|
Minutes of Meeting and Work Session Monday, February 18, 2008
7:00 PM Warner Town Hall, Lower Level Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, Wayne Eigabroadt, George Pellettieri Members
Absent:
Drew Serell, Ed Mical Members Late:
None Alternates Present:
Stacey Cooper, Harold French Alternates Late:
None Alternates Absent:
Dan Watts Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at 7:00 PM Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
She asked Ms. Cooper to substitute for Mr. Serell and Mr. French
to substitute for Mr. Mical. 1. MINOR SUBDIVISION Property Owners:
Roshan L. Puri & Anuradha Saini, P. O. Box 364, Bradford, NH
03221 Agent: N/A Property Location:
3235 State Route 114, Warner, NH Map/lot: 04-005, R-3 zoning Description: Subdivision to 2
single family house lots to be between 5.79 and 5.39 acres. Ms. Annis recognized Mr. David Eckman who
was representing the family. She
explained that he had appeared first in November and found that the lot
to be subdivided was part of a minor subdivision less than 5 years ago.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that it would have to be a major
subdivision if it were re-subdivided in less than 5 years.
Research indicated that the 5 years would be up in February, so
the application was postponed to the February 18th meeting.
She asked Mr. Eckman to describe the plan.
Mr. Eckman explained that it is a two-lot subdivision.
Currently, there is one lot, with two families sharing a home and
they want to build a second home on the lot and subdivide it for that
purpose, resulting in a 5.79 acre lot and a 5.39 acre lot. He said the steep slopes and wetlands have been deducted and
the calculations are on the lower right corner of the plan.
The family purchased this as one lot from another person’s
subdivision and the Mylar was recorded for that on February 5, 2003.
He provided new plans showing the DOT number update for the
addendum to the driveway permit, allowing two homes to be served by one
driveway. There is no new
driveway being proposed, just a shared one.
Mr. French asked if they were deeding the right of way for the
driveway. Mr. Eckman said
there is an easement on the plan for that.
Ms. Annis asked if there were any other
questions. Mr. Violette
asked if the deed was with the original filing.
Ms. Annis said it was. Mr.
French asked what the black squares on the plan are.
Mr. Eckman explained that those are bounds which are set.
Mr. French asked about the squares that go right up the middle of
the two lots in a straight line. Mr. Eckman said those would be swales
boundary that is between [unintelligible].
He said it’s based on slope that changes.
The legend is up on the top.
Mr. French said they look like the granite bounds.
Mr. Eckman said the granite bounds squares are a little bigger.
There are three different swales types.
Mr. Violette said that by subdividing, the lot will have to come
out of current use, too. Mr.
Eckman asked if that happens when it’s sold.
Ms. Annis said that when it’s transferred and it’s no longer
ten contiguous acres, then that will happen.
She asked if the permission from DOT for the driveway permit
change is on the new map. Mr.
Eckman replied yes. She
asked for the latest maps for the Board’s review. Mr. Eckman handed them to the members. He said that note 10 has the revision and read it:
“A driveway easement over proposed lot 1 shall exist for the
benefit of proposed lot 2. NHDOT
Driveway Permit No. 6745 with first addendum dated February 12, 2008, to
provide for shared use.” Mr. Duhamel asked where the town line is
on the map. Mr. Eckman said
it’s in the back part of the property on the lower left.
Mr. Duhamel asked about the address for the abutter in Bradford. Mr. Eckman said he believed the town line was just below it.
Mr. Eigabroadt asked about the frontage of the lots.
Mr. Eckman said it’s in pieces.
It’s exactly 250 feet which was determined with the first
subdivision. He said he
would have left more than that for frontage. It is 250 per lot.
Ms. Annis asked the members to review the
subdivision checklist. Ms.
Annis handed the invoice to Mr. Eckman and said the Mylar would not be
recorded until the balance owed was paid.
Mr. Duhamel asked if the water across the street is swimmable.
Mr. Violette said it is Day Pond and it isn’t good for
swimming, but is good for fishing or canoeing.
Mr. French asked if abutters in another town are notified and
their opinions considered. Ms.
Annis said yes, as a courtesy, they are.
Mr. Eigabroadt asked if we had the National Heritage Inventory
Report. Ms. Cooper said she
had it. Ms. Annis asked if
all the pages were complete and the members reported that they were.
Mr. Eigabroadt MOVED to ACCEPT the plan
of Roshan L. Puri and Anu Saini’s minor subdivision as presented as
complete. A Board Member
seconded. The motion was
PASSED unanimously. Ms. Annis closed the board meeting and
opened the public hearing. She
asked if there were any questions or comments from others since there
were no abutters present. There
were none. She closed the public hearing and re-opened the Planning
Board Meeting. Mr. Violette MOVED to APPROVE the plan.
Mr. Duhamel seconded. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. 2. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Violette reported that the Traffic
Control Committee has had a call from one of the engineering firms
asking a question on the RFP. There
is nothing further to report from the Traffic Committee.
3. COMMUNICATIONS AND
OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Annis said she had found a letter
dated February 17, 2008, to the Board from Toth Engineering who were due
to come for the next meeting in March.
This was in regard to the Wagner subdivision.
She read: “The
above-referenced project is scheduled for a public hearing on March 4
and the 65-day deadline ends March 4.
You should have received copies of the New Hampshire DES Site
Specific and the New Hampshire DES Subdivision permit.
We had a meeting with New Hampshire DOT on February 12 to review
their final comments. We
will have the revisions back to DOT in the next two weeks.
The typical review time line for DOT has been three to four
weeks. Given the above,
applicant respectfully requests to continue the public hearing to April
7 and extend the 65-day deadline to May 5.” Ms. Annis asked the Board if there were
any discussion. Mr.
Eigabroadt said he thought that the situation was out of their control
and it causes it to be extended, then he would have no problem in
extending it. Mr. Duhamel
said he agreed with that. Mr.
Violette said that they just don’t know, as we know, with the state
agencies when they’re going to get back to them. Mr. Eigabroadt said we did make very clear to them a number
of times that we wanted them to have everything the next time they
appeared. Ms. Annis said
the only thing she wasn’t sure of was whether May 5th was
65 days more since she hadn’t counted on a calendar.
It was decided that the 65 days would be counted from the March 4
date. Mr. Eigabroadt said
65 days would bring it to May 8th.
So, it was agreed that May 5th would be within the 65
days. Mr. Duhamel MOVED
that the deadline for the Wagner subdivision be extended to May 5th. Mr. Eigabroadt seconded.
The MOTION was PASSED unanimously.
Ms. Annis thanked the Board members who
had responded to her e-mail asking about the necessity of appearance
before the Board for certain changes in business.
She said she had discovered that the business owner in question
had in fact come to the Town Hall to see if a site plan was necessary
and was told by someone in the Town Hall that it wasn’t necessary.
She said that she thought this kind of question should come
before the Board for a decision on whether or not a site plan would be
necessary. Mr. Eigabroadt
and Mr. Duhamel and Mr. Violette agreed.
There was discussion about how to handle the situation from now
on. Mr. Pellettieri said he
thought that it would be the best policy to get something out to the
people that whether the question is Planning or Zoning or some other, it
should be referred to the respective Boards.
Mr. Eigabroadt said it should be made clear that if there is a
question, it should be referred to the whole Board.
Mr. Pellettieri said it would be educational to the applicants as
well – if they don’t need a site plan now, they would learn what
would trigger the need for one. Mr.
Violette said that perhaps the Planning Board should issue something
that says this is how we view it to be given to the various town
administrative folks within the building, so it’s clear how to answer
those people. Hopefully,
this would trigger something in their mind and tell the people to check
with the Board. Mr.
Eigabroadt said it could also be brought up at a staff meeting.
Ms. Annis said that the Evans Group had originally checked with
the Town Hall people and were told they didn’t need to do anything to
add their cooler. Fortunately,
they did come in for a conceptual and indeed did not require a site
plan. Ms. Annis asked if there were any other
business. There was none.
Mr. Duhamel MOVED to ADJOURN the meeting.
Mr. Eigabroadt Seconded. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. and the work session began.
|