|
Town of Work Session Meeting Minutes Members
Present:
Barbara Annis, Hank Duhamel, and Ed Mical. Members
Late:
Drew Serell Members Absent:
Paul Violette, George Pellettieri, Wayne Eigabroadt Alternates Present:
Stacey Cooper, Dan Watts Alternates Absent:
None Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at Roll Call Rules of Procedure Ms. Annis opened the work session meeting and started discussion of the
draft of the revised Rules of Procedure.
It was agreed to add a Table of Contents and the Purpose and
Intent from a previous draft of the document. Ms.
Annis said that it was necessary per the current procedures to discuss
the new procedures for at least two consecutive meetings.
Ms. Lightfoot explained that the oldest one (the one which was a
previous draft) was not used in preparation of the current draft.
The draft that she prepared was based on an August 2005 document
and then showed changes from that one to the one prepared by Drew Serell
which was presented at the last meeting, and labeled the current one as
November 2007. A discussion followed with the Members going through the November 2007
draft revision point by point, making changes and additions.
There was discussion about whether or not to refer only to a
specific RSA or to specify in the procedures things that were in the
RSAs. It was decided to go
section by section and to sometimes keep just the RSA reference since
those may change, and it would prevent the Board from having to revise
the Procedures every time the statute changed.
In other instances, it was agreed to specify the point, in
addition to referring to the relevant RSA.
Mr. Mical said that he thought there was nothing in the
procedures about appointment of subcommittee members.
Mr. Duhamel said that there is a reference under Chairperson,
saying that the Chairperson shall appoint such subcommittees as directed
by the Board. Mr. Serell
asked if it was necessary to say anything more.
It was agreed to add the reference back in under duties of the
Chairperson. Mr. Mical
wondered if it was necessary to say something about voting for the
subcommittees, but it was decided not to reference any voting
requirements for appointing subcommittees. Sharon Wason, Ms. Annis noted that Sharon Wason had arrived and interrupted the
discussion of the Rules of Procedure so Ms. Wason could meet with the
Board about the Master Plan proposal. Ms. Annis referenced the letter of Ms. Annis said Phase I is broken down into several parts:
data collection, audit and project start; the survey; the
visioning sessions; and community vision chapter.
She asked if anyone on the Board thought things should be moved
among the different phases of the proposal.
She asked about how the survey should be done – what protection
would we have if it were done on line?
Ms. Wason said she’d divided it into three phases because that was what
Ms. Annis thought would be acceptable to the Budget Committee.
She said that the question is whether to start with just the data
collection, or do we do the existing land use section and the
transportation section, as building blocks very early?
Then, we would go into the survey and vision.
Ms. Wason thought that it would be most valuable to repeat what
makes sense from the 1999 Master Plan because then you get a sense of
how people’s attitudes in town have changed over time.
And, then we would include the new issues that make sense and
drop a few that are no longer topical.
The Planning Board can be very helpful by telling us which
questions still make sense, which questions can just disappear, and what
issues or topics you think the town wants to explore.
She thought there would be no problem in sending the survey to
every household and numbering them in some way so that only two or three
of one number would be accepted, assuming that each household member
would be allowed to make a copy for themselves.
Then, you would use the computer to collate and analyze it.
Ms. Wason said she thought the role of the Planning Board was to
help design the survey, to help publicize the survey and consideration
of issues around what kind of information is going to come of it and how
to use it. The question is
whether we should do the data collection, land use and natural features
and transportation first and then go into the visioning where we see
where we are now, how do we go into the future?
Or, do we use the visioning and survey to scope the land use,
transportation and natural resources?
Mr. Mical said to come up with the vision session; you need some of the
other information, the transportation and land use.
And that would go into your vision.
If you’re trying to create a vision without some of that other
information, because between 1999 and what we have now, we know that
there have been changes. There’s
exit 9; you’ve got more conservation land. Ms. Wason said the data collection would look at that all in detail –
how many building permits a year? How
many additional acres of conservation land?
It would not get into judgments about whether it was the right
land or the right place for the correct purposes.
The Natural Resources chapter would start to get into that.
Mr. Mical pointed out that the Conservation Commission right now is
involved in doing a natural resources study and inventory.
And, he didn’t know when that was supposed to be completed. Ms. Cooper said she would like to see something from Phase II and use the
information we have on natural resources and transportation from recent
studies to help guide the visioning chapter.
But, she cautioned against going too far ahead in developing too
many sections before we’ve done the visioning session because it’s
the framework that’s going to guide the other sections.
It would be a shame to go through the other sections, come to
conclusions, go back to visioning and realize that we’d gone in the
wrong direction and we were going to have to start from scratch.
So, she thought it was important to not get too far ahead before
we did the community visioning because it is a necessary part as a
factual portion of this. Ms. Annis said that the transportation part in the Master Plan is factual
– it doesn’t necessarily look into the future.
It mentions what is here and what is lacking.
Mr. Watts said if it tells you what’s lacking, then it has to
be somewhat visionary. Ms.
Annis responded that she meant “lacking” as in it’s been in the
plan for many years and it still hasn’t been done – for example, we
want a crossroad between Kearsarge Mountain Road and North Road and it
hasn’t happened. Ms.
Cooper said it was something important that might come out in visioning
that wouldn’t necessarily come out in a factual of where we are and
what we have. Ms. Wason said
the chapter should also include thinking about policies – you want the
crossroad maybe not because
you want to be able to get from point to point in five minutes, but
because of emergency access
and the safety – primarily those kinds of issues, rather than
convenience. Mr. Duhamel said that it would make sense to outline what information we
have that is current and that we could use so we’re not reinventing
the wheel. He wondered if
there were data sources or other agencies or other groups that are doing
things. Maybe we could list
them, saying that they were available so we could schedule not only for
cost and time. The other
thing he mentioned to consider are regulations – two things that the
State says you will bring up – land use and vision.
He said he thought that those are the things we should be
addressing up front because they are required.
The other thing he mentioned was the impact of our
infrastructure. We need an
outline of why, instead of just saying, “This is what we’re going to
do.” Ms. Wason said in regard to infrastructure, it makes sense to look at
water and sewer in a general way – what impact that might have in
regard to growth and what opportunities and disadvantages exist. Ms. Cooper asked if the transportation review and natural resources
review would be included in the data collection.
Ms. Wason responded that it would and we would read town reports,
etc. Ms. Cooper we
wouldn’t necessarily complete all this work so much as include it in
the first part? Ms. Wason
said that would be included in Other Town Plans and Documents.
We’d look at some of the State planning in terms of population
growth, where they think economic development’s going to go.
They’re in the process of doing their statewide development
plan, thinking about growth on the statewide level, looking at where
they have Warner, and so forth. There
are a lot of things that are involved in data collection – not just
sitting and reading the old Master Plan.
Ms. Wason said that we would have the natural resources inventory, or
most of it. There’s been
quite a bit of transportation work done – the exit 9 studies, the road
work that we do, as well as traffic studies from various developers.
We would look at the building permit data and quickly geo-code it
to look at what areas of town are growing faster than others.
With that set of information, Ms. Wason asked if that was
sufficient to think about the survey to get started.
She said she likes to do a survey based on the previous one as
much as possible because it helps to see how attitudes in town have
changed. Then, you always
remove the irrelevant questions, and add new questions and you want to
get at what’s the appropriate ratio between residential and
non-residential development. Where
should non-residential development be located – those types of
questions. What other kinds
of non-residential development do you need in town?
What do people want that’s not here?
Mr. Serell said he agreed to wait on the visioning until we could get the
information up first. Ms.
Annis said that she thought that something like the vision chapter was
going to take time to develop and time after you do the visioning
sessions with the public. She
said she definitely wants to see the survey, but thought it was better
to take time and get a lot of publicity and get it before the Town
Meeting, explaining that this is just the first step and “we are going
to go further and involve the people.
We’re going to be getting data on transportation.
We’re going to be getting data on population.
We’re going to be getting data on all of these natural
resources. And, then we’re
going to come to you for help.” By
doing that and keep on having something in the paper, people will be
aware and maybe we’ll have a bigger turnout at the visioning sessions.
And, then we’ll have more time to work on the chapter in the
second phase, rather than in the first phase.
Ms. Wason said if we did part of the existing land use section in
Phase I, by at least preparing the existing land use maps, that would be
information that would be very useful to the Board in helping to design
the survey. Data collection,
a good chunk of the existing land use and the community survey and start
a visioning process – working with the Board and other Boards to think
about what the policies and over-arching goals are coming out of this.
Then, do the more intensive public sessions. Mr. Mical said he liked the idea of sending the survey out to the
residents. He recalled that
in the last survey, they were mailed to the household – and he thinks
it was one per household where there may be a difference of opinion. So,
he likes the idea of being able to code it and, therefore, have more
than one input come in from a household. Ms. Annis said that she spoke with the post office and Supervisor of the
Checklist and said that if we sent a survey bulk rate, it’s 21.8 cents
per letter. There are 1463
households in the postal delivery system, including households and post
office boxes. From Martha
Thoits, Ms. Annis found that there are 2013 voters on the checklist. Ms. Wason asked if we wanted to include the businesses in the survey.
Ms. Annis said we could pull out the commercial people and mail
it to them directly. Ms.
Wason said you would want to ask them a different set of questions, so
just getting them through the post office boxes would not get their
specific interest in what the town’s going to do for them, rather than
in where the new conservation area is.
Ms. Annis asked Ms. Wason about whether they do the actual printing or do
we send it to our printer and use that printer’s bulk rate permit.
Mr. Watts suggested that we use the printer in town who will
allow us to use their bulk permit. Ms. Wason said they would not do the
printing, so getting our printer in town would work.
Ms. Wason asked about whether the elderly housing people have
their own mailboxes. Ms.
Annis said they all have individual mailboxes.
Ms. Annis asked Ms. Wason if conducting a paper survey, as opposed to
online, is included in the proposal.
Ms. Wason said that it was included in the $2500 estimate on the
7th page. Ms.
Wason said that she’d included the land use section in Phase I on the
proposal. Mr. Watts asked if
the survey estimate include the development and processing of the
results. Ms. Wason said yes
and the printing would be separate and mailing would be around $500 and
there was no return postage included.
Ms. Annis and Ms. Cooper said that a drop-off would work.
Ms. Wason said even at Town Meeting, people could drop it off.
But, Ms. Annis said it would not work at Town Meeting because we
would not have the money before Town Meeting.
She said we are soliciting money from various organizations, but
we don’t know if we’ll get it in time.
She asked if Ms. Wason could get the survey out just before tax
time because a lot of people come into pay their taxes at the Town Hall
and they could bring it with their tax bill.
Mr. Mical said that the tax bills are actually mailed out in May.
Ms. Wason said she would prepare a contract with a more detailed scope
and look more into the costs and get the name of the printer in Warner.
She said she has a much better idea and can add more details to
the proposal and will get it to Ms. Annis.
She said she would write a letter dated today or tomorrow for
$7500 for these four tasks for the Budget Committee and with more
specificity. She said she
would mail it to Ms. Annis. Mr. Duhamel asked about looking at issues affecting Warner from other
towns around us. He asked if
Ms. Wason knew what is being built in Sutton just north of us.
Ms. Wason replied “mega-mansions” and said that was all she
could find out about them. Mr.
Duhamel mentioned the growth of the Ms. Annis said don’t forget that every home you build costs money.
Ms. Wason asked if there should be a community services study as
part of the Master Plan. We
would document exactly how much household services vs. tax revenue; how
much services for retail vs. tax, etc.
Mr. Duhamel said we need to give thought to it’s one thing to
collect data and have it analyzed, but what’s the use and the value
going to be to have a lot of that data?
Sometimes you have an overload.
Ms. Wason said it can help you make decisions when you’re
trying to convince town meetings about your zoning.
Mr. Duhamel said it would be interesting to know, on the
infrastructure, how many more residents before you need a new fire
truck, or how many residents to require another police officer, etc.?
How much can we grow before having that impact?
Ms. Wason said that if the traffic gets a lot worse, even if you
haven’t added a lot of houses, then to get the police and fire and
emergency response time may become an issue. Ms. Wason said she would re-do Phase I and send it on letterhead with
dollars. Ms. Annis said that
we must present this to the Selectmen, who present it to the Budget
Committee. We have to
present it to the Selectmen and our Selectmen’s representative is not
here tonight. Ms. Wason
reminded Ms. Annis that she had sent to her and Mr. Violette the
information on housing and community planning which is Phase II
activity. The State has
$200,000 for the next two years to do portions of local master plans.
The idea is, if you plan for housing production and conservation
creation at the same time, you will get sustainable development.
Ms. Wason said she would send the letter on Tuesday afternoon. Return to Rules of Procedure Mr. Watts asked if we need to say his/her every time.
It was agreed to remove his/her when possible.
Mr. Serell said that sometimes it can’t be removed.
Ms. Lightfoot said she would try to make the appropriate
corrections. It was also
agreed to be consistent and use Chairman and Vice Chairman throughout
the document. Mr. Duhamel
suggested and others agreed to change “the meetings will end at Mr. Duhamel thought that the sections should be re-ordered because they
weren’t listed in the order that they are done when a site visit takes
place. The drive by is
something different. Ms.
Cooper, Mr. Serell and Mr. Watts pointed out that the definitions were
listed first and Mr. Duhamel agreed. Mr. Watts asked if Records should go closer to the end.
It was agreed to move Records to just before the Amendments
section. No changes to Joint Meetings and Hearings.
Mr. Mical asked if Disqualification should be moved up.
Mr. Duhamel thought it was appropriate where it is and Mr. Mical
agreed. Mr. Watts asked
about the timing of disqualification being so specific in the section.
Mr. Serell said that a member was supposed to step down before we
even talk. Mr. Watts agreed
that made sense. Mr. Serell made a correction to B – “may not be required” should be
changed to “requested” since the word in the statute is requested.
Ms. Annis said she could see sometime in the future, that someone is
applying to the Board, knows something about Board members and say that
they don’t like something that is before the Board.
An applicant, knowing that someone on the Board has publicly
stated how they’re going to vote, cannot, under this, ask the Board
member to recuse himself. Mr.
Serell said that anyone can bring any information to the attention of
the Board. They can say I
have information that one of your Board members said this.
Then, it’s still the Board’s decision as to whether to take
that to a vote or not. Mr. Duhamel noted that the Order of Business had been removed and asked
if it had been replaced. Mr.
Serell said we talked about that and we took it out because there’s no
state law that says we have to do it in that order and we want to do
things in whatever order we want. Mr.
Mical said he thought something should be in there and put in a caveat
that it may be amended by the Board.
At least, we should have a procedure by which we conduct our
business. There followed a
discussion about the issue. It
was agreed to list it, adding “such other business as the Board may
deem appropriate,” as Business before the Board and refer to the
published agenda, saying the items would be included and not note that a
particular order is necessary. Ms.
Lightfoot repeated the following wording, “Business before the Board,
as set forth, in a published agenda shall consist of the following:”
Mr. Serell said to list all the items in the original list, but
insert between j and k, “such other business as the Board may deem
appropriate.” Mr. Duhamel asked for a subdivision, does the fire chief need to review
the sites? He said he
didn’t see a checklist question to that effect.
He thought if it is a requirement, it should be on the checklist
or on the application. Mr.
Serell said what consists of a completed application is addressed in the
site plan or subdivision regulations and should not be part of the
procedures of the Board. Mr.
Mical thought it should be noted in the procedures that somehow if
information is submitted after the deadline period, like new plans the
night of the meeting, it constitutes a new plan.
Ms. Annis said, in other words, the public never saw them –
they were never posted. What
was submitted and was given to us to look at, and then, between that
time and the public hearing, he changed some things on the plans.
So, they were never posted for the public to take a look at and
be commented on. She said
that she thought Mr. Mical was saying that no plan will be accepted
unless it has been posted for 15 days.
Mr. Serell said there are two different issues – one is
you’re accepting an application – even once this application is
accepted, you can get a revised plan.
He said we could accept an application and still accept revised
plans afterward. Ms. Annis
said that we did not accept the application because they had revised it
and was not what had been posted. Ms.
Cooper suggested that we add something to the portion referring to the
secretary or clerk presenting applications to the Board that had been
received at least 15 days before the meeting.
She suggested that we add wording that we will only consider what
the secretary or clerk has presented to us and we’re excluding
anything that hasn’t been submitted within the 15 days.
Mr. Serell said he thought another provision should be added to
cover both before and after an application has been accepted – that
is, any plans or additional materials to be considered before the Board
must be submitted at least 15 days prior to the Board meeting.
Mr. Mical agreed to that wording, saying it gives the Board and
the public time to look at it and to see that.
Ms. Lightfoot read the wording she had: “Any plans or
additional materials must be submitted at least 15 days before the
meeting at which the Board may consider them.”
This will be placed between B and C under Applications.
Ms. Annis said we should try to remember to remind the applicant
that if we’re getting a revised plan that it must be submitted 15 days
before the next meeting. Ms.
Annis said if someone walks into a meeting at which a plan is to be
considered and has a revised map, then we would not be able to consider
it because it had not been submitted within the 15 days.
This is a big change and it has been noted.
Mr. Watts asked about the inserting the location for the Notice of
Decision for public inspection under F. in the Application section.
Mr. Serell said we could put “at the Board’s Office in the
Town Hall,” and that wording was agreed to. Mr. Duhamel said, in regard to Public Notice, he thought striking out
“of the property” didn’t make clear what description refers to.
Mr. Watts said he thought it should be mentioned.
There was further discussion of the wording and it was agreed to
reinstate “of the property” and add “or project.”
And, it was agreed to add to the “location of property”,
“or project,” as well. There was then consideration of the “Public Hearings” section.
There were no changes suggested, other than correcting
Chairperson and Chair to Chairman. Mr.
Mical asked if we wanted to consider having a sign-in sheet and asking
those who want to comment, signs in, thereby giving us a better idea of
the name of the individual. Mr.
Serell said he didn’t think we need a sign-in sheet, saying we could
always do one if want to, if there were a large group.
Mr. Mical said his point was to try to identify the speaker for
when the minutes are being composed.
Mr. Serell said if it is a problem, we should do a better job of
being sure people identify themselves when they speak.
He also said he didn’t think a sign-in sheet would solve that
problem. Ms. Annis said she
could see a point to it, but was not sure how it would work.
If we were going to have a large group, then, we could have a
sign-in. Mr. Mical said that
was what he was thinking about and agreed that for the normal meeting it
was not necessary. Ms. Annis noted that Records was to be moved to just before Amendments
and asked for any further comments, additions or deletions. Ms.
Lightfoot said she would prepare a document with the corrections made
tonight, and that has none of the strikeouts anymore, still call it a
draft and send it to everyone for one more go-through.
Mr. Duhamel asked if voting was referred to in the new one.
He said in the old one, it tells the whole procedure, with a
motion, a second, discuss and “after all appropriate parties have been
given an opportunity to be heard.”
Mr. Serell said you could put it in there, but he thought that it
would potentially invite any member of the public to stand up and say
they want to be heard on what is really an internal Board matter.
Mr. Watts said we’ve already got the quorum under the Meeting
section. There was further
discussion about whether or not to include “all appropriate parties
have been given an opportunity” – Mr. Serell said the Board can
always allow whoever they want to speak.
Mr. Duhamel agreed to eliminate that phrase.
It was agreed to change the wording from E. under Voting in the
older document and add it between D. and E. under Meetings in the new
document. The wording to be:
“All votes on any matters
to come before the Board shall be taken after the matter has been duly
moved, seconded and discussed. Unless
otherwise stated all matters shall be decided by the majority vote of
all of those members (both regular and designated alternates) present
and voting.” Mr. Mical asked if it was going to be gone over and then go before two
meetings and voted on, signed and then forward the document to the Town
Clerk and the same thing we do for everything else.
Ms. Annis said yes. So,
it should be on the agenda for our next regular meeting on December 3rd.
Potential
Warrant Articles Ms. Annis referred to a handout that was made at the meeting.
She said that the proposal in the documents suggests a very short
warrant article and how to do it at Town Meeting.
The question is, how can we go back into our flood plain
ordinance and delete things or add things into the ordinance without the
people actually voting on that issue?
Ms. Cooper suggested educating people before the meeting as to
what they’re voting on. Ms.
Annis said we have to have a public hearing and then asked again do we
have a right to delete something out of an ordinance?
Mr. Mical said, “Not before the Town Meeting.”
Ms. Annis said, I don’t mean before the Town Meeting.
As written in the document, Ms. Annis quoted, “Are
you in favor of the adoption of amendments as proposed, amend the
floodplain ordinance as necessary to comply with requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program?”
She said that that is simple, but to comply with it, you have to
amend maps, definitions need to be revised for development, manufactured
home, regulatory floodway. Other
definitions need to be added. Mr.
Mical said if you put in an article like that right now, the Town is
going to say no. Ms. Annis
said that they’re telling us to do this in order to be part of the
Flood Insurance Program. The
letter says we have to do that. Mr.
Serell asked why don’t we just do a warrant article doing what
they’re telling us we have to do?
Mr. Mical responded that some of the information, like the new
FEMA flood insurance maps, we won’t have in time.
They’re due in the summer of 2008.
Mr. Mical said in our existing flood plain ordinance, it
specifically talks about FEMA flood maps for the Town of Warner, dated
June 4, 1987. He said that
what they’re proposing is to change these ordinances without a vote.
Mr. Serell asked why we can’t just change things to
[unintelligible]. Mr. Serell
asked when we would have the map. Mr.
Mical said sometime this summer. Mr.
Serell said he thought we could just date it and put “map to be
received approximately summer of 2008.”
Ms. Annis said we will put this on the agenda for December 3rd
and in the meantime, the members will look at it.
We need to have a public hearing on it and will schedule that for
January. Mr. Mical said we need to look at the other ones and see which
ones we may want to change, too. Communications Ms. Annis said there is a Federal Emergency Management New Updated Flood
Hazard Maps for She asked if there were any other things to discuss.
Ms. Cooper said she had received some information from some towns, but
had not heard back from others. Ms. Annis said there is an upcoming meeting with the DOT to discuss the
exit 9 project. With that,
we can have them see what’s up there.
Adjourn Motion made and unanimously seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at
|