WARNER PLANNING BOARD

WORK SESSION MEETING

OCTOBER 15,2007 AT 7:00 PM

Members present:  Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Ed Mical, Hank Duhamel, Drew Serrell and George Pellettieri

Members absent:  Wayne Eigabroadt

Alternates present:  Stacey Cooper and Dan Watts  

Meeting with Sharon Wason, Director of CNHRPC to discuss updating Warner’ Master Plan.  The last time the plan was updated was in 1999 and it is recommended, by state statue, to be updated approximately every 5 years.

            Some of the current Master Plan is outdated due to the activities that the board has undertaken over the last few years (Corridor Study). The population estimated in 1999 has been exceeded.

            The approach that CNHRPC takes is that they do most of the writing and the Planning Board is the executive board making decisions and policies.  We are finding that board members through out the area are individuals that have full time jobs and are unable to devote the time necessary to complete a Master Plan within a relatively short time.  Information gathering and writing can go on for years.

            Our present Master Plan does not include a vision section, which the law currently requires.  Another section that should be included in a Community Service section.

            Recommends that the first step be a survey.  This would then be followed by a vision session with input from the public. 

            CNHRPC uses Survey Monkey to do their surveys.  They have found this program very adaptable and easy to use.  The board would determine what questions would be asked.  They could be yes and no, multiple choice or an occasional area for a comment.  

Questions from the board: 

            How can there be protection that an individual does not respond over their computer more than once?  Can have a built in protection or code. 

            What about individuals that do not use computers?  Can also have paper surveys. 

            What guarantee that individuals responding do not live in Warner?  There is none but could be individuals that have lived here and have interests here. 

            The last time the survey was done we reference the check list-could this be done again?  Yes but you might not be involving the young people of town. 

            What about grant money?  Basically, at this time the only money that would be available is from DOT on the transportation portion and from OSP on open space and housing.  Refer to the July 4 & 5 memo that was sent to you.

            Is it possible that the Sibley Wilkins Trust funds could be used for something like this?

Unknown at this time.

            Did you look at our current Master Plan and if so what sections would have to be addressed?  I read your plan all the way thru.  The history portion could be repeated with an updating of the historical district.  The Conservation Commission is currently undertaking a natural resource inventory and this could be utilized.  Emergency Management has an updated Hazardous Mitigation Plan in place and this information could also be utilized.  You have also conducted a Charatte and a Corridor Study so this information would also be included.

            What would be the time frame for this?  With the current staff at CNHRPC it probably could be done in a relatively short time.  Guestimating about a year. 

            How do we sell this to the town making sure that the first phase ($7000.00+_) is just that and more money will be necessary to complete the Master Plan?  Without a Master Plan in place the town cannot assess impact fees.

            Is it possible to contract for each phase and discuss who would be doing what in that phase?  Yes  

Barbara asked if the group as a whole wished to discuss the proposal from CNHRPC or should we break into subcommittees and allow that committee to discuss what was being proposed and bring it before the full board at our next regularly scheduled meting.  It was agreed that the subcommittee should discuss the proposal and bring it before the board at the November meeting.  

Prior to dispersing into the committees Barbara brought up that Jeff Evans had submitted a new subdivision proposal for Peter Lovejoy.  This is for a minor subdivision.  She contacted Don Gartrell to confirm that because this was a new proposal that all of the abutters would have to be re-notified and an ad placed in the paper.  She questioned if the board would waiver the cost of a new application where the board had not accepted the first one plus the application did say conceptual (even though fees were submitted and the list of abutters).  It was agreed that Mr. Evans should submit a request for a waiver on this at the time of the hearing.  

Individuals then went into their various committees (fresh water, town building code versus state building code and Master Plan.  The committee on signage could not meet, as only one individual was present.