Town of Warner – Planning Board

Minutes of Public Hearing and Work Session

Monday, January 21, 2008     7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall , Lower Level

Members Present:      Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Ed Mical, George Pellettieri

Members Absent:       Drew Serell, Hank Duhamel, Wayne Eigabroadt

Members Late:            None

Alternates Present:    Dan Watts, Harold French

Alternates Late:         None

Alternates Absent:     Stacey Cooper

Presiding:                    Barbara Annis

Recording:                   Jean Lightfoot

Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call  

Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and asked Mr. French to sit in for Mr. Serell and Mr. Watts to sit in for Mr. Duhamel.  

1.  PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WARNER FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE  

Ms. Annis explained that there will be 6 yes and no questions and opened discussion for the Board members.  Mr. Violette asked if what is being changed is what is underlined and if it could be stated somewhere to clarify that.  He further asked about the italics in the “new construction” addition.  Ms. Lightfoot said that the whole paragraph was added and the italics were all part of the insertion.  She said that only underlines indicate insertions.  There was discussion about how to clarify what the underlining and cross-outs mean.  It was agreed to add for each one of the definitions, “by adding the underlined items” before “as follows.”   

Mr. Pellettieri asked if we should use the word “amend” instead of “change.”  There was some discussion and it was agreed that all the words “change” would be converted to “amend,” which will comply with the RSA.  Insertions will not be changed to “amend.”  Item 6 wording will not be changed.   

There were no further comments from the Board members.  

Ms. Annis opened the PUBLIC HEARING.  

            PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WARNER    FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

Mr. Rick Davies and Mr. David Hartman were in attendance.  Mr. Hartman noted that he thought it was important to be clear what the underlining was for the voters.  He said he wasn’t sure that the italics question had been clarified under “new construction.”  Ms. Annis said that we could make posters and have them posted saying that the Warrant Article changes are underlined.  Mr. Hartman suggested that the entire insertions should be underlined.  That was agreed to by the Board, noting that that would eliminate the confusion about the italics in the “new construction” definition.   Ms. Annis suggested that the poster read, “Changes to the current Floodplain Ordinance that are being proposed are underlined.”   

Mr. Davies said that he thought to be consistent, the “breakaway wall” removal should be entirely lined through to clarify that it is being proposed to be entirely deleted.  He also asked if something is being deleted should it be actually referred to as “repealed” to comply with the RSAs.  Mr. Mical said he thought that referred to a whole section, not to one definition in that section.   

Mr. Hartman said he thought that in Items 2 and 6 the items to be deleted actually be inserted, but lined through, to show how it reads currently and then how it will read with the addition.  It was agreed to do that.  He said he thought at the very beginning it should be stated that whatever is being deleted has a line through it and whatever is being added is underlined.  Ms. Annis said she didn’t think that kind of a change could be done since it was not included in the posted proposed articles.  She said it would be on a poster and publicized by having documents in the Town Hall offices.  Mr. Hartman asked if it was all one item, and Ms. Annis said it was 6.  She explained that the Board decided to break down the proposals describing them further, so that people would be able to understand the proposed changes better.  Mr. Hartman urged the Board, to be fair to the voters, to say specifically in each of the bold-faced paragraphs for the 6 amendments that anything that is underlined is added and anything that is crossed out is deleted.   

There was no further discussion in the public hearing.  Ms. Annis CLOSED the Public Hearing.  

Mr. Violette MOVED to approve the Floodplain Development Ordinance amendments as clarified.  Mr. Mical SECONDED.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.   

There was further discussion about adding a note to each of the bold-faced paragraphs about the meaning of underlining and cross-outs.  Ms. Annis said she didn’t think that could be done.  Mr. Violette said he thought if it was instructional, it would be all right, since the content was not being changed.  Mr. Mical said there were public comments tonight and changes were made as part of the public process.  Ms. Annis agreed, but said she thought there should be only minimal changes.  Mr. Mical said there should be a copy of the Floodplain Development Ordinance posted to show what the changes are that we’re proposing.   

Ms. Annis said that the Chair can be overruled and asked if the Board wanted instructions after each introductory section for each amendment, rather than a poster.  Mr. Pellettieri said he thought it would be much clearer, noting that this would not be a change to the content – it would be only to make it clearer for the public.  Ms. Annis polled the Board members and the majority AGREED that the change would be an instruction change and not the contents of the article, so, therefore, it is permissible.   It was agreed to put it in as a note after the bold-faced introduction to each amendment.  The wording will be:  NOTE:  All additions are underlined and deleted items are crossed out.   

Mr. Mical confirmed that this will be given to the Town Clerk for the ballot.   

2.  COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS  

Ms. Annis reported that Mr. Violette, Mr. Mical and she met last Wednesday morning and came up with an RFP idea for traffic control at Exit 9.  She said that the minutes would be sent to the Board members.  They discussed various engineering firms who do the kind of work that is needed.  On Thursday, they will finalize the RFPs that are being sent out.  They should be out by the beginning of next week.

Mr. Violette said there was a Master Plan committee meeting on Friday.  The minutes will be sent out to the Planning Board members.  Sharon Wason and two of her staff members from the Central NH Regional Planning Commission were there.  The scope of Phase I was discussed and a wide range of things about the whole process.  They then concentrated on Phase I, talking about what needs to be done.  They are prepared to begin the mapping and data collection part of it.  It is hoped that a survey will be ready to go in the first part of June, when we hope to get the biggest response.  He said there’s another meeting with Ms. Wason scheduled for a month from now.   

Ms. Annis said that there are a number of unfinished things that are on the agenda.  She noted that the Subdivision Regulations changes which were started two years ago still haven’t been completed.  Specifically, the turnarounds and the depth of the various road parts of gravel and pavement that Alan is interested in still need to be addressed.  She also said she thought the Selectmen still were interested in getting sign regulations updated.  She also said we also need to double-check our ordinances against our checklists and against the RSAs.  Mr. Violette said that one of the plans for the Master Plan is to do an audit in Phase I of our regulations.  Hopefully, by doing that, we’ll identify the mis-matches.   

Ms. Annis said there are new Land Use books which were distributed tonight.  She suggested that the members review the beginning of the book where the changes by the 2007 legislature are listed.  From there, she suggested that they look at the specific laws that apply to Planning Boards which have been changed so they will be up to date.  She noted that 674:3. h. affects the Master Plan.   

Ms. Annis said that the April OEP Planning and Zoning Conference date has been announced and each of the members received a notice in the mail.  She recommended that everyone try to go since it is very informative.   

Mr. Hartman asked about the training for Planning Board members and wondered if the Planning Board gets the weekly legislative summary that deal with municipalities from the Local Government Center .  He said he would ask Ms. Buono to get the Planning Board on the list and Ms. Annis said Ms. Lightfoot would forward it on to the Board Members.   

Mr. Pellettieri said there’s a bill right now related to changes in the NH Shoreline Protection Act of 1994 which affect development along the Warner River , limiting the amount of impervious area within 250 feet of shorelines.  Ms. Annis noted that could affect Exit 9.  Mr. Violette said he thought that it would be the Local Government Center that would be testifying about that for the municipalities, but that their view may not tailor into what we are thinking about.   

There was no further business.  Mr. Watts MOVED to adjourn.  Mr. Mical SECONDED.  Passed unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm .