our checklists for site plan reviews and subdivisions.

 I am not in favor of adding regulations that are unreasonable and that take rights away from reasonable people.   

The Board continued its discussion of the various suggestions and agreed to quickly assign some numbers to each item, think about it and return in February with ideas and further thoughts about each one.  The ranking will be 1 if there is anticipated that there may be a quick resolution and 3 being a more time-consuming resolution.  The following is the result of the discussion:  

Zoning and other ordinance change suggestions – 1/19/2009

Ranking

There was a short discussion and it was agreed to contact the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board to ask if they have suggestions before the next meeting.  In addition, there was a short discussion about incurring exaction fees.  Ms. Annis suggested that something be built in that if something is not completed within a certain time frame, the fee will be increased by so much.   

Ms. Annis reviewed a conceptual consultation for the Circle K/Irving/Blue Canoe which is scheduled for February 2.  She said that if they want to change the color of the building and the size of the signs, they need to apply for a Site Plan Review.  There was no other business.  

Mr. Hartman MOVED to adjourn.  Mr. Violette seconded.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.