|
Town of Work Session Minutes Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, Rick Davies, David Hartman,
Hank Duhamel, and Ed Mical. Members
Excused: None Members
Absent: None Members
Arriving Late: Dan Watts Alternates
Present: Peter
Wyman, J.D. Colcord Alternates
Arriving Late: Aedan Sherman Alternates
Absent: None OPEN
MEETING AT The Roll call was taken at 7:00 PM Barbara Annis
opened the meeting. 1.
CONTINUED A.
HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND The Board reviewed the Hammerhead illustration.
After careful review and a lengthy discussion regarding dotted reference
lines the Board agreed to make some minor changes to clarify the
illustration. It was decided to remove the dash/dot line extending from
the radius to the outer part of the hammerhead illustration. The radius
was corrected and the width of the hammerhead was changed to 24’ to
add up to a total of 60’ to have ample room for emergency vehicles,
plowing and any large trucks. Peter Wyman suggested adding “All
dimensions typical” to the illustrations. Dan Watts will make the changes and forward the new
illustration unto the Board for review.
B. SIDEWALK
ILLUSTRATION The Board reviewed the new Sidewalk sketch provided by Allan Brown to Dan Watts. The new illustration included the definition for pavers:
Pavers shall be uni-Décor
concrete paver, key lock style or equivalent. After reviewing the illustration the Board agreed
to make a few changes to the illustration to match the verbiage in the
subdivision regulations sidewalk requirements. Sidewalks
shall be constructed with similar preparation to street construction.
Subbase gravel shall be 12” of bankrun (NHDOT 304.2). Base gravel
shall be a minimum of 4” of crushed …….. The Board reviewed the illustration of All Roads. David Hartman brought it to the Board’s attention that the Surface Treatment reference needed to be relocated on the illustration to line up with the correct measurements. The Board agreed. Dan Watts will make the changes to the Typical
Section of Improvement All Roads illustration and forward it onto the
Board for further review. D. TYPICAL
SECTION OF IMPROVEMENT ARTERIAL (CLASS A) STREET The Board reviewed the illustration of With no further discussion on Road and Street
illustrations Barbara Annis suggested moving Communications and
Miscellaneous on the agenda up in the meeting to get input from Board
members who had attended the OEP conference 2.
COMMUNICATIONS Barbara Annis asked Rick Davies to give a brief
synopsis of what new things he had learned at the OEP conference. Rick
Davies stated he attended Cottage Developments which gave some ideas
that could be incorporated into Workforce Housing projects such as
placing small apartments that would architecturally fit in with the
community. Innovative Zoning to Create a Sense of Place that
had a book with illustrations showing requirements in certain areas in
regards to architectural standards that were not to the extreme. Local Food Farming, Rick Davies stated that there
are RSAs in place regarding state regulations for farmers and standards
for farm stands. Rick Davies said he would look into the regulations
further and report back to the Board with his findings. David Hartman
stated he felt the Town of Barbara Annis then asked Aedan Sherman to share
what he had learned from the conference. Aedan stated he had gathered a
lot of basic information in regards to how the Planning Board works. One
of the things he found most useful was “Maximize the value, minimize
the harm” Don’t try to deny people what they are looking to do but
try to make it work for the Town also. The Board and the applicant may
not totally agree on an issue but should work to compromise. The Board
should listen to the applicant’s request and work towards a compromise
that will work for both parties if possible. Aedan Sherman also stated that he learned it is
okay for a couple of Board members to work on a project together fact
finding/gathering information to present to the entire Board. However,
three or more members working together would be considered a
subcommittee. Barbara Annis stated she found the legal session to
be very interesting. Barbara Annis read the following passage from the
information she received at the conference: Planning
Board Waivers. RSA 674:36,
II(n) & RSA 674:44
Waivers may be granted if
(old law, roughly) Hardship is shown and granting would not be
contrary
to the
spirit and intent of the regulation or
(add new law) Specific circumstances relative to the subdivision,
or
conditions of
the land in such subdivision, indicates that the waiver will
properly carry out the spirit of and intent of the regulations. More-Than-4-Year
Exemption RSA 674:39 Ch
93, Laws of 2009-SB 93
For any subdivision or site plan approved by a planning board
between
Three years (not 12 months) in which to undertake active
and substantial
development or construction
For any subdivision or site plan approved by a planning board
between
Six years (not four) in which to achieve substantial
completion (after
which vesting is permanent) Barbara Annis stated the group was given the chance
to write down a question on a recipe card to be read aloud and
discussed. She asked about “change of use” as stated in the Warner
Site Plan Regulations in regards to conceptual consultations, since
conceptual consultations are non-binding on either party. The attorney
suggested looking into other towns for ideas. Barbara Annis stated she
and the Planning Board secretary have been researching different Towns
to see what procedures they have in place. Barbara Annis stated that
Hillsborough offers a Waiver application from a Full Site Plan Review. Paul Violette said he had seen The Board agreed to look further into different
options regarding waiver requests from a Full Site Plan Review for a
permitted “Change of Use”. 3.
DISCUSSION ON UPCOMING PROJECTS A.
DAVISVILLE Rick Davies and Paul
Violette worked together gathering some facts for the possible expansion
of C-1 district into Davisville. Rick Davies stated that the assessing
office suggested if changes are made to District boundaries they should
be at edges of existing property lines. It was suggested to
take the gravel pit area on the north side of Davisville along with the
existing properties in the C-1 district back to the OC-1 District,
changing them to C-1 District. The
following verbiage was proposed: Possible
Amendment #1 Are you in
favor of the adoption of amendment #1 as proposed by the Warner Planning
Board to revise the Zoning Ordinance Article II Districts’ Zoning
District delineation map as follows:
extend a portion of the Davisville area Commercial C-1 District
into the existing Open Conservation District OC-1 north to the Warner
River, west to the Route #89 right-of-way, and east to the Warner River.
The proposed revised map is posted in the Town Hall and was presented at
a public hearing. REASONING Warner
currently has a relatively low 2.3 percent of its land currently zoned
Commercial C-1. This Amendment will change approximately XX acres from
OC-1 to C-1to provide more opportunity for future Commercial
development. The land referred to in this Amendment is for the
most part currently a gravel pit or permitted for a gravel pit between
the existing C-1 District and the A copy of
the proposed map is attached. A brief discussion
was held regarding shore land protection boundaries, tax rate impact on
residents within the area, and the different types of permitted Uses in
C-1 District that would be feasible in the area. Barbara Annis asked
the Board if they would like more information on the proposed change
before having a Public Hearing in December. The Board said they would
like to gather more information regarding tax impact, frontages, and if
it would be better to create a C-2 District instead of expanding the C-1
District. J.D. Colcord thought
it would be a good idea to consider creating a C-2 District with
different frontages and possible industrial uses. A brief discussion was
held regarding warehouses, water supply and size of buildings or
multiple buildings located on one large lot. The Board agreed a small
office park or industrial park might fit in well in the area. The Board agreed to
place the proposed change to the Davisville area for further discussions
on the calendar for October 2010. B. Barbara Annis and David Hartman had gathered
information on the Site Plan Review Regulations and the Site Plan
Checklist. They brought a list of a few discrepancies to the Board. The
following changes were suggested: Barbara Annis stated the checklist and the
information included on page 3 of the Site Plan Review Regulations and
Design Standards did not agree. The checklist was alphabetized and the
Regulations were numerical. A suggestion was made to make them both
alphabetized. The proposed changes are: · When submitting an application also submit the Check List at the same time. · Change 3 prints to 5 prints (so each table will have their own plan) and added 11 copies of plan 11 x 17 so they can be mailed out to each board member prior to the meeting and we can educate ourselves on the site. · Combine solid waste disposal facilities with water supply and sewage disposal facilities. ·
Add the
requirement of a deed to be included (we require this for subdivisions). ·
Site Plan
Review Regulations and Checklist numbering and alphabetizing will be the
same. ·
Any other exhibits or data that the Planning Board may
require in order to adequately evaluate the proposed development for
Site Review including but not
limited to any state, federal or local permits (driveways, drainage,
etc). A very brief discussion was held regarding whether
the Site Plan Checklist was necessary since the checklist was
essentially the same as the information in the Site Plan Regulations.
The secretary suggested keeping the checklist to be attached to the
application. The Board agreed to keep the checklist with the
application. The Board agreed to work on finalizing the proposed
changes to the Site Plan Regulations and Subdivision Regulations so both
can be heard at a single Public Hearing. The Board discussed the location of parking lots
and the location of buildings on the property. The Board agreed the following verbiage located in Section XI-B-4 could be removed
Building shall be located
toward the front of the lot to diminish the impact of
large expanses of pavement. The Board agreed to remove the following captions from the illustrations located in Section IX-B-1: Not desirable-the full length of parking is located along the street in front of the building, Better- length of parking lot along the street front is limited, and Preferred- parking lot is located behind buildings. Dan Watts suggested changing the title of Section
IX-B which reads B.
Parking Lot Design Requirements
To read as follows: B. Suggested
Concepts. The Board agreed to the new verbiage. The Board briefly talked about providing incentives
for green and energy efficient construction. Permeable parking lots were
discussed, windmills, solar panels, size of buildings as an incentive
were discussed and different types of “green” ways for drainage.
Paul Violette suggested holding off until information from the Energy
Committee is received since this type of project would take more fact
finding. The Board agreed to wait until more information is obtained
before pursuing this project. D. ZONING
REGULATIONS/USE TABLE Dan Watts questioned the definition of a Major
Subdivision and Minor Subdivision. "Major
Subdivision" means any subdivision, which
creates four (4) or more lots or a minor subdivision for which a request
for further subdivision is received within a 5-year period of the date
of approval of minor subdivision [Amended March 2007] "Minor
Subdivision" means any subdivision which
creates three (3) or fewer lots or condominium
units which does not require the construction of any new street or the
extension of municipal facilities, and which is not in conflict with any
duly accepted or approved street, plan or map. [Approved
March] Dan Watts feels that if a subdivision stays at 3 or
fewer even if the 3rd lot is subdivided at a later date
within the five year period it should still be considered a Minor
Subdivision. Paul Violette agreed. Dan Watts said he will write up a
suggested verbiage. Paul Violette and Rick Davies agreed to do some
more fact finding on possible C-1 or C-2 District. Rick Davies stated if
he had additional time he would read the agricultural information he
received at the OEP conference and compare it to Warner’s regulations. 4.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Ed Mical stated he met with the Selectman and a
representative from the Board of Selectman was chosen for the CIP
committee. Ed Mical said he will be meeting with the Budget Committee at
their next scheduled meeting. He hopes to get started working on the CIP
in June. 5
MISCELLANEOUS David Hartman updated the Planning Board of the
progress of the legal affairs of the Town. The Towns of Webster and
Warner had a preliminary Superior Court hearing on Rick Davies stated he noticed a typographical error in the Amended Zoning Ordinance. The secretary will add the word “if” and a colon to the paragraph located on page 6 Article IV Section I to read: The Board may authorize a "Special Exception "
to the height regulations in any district if: Rick Davies also stated the Workforce Housing
overlay map is hard to read. The secretary explained a new map was sent
from 6.
ADJOURN Paul Violette made a MOTION
to ADJOURN, the motion
was seconded and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at
|