|
Town of Minutes of Meeting Members
Present:
Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Ed Mical Members
Absent:
Hank Duhamel, Drew Serell, George Pellettieri, Wayne Eigabroadt Members Late:
None Alternates Present:
Stacey Cooper, Harold French Alternates Late:
Dan Watts Alternates Absent:
None Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting, recognized
Harold French as a new member and noted there was a quorum. 1. Flood Plain Ordinance Ms. Annis explained that in order for the
Town of Ms. Annis said she referred to the State
Statutes and last year’s Town Report as to the wording of the
articles. She read from RSA
675:3. VII: “Are
you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. ____ as proposed by the
Planning Board for the Town.”
The description is then inserted.
She explained that we had become aware of this last year around
the Town Meeting time, but because of the pressure and tension that the
Planning Board was under at that time, the subject was not pursued,
saying that we would straighten it out this year.
Last year, she noted, it was “Are
you in favor of Amendment to Warner Zoning Ordinance, Article III
definitions.” The
word “adoption” is left out. She
said that the ballot question could also repeal, using the word repeal,
in place of the word adoption or amendment.
She also said from last year’s Town Report, it said that every
one of the Zoning Articles said they were recommended by the Planning
Board. She said that in
Section VIII of RSA 675:3, it says that
“If
an amendment is submitted by the selectmen or village district
commissioners, the ballot shall so indicate.
A notation on the ballot stating the planning board’s approval
or disapproval shall immediately follow the question’s description.” Ms. Annis referred to Page 1 of Attachment
2 from the November letter from the State Office of Emergency Planning.
She said that the “Definitions” have to be revised.
She asked if the question would be to “revise,” rather than
“adopt,” since it is a revision.
Ms. Cooper suggested, “Are you in favor of adopting the
revisions to Amendment No. ___?” There
was discussion about which definitions were new and which were to be
revised. Mr. Mical said that
there are only 3 definitions that need to be changed and currently exist
in the Flood Plain Development Ordinance.
The changes are that the underlined portions of the definitions
are to be added – there are no other changes to the three definitions.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical if his suggested wording would be:
“Are you in favor of revising the Amendment No. 1 definitions
for Development, Manufactured home, and Regulatory floodway?”
Mr. Mical said he would suggest more detail to show what is being
added to what and underline the additions. Ms. Annis suggested the following:
“Are you in favor of amending Item No. 1 in Definitions:
Development means any
man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of
equipment or materials.
Manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one or more
sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use
with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required
utilities. For floodplain
management purposes the term “manufactured home” includes park
trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on site for
greater than 180 consecutive days.
This includes manufactured homes located in a manufactured
home park or subdivision.
Regulatory floodway means the channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order
to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than a designated height.” She continued:
“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 by
inserting in Definitions:
Manufactured home park or
subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided
into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
New construction
means, for the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for
which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date
of an initial FIRM or after
Violation means
the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant
with the community’s flood plain management regulations.
A structure or other development without the elevation
certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance
required in 44 CFR § 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2),
(e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that
documentation is provided.” Then, she added the third one:
“Are you in favor of repealing the definition of a Breakaway
Wall?” Mr. French asked what a breakaway wall is.
Ms. Annis read:
“Breakaway wall means a
wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is
intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific
lateral loading forces without causing damage to the elevated portion of
the building or supporting foundation.” Ms. Annis asked if we have a
statement anywhere in the ordinance that “all proposed developments in
any special flood hazard area shall require a permit.”
Mr. Mical said that currently it says that:
“An application for a
Flood Hazard Development Permit shall be submitted to the Code
Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector for all new or substantially
improved structures located in Zones A or AE.” He said that he thought they
were trying to add that the permit should be for all development
and take out “all new or substantially improved structures.”
That would require a permit if you were doing anything in a
special Flood Hazard Area. There
was discussion between Ms. Cooper and Mr. Mical about whether or not
specific zones should be identified.
Mr. Mical said he believed that it would require a Flood Hazard
Development Permit be issued for all development.
He said he thought it should remove all references to new or
substantially improved structures and replace that phrase with any
development, leaving in the references to Zones A or AE. Thus, it would read:
“An application for a Flood Hazard Development Permit shall be
submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector for all development
located in Zones A or AE. . . .” Ms. Annis continued on to Item VII, correct the following
sections to read: 1.b.
“In 2.a.
“All new construction or substantial improvement of residential
structures in Zone A have the lowest floor (including basement)
elevated to or above the 100 year flood elevation;” 2.d.
“All recreational vehicles placed on site within Zones A and
AE shall either:” Finally, Item IX, Nonconforming, change the 75% to 50%, resulting in
the following: IX 6. “If
any non-conforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including
flood(s), to an extent of 50%
or more of its value, it shall not be reconstructed except in the
conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance.” Ms. Annis said the corrections will be available at the next meeting
to be sure they have been done correctly.
She said the public hearing will be at the work session in
January. Mr. Mical said this covers the definition changes and the other
changes. He asked about
whether the governing body having to adopt the maps through a
resolution. He said he
thought the Planning Board had to propose that resolution.
Ms. Annis read on page 1 of Attachment 1, “See the attached
2006 legislation that now allows the governing body (i.e. Board of
Selectmen) to adopt the new maps through a resolution.” Ms. Annis said
it was her understanding from Mr. Gartrell’s communication that this
should be done prior to our changing the Flood Plain Ordinance.
Mr. Mical said that the Flood Plain Ordinance right now refers to
the 1987 maps, so that when those maps are changed, this will have to be
changed. Mr. French noted
that whatever changes we’re proposing now don’t refer to any of the
maps, so he thought these changes should be acceptable, whether the
Selectmen adopt an updated map or not.
Ms. Annis noted that Mr. Gartrell suggested that the Board of
Selectmen resolution should be taken up after they’ve done the final
maps. There was to be a
preview of the maps last week, but Mr. Mical said that meeting had been
cancelled and would be rescheduled.
He said that he believed that you could see the new proposed maps
by going onto the UNH website and see the proposed maps.
Ms. Annis said the amendments will be sent in the packets for the
first meeting in January and a brief discussion will be held then.
The public hearing will be the third Monday in January.
Mr. French asked how the word was to be spread to the
townspeople. Ms. Cooper said
her suggestion was to have a flyer to explain it and why.
Mr. Violette asked if it could also be put on the website.
Mr. French asked what is the “designated height” that is
referred to in the “regulated floodway” definition.
Mr. Mical responded that it refers to the maps showing the
floodplain and spreadsheets that are in the study.
Mr. Mical explained that the USGS had e-mailed him (as Emergency
Management Director) when this process started asking if there was any
place that he wanted them to look at.
He replied that some areas in town had been flooded and there
were also changes in the exit 9 area.
He said there was no long range study and wondered what effect
that would have. They were supposed to look at those things as part of
the changes. 2.
Communications and Miscellaneous Mr. Violette reported on a meeting with the Budget Committee in
regard to the Master Plan items. He
said we do have a contract and the first Phase will be for $9,000.
This will be able to come out of the Planning Board funds
remaining in the 2007 budget. They
wanted to know how long it was going to take, naturally, trying to keep
the budget as low as possible. He
told them he didn’t know yet. He
also reported that we have applied for funds through the Nancy Sibley
Wilkins Fund for the Master Plan. The
question was how much to put in the 2008 budget, if any.
He thought they may end up putting between $2,000 and $5,000 for
2008, which would cover part of Phase II.
He said he believed it would take about a year to do Phase I.
He said that he thought this would also prepare the Budget
Committee so we could go back to them on the Master Plan for the 2009
budget, too, if we need to. Mr. Violette also said he talked with the Budget Committee about
traffic controls at Exit 9. We
have $10,000 in the budget to use for an engineering study and they will
add another $10,000 for capital reserve for exit 9 traffic controls.
Ms. Cooper asked if that would be a separate item.
Mr. Violette replied that he thought it would be separate, but he
wasn’t sure, noting that we already have the $10,000 available and the
second one would be in the 2008 budget, either as a separate item or as
part of the operating budget. At
least, he said, they understand what the issue is and that the State may
not have money available and we don’t know what the cost will be,
which is why we need to do the study.
We would turn all the information over to the Selectmen once we
have it. He reported that
we’ve contacted various towns about the use of roundabouts and many
have responded with information on engineering firms that they’ve used
and some about the process. But,
he said, they’re all willing to help with sharing the information that
they have learned. If we
went with traffic lights, that has to be coordinated with DOT, as well.
Mr. French noted that he thought the State was pushing
roundabouts more than traffic lights now.
Mr. Violette replied that he didn’t get that impression from
the people from DOT that he’d talked with, but it does seem that a lot
of the towns are going to roundabouts.
He said he’d driven through the one in Mr. Mical said that he has the report on the Water Resource Plan for
fire suppression for the Town of James McLaughlin from the Conservation Commission said that the
Conservation Commission is working on a Natural Resources Plan and is
meeting on Wednesday night with the Sutton Conservation Commission, to
look at the maps that have been produced so far in trying to arrive at a
Conservation Plan for the town. He
said he thought this information should be gathered before the Master
Plan update can be started. He
invited anyone from the Planning Board to attend the Wednesday meeting.
He suggested that sometime in the next few months, the
Conservation Commission and the Planning Board meet during a work
session to look at the maps and discuss how this is going to proceed.
Ms. Annis agreed that a work session would be appropriate. Mr.
McLaughlin said that all the data that they’ve gathered will be turned
over to Central NH Regional Planning Commission.
Mr. Violette noted that we had told Sharon Wason of Ms. Annis reported that someone had noted that the references in the
Subdivision Checklist didn’t tie to the sections in the Subdivision
Regulations. As a result,
the Subdivision Checklist has been corrected to reference the
Subdivision Regulations appropriately and the revision has been provided
to everyone. There was also
a correction made to the size of the Mylar to be provided, from 22x24
Mylar to a 22x34 Mylar. This
checklist revised in December 2007 should replace those in each Board
Member’s book. Ms. Annis said that someone had inquired about a major subdivision
and they have been urged to come in with a conceptual, rather than a
full application. Mr. Watts MOVED to adjourn. Mr.
Violette SECONDED. The
meeting was adjourned.
|