Town of Warner – Planning Board

Work Session Minutes

Monday, February 16, 2009     7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall , Lower Level

 

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

Members Excused:      Paul Violette

Members Absent:       Hank Duhamel

Alternates Present:    Harold French (Voting for Mr. Violette)

Alternates Excused:   Robert Ricard

Alternates Absent:     None

Members Left Early:  Dan Watts

Presiding:                    Barbara Annis

Recording:                   Jean Lightfoot  

Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call  

Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.   The roll call was taken.  Ms. Annis said the Master Plan Committee will not be meeting tonight.  So, she said the whole board will be meeting with the Fire Chief, Dick Brown and the Director of Public Works, Allan Brown.  She said that the Conceptual Consultation with Neil and Katharine Nevins will take place at 7:45 so that Allan Brown and Dick Brown may be heard first.  Ms. Annis asked Mr. French to sit and vote for Mr. Violette.  

1.  DRIVEWAYS DISCUSSION  

Ms. Annis introduced Dick Brown and said that he had been asking for a change in the driveway regulations since 2005.  Mr. Mical explained that there were two items handed to the Board members, a letter from the Fire Chief to the Board of Selectmen dated April 24, 2005 , and another dated 1/9/06 which is a draft of a driveway regulation.  He said this was from Chief Brown and from the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.  The letter and attachment read as follows:  

         “Oct. 3. 2005

 

         “Board of Selectmen

         PO Box 265

         “Warner, NH  03278  

         “Subject: Proposed Driveway Requirements  

         “Gentlemen:  

         “As Chief of the Warner Fire Department, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the types and conditions of driveways that I see being constructed about town as we continue to grow.  Primarily, I see many driveways being constructed that will not allow for full access to emergency apparatus, especially during the winter months.  

         “You will find attached proposed changes to the town’s current driveway requirements that I feel are necessary.  I ask for your support in presenting them to the appropriate town boards.  

         “By implementing these changes:

          “1:  It will enable the department to fulfill its primary objective of preserving life and property from fire and emergency medical situations.  

         “2:  It may help limit the town’s liability should the fire department not be able to reach an establishment where these driveway requirements are not in place.  Currently, the Town issues a driveway permit, a building permit and then charges property taxes, a portion of which pays for fire protection and EMS services.  If we are not able to reach these locations, what liability might we be exposed to?  

         “3:  If these changes are implemented we should be able to limit the number of vehicles that will need all-wheel drive.  Otherwise, if we continue to allow driveways to be built as they are presently, the fire department’s future apparatus will all need to be four wheel or all-wheel drive.  At current prices this adds $20,000-$40,000 to the cost of each vehicle.        

         “I hope you will look favorably upon this request and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.  

         “Sincerely,  

         “Richard D. Brown, Chief /s/

         “Warner Fire Department”

 

“Proposed Driveway Requirements

        

         “A.  Driveways shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) feet in travel distance from the intersection with the town maintained road.

         “B.  Driveways shall be a minimum of ten (10) (12) feet in width.

         “C.  No driveway shall exceed a ten percent (10%) maximum grade.

         “D.  Driveways shall not terminate more than fifty (50) feet from the primary occupancy.

         “E.  Driveways over eight hundred (800) feet in length shall have at least one turnout, placed one half the length of the drive, to accommodate the need for emergency apparatus to pass each other.  The turnout shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet and a minimum length of forty (40) feet.

         “F.  Suitable parking area shall be provided for emergency apparatus at the termination of the driveway.  This area shall be a minimum of eight hundred (800) square feet with the shortest side being not less than twenty (20) feet.

         “G.  All driveways shall be constructed of sufficient strength and materials, including bridges and culverts, as to support vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of at least twenty five (25) tons (50,000 lbs.).  Driveway construction plans must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to commencing work.

         “H.  No more than two (2) houses shall be placed on a single driveway.

         “I.   Changes in direction of any driveway shall have a minimum of sixty (60) feet.”

 

Ms. Annis said that she understood what Chief Brown’s concerns are.  She said that the majority of the Board has not heard the presentation, so she asked him to summarize his concerns.  Chief Brown said that the April 2005 letter explains it.  He said that the biggest problem right now is the steepness and narrowness of the driveways, resulting in there being no place for the vehicles to pass each other even if they can get up the driveway.  He said another problem is that when they get to the house because the driveways are not kept large enough or maintained enough the ambulance is unable to turn around.  He said that when there is a 1500 or 2000 foot driveway, and it isn’t wide enough for the ambulance, you don’t want to be carrying someone who is ill or injured all the way down that driveway to the street.  He said that the trucks get larger as time goes on because the regulations increasingly require more equipment to be carried on the vehicles.  He said that he would propose that if there could be regulations, each set of plans could be reviewed and have them add or subtract what is necessary.  He said that by law, they are not liable for property that they cannot get to, but they will try to do it and in the process may end up smashing up a $500,000 piece of equipment, let alone the potential harm to the people on the trucks.  He said it would help if people would maintain their driveways by plowing them and sanding them, noting that in the winter there are many that you can’t even walk up because of the ice and snow.  Mr. French said he thinks that falls onto the personal responsibility of the homeowner.  Chief Brown said he agreed, but if the house is burning and people are trapped, then, they will try to get to it, even if it requires calling the Town sanding truck to sand the driveway, but that will create a delay in getting there.  Mr. French said that he thinks that people with steep driveways should keep them sanded not only for emergency access but for their own safety.  Chief Brown agreed. 

He said the main concern is the length of the driveway, the width allowing two vehicles to pass, if necessary, and the slope.  He said that at about every 800 feet, there should be a wide spot that is 20 feet wide and 40 feet long so that two vehicles can pass each other.  He said that other towns have this requirement.   

Ms. Annis said that one thing that was discussed with the Building Inspector was that the Allan Brown’s responsibility goes as far as the culvert in the driveway and is not responsible for the driveway itself.  She asked who is going to determine the regulations.  She wondered if signing the Building Permit, the owner agrees that this is not going to be any steeper than, say, the 10% or when Mr. Brown gives the Driveway Permit, it could be incorporated in that.  Chief Brown said that whoever draws the plans for the driveway can put on the drawings what the percentage of grade is.  Ms. Annis said they don’t do that now in a Building Permit.  Chief Brown said if it were required then they would have to.  Allan Brown said that it could be judged by the Town.  Mr. French asked Mr. Brown if there are any public roads in town that exceed 10% grade.  Mr. Brown said yes.  Mr. French said that is the problem with the town – it is a hilly town.  He said if we limit the driveway grade to 10%, then 90% of the area in which can be built will be cut out.  Mr. Brown said that you could still do a lot of the driveways, but it would cost more because you would have to do switchbacks.  There was a short discussion about various current driveways that are very steep.  Ms. Annis asked what the grade is of Kearsarge Mountain Road .  Mr. Brown replied he thought it was 12 or 13%.  There was a discussion about whether to allow for variances if the Fire Department allowed it.  But, it was agreed not to allow for that since the grade allowed should be the same for everyone because of the safety issues involved and if one is more than allowed, then the switchback design would have to be used.  Mr. Watts commented that this will affect the affordability of homes in town.   

Chief Brown said that he would like to have something written at least to make people aware of the problem.  He said he did not think that it should be said that they may not create the steep, narrow driveways.  Mr. Watts suggested that there be written a recommendation, saying these are the specifications that the town would like for safety reasons.  Mr. French suggested adding the wording of keeping the driveways plowed, wide enough and sanded.  Chief Brown suggested making a strong recommendation about these issues and those who choose to do it, great; and, if you get the one or two who absolutely refuse, then it will be known that the fire equipment cannot get to the house.  Mr. Davies asked if it would be possible to guarantee service if it were 10% or less.  It was agreed that nothing could be guaranteed.  Mr. French asked about the width requirement.  Chief Brown said his request is that a turnout be a minimum width of 20 feet and 40 feet long if the driveway is over 800 feet.  He said if it is over 1600 feet, then there would have to be two turnouts.  He said he is not opposed to adding to the 1500 foot travel distance, so long as they do the width and the turnouts properly.  Ms. Annis asked if one way to approach this is that we recommend that these be part of the building permit application and ask that they sign it, acknowledging that they’ve seen it.  

Mr. French asked what D. means when it says that driveways shall not terminate more than 50 feet from the primary occupancy.  Chief Brown said that means the driveway isn’t ended and then you have to walk to the house more than 50 feet from where the car is parked.  Mr. Davies asked if there is a 2000 foot length, is it possible to keep the hoses from freezing in the winter.  Chief Brown said yes, as long as there is a water supply to keep the water flowing.  He said if it is below zero and they run out of water, the hoses will freeze in about 10 minutes.  

Mr. French asked if it would be helpful for the fire department to have four-wheel drive vehicles.  Chief Brown said that they have one now that has full capabilities and is a good all-around piece to get started with.  He said that, unless the fire was totally out of control, they could put out most fires with that.  He added that they have chains on all of the other vehicles and those usually work pretty well.  He said that the biggest problem is ice, but as far as the average snowstorm goes, there is no problem with the vehicles that they currently have.  He said that, if it’s necessary, Mr. Brown listens and is on the road sanding if needed.

Ms. Annis asked about the angle required for approaching certain roads.  She asked if the angle of the driveway to the road should be added to the recommendations.  Mr. Brown said that the State must have its own regulations about that.   

Mr. Davies asked about the turnaround for driveways.  Chief Brown said the 20 feet by 40 feet includes the 12 feet for the width.  He said it’s not a turnaround – it would allow one vehicle to pull over and let another one go by.  Ms. Annis asked Chief Brown if he agreed that the 10% grade must be at least 25 feet from the town right-of-way.  Chief Brown replied it should be at least 30 feet.  He said that the first 30 feet off the right-of-way should be no more than a 2-3% grade.  Mr. Brown said he had no objections to this.  Ms. Annis said that the Planning Board did not design the Building Permit Application and she asked if the Planning Board has the right to insert something into the Building Permit Application or are the Selectmen or the Building Inspector asked to insert it.   

Mr. Hartman said if it is simply a suggestion that people do the right thing, it could be noted with an asterisk someplace.  However, he said, what teeth would it have that way?  Chief Brown said that it could be made as a suggestion and people might ask why and it could then be explained to them.  Mr. Hartman said that Mr. Brown has issued driveway permits to people who have made foolish decisions on driveways.  He asked Mr. Brown if he discusses those decisions with them.  Mr. Brown said yes, all the time.  Mr. Hartman said then that the suggestion is already taking place.  Mr. Brown said that it is known that the good lots are nearly all gone so we now know that we are going to be issuing permits for lots that have very steep access.  He said he explains that it will be difficult in the winter time and it will wash out and the owner will be responsible.  He said the most frustrating part is that the person who gets the original permit can deal with the problems, but then the property is sold and the next person cannot deal with it.  Mr. Hartman said that his point is that we already warn people when the driveway permit is issued.  Mr. Watts said there’s a difference between warning verbally and giving them something they can take home and read.  Ms. Annis added that they should sign for it.  Mr. Hartman asked what that is going to do since it is not a regulation.  Mr. Watts said it’s educational.  Mr. French said that we don’t want to regulate it.  Ms. Annis said that Chief Brown is suggesting that we try this way first.  Mr. Hartman said we already do that, noting that there is no signed paper, but the warning is made.  Mr. French said we’re also telling people that if you do have it steeper, keep it plowed back, keep it salted and sanded and these are the reasons why.  Mr. Watts said that in a verbal discussion, you’re not going to get out the 800 feet, the 20 foot passing, etc.  He said you’re just communicating that it’s way too steep.  He said that putting it in writing gives them something to look at and to go over.  Mr. French said he thought there are certain things that could be added, like the turnouts every 800 feet.  He said that is not a huge additional cost to the driveway and it could be mandatory.  Mr. Hartman said when you use the word mandatory, it means regulation or ordinance; it does not mean advice.  Mr. French said that it might do to pull out some of these to add to the regulations, but the majority of them would be fine as a suggestion.  Ms. Annis said it would turn into a completely separate document called Driveway Regulations.  Mr. Brown asked why they could not be added to the Driveway Permit.  He said that it is the Planning Board that has the authority to issue Driveway Permits.  He said he issues them for the Planning Board, but they have the regulating authority on Driveway Permits.  He said that he has added a statement to the Driveway Permit that it is totally the responsibility of the owner to maintain the driveway, not that of the Town.  He said that the Planning Board could put in the Driveway Permit that if the driveway exceeds 800 feet, there will be the turnout that has been discussed.  He said that he now has people sign it when they get it, which is something he didn’t used to do.  Ms. Annis asked for a copy of the Driveway Permit.  Chief Brown said that the grade limitation would be the biggest problem for someone constructing a driveway.  Mr. Hartman said the question is whether we are talking about advice or an additional regulation.  He said that the members seem to be unsure as to whether it should be a regulation or advice.  Mr. Mical said that he is going to call the State Fire Marshal to see if driveways are part of the State Building Code.  He said he thinks there may be something in the Life Safety Code about driveways.   

Ms. Annis asked Chief Brown how things are coming with the requirement that all buildings be sprinklered.  Chief Brown said the State is still working on that and it is not definite.  He said that some individual towns have required it.  Mr. Hartman asked what that adds to the cost of the house.  Chief Brown said about $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot.  Mr. French said it could be more expensive than that.  There was a short discussion about different types of sprinkler systems and their effectiveness.  Ms. Annis asked if there were any other questions.  Mr. Hartman asked where we go from here.  Ms. Annis said that she thought the Board should look at the Driveway Permit Application and possibly incorporate it as a Driveway Permit Regulation so it is completely separate.  Chief Brown added that they will also check the state regulations.  Mr. Hartman said that he wanted to be sure that it is understood that there are two ways of doing it, and if you regulate, then someone must do the regulation.  He said if it is to be tied to a Building Permit Application, then it’s tied directly to the Selectmen’s Office or the Building Inspector and new ways of doing business would need to be initiated.  Ms. Annis said she thought that more information is needed before we decide how to approach it.  There was a short discussion on how it might be regulated if it is decided to regulate.   

Ms. Annis thanked Chief Brown and asked Mr. Brown if he would wait because there was a conceptual consultation scheduled for 7:00 which was re-scheduled to 7:45 and they were ready now.  

2.  CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION  

Neil and Katharine Nevins would like to discuss the proposed community park to be established behind Main Street BookEnds, 16 East Main Street , Warner, NH (Map 31, Lot 2, B-1 Zoning).  

Ms. Annis recognized Neil Nevins.  Mr. Nevins said that this plan has been thought about for awhile and the inspiration is a picture they have at BookEnds which was given to them by Charlie Brown when they first opened.  He said their intention is to maintain Main Street in a way that it used to be.  He said it is that vision that inspired them to proceed with the plans for this community park.  He said the plan is to create the community park on the property behind the bookstore that changes the land into a more inviting and attractive open space for residents and visitors to enjoy.  He said that the hope is to reflect and preserve the town’s heritage, character and quality of life.  He said the property originally was the home of the Pillsburys and the Harmons.  He said from old photos they could see it was a beautiful place with perennial gardens surrounded by a picket fence.  The new element that they wish to add is that the property will be for the use of the community.  He said the hope is this place will invite people in to meet, to relax and talk with friends and neighbors, as well as to serve as a magnet for the artistic, cultural, educational and social pursuits that are envisioned as part of this park.  He said there is a direct connection to the Pillsbury Free Library.  In addition, he said there are connections with Simonds and various community groups like the Fall Foliage Festival.  He said that they would like input prior to the March 2nd meeting when the Site Plan Review of the landscaping is scheduled.   

Chris Kessler reviewed the drawing of the proposed site explaining the plans for the site.  He mentioned that they are working with Allan Brown on drainage issues for the town.  He said that the plan is to expand the entrance on Main Street and add some parking spaces.  He said this would also result in a direct walking connection to the library next door.  He said from the walkway back the plan is for perennial gardens, terraced areas going down toward the back of the property and incorporating a combination of wooden fencing and natural barriers.  He said the other parts are only proposed at this point, but what is being applied for now is simply the landscaping approval.  Mr. French asked if there is another proposed driveway on the lower end of the property.  Mr. Kessler said the terraces would lead down to a proposed stage/performance area where an access road would lead from the street for the performers to drop off their equipment.  Mr. Nevins added it would be a possibility but it would be a minimal change to the back area.  Mr. French said it looks good, but wondered where the Planning Board is required to review landscaping on projects.  He asked if any owner of any property could do any type of landscaping that they wish without coming to the Planning Board.  Ms. Annis replied that this is for commercial use, not personal use, so it must come to the Planning Board under the Site Plan Review Regulations.  She said that Site Plan Review is required if there is an addition or an expansion.  Mr. Mical asked if they have approached the State about expanding the driveway.  Mr. Nevins said no.  Mr. Mical said the driveway permit from the State will need to be revised.  He asked what the change in elevation from the back of the building down to the proposed stage area.  Mr. Kessler said he thought it was about 25 or 30 feet.  Mr. Davies asked how far the stage area is planned to be from the town right-of-way.  He said that the requirement is 15 feet from the abutter and 30 feet from the town right-of-way.  Mr. Kessler measured it, but his response was unintelligible.  Ms. Annis noted that this is only a conceptual at this point.   

Ms. Annis asked where the propane tank is that the library just added.  She asked if people would be walking closer to that tank with this plan.  There was a discussion about the tanks and it was noted that the tank should be 50 feet from any other structure.  After review, it was determined that the people visiting the park would not be coming near the propane tank.  Mr. Nevins discussed the importance of the mulberry tree and said that it is protected as the largest white mulberry tree in the State, so it will be a focal point for the park.   

Ms. Annis asked about lighting.  Mr. Nevins said at this point the plan doesn’t involve any lighting.  He said that the planned use is from dawn to dusk so there would be no need for lighting.  He added that after the stage is added, the lighting then would be minimal; however, he said they are not planning that during this phase.  Ms. Annis asked what is planned specifically for the first phase.  Mr. Nevins said the first phase is to concentrate on the front section for the expanded parking to the patio and then clearing out the back portion so it could be maintained because right now it is just brush.  Mr. Kessler referred to the drainage that is possibly going to be created across the property.  Mr. Brown explained what the town is thinking of for their drainage needs that would go across the property.  Mr. Kessler agreed that if there is going to be digging on the property, then it would make sense to coordinate with the town.  

Ms. Annis said she was trying to assist Mr. Nevins by combining all the phases in one site plan review approval.  However, Mr. Nevins said they are not ready in the planning phase or financially to proceed with the other phases.  He said that the second phase of building the stage would only require a building permit because, in a sense, we are currently looking at the whole plan and it all would be completed short of the back most area and the landscaping.  Ms. Annis said that lighting would be part of that.  Mr. Nevins agreed.  Mr. Mical asked if they were planning to electrify the stage area.  Mr. Nevins said perhaps.  Mr. Mical said that if he is trying to put everything together, those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed.  Ms. Annis said it may have to be done in phases.  Mr. Davies asked if Ms. Annis was expecting, for example, three separate delineations on a drawing.  Ms. Annis said no, she was looking at the whole picture and trying to see if it could all be combined into one application, and consider the direction and brightness of the lighting, any lampposts that might be necessary, etc.  Mr. Mical said that if it is all done at once, and even if it takes 3 or 4 years to complete it, at least it’s all in place so they can proceed as approved.  Mr. Davies asked if they thought they would finish in 4 years.  Mr. Nevins said he thought within 4 or 5 years.  Ms. Annis said that if he is not covering the lighting with the application now, he will have to return for that approval, as well.  Mr. Mical suggested putting everything together in one plan and then if it is not completed, he could ask for an extension.  Ms. Annis said that normally with a site plan review, the questions are what hours it will be open; will it be open on Sundays; will there be concerts and how late will they be.  Mr. Nevins said those are all relevant, and agreed that it may have to come in phases.  He said that the primary interest right now is to establish the parking lot area which is much more visible from Main Street and maintain the connection with the Library.   

George Pellettieri said that what they would like to do is get an approval of the overall concept.  He said that the bulk of the work will be site work and landscaping, including the parking and the drainage.  He said the next phase would be structures and that would incorporate the lighting question and active use.  He said there are a couple possibilities for structures that they aren’t sure of yet.  He said they were planning on coming back to the Planning Board for the structures.  Ms. Annis said that it is basically two phases.  Mr. Pellettieri said yes.  Mr. Davies said that there will possibly be two sets of drawings:  one now and one in a year or two or three.  Mr. Pellettieri said that any structures on the current drawing are only proposed future structures.  He said that the site plan review requires completion of the checklist which includes a lighting plan, a landscape plan, and many other things.  When most of what is being proposed now is landscaping, he said that it doesn’t make sense to develop the entire plan, especially when they don’t have the money for it.    

Ms. Annis said this is strictly conceptual and asked the Board members if they had any further questions or needed any additional information for the Site Plan Review scheduled for March 2nd.  Mr. Hartman said the drainage easement seems like a pretty concrete thing that would need to be worked out in the first phase.  He said the discussion is to drain all the water coming from the school property and the Town Hall and other buildings in the area down into the parking lot or someplace in the area in trying to get the water down towards the river.   Mr. Brown discussed the potential drainage area and how it would affect the Nevins’ and surrounding properties.  Mr. Pellettieri asked if they should just request a waiver from some of the items on the checklist.  Ms. Annis said yes and asked them to put it in writing.  Mr. French and Mr. Davies said they thought it would be a good project for the town.  Mr. Nevins and his party departed.  

3.  DRIVEWAYS DISCUSSION (Continued)  

Ms. Annis thanked Mr. Brown for staying.  Mr. Mical asked if the letter dated April 24, 2005 is still being reviewed.  Mr. Brown said he has thought a lot about the turnarounds and looked at them in towns around Warner.  He said there doesn’t need to be a lot of redesign work.  He said the problem is the way the lot lines are allowed to be created in a subdivision by the Planning Board.  He said that the typical cul-de-sac configurations are all right, so long as you don’t let the turnaround become part of the lot lines.  Ms. Annis said that he does not want a curb cut coming off from one of the cul-de-sacs.  Mr. Brown said yes and to be sure that that does not happen, you cannot use the circles as part of the road frontage to make the lot a legally buildable lot.  He said when that circle frontage is used for the lots, they create too many driveways on the circle and the snowplows then have nowhere to put the snow as they plow the circle.  He said that when there is a subdivision, if there is a turnaround, it must be on a lot, or it must be by itself.  He said they cannot be used a lot line.  He said then there will not be five driveways off a turnaround.  Ms. Annis said that therefore the cul-de-sacs can only be turnarounds.  Mr. Brown said yes, basically they can only be part of one lot.  He added that he would want the driveways before the turnaround to be no less than 50 feet from the radius of the turnaround.  There was some discussion about the possible designs for the cul-de-sacs to still allow a large enough place for the snow plows to put the snow.   

Mr. Davies asked if there is a larger radius for a cul-de-sac that would work to allow more driveways.  Mr. Brown said he would have to look at that.  He said that he has looked at Concord and they seem to be using the “hammerhead” or “T” version of the cul-de-sac.  There was a general discussion about some of the cul-de-sacs around town and how they work.  Mr. Davies asked if Mr. Brown would be open to having the hammerhead design being a permanent turnaround.  Mr. Brown said yes.  Mr. French asked Mr. Brown to let the Board know what size a turnaround needs to be in order to be workable for him.  He said that a combination could then be offered to a developer that it could either be the size required by Mr. Brown or it has to be a hammerhead at the end.  He asked Mr. Brown if snow could just be plowed into the middle.  Mr. Brown said that currently the cul-de-sacs are not big enough for that.   

Mr. Hartman asked if there were only one lot allowed on a turnaround would it be all right.  Mr. Brown said yes, but added that what the developers have been trying to do is get all their required road frontage off the turnaround and that is what creates the problem.  Mr. Hartman asked where the lot frontage is on the hammerhead.  Mr. Brown said that usually the hammerhead is taken into a lot and then the lot is entered on one side or the other.  He indicated on the drawing how the lots might be drawn.  There was a discussion about the Wagner subdivision that was recently approved.  Mr. Brown said that that teardrop design was large enough to make it workable.  He said it is nothing but a circle road.  He referred to another area that actually made it a big circle which was one way with trees in the middle.  He said that was no problem for the snow plows.   

Ms. Annis asked why are there so many options suggested.  Mr. Brown replied that the land options in Warner are so many that he wanted to give many options so everyone has something that they can work with.  Mr. Davies commented that all three designs are almost identical, but they are just twisted differently.  Mr. Brown agreed.  Ms. Annis said that Mr. Brown would like the various drawings marked or put in writing in our Subdivision Regulations that no driveway shall be closer to a cul-de-sac than 50 feet.  Mr. Mical added that unless the cul-de-sac exceeds a certain diameter that Mr. Brown will communicate, it must be the 50 feet from the cul-de-sac.  Ms. Annis asked if it would help if it were required to have a single lane and not two lanes around the cul-de-sacs.  Mr. Brown said it’s better to put a 12-foot lane with a one-foot shoulder on either side, instead of having 30 feet for two full lanes.  Mr. Mical said that if there are to be driveways off the turnaround and it is to be part of the frontage for the lots, then the turnaround has to be one way and larger in radius.  Mr. French added that other than that, a hammerhead must be used.  That was agreed to by several members.  

Mr. Davies asked Chief Brown if there was any problem with the hammerhead for the fire trucks.  Chief Brown said no.  Mr. Brown said that it is a little more difficult for someone delivering something with a tractor trailer, but they can do it.   

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Brown to prepare something and have it to the Board in two weeks.  Mr. Brown said he would try.  Mr. Davies said that if you are a developer and use a hammerhead design, you gain about a half acre and wondered what the advantage to the other designs.  Mr. French said they get more frontage off the other designs.  Mr. Brown said that they actually gain lots by doing it the other way using the road frontage for lot lines.   

Mr. Brown said he wanted to add geotextiles to the road requirements and the 12-inch gravel layer to the diagram for the road cross-section.  Mr. Davies said that the right gradation of the gravel needs to be identified.  Mr. Mical said that they can re-work it.  Ms. Annis thanked Mr. Brown.  

There was no further business.  Mr. Hartman MOVED to adjourn.  Mr. French seconded.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.  The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.