|
Town of Warner –Planning Board Work Session Minutes February 14, 2011
7:00 PM Warner Town Hall, Lower Level Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, David Hartman, Paul Violette, and Peter Wyman. Members
Excused: Rick
Davies, Dan Watts and Ed Mical Members
Absent: None Members
Arriving Late: Alternates
Present: J.D.
Colcord Alternates
Arriving Late: Aedan Sherman Alternates
Excused: None Alternates
Absent: None OPEN
MEETING AT 7:00 PM ROLL CALL The Roll call was taken at 7:00 PM. Barbara Annis
opened the meeting. Barbara Annis Aedan Sherman arrived late. Barbara Annis asked if the members from the
different Boards would introduce themselves. Members From Other Boards Present: Jim
McLaughlin-Conservation Commission; Doug Allen-Conservation Commission;
Russ St. Pierre-Conservation Commission; Scott Warren-Conservation
Commission; Mimi Wiggin- Conservation Commission; Nancy Martin-
Conservation Commission; John Dabuliewicz- Conservation Commission;
Kimberley Edelmann-Zoning Board of Adjustment; Janice Loz- Zoning Board
of Adjustment 1. JOINT
MEETING Conservation Commission, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Discuss how the Conservation Commission can assist the Planning
Board with the functions of Subdivision, Zoning, Master Plan, etc Barbara Annis stated the Conservation Commission
asked to meet with both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of
Adjustment for some time now. Barbara apologized for putting them off
for so long. Barbara Annis explained that normally at this time of the
year they are working on the Master Plan at the Work Sessions but this
month was free since Vanessa Goold needed a month to finalize the Master
Plan and will be returning next month. Nancy Martin, Chairman of the Conservation
Commission, thanked the Planning Board for having them at the meeting.
She stated the Conservation Commission asked to meet with both Boards to
initiate a conversation. She said written into the Warner Conservation
Commission Plan is goal #1 Objective #1: The Planning Board and
Conservation Commission should work together to identify where local
regulatory tools can be strengthened to protect natural resources for
example: flood plains; riparian area; scenic views, aquifers, wildlife
habitat and work together to help implement them. Therefore that is
primarily why they asked for the joint meeting this evening. They are
anxious to know how they can work with the other Boards to obtain these
goals and objectives. Ms. Martin said they are particularly interested
in a couple of topics with ground water protection being high on the
list. Nancy Martin opened the discussion up to the other
Board members. She stated they would like to start with ground water
since Jim McLaughlin brought a map to present that the Conservation
Commission has been talking about. John Dabuliewicz stated that since the Town
including the Water District rely on ground water it is important to
protect the quality of the ground water for the future. He stated the
map Jim McLaughlin has is from the Conservation Planning effort that
they have been undergoing for the last few years which identifies the
location of those mostly along the Warner River. He stated the other
thing they did was to have someone from Regional Planning come in to
talk to them about resource protection. He stated they were referred to
a model ground water protection ordinance found on the DES website. He
stated the ordinance talks about a lot of different ways (some
regulatory and some non-regulatory) to protect ground water resources. A
copy of the introduction of the ordinance was left for anyone that was
interested. A discussion was held on how the Planning Board and
Conservation Commission can work together to protect ground water for
the future. Barbara Annis said that Vanessa Goold has told the
Planning Board that the outlying areas should be kept rural and more of
the population and growth should occur toward the center of Town.
Barbara Annis stated on the other hand small villages are desired like
the ones in Melvin Mills. She asked how can a small village that
requires a lot of wells and have ground water still keep the ground
water protected. Barbara Annis said she is also concerned with keeping
the ground water protected. Barbara Annis said if small villages are put
in like requested the ground water would become contaminated. A member
of the Conservation Commission said it would not be contaminated if
appropriate measures are taken. Jim McLaughlin said if land development goes into
an area it does not mean the aquifer is ruined. He stated there are
certain uses you want to avoid for example hazardous materials. He
stated by knowing where the aquifers are and doing things correctly you
can keep the aquifers safe. John Dabuliewicz stated they have extensive maps
that show the information. Jim McLaughlin presented a map of Water
Resources to the Board that showed what is known about the Town’s
aquifers, existing wells, flood plains, water courses, water sheds, etc.
He stated it is one of a series of maps that they would encourage the
Planning Board to refer to at appropriate times. Paul Violette asked if a copy of the map would be
in the Master Plan. Jim McLaughlin said he would have to check into that
information. He stated that Vanessa Goold does have all the information. An Aquifer Protection Ordinance was briefly
discussed; how it would be implemented, what kinds of uses you would not
want to see take place, etc. Janice Loz said that type of ordinance
would be useful. A member of the Conservation Commission stated
there are non regulatory ways to undertake ground water protection which
would not necessarily involve an ordinance for example an inspection
program to identify high risk activities that may be taking place in an
area. Conservation Commission is interested in knowing whether the Board
would like them to provide more input about the idea of protection at
the various levels, more specific proposals or maybe they could manage
to have DES give some guidance. A discussion was held on well head protection area.
David Hartman said they do have well head protection around the precinct
wells. Jim McLaughlin said there is a 4,000 foot radius around the wells
where someone had scribed a circle on the map. He said they have tried
to get grant funds to do a more in depth hydrologic study to refine the
general area they have at this time. Jim McLaughlin stated he does not
know of any regulation. Jim
McLaughlin said a lot of the areas in the well protection area shown on
the map already have a lot of development. Peter Wyman said if you spoke
to someone in DES they would say the only thing that should be in the
well head protection area is the necessary buildings to run the well;
septic systems, gas stations or anything that can contaminate can not be
in the area. Paul Violette said looking at the map there would be a
large area within the circle that could not be touched ideally for any
reason. Paul Violette said there are state laws in regards to setbacks
from rivers, streams, etc. Paul Violette asked if there was any
additional coverage the Conservation Commission would see being needed
beyond the state laws. He stated the Planning Board is willing to listen
to any information they can get. Aedan Sherman stated there is an entire
calculation parameter that needs to be used on commercial sites that
involve wells that limit what can be in the area of the well depending
on the use of the building, occupancy rate, etc. Nancy Martin asked how a river bank can be
protected from sediment running down the hill into the river. She said
the state does have laws regarding the setback from the river to where
trees can be cut. Jim McLaughlin said the Planning Board is aware of the
Shoreline Protection Act. A brief discussion was held on the Shoreline
Protection Act for example the two new House Bills being presented,
waivers, the different distance regulations. J.D. Colcord asked if the Conservation Commission
is unhappy with things the Planning Board is doing. Nancy Martin said
they sent a letter about a month ago regarding the River Bank running
through the Davisville Area where the proposed Zoning District change
would occur. She said they were wondering how the Planning Board
proceeded with that. She asked if a hearing was held on that issue.
David Hartman said yes the hearing was held and it is a warrant article.
Nancy Martin asked if that could be explained in more detail. Jim McLaughlin said he had met with the Planning
Board and conveyed the Conservation Commission’s concerns about the
area where the proposed change would occur since it has extremely high
potential for ground water. Jim McLaughlin said the concern he expressed
was to not move the Commercial District all the way to River but rather
bringing it back some distance. Paul Violette said the Planning Board
did do that based on the request of the Conservation Commission and the
discussion held by the Planning Board. Peter Wyman said they did do it
on the majority of the area however there was one section they did not
pull it back. Peter Wyman said approximately 2,000 feet was pulled back
while about 200 feet were not. Paul Violette said they split the Zoning
along a lot line. John Dabuliewicz asked why the Planning Board
wanted to change it from an OC-1 District to a C-1 District. Paul
Violette said when the original maps were drawn a line was drawn 500
feet back off of Route 103 and that was how the C-1 District area was
defined. However, in order to utilize the land that is already being
used for some commercial type of operation they were looking for a way
to grow the Commercial District and hopefully be able to attract at some
point businesses that might fit well in that area. There was an OC-1
piece of land that was landlocked between the River and the C-1 District
that they felt should be changed into a C-1 District. In doing so it was
felt that setbacks would be less cumbersome, off street type of
businesses could possibly be in there. John Dabuliewicz stated that is
where the idea of making sure the uses are not incompatible with
protecting the ground water resources in that area when there is a
proposal. Paul Violette agreed. Paul Violette said there is a very small
amount of area in the Town of Warner that is Zoned Commercial. Jim McLaughlin said when the Planning Board is
considering a major subdivision and/or a Site Plan the Conservation
Commission would be more than happy to help in the initial stages before
the point there is a lot of investment on the part of the applicant. He
said they are not looking to extend the application time for the
applicant but rather to give any advice on the particular application in
the beginning stages. Barbara Annis asked if conservation easements are
restricted so that there is absolutely no building/improvement allowed
on a conservation easement parcel. John Dabuliewicz stated that most of
the easements done since he was on the Conservation Commission the owner
usually is the one to reserve the right to develop some buildings. He
said they exclude from the easement area certain portions of the land so
they can build a house. Barbara Annis verified that if there is an
entire parcel there is part in easement and a non-easement part. Mimi
Wiggin said if they had a farm they could put a barn on it that would
complement what they are doing with the property but usually they do not
build another house. Barbara Annis said since they are thinking about
conserving energy she was wondering if a wind tower could be put on a
conservation easement piece of property. A Conservation Commission
member said it would depend on how the agreement is worded. A very brief
discussion was held on easements. A Conservation Commission member brought up flood
plain areas. He stated that there are rules in place for the flood plain
area; however, it does not prevent people from building in the flood
plain area. He said with all the recent storms it should be more of a
concern. Paul Violette said when an application is submitted in the
flood plain area the Planning Board does look at it very closely. Jim
McLaughlin said there are some towns that prohibit any development in
the flood plain. David Hartman said through the building permit
process they have done enforcement activities on a couple of sites; one
in specific required the removal of a garage across the Laing bridge
because a person failed to get a building permit and knew one was
required and they knew a building permit would not have been given
because of the Shore Land Protection and the Town setbacks. The owner
was forced to remove his garage from where he built it to an allowable
location that was set back from the river. The other situation was a
house that was proposed to be built on Morse Loop that had issues that
involved the State and the Town and at this point no house will be
placed on that particular site. He said the Conservation Commission may
also be interested in the location of the new Fire Station. Nancy Martin said in conclusion the Conservation
Commission just wants the Planning Board to know they are at their
service and they can provide them with good resources anytime they have
questions. She said the Conservation Commission is looking forward to
working with the Planning Board in the future. Jim McLaughlin said they also appreciate the
involvement with the Planning Board on the Master Plan Update. 2.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW Barbara Annis opened the discussion on the Site
Plan Review. Barbara Annis invited Janice Loz and Laura Buono to
join the Board on the discussion. Janice Loz stated that the Zoning Board of
Adjustment has really been looking at apartments above garages, in law
apartments and things of that nature. She said she knows it is too late
to bring them up as a Zoning Article but she asked if the Planning Board
could work on some wording in the Zoning Ordinance to help make it more
clear. Barbara Annis said that issue is on her list to look at. Barbara
Annis said she agreed there is some confusion as to what is a duplex; a
multi family dwelling, a two family dwelling, semi attached and attached
apartments. Janice Loz said the Zoning Board of Adjustment has taken the
word dwelling unit to mean one structure not two structures. Janice Loz
said the problem is different members have different interpretations and
it all changes. Janice Loz said some of the members interpret an
apartment to have a kitchen and if you have everything there but a
kitchen it is not an apartment but the questions is what defines an
apartment. Paul Violette asked if the definitions need to be clarified.
Janice Loz said that would help. Barbara Annis said that when Central New Hampshire
Regional Planning Commission did their audit they said one of the areas
Warner was missing was apartments, in law suites, buildings with stores
on the bottom and apartments upstairs. Janice Loz said a lot of people are looking to add
in-law apartments to care for elderly family members. The Board agreed
the issue should be looked at further. Barbara Annis stated the Board would start looking
at the Draft Site Plan Review starting with Section IV Zoning. Barbara Annis said the Board discussed that this
section would be later in the proposal and it was recommended that the
original waiver request go into Section IV and be followed by the
Expedited Site Plan Review. Rick Davies had suggested adding verbiage stating
that if an addition larger than 500 square feet were added no waiver of
Site Plan Review could be requested. Barbara Annis said the Board
questioned the 500 square feet since they did not feel it was adequate
or that it could be too specific. Different numbers were discussed.
Peter Wyman suggested 120 square feet. No decision was made. A discussion was held on the proposed verbiage by
Rick Davies: “Materially change or substantially differ from the
existing conditions such that there is significant effect on the
quantitative or qualitative requirements of these Regulations” in
place of the proposed verbiage “Change of Land Use”. Aedan Sherman
said he felt the proposed verbiage was too confusing and should be
simplified. Barbara Annis said it is up to the Board if they even want
that in the document. The Board discussed the procedure of the Expedited
Site Plan Review. An applicant that fits the criteria would fill out an
application for Expedited Review, the application would be presented to
the Planning Board at the next meeting and the Planning Board would make
a decision if a Full Site Plan review is required or not. The Expedited
application would be at no cost to the applicant, no public hearing
would be necessary, however it would be reviewed at a public meeting.
The paperwork would be kept on file and if the applicant does not adhere
to what they put in the application the Planning Board could turn it
over to the Board of Selectmen for enforcement. A discussion was held regarding the request for a
waiver of a full Site Plan Review. David Hartman said it all comes down
to defining what a Change of Use is. He said secondary use is defined
but primary use is not defined in the document. David Hartman said
examples of a Change of Use are in the Draft Site Plan Regulations
document but there is a limited number in there and there are so many
different types of changes. He asked how do you decide what qualifies
for a waiver of a Site Plan Review. Paul Violette said they did add a definition for
Change of Use into the new document. A discussion was held on the
definitions on primary use and secondary use. David Hartman said that any type of commercial
activity on Main Street will attract some cars and during good times
more traffic can occur and there may not be enough parking. Laura Buono, Town Administrator asked if the waiver
is filled out only if the staff has a question. She stated that the Land
Use Secretary and the Selectmen’s secretary work together on
situations that may require a building permit. She asked if the staff
would have someone fill out the Expedited form only if they had a
question whether a Site Plan Review was required or does the Planning
Board want everyone to fill out a form. Paul Violette and Barbara Annis
said they would require anyone to fill out the form. Laura Buono said she did not agree with that
procedure if there is no impact or change. She said she feels the office
staff is capable of deciding whether or not someone needs to come before
the Board depending upon the type of change being made. She used the
Curves becoming a physical therapy office as an example; there was no
impact or major changes in that case. Paul Violette said he thought that
according to State laws the Planning Board could not give the staff that
authority. He stated Barbara Annis and Ed Mical did all the work on the
Expedited Reviews and he was under the impression that was what they
found. Barbara Annis said New London, Dunbarton, Weare
have Fast Track or Expedited Reviews they use when a change of use
occurs in a building and the applicants need to fill out the application
and present it to the Planning Board. Peter Wyman asked if for example Country Houses
leaves tomorrow and a new real estate company moves in the next day do
they would not need to do anything. He asked if they would have to
submit any paperwork. Laura Buono said if a real estate office left and a
lawyer office came in it would not be a change of use. Peter Wyman said
in his opinion a lawyer’s office to a real estate office would create
a change in traffic. Laura Buono said there is only so much parking
available downtown and there is nothing that can be done about that
unless they put in a garage. She said they did not disallow Spring into
Warner weekend because there is not enough parking. Laura Buono also used the Zumba class that used to
be in the Town Hall that moved across the street as an example. The Town
Hall does not require a Site Plan Review for the functions that happen.
She said some of the functions held at the Town Hall bring in a lot of
people as well as parking. Paul Violette stated he agrees that he would like
to see the staff handle it. Barbara Annis said that the problem is that
everyone’s interpretation is different. Laura Buono said that in her
opinion the staff seems to be pretty consistent in what they feel is a
“Change of Use”. She
said if the Planning Board does not agree with the staff and that is the
reason behind the new form she would like to know that information so
the staff could be trained differently. Peter Wyman said he thought the Expedited Review
Application was coming out because there was nothing in place so that
the staff could handle it themselves legally. He said he thought
something needed to be put in the regulations that if there was no
“Change of Use” the staff could make the decision and it would not
need to come before the Planning Board. Paul Violette said any businesses going in and out
of buildings such as the old Perkins Hardware Building and Foothills
building the buildings are pretty much limited in scope due to the size
of the building. He said on average none of the business would create a
great impact. The Board discussed the dance studio opening up in
the space that was Sundance Solar, Inc that manufactured solar panels.
David Hartman said they did not come in for a Site Plan Review however
they did come in for a building permit. He asked if the Selectmen’s
Office should have referred them to the Planning Board for a Site Plan
Review. Peter Wyman said based on what is in the current regulations yes
it should have. He said that is an example of why things need to be
changed. A discussion was held about what type of Change of
Use would not require a Site Plan Review some examples discussed were
office space to office space; retail to retail; doctor’s office to a
dentist office. Peter Wyman said things need to be written clearly
so there is no confusion. Laura Buono said one of her concerns is that
the Planning Board is made up of volunteers that change and the staff
usually are the ones that are consistently there and they are trained to
deal with the daily questions and situations that arise. She said she
feels the staff should be relied on more, trusted and a piece of paper
(regulations) can be changed by any Board. Paul Violette agreed in his experience with other
Planning Boards they are not all consistent. There was a time the staff
person advised him that all his paperwork was in order but according to
some of the Board members it was not. He
said there are always enough people on a Planning Board with different
opinions. People Wyman said that although the staff may be trained he still feels it is important to have something in writing to use as a tool for better decision making for the staff. Laura Buono said the Expedited Form is not giving the staff any authority to make a decision. She said she is pleased with the staff and feels the form will take away decision making they might have. Peter Wyman said he remembers a statement was made
at a previous meeting that the staff is not allowed to make decisions.
Paul Violette said that was his understanding also. David Hartman said
he felt paperwork should be filled out and kept on record but he did not
have a problem with the staff making a decision and signing off on the
form. Laura Buono asked if a building has already gone
through Site Plan Review do all of the renters need to come back for
Site Plan Review every time they change. The Board said the way the
regulations are written now they would need to. David
Hartman said one trigger would be a building permit being requested and
at that time if the staff thinks it needs a Site Plan Review the
applicant is referred to the Land Use Office. Paul Violette and Peter Wyman agreed that the staff
should be able to make a decision if a Site Plan review is needed. Laura Buono said
Mary Whalen, the Selectmen’s secretary and Tracey Hallenborg,
the Land Use secretary, work well together at interpreting the
Regulations and if there is a situation they don’t agree on they will
ask for her help. She said that even if you put some examples in writing
there is no way to cover all examples. Aedan Sherman asked if they would want to be
legally responsible for the staff making decisions. Laura Buono said
that is what the staff is paid for and it is expected of them. Peter Wyman said that the definition of “Change of Use” and how the process is handled needs to be addressed since the Board themselves do not always agree. He said that would make it harder for the staff to make any decisions until it is clarified. Paul Violette said he would like to simplify things
by deciding if the staff handles it with some direction. He said he does
like the form with the signature of the business owner and the building
owner as well as the questions included in the form. He said the staff
can have an applicant fill it out and the staff can have permission to
sign off on the form. Paul Violette said he feels the Planning Board
needs to work on definitions and examples at a later time, but he would
like to see the Expedited form implemented as soon as possible. . Peter
Wyman said he thinks a paper trail to keep on record is a good idea. Barbara Annis said she would like to see more
consistency and by having things in writing that would help out. J.D.
Colcord said he has great confidence in staff and does not believe they
would make any decision on their own that they were not sure of. The Board agreed to continue discussions at the
March 7, 2011 meeting when more members would be present. 3.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS There were no subcommittee reports. 4.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS Barbara Annis said the hearing she went to before the legislature regarding updating the building code it was brought up there was a moratorium on sprinklers. She said she couldn’t find the moratorium in the building code. Barbara Annis said she had the Land Use secretary where it was and it is RSA 153:5 in the Fire Marshall section. It is required in the national building code the legislature did
not feel NH needed to it and therefore a moratorium was added. One and two family dwelling units do not require the
sprinkler systems but multi family and commercial units require it. 5. PUBLIC
COMMENTS There was no Public present 6.
ADJOURN J.D. Colcord made a MOTION
to ADJOURN. Paul Violette
seconded the MOTION. All were
favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:20pm.
|