|
Town of Minutes of Work Session Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, George Pellettieri, Ed Mical Members
Absent:
None Members Late:
None Alternates Present:
Harold French, Dan Watts Alternates Late:
None Alternates Absent:
Stacey Cooper Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 1. COMMUNICATIONS AND
MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis said that her term on the
Planning Board ends this year and thanked the Board Members for their
support and work during the past year.
She said she will be placing her application with the Selectmen
for another term. Mr.
Violette thanked her for her many years of service.
He also said that Mr. Serell’s term is up and he has said that
he will not be re-applying after his 15 years of service.
Ms. Annis said she was involved in the Corridor Study from day
one, and would like to continue to pursue that, in spite of being
defeated at Town Meeting again. She
said she would like to see through the decision on the direction that
we’ll be taking on that, including the public hearings.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Violette to report on
the Master Plan Committee progress.
Mr. Violette said that there was a meeting and they talked about
the survey and some of the things they suggested were incorporated in
the latest draft. He said he
has some other things that need to be corrected and added to the survey.
He said that they had discussed expanding the committee.
Mr. Mical asked who is currently on the committee.
Mr. Violette said Mr. Pellettieri, Mr. Duhamel, Mr. French and
himself. He said they’re
looking to include someone from the Conservation Commission, probably
Jim McLaughlin; also,
someone from the Zoning Board of Adjustment; and, a couple of Warner
citizens at large. Ms. Wason
asked Mr. Violette to let her know if the people from Mr. Mical said the Town is in the process
of updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is a requirement of FEMA
every five years. He said
that some of the maps from that might be available for the Master Plan.
He said that some of the documentation for the Hazard Mitigation
Plan specifically talks about the Master Plan and the CIP as part of the
process. Mr. Violette said
that they need to add the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the CIP to the
outline for the Master Plan. Ms.
Annis asked if these would actually be part of a chapter.
She said that she thought that the Charrette and the Corridor
Study would be part of the Master Plan, but not a whole chapter for
each. She said she thought
the Corridor Study would be within the Transportation chapter, and it
may be just a paragraph. She
said in the previous Master Plan, the Charrette was just a part of a
chapter. And, she continued
to say that she thought that energy is also just a part of the entire
picture. Mr. Violette said
that Hazard Mitigation was not included before, but because times have
changed, we need to decide where it will fit in the Master Plan.
He asked Ms. Wason if in recent years they have included Hazard
Mitigation in Master Plans. Ms.
Wason replied that it’s typically a standalone plan because it’s
prepared specifically to the FEMA guidelines.
She said it has a lot of the same information that is in the
Master Plan. She said that
legally all the Master Plan must have is the land use division.
Anything else is chosen by the towns.
She suggested having a summary and then a reference to the full
plan somewhere else. Mr.
Violette said he understood that. Ms.
Annis asked where it would fit. Mr.
Mical said it would fall in a number of places.
Ms. Wason said that some parts of it would be more confidential
than others because of the Homeland Security concerns.
2. MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION
WITH SHARON WASON, JON DING AND MS. TAYLOR FROM CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Wason explained the demographic
documents which were provided. She
provided maps showing where people commute to and where commuters to
Warner come from. She said
these maps would be part of the demographics chapter.
Mr. Pellettieri said it was helpful to have the graphics to show
the numbers and concepts. Ms.
Wason said these were based on the 2000 census.
The questions in the survey about where people work will help to
show if there’s been a major change in these patterns.
Ms. Annis said she had read the
Demographic Trends for Warner, Ms. Annis asked that Mr. Ding provide
copies of the maps so they can be posted at the Town Hall for people to
look at. Ms. Wason said they
would send two more copies of the 11 x 17 size.
She said they will correct the spelling in the document and
substitute the maps for the two graphs which they represent.
Mr. Violette said there are changes he
would still like to make to the survey.
Ms. Wason said she would like to get it down to five pages.
She said it would help to eliminate duplicative questions and any
questions that aren’t giving the information that we’re looking for.
Mr. Watts suggested that some of the answers could be spread
across, instead of down, which might create more room.
Mr. Violette said he had identified typos
and handed the first page with corrections to be made on that one to Ms.
Taylor. He also asked that
the pages be numbered. Mr. Violette started with Page 2, Section
2, Question 1. He asked
about the fourth one down, “live and let live attitude,” and
wondered what that means. Ms.
Taylor said she had pulled it out of the last Master Plan survey.
Mr. Violette suggested adding a line for Proximity to Business
and Cultural Areas. Ms.
Taylor said she thought that would fall under Location.
There was discussion about the question among the Board members.
Ms. Wason said this question is aimed at what about Warner most
appeals to you. It was
agreed that the list, without the “live and let live” part, covered
the necessary points. Mr. Violette said the Jim McLaughlin had
suggested that on Question 2, the phrase “considering what you pay in
taxes” did not accomplish anything and he said that he agreed.
Ms. Wason suggested, “How would you rate the following
services?” The Board
agreed to that wording. Mr.
Pellettieri asked about Emergency Medical Services being listed
separately from Fire Protection. He
noted it’s listed in Question 4 as an amenity.
Ms. Taylor said she thought it wasn’t paid for by taxes, so she
had separated the “amenities” from the services listed in Question
2. After discussion, it was
agreed to add Emergency Medical Services after Fire Protection in
Question 2 and remove it from the Question 4 list.
There was discussion about removing
Question 3 because schools are not directly part of the Town’s
obligation, but after further consideration, it was decided that so much
of taxes go to schools, the question would be left in.
Mr. French said it may be helpful to the school system, as well. Ms. Wason suggested removing
“presently” from Question 4 and that was agreed to by the Board.
Ms. Annis asked what is meant by “Trails.”
Ms. Taylor said she thought there were some ski trails in the
Mink Hills. There was
discussion about the trails in town and agreed that the trails are
generally privately maintained. Mr.
Pellettieri said that “Conservation Land Management” might be
confusing since there is a Conservation Commission that is doing things
with easements and purchases, but we also have the In regard to Questions 5 and 6, Mr. Mical
asked if we have any historic districts in town.
Mr. Violette said Mr. Violette asked why Question 9 is
being included. Ms. Wason
said it was on the other survey. There
was discussion about other facilities that have meeting and gathering
rooms and the history of other community center considerations.
It was agreed to remove Question 9.
Mr. French said he thought Question 8
should ask for a ranking of the items in the list.
Mr. Violette said that one item needs to be corrected:
“Property taxes will get too high” – making to into
too. He also suggested
adding an item saying “our children will not be able to live here”
or “our parents will not be able to live here” – whether it’s
affordability or job availability. It
was agreed that a ranking should be requested.
Mr. Duhamel discussed his thinking about
Question 7 – he wondered how to come to a happy compromise on this
issue. Mr. Pellettieri said
that if there was strong support from the survey for this, then we would
hold hearings and flesh out exactly what the people would want.
There was a lengthy discussion on what the meaning of the
question is and it was agreed that it is clear enough, since there are
already regulations for cell towers and those types of structures.
Mr. Violette continued, noting that
Question 10 will be removed. He
suggested striking the word “other” in Question 11 and leave
Question 12. Mr. Duhamel
said that the survey itself may plant some ideas into people’s minds
that will come out in the public hearings.
Mr. Watts suggested that Question 12 be moved to the end of the
survey. It was agreed to
strike “other” in Question 11 and move Question 12 to near the end
of the survey. Mr. Violette said that the section title
of the Section 3 should read “Business, Economic Growth and
Development in Warner,” with no “s” on Economic.
He said for Question 1, he would change “working village” to
“central village.” There
was further discussion and it was agreed to substitute “central” for
traditional and leave “working village.”
Mr. French wondered if Question 2 is
worded correctly for what we need. He
said he would strike out rural character and add “needs.”
There was further discussion and it was agreed that “rural
character” is important and there has been controversy about how
commercial growth will impact the rural character of the Town.
Ms. Wason said she would put Questions 1, 3 and 7, which deal
with the downtown village area, together and then move into the more
generic questions about is the right thing being built and is the right
thing being built in the right place?
It was agreed to leave Question 2 as it is, and the questions
will be renumbered to put 1, 3 and 7 together.
Mr. Violette continued with Question 4.
There was no discussion on this question. Ms. Wason asked how Questions 6 and 10
are different. Mr.
Pellettieri said he would add “existing” to Question 10.
Mr. Violette read Question 7.
Ms. Annis asked what was meant by “local businesses.”
Ms. Taylor said she was thinking of businesses located in the
central village. Ms. Wason
asked if she meant locally owned. Mr.
Violette said he thought using “encouraging” rather than
“ensuring” would make more sense.
Mr. French asked what types of tax benefits are we talking about.
There was some discussion, and it was agreed to use
“encouraging” rather than “ensuring.”
On Question 8, Mr. Violette said that the
word “towns” should be “town’s.”
Ms. Annis asked about the term “impact” in Question 8.
She said that people don’t know what “impact fees” are.
She said that we have exaction fees.
Mr. Pellettieri suggested removing the word “impact” and that
was agreed to by the Board members.
In regard to Question 9, Mr. Watts said
that with the 20,000 square footage limitation, and the height limit of
35 feet, it is nearly impossible for a professional office building to
be built. He said that these
limitations make it difficult for a business that requires a lot of
employees to establish themselves in Warner.
There was a lengthy discussion on this issue.
Mr. Watts suggested that an option be added of keeping the box
size, but allow a second floor. Mr.
Pellettieri suggested changing “maximum size” to “maximum
footprint.” That was
agreed to. Ms. Wason said
that they will try to come up with wording to add as another option on
Question 9. Ms. Wason said she understood that
“rezone to” was to be removed from Question 10.
Mr. Violette agreed. Ms. Annis said she would say
encouragement only in Question 11. There
was further discussion on this issue.
It was agreed to leave Question 11 as is. Ms. Wason asked about the definition of
small scale and large scale in regard to Question 12.
Mr. Pellettieri suggested changing the first two options to small
retail shops and large retail stores and adding examples to each.
There was discussion about what examples to use.
BookEnds and Wingdoodle were suggested as small retail shop
examples. The Large Retail
examples would be Market Basket and Warner Power.
Mr. Pellettieri asked if the intent was to ask if people want to
add businesses or structures. It
was agreed that it would be left as is and let people read it as they
please. Mr. Violette said that in Question 13,
the option should read “Safety of Employees and Customers.”
Mr. Duhamel asked if the options in Question 13 should be ranked.
There was discussion about attempting to rank 12 items and how
difficult it is to do that. It
was agreed that with the options offered, we will get 3 different
feelings of importance for each item and that will tell a lot.
Mr. Duhamel asked how the order of the options was determined.
Ms. Taylor said she had had the computer randomly list them.
Ms. Wason asked if environmental impact referred to wetlands.
She asked if it also included light and noise pollution.
The Board members agreed it did not and they wanted the noise and
light pollution options kept separate.
Mr. Violette asked Ms. Taylor to correct
the spelling of Town Boarders to Town Borders.
He said that there are already established zones and wondered why
this question would have to be asked.
Mr. Pellettieri said that he thought the previous Question 10
related to existing zones and this question refers to expanding the
zones. After some
discussion, Mr. Pellettieri suggested the wording, “If we were to add
an additional commercial zone, where would you like to see it?”
There was extensive discussion about how to treat Questions 10
and 14. Mr. Watts suggested
putting a comment box under Question 10 saying, if you checked yes in
Question 10, where would you like to see the expansion?
It was agreed to take out Question 14 and add the small comment
box after Question 10. Mr. Violette moved on to Question 15.
There was no discussion on this question. On Question 16, Mr. Violette asked that
the reference be corrected to Question 15, not 13 (or 14 in the
renumbered sequence). Moving on to Question 17, the Board
Members discussed it and it was agreed that this is already considered
in our regulations, so it will be removed.
Question 18 will also be removed for the same reason. After some discussion, it was agreed to
remove Questions 19, 20 and 21. The next section was Housing.
On Question 1, Mr. Pellettieri suggested putting a comment box
after the No option. It was
agreed to add the comment box as suggested.
Mr. Violette said in Question 2, the
word, “houseing” needs to be spelled correctly – “housing.”
There was discussion about this question and it was agreed that
the question is do the residents want these things – so, even though
it might not be currently allowed, it was agreed to leave the question
in. The question is
re-worded to: “Of the
following, which types of housing do you feel are needed in Warner?”
Also, it was agreed to add Eldercare Housing as an option and
delete “manufactured” from the single lots option and leave Mobile
Homes. Mr. Pellettieri asked
whether there was any consideration of “conservation development” as
opposed “cluster development.” Ms.
Wason said it’s just now starting to be considered.
It was agreed to leave the words “cluster development.”
It was agreed to change Question 3 to
read, “Do you feel there is a need for affordable housing in
Warner?” There was a discussion about Question 4
in regard to the Precinct and if it could handle additional development,
if it were wanted. Mr.
Violette said it was his understanding that they could.
Mr. Pellettieri asked if were talking about residential
development that connects to the waste water system.
After further discussion, Mr. Violette related that the
Precinct’s position is that they do not have the resources to expand
beyond where they are. It
was agreed that a quick note would be sent to the Commissioners about
this question before it is included. Mr. Pellettieri suggested rewording
Question 5 to remove “to see” and add “to occur” at the end.
That was agreed to by the Members.
In the Roads, Parking and Traffic
section, Question 1 was discussed and it was agreed to leave it as it
is. On Question 2, Mr. Watts suggested adding
“what type of road do you wish you lived on?”
There was discussion about paved versus unpaved roads.
It was agreed to add the question to Question 2. On Question 3, Mr. Violette said the
Intervales should be Intervale. Mr.
French said “Exit 9 area” should be added in parentheses.
Question 4 was agreed to be left as is.
On Question 5, Mr. Violette asked Ms.
Taylor what it meant. Ms.
Taylor explained that she was trying to get at questions that came from
the Charrette. Mr.
Pellettieri said he thought we were asking if economic development is
required to provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Ms. Taylor suggested added, “If yes, do you think that new
development should be required?” That
was agreed to. Mr. Violette said on Question 6,
“safety boulevards” are not under the control of the Town.
It is a State route and they control the road.
Mr. Pellettieri suggested adding in parentheses, “raised
landscaped medians,” because people may not know what “safety
boulevards” are. It was
agreed to put “a landscaped median” in parentheses after “safety
boulevards.” It was
further agreed to have the rest of the question read “separating east
and west bound travel, to slow traffic in the Intervale Exit 9 area?” Mr. Violette went on to Question 7 and
said that, again, Route 103 is a State highway and the Town has little
control over it. There was
some discussion about whether this is applicable to Mr. Violette read Question 8 and it was
noted that Intervales should be singular and Exit 9 should be
capitalized. There was
discussion about wanting or needing the paths, as well as wondering the
potential cost. On Question 9, Ms. Annis suggested adding
It was agreed to leave Question 10 as it
is. In Question 11, the word
“interested” needs to be corrected.
It was agreed to remove “seeing some type of” from the
question. It was agreed to
leave Question 12 as it is. Mr. Violette moved on the Environmental
Concerns section. Mr.
Pellettieri noted that it should be open space, not open spaces in
Question 1. Otherwise, the
question was left the same. Mr.
Violette said in Question 2, the “t” in town should be capitalized
and “it’s” should be “its.”
Mr. Pellettieri suggested adding “continue to” before the
word “spend.” That was
agreed to. And, open spaces
is changed to open space. There
was further discussion about the question, with no other changes.
Next was a discussion of Question 3.
Mr. Pellettieri noted spaces should be changed to space.
Ms. Wason said that we should put in “on an annual basis”
after the word “spend.” Mr.
Violette asked about the gaps in the amounts of money.
Ms. Taylor said she was trying to “chunk it” to not be so
precise in the amounts. It
was agreed to leave the gaps in the question as is.
Mr. Pellettieri suggested wording the question as follows:
“Some towns spend anywhere from a few thousand to a million
dollars to protect natural resources and open spaces.
How much money would you like to see Warner spend on an annual
basis to protect these resources?”
That wording was agreed to by the Board members. Mr. French asked if Question 4 referred
to “your money” or “the town’s money.”
Mr. Violette said it was “your money.”
There was a discussion about whether this meant private
foundations, individuals, or the Town.
Ms. Annis said it would be interesting to have them say no to
this question and then select $60,000 to $100,000 in the previous
question. The wording was
changed to add “your” between “spend” and “money” and delete
the “s” in spaces. Mr. Violette read Question 5.
There was no discussion. On
Question 6, the reference is corrected to question 5.
There was no further discussion. On Question 7, the last sentence is
changed to read increased or kept the same, since it is at the minimum
right now allowed by the State. Therefore,
decrease would be removed from the options.
There was a discussion about what the regulations are.
Ms. Taylor said she may have mis-read the Zoning Ordinance, so
the numbers may be in error. She
said she will re-look at the question.
Question 8 had no questions or
discussion. On Question 9,
Mr. Watts suggested changing the options to allow limited, unlimited or
none. A discussion followed
on whether it really applies to Warner’s public spaces.
Trails are generally private.
It was agreed to remove Question 9. Mr. Violette asked if there were any
questions on Question 10. There
was a discussion about what is the minimum required now.
Ms. Wason discussed the minimum building requirements.
She suggested that since Mr. Mical is in the process of updating
the Hazard Mitigation Plan perhaps that is the place to be asking this
question, rather than the Master Plan.
Ms. Annis said she thought most people would say “unsure”
since they don’t know what the minimum standards are.
Ms. Wason suggested changing the question to have wording such
as, “Should Warner join the 20 or so towns in New Hampshire that
prohibit new construction in flood zones, which far exceeds the minimum
requirements?” It was
agreed to use that kind of wording for Question 10.
There was some discussion on Question 11.
Mr. Pellettieri asked Ms. Taylor to come up with some wording for
Questions 10 and 11 to ask, “Are you concerned about the effects of
flooding? And, if so, do you
want us to be looking at ways to protect or control it?”
This would include good forest management practices, storm water
management, site plans and building limitations.
This was agreed to by the Board Members. Mr. Violette asked Ms. Taylor where
Question 12 came from. Ms.
Taylor said she thought it had come from the previous survey.
There was a discussion about the fact that nearly all of our
outlying land is in OC-1 already. Since
the next question gets more information, it was agreed to remove
Question 12 and leave Question 13 in.
If there is a strong reaction to Question 13, there could be
further discussion at the public meetings to get more details on
people’s thoughts on this issue. Mr.
French asked what is included in the 18%.
Ms. Taylor said it was an old number and she would try to find a
more current number. It was agreed to remove Questions 14, 15
and 16 after some discussion that they are already being done or the
issue was covered in an earlier question.
Ms. Wason said that at the end of this section will be the
question, “Please share any other comments or concerns you have about
land use or long range planning in Warner.” Mr. Violette noted on the last page, the
average annual household income brackets need to be corrected.
The bracket for $100,000 to $149,000 should be to $149,999.
He asked if on Question 8, a box for “other” could be added
and he suggested adding Hopkinton/Contoocook, as well.
Ms. Wason suggested asking, “In which towns do people in your
household work?” and then have comment boxes to fill in.
That approach was agreed to.
Ms. Lightfoot said on Question 1, there is an overlap of the
years 16-20 and 19-25. It should be 21-25, not 19-25.
Ms. Wason said the Housing and
Conservation Planning Program has a deadline of April 11th
and the next meeting is the 14th, in regard to the grant
application. She summarized
what was needed to complete the grant application for the proposed
analyst position. Mr.
Violette volunteered to assist Ms. Wason in completing the application.
Ms. Annis said the next Selectmen’s Meeting is April 1st.
Ms. Wason said we would plan on that meeting for the application.
Ms. Annis said if she is still on the Board, she has many questions
about the application. Mr. Pellettieri asked about the Annual
Planning and Zoning Conference applications.
Ms. Lightfoot asked the members to give her the applications and
then the bookkeeper will send one check for everyone.
He also had a publication called “Special Places” and
referred it to the Board Members who had not seen it.
The session ended at
|