Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing
Members Present:
James McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, John Wallace,
John
Brayshaw
Members Absent:
Andrew Serell
Alternates Present:
Russ St.Pierre Mark Lennon (late)
Alternates Absent:
Pam Mulsow
Presiding:
James McLaughlin
Recording:
Sissy Brown
Voting
members for this meeting:
James McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, John Wallace,
John Brayshaw, Russ St.Pierre
I.
Open
Meeting
II.
Roll
Call
III.
Approval
of the Minutes of the
A
motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as submitted.
The minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
IV.
Public
Hearing: Joint
meeting of the Warner and Webster Planning Boards,
as requested by Gamil Azmy, for a Site
Plan Review for property located on the town line between Warner and
Webster. In Warner: Map 3,
Gamil
Azmy and James Azmy
Members
of the Webster Planning Board present:
Nancy Van Loan, Clifford Broker, Jere Buckley, William Inman, Alan
Hofmann and Lynmarie Lehmann
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the State statute states that a landowner (whose land is
proposed for a subdivision or site plan and whose land is split by two towns)
can request a joint hearing by the Planning Board’s of the two towns.
Mr. Azmy has requested this joint meeting.
There is a quorum of both Boards present, as required by the statute,
and each Board needs to act independently and separately on the action
regarding the Site Plan Review.
Mr.
Pershouse said that the plan submitted appears to be a revised edition of the
posted plan. He asked that the
differences be qualified by Mr. Azmy. Mr.
McLaughlin asked Mr. Azmy to describe what is being proposed.
Mr.
Azmy said that the plan before the Boards at this meeting is a final plan
prepared and certified by Morris C. Foote [State of
Question:
Mr. Pershouse: So you’re
saying that this is the closest approximation to date?
Answer:
James Azmy said that the surveyor for the Town of
Mr.
Azmy said that the parking spaces shown are more than are actually needed at
this time, but that he was told that he should put the maximum number that he
thinks he will need in the future so that they wouldn’t have to come back
before the Board at a later date. The
driveway that goes down to the garage is shown, and where the fruit stand will
be is shown.
Question:
Nancy Van Loan: I don’t
see any definition of lines here. Is
this red line the line demarcating Webster to the right and Warner on the
left?
Answer:
James Azmy: The red line
represents the town line. It was
established by Mr. Foote himself for us. The
Town of
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: What is the
size of this lot?
Answer:
James Azmy: The size is 19
acres.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: I don’t see
any boundaries on that, either. Is
this entire square your property? I
don’t see any measurements.
Answer:
James Azmy: It is only a
small portion. We were only
required to show the building for the Site Plan, not the property dimensions.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: Is this the
other plan that you’re referring to? It
is only a sketch, though. It is
conceptual, and it is the only thing that is in our file.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that what the Planning Board asked Mr. Azmy to do was to
concentrate on the area that was concerned with the development, not the
entire parcel. Ms. Van Loan asked
if there was a survey of the entire parcel, and Mr. McLaughlin said no.
James Azmy said that a complete survey would be completed within a
month or so, but that they were told that all they needed was a site plan for
the restaurant.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that what the Warner Planning Board had required of Mr. Azmy
was:
1.
A professionally designed and drawn Site Plan
(by an architect or engineering firm), not a full survey
2.
Site Plan must include:
a.
The house and any other buildings that apply to
the operation of the business
b.
Parking areas
c.
References to the Town bounds
[indicated on print that dimensions are not available or established at
the time print is made, to account for the absence on the print]
d.
The relationship of the property to 103
e.
The location where the town line bisects the
house (which portion of the house, i.e.: kitchen, living area, etc.)
3.
Measurements to the town lines of Warner – if
the drawing doesn’t extend to those lines
4.
All areas of the property that are pertinent to
running the business
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if Mr. Azmy had anything else that he wanted to tell the
Board about the plan. He said that
one of the things that bothers him is that the various lines and symbols on
the plan aren’t really contained in the legend.
What are the magenta lines?
Mr.
Azmy pointed out the various lines, a shed and buildings on the plan to the
Boards. Mr. Pershouse asked
if the surveyor were at the meeting, and Mr. Azmy said that he wasn’t.
Question:
[from a
member of the Webster Board] I see Track [as spelled on the plans] I, II and
III. I need a little definition on
that. What do the “tracks”
mean? Are those separate deeds, or
separate taxes? Are they different
tracts, all under one deed?
Answer:
Mr. Azmy: They are separate
but under one deed.
Question:
Ms. Annis: I don’t see
what part of the building the business is going to be in.
It isn’t spelled out.
Answer:
James Azmy: It is on the
right side of the building.
Question:
Ms. Annis: Where is the
kitchen going to be, and where is the eating area going to be?
Mr.
Azmy pointed out the different sections on the plan, stating that the right
portion of the building plus the shed would be the business portions.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: So the
building that is divided in half – the business will literally be half in
Webster and half in Warner?
Answer:
James Azmy: Correct.
Gamil Azmy: The kitchen
area is going to be roughly in the center portion of the building, and the
front section will be the possibility of some seating area and some crafts and
gifts.
Question:
Ms. Annis: My other
questions is: On the parking,
where you say that 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 are going to be parallel parking, how are
the people going to get down there and turn around and face back out again?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: There is plenty
of room in the back area [pointed out on the plan], this is a big area, for
them to back in this way, and go out.
There are actually two driveways [one by the building,] and one
to enter the town line.
Webster
Board member: There is also a
Class VI road there [by the second driveway] between Warner and Webster, which
is still a right of way.
Question:
Ms. Annis: So there is one
driveway permit, and the other is a Class VI road, or a discontinued road, in
Warner’s part?
Answer:
Mr. Brayshaw: It is a Class VI discontinued.
Question:
Ms. Annis: Is it
discontinued, or is it discontinued subject to gates and bars?
Answer:
Mr. Brayshaw: No, it is just discontinued.
Question:
Ms. Annis: So if it is
discontinued, has it reverted back to the abutting property owners?
Answer:
Mr. Brayshaw: No.
Question:
Ms. Annis: So if it
is a Class VI road, how is he going to be able to use that as a driveway?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: We’re
not actually using a Class VI road. If
you’ll take a look at this, it starts right here and there’s an opening to
get to it [parking area] from the main highway.
There’s also 50’ here to enter the Class VI road from the highway.
My plan is to have them enter here [by the building] that has been used
for the last 75 years by previous owners.
Question:
Ms. Annis: So the
traffic pattern is going to be coming into your driveway, parking parallel,
and then turning around and coming back up again.
Is this correct?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: They’ll
be coming here, backing up, they can turn around here – it could be at an
angle. If worse comes to worse,
there is room for angle parking. Right
now, we have three or four cars that park there right now.
Question:
Mr. McLaughlin: But
you’re showing a true access point [by the Class VI road end]?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: No, we’re
only showing one. But there is
also an entrance here for the Class VI road.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that they would have to find out if that Class VI access area
could be used for the parking area of the business.
There was a question regarding the number of parking permits currently
held, and if each entrance would require a permit.
Mr. Azmy said that they have one 50’ wide permit at this time, to
enter [by the building]. It
extends from the area marked “driveway” down past the parking spaces to
the area marked “shed”. It is
pre-existing. The area marked “parking”
in front of the building was previously approved, but he still needs to go in
and get approval again because it hasn’t been used for a few years.
Being commercial, he said he will also have to apply for that.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: Will
there be an entrance by the “shed” area?
Answer:
Mr. Azmy: No, we’re going
to do one entrance only because of safety.
Webster
Board member: The description
heard seems to conflict with what appears on the drawing.
The drawing clearly seems to show two entrances.
Mr. Azmy said that there are two entrances – one for the business,
and one for the Class VI road.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: What is the
name of the Class VI road?
Answer:
Mr.
Brayshaw said that the road is not now used.
It is a 66’ right of way. The
survey and the town bounds should be set within the next week to week and a
half. There is a 66’ right
of way, and the road is part of that right of way.
Currently there is a cease and desist order preventing any activity
from either of the abutting neighbors to do anything until that bound is
established. It is Class VI road,
at least on the Warner side. It
never reverted back to the abutting property owners, and where the right of
way falls is not certain until the town bounds have been established.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that a road can be “discontinued”, “discontinued subject
to gates and bars” or “discontinued and reverted back to the owners.”
This road is just “discontinued”, as far as the Warner section.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the road doesn’t provide access to anyone at this point
in time, and that it isn’t usable at all.
Mr. Brayshaw said that a State driveway permit would have to be
obtained, and possibly a traffic study.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if there were any other questions.
Hearing none, he said that the Warner’s position at this time would
be to decide if the Board is ready to accept the plan.
Mr.
Pershouse said that if the Board accepts the plan at this meeting, it would
have to be qualified or contingent upon the definitions previously mentioned
and they would have to enumerate what the definitions are that should be on
the print. It currently doesn’t
have the full information needed as far as labeling and dimensions.
James
Azmy said that as far as the town line labeling, that falls back to the Town
of
Mr.
McLaughlin said that he understands that they have done the best that they can
at this point, and that he accepts that. Mr.
Azmy said that even if the line changes after the town’s survey, it wouldn’t
affect or change the plan because it wouldn’t change where the kitchen is or
where the parking is.
Ms.
Annis stated that what the Board approves will have to be recorded at the
Registry of Deeds, so that this is going to be a legal document.
Her feeling is that the Board is lacking definition of what the lines
on the plan represent. It was also
mentioned that the plan shows the location as “Dunbarton”, which needs to
be corrected. Any changes that
need to be made should be done prior to the Mylar being made.
James Azmy suggested that any corrections or changes that the two
Boards would like to see on the plan could be written down and they could then
take the list to the surveyor to have those changes made to the plan.
Ms.
Van Loan said that Webster would like to have definitions of what the
different lines shown on the plan represent, and distances should be shown on
the map – between the two buildings, distance between the road and the
buildings, etc. She said that the
surveys that the Webster Planning Board requires have all of the definitions
on them before the Board can review them.
Mr. Azmy said that this wasn’t a survey, but was a site plan.
Ms. Van Loan said that those distances need to be shown on the site
plan.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the portion of the building that is going to be devoted
to the business should be shown.
Mr.
Pershouse said that both Boards would benefit from seeing a very simple
written statement of their business plan as it relates to the site plan.
The plan has been presented verbally, but it would be a good idea to
have 5 or 6 items stating which part of the buildings are planned for which
use or function. This should be on
the record to go along with the application.
Mr. Azmy said that they had presented a written statement to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment with that application.
Mr. Pershouse said that the Board would look at that statement and
determine if it is acceptable to the Board, and if any additional information
is necessary, it will be requested in writing.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: Where is your
septic system?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: The septic
system is in the back of the building, right toward the L-shape, in the
corner, on the Webster side.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: What is the
pool? It is an inground pool?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: It is an old
pool, 100’ x 75’. It is not
open and hasn’t been used in about 48 years.
Question:
Ms. Van Loan: Is it
filled in?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: No, it is
actually empty. It runs out
through the river.
Question:
Webster Board member: Where
is the nearest abutter?
Answer:
Gamil Azmy: On one side,
over in a corner, is one house. On
another side is a landscaping business, and after that, both sides of the road
are open.
The
Webster Board requested that the revised site plan map show the distances from
the abutters on the Webster side. Ms.
Van Loan said that they have a Site Plan Review checklist that they will
submit from Webster, showing all of the items that they require.
They also had questions regarding the application itself and
information given. Regarding
number of employees, the proposed number of employees shows “1” and the
maximum number of employees per shift shows “3”.
Mr. Azmy said that he was told to project 10 years into the future when
filling out the form. He currently
has one employee and the possibility of 2 part-time.
It was stated that if they predict having 3 employees in the
foreseeable future, both spaces should say “3”.
The Webster Board also asked about the portion of the application that
says “area of pavement – existing = 0, proposed = 6 – 8.
The applicant is supposed to list the area of pavement, and the
question is whether the answer is acres or square feet, or what.
Mr. Azmy said that the 6 – 8 is parking spaces, and refers to the
main parking in front of the restaurant. It
has now been changed to 5 on the current plan, with 2 handicapped spaces
added.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked about the other parking spaces – there are 20 shown on the
plan. Mr. Azmy said that they are
only thinking about those additional spaces.
Mr.
St.Pierre said that he would like to see a better definition of the parking
areas, and how the traffic flow will work.
He asked if the shed shown is an existing shed.
Mr. Azmy said it is. Mr. St.Pierre
said that one would have to somehow swing past the shed to get to parking
spaces 12 – 20 and it looks like a tight squeeze.
Mr. Azmy said that the section where the shed is is not going to be
there. He was told that whatever
he might want in the future should be put on the plan so that he wouldn’t
have to come back and go through the process again.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the strip between the highway and the parking area needs
to be landscaped or fenced, and shown on the plan.
The
Town of Webster said that their checklist includes match lines showing the
town lines, location and distances of access ways and egresses, location of
all water mains and sanitary sewage facilities within the facility, size and
location of all utilities serving the development, location, elevation and
layout of catch basins and other surface drainage facilities.
Mr. Azmy asked if that meant the pool, and it was stated that he had
said that water in the pool was draining into the river.
He said he has no idea where the surface water goes, that the pool has
no water in it at this time, that it is spring-fed and hasn’t been used
since 1935. The Board said that
they need to know where the drainage from the parking area is going.
The contours and elevations of the land are needed.
They asked if any catch basins are being put in.
Mr. Azmy said that they are not paving the driveway at this time, and
that it will stay the same. The
Board asked if any landscaping was going to be changed.
Mr. Azmy said that they were going to put in a couple of handicapped
parking spaces and a bakery. Ms.
Van Loan asked for the streets on the plan to be shown and defined.
She asked if there is going to be a residence in the building, and Mr.
Azmy said that he lives in the house. He
said that there is one PG&E easement in the far corner, and that they
weren’t changing that. Ms.
Van Loan asked if the easement is off of the Class VI road.
Mr. Azmy said that no, the Class VI road crosses the easement and goes
all the way to the end, and the wire comes through from
The
Webster Board said that it would be helpful if Mr. Azmy would distinguish
between his current intentions and future possibilities.
Mr. Azmy said that when he went to Webster, people told him to write
down what he wanted to see in the next 10 years.
All he wants to do is open the restaurant.
He said that the process is getting to be too much.
The building has been there since 1903 as the Scandinavian Restaurant,
some rooms burned down, then it was a café and they want to open another
café. It was stated that the
Board can sympathize with his frustration, but also said that the Board is
having difficulty in discerning what the plan is.
Mr. Azmy said that he will correct anything that the Board requires.
He said that the septic system was there when the restaurant was in
operation and had 46 rooms that burned down.
It was checked and they have to get it certified by the health
department. He said that there is
more work that he has to do, but that he needs to get something from the
Planning Boards so that he can start the restaurant.
He plans to do no work, and use the same parking, etc.
Ms. Van Loan said that the Webster Board would want the lines defined
and the septic and well locations shown.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if there were any more questions from the Warner Board.
Mr. Azmy asked if there are any minimum parking requirements, and if
the current spaces are sufficient. Mr.
McLaughlin said that he doesn’t think that Warner has any specific parking
requirements and that it depends on the type of the business and size of the
business and nature of the business. He
asked Mr. Azmy how many seats were planned for the restaurant.
Mr. Azmy said 25 seats. Mr.
McLaughlin said that is probably a State standard for restaurants.
Ms. Van Loan said that because of the nature of this piece of property,
Webster has requirements depending on the size of the business.
But because this business is in two towns, she thinks that this plan
will suffice. James Azmy asked if
eliminating the parking spaces on the side and only keeping the 5 parking
spaces in front of the building would be acceptable, since the parking spaces
shown on the plan seem to be a problem. Mr.
Azmy said that the building has been a business for many years and has had its
own parking for the little shed and the restaurant.
Ms.
Van Loan said that Webster’s Site Plan regulations require there to be
sufficient off-street parking and it has to be able to accommodate both
employees and customers so that no parking is forced onto the public street or
nearby properties. The extra
parking spaces wouldn’t be a problem, unless they caused water to drain onto
other people’s property.
Mr.
St.Pierre said that if the applicant doesn’t
intend to do something, it shouldn’t be put on the plan.
Mr. Azmy said that he had been told to do so.
Mr.
Azmy said that the property is in the process of being surveyed.
James Azmy said that a survey should be irrelevant at this point
because it wouldn’t change the site plan of the proposed restaurant.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that there would be no Pubic Hearing at this meeting, because
the application had not been accepted by the Planning Boards.
The matter will be continued at the February meeting.
V.
Proposed
changes to amend the Town of
Mr.
McLaughlin said that this is a Public Hearing to:
1.
Correct references to the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM);
2.
Correct definitions:
areas of shallow flooding, areas of special flood hazard, and flood
boundary, floodway and special flood hazard area; and
3.
Make other corrections needed to make accurate
reference to mapped flood zones as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).
Mr.
McLaughlin opened the Public Hearing. He
said that these are technical corrections that make Warner’s Floodplain
Zoning Ordinance agree with the current flood insurance maps.
For a long period of time, they were not consistent.
The ordinance is referring to definitions that exist on the map and
areas of flood hazard that are on the map.
He stated that this is a Public Hearing to get any input that there
might be from the public on this issue.
Question:
Alice Chamberlain: Does
this in any way change any part of town and make it available for building or
development, according to the map, that it wouldn’t have been according to
the definition in the ordinance?
Answer:
Mr. McLaughlin: No.
The maps are the same, but the ordinance referred to an older, earlier
map.
There
were no further questions. Mr.
McLaughlin closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the Board Meeting and the
deliberation of these changes to the Board.
The Board needs to approve the changes and they will then be put on the
warrant for a vote by members of the community at Town Meeting.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if there were any comments or a motion.
Mr.
Brayshaw moved to endorse the articles [changes to the Town of
VI.
Proposed
changes to amend the Town of
1.
Article III, Definitions, “Home Occupation”
2.
Article III, Definitions, “Minimum Buildable
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if there was wording for a these changes, and Sissy said that
it was stated in the minutes of the December meeting [pages 12 & 13] that
“the wording can be presented and discussed as a proposed change at the
January meeting, and that the Board would have to vote on a change at the
Public Hearing.”
Home
Occupation:
Mr.
McLaughlin said that there are two restrictions on the amount of area that can
be used for a business – that it not be more than 25% of the floor area and
that it can’t exceed 500 sq.ft.
The discussion at the December meeting was that the 25% restriction was
reasonable, but that the 500 sq.ft. restriction
was a problem. The Board is not
trying to discourage home business, and the 500 sq.ft.
was a problem.
Mr.
Pershouse said that if the 500 sq.ft. limitation
is eliminated, that would be equitable because the 25% would still be in
place. The 500 sq.ft.
is arbitrary and could be restrictive if the building in question were large.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that while this wasn’t a Public Hearing, he would listen to
any input the public might have at this time.
There
was discussion regarding the deadlines for publication of any proposed
changes, and stated that the February 4th meeting was within the
time frame necessary – and that a snow date could also be published and
posted, if necessary.
Mr.
Annis asked if the Board were going to discuss this matter at this meeting and
come up with a number. She said
that at the last meeting, it was talked about and it was decided to eliminate
the 500 sq.ft. and go with a percentage.
The minutes reflect that Mr. McLaughlin had said that 25% was a good
starting place for discussion.
Ms.
Annis said that she thinks that 25% is too much.
The way it is worded, “utilizes an area, either in the dwelling or
accessory building, of not more than 25% of the total floor area of the
dwelling, including any functional basement.”
She said that this is a home occupation; therefore, you’re talking
every single floor. By this
definition, a home occupation could be the entire floor of a house.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that you could have a house and another dwelling.
What about people that have a house and an additional dwelling on the
property to house the home business? Ms.
Annis said that she has no problem with that, because that is separate from a
home. When a business is taking
over a home, that is when she has a problem.
Ms.
Annis suggested that Mr. McLaughlin read the entire definition of Home
Occupation. Mr. McLaughlin did
so.
“Home
Occupation” shall mean any business or profession conducted entirely within
a dwelling, or an accessory building located on the same premises as the
dwelling, which:
a.
entails contact with the general public at the premises;
b.
is capable of being unobtrusively pursued;
c.
creates no nuisance nor any environmental,
health or safety concerns;
d.
is clearly incidental and subordinate to the
dwelling use;
e.
does not change either the character of the
dwelling as a residence or the character of the neighborhood in which the Home
Occupation is established;
f.
is conducted by the resident owner(s) of the
dwelling;
g.
employs not more than the equivalent of one
full time (40 hours) person outside the family, and;
h.
utilizes an area (either in the dwelling or
in an accessory building) of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the
total floor area of the dwelling (including any functional basement) or five
hundred (500) square feet, whichever is less.
[Approved 3/00]
Ms.
Annis said that including the basement is what is a problem to her.
If a person had a basement, first floor and second floor, it is a lot
of space to have a home business. It
was stated that someone should be able to use their basement, if they wanted
to, and that would be 30%.
Ms.
Chamberlain said that her understanding is that the space wouldn’t be able
to be used if it were over 500 sq.ft.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked how that would apply to horse farms or buffalo farms
and their accessory buildings.
Answer:
Mr. St.Pierre said that if the 25% were exceeded, it would be getting
away from home occupation and into a commercial venture.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that there are situations where the use would be in a remote
area and there wouldn’t be an impact on the neighbors.
Ms. Annis said that there could be the situation of a doctors’
office, where there is traffic is coming and going and the doctor is the sole
full time employee. The doctor
could conceivably use the entire downstairs of a dwelling as office space.
She said that she thinks that is too far beyond a home business.
Someone
in the audience asked the difference between a home occupation and a
commercial use, and wouldn’t a doctor’s office be a for-profit commercial
use of a property as opposed to a home occupation?
Ms. Annis said that in a home business, you’re making money.
Mr. McLaughlin said that it depends on whether it is considered “the
home” and if the primary use of the property is still as the residence.
All of the criteria in the definition would have to apply.
Ms.
Chamberlain said that she thinks that the greatest rationale for a measurement
like [500 sq.ft.] would be the issue of
enforcement in a town, which is problematic here anyway.
She said that she’s not sure that it gives anybody any further tool,
and asked if there is any enforcement now.
Mr. McLaughlin said that there is the Building Inspector, and an
applicant would come to the Planning Board with a plan and state what portion
of the home they planned to use for the business.
The expectation is that if a plan were approved by the Board, that is
what would be built. He said that
he thinks that there are situations where a legitimate home business could
require more space than 500 sq.ft., and wonders if
it’s reasonable to say no to them if all of the other criteria are met and
the spirit of a home occupation is there.
No one knows where the 500 sq.ft. number
came from, but it has come up since then as to why the number is there.
Mr.
Pershouse said that the Town does have performance criteria, which is the
effective element.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the Public Hearing on this matter would be held on
February 4th.
Minimum
Buildable
Mr.
McLaughlin stated that this is a change that was voted in at the 2001 Town
Meeting. He read the definition
as it currently stands:
“Minimum
Buildable Lot Area” means the minimum size lot allowed in a particular
zoning district. For purposes of
subdivision, the minimum buildable lot shall be one continuous piece of land
and no land described as follows shall be counted toward the required minimum
buildable lot area:
a.
Land designated as Floodplain or shown to be
bog, march, swamp area, area of high water table (within four feet of the
surface) or any similar situations;
b.
Areas necessary for the protection of aquifers
and aquifer recharge areas, including those areas and watersheds of areas that
have been designated as potential future sources of drinking water for the
Town;
c.
Land with slopes in excess of twenty-five
percent (25%) or with ledge that is exposed or lying within four (4) feet of
the soil surface;
d.
Areas which are subject to an easement or a
right or way in favor of the Town, County, State, or Federal Government, or
any third party; and
e.
Any land covered by any soils listed as
Groups 5 and 6 by the NH Department of Environmental Services.
[Approved March 2001]
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the situation, as it is now worded, is that if you had a
lot – say, 6 acres – and the minimum buildable lot area is 2 acres, but a
wetland ran through those proposed parcels, each of the separate upland areas
would have to be considered individually.
If each one didn’t equal 2 acres, the lot couldn’t be subdivided.
Or if you had a drainage that ran across and divided a lot into pieces,
and each piece was less than the required 2 acres, the land couldn’t be
subdivided even though in total, there would be more than 2 acres.
He said that in his opinion, this definition has made it very difficult
to subdivide land.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the proposed change would be to change the definition so
that the second sentence would read: “For
purposes of subdivision”, INSERT
THE WORDS “none of the following” STRIKE
THE ENTIRE NEXT PHRASE, AND END WITH “shall
be counted toward the required minimum buildable lot area:”
“For
purposes of subdivision, none of the following shall be counted toward the
required minimum buildable lot area:”
Mr.
McLaughlin said that there would no longer be a reference to “continuous
piece of land.” Any of the five
stated types of land would still have to be taken out of the total amount of
buildable land and land added to the total size of the parcel to come up with
a total of 2 acres, for example, of buildable area.
Question:
Ms. Chamberlain asked if the solution being sought by the Board to
focus on the issue of buildable lots and maybe buildable lots should have
adequate land. She said she couldn’t
quite see what the Board is accomplishing.
Answer:
Mr. McLaughlin said that what the Board is trying to avoid is being
really unreasonable, and probably illegal, in the requirements of a landowner.
Question:
Ms. Chamberlain said that in the proposed rewritten definition, it
sounds like the Board is still focusing on the issue of not having people
utilize land that’s not suitable for building.
She said that is fair and strikes a balance.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that if a person had a 5 acre piece of property with an acre in
the front, a stream running through, and 4 acres in the back, it wouldn’t be
a buildable piece of land under the current definition.
But under the proposed change, it would be.
He said that with a wetland or ledge or whatever it is, the Board
really can’t tell a person what to do with their property as long as they
meet the proper setbacks. You
really can’t say that it’s not a buildable lot.
Mr.
Wallace said that the Town also has a minimum buildable lot size of 40,000 sq.ft.
for one that’s not served by Town sewer or water.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the presumption is that there are DES and State
requirements for septic and well that should apply to any lot.
The Board is just trying to make their definition of what’s required
more reasonable.
Ms.
Annis said that the word “continuous” was causing a problem.
Question:
Mr. Lamarine (Tony Lamarine, Lamarine Technical Land Services,
Contoocook) said that there were some points that were made that could be
problematic if taken to task. One
of them was “any land that has a water table of less than 4’.”
He said that 75% of the soils that are dealt with have a water table of
less than 4’. He said 90% of the
land in Warner has a water table of less than 4’.
He said that he doesn’t think that the Board has honed in on that in
past years, but that it could be a problem in the future.
He said that this should be eliminated or reworded.
Answer:
Mr. McLaughlin said that it was a good point.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked what would be an alternate dimension to use
Answer:
Mr. Lamarine said that it should probably parallel the State’s
definition.
It
was discussed and decided that a Special Meeting should be held on Wednesday,
January 16th at
Mr.
Lamarine said that he could copy the State’s wording on the definition, for
the Board’s information.
Ms.
Chamberlain said that she knows that the Conservation Commission has an
interest in the outcome of the definition change, and she urged the Board to
consult with them when coming up with a number.
She said that she thinks that the Subdivision Regulations originally
came out of Regional Planning and probably from some of the basic boiler plate
work that was done there. She
recommended the Board go to them to see what is being recommended now, and the
rationale for it. She said that
all of the consequences of the change should be known before it is done
because it could have impact on the Town.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that it would be checked on before the next meeting.
VII.
Preliminary
Site Plan Review – American Tower
Company, Carrie Fitzsimons, Project
Manager
Property
location: 805
Rt. 103, Warner, NH, Map 3,
Lease
of 100’ x 100’ parcel from Tobias Nickerson. Fenced equipment compound
containing a 109’ monopole tower.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the Board would review the application and look at it in
terms of its completeness. He
asked for an abbreviated application summary from Carrie Fitzsimons, Project
Manager.
Ms.
Fitzsimons gave the new office address for American Tower Corporation:
Ms.
Fitzsimons said that they have received their Special Exception from the ZBA.
The application has been submitted, stating how ATC meets or exceeds
all of the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance for
Telecommunications Facilities and asked that the Board deem their application
complete and schedule a Public Hearing.
She
presented the most current plans to the Board and outlined the changes.
The tower is now reflected on the plans as being painted brown in
color, as opposed to the galvanized steel (originally proposed).
Sheet D-1 is the elevation, showing the two carriers who currently have
applications in to ATC and have been approved:
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if the problem is specific to Verizon, or specific
to the technical process. He said
that his understanding was that there would be room for three carriers.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that the problem is specific to the topography of
the area. Because the tree cover
is at 89’, Warner’s ordinance limits ATC to 20’ above tree cover.
Generally, 10 feet are needed per carrier for space for the antennas
and the separation in order for the antennas to perform optimally, and at 89’,
Verizon will not achieve their coverage objective to locate on this tower
because the tree cover at this elevation is also 89’.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw stated that at the last meeting of the Board, he had asked
for a list of references. He asked
if Ms. Fitzsimons had this list.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that ATC has worked with other towns in the
immediate area; however, ATC has not built any new sites in this area.
They have
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw said that he had also asked for a listing of any other
properties in Warner that ATC thought to look at because the ordinance states
that they should present other locations that have been looked at in the town.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that they had researched their records and,
unfortunately, the Site Acquisition consultant that had originally researched
the site is no longer with the company. But
the records that were reviewed showed that there were no viable properties in
the area, that were zoned properly, that had enough acreage and would meet
sufficient setbacks in order to maintain this specific coverage objective.
At this point, they did not have any alternative candidates that would
be a viable option to come before the Board.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw: Did they
consider Evans Express Mart at all, as far as having a location on that site?
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons: That would
be outside of this particular coverage objective, and would actually be a
second coverage objective within the Town of
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw: Would you be
able to furnish us with documentation?
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons: Sure.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw: We would like
to see that. We had asked for that
at the last meeting.
Mr.
Pershouse: I need to qualify this
because I had asked to meet with the RF engineer or at least get some more
data, as part of that same discussion. It
was just today that we set a tentative date for next Wednesday to have Carrie
[Ms. Fitzsimons] and the RF fellow come up here.
I just hadn’t had a chance to talk to anybody about it.
Mr.
Brayshaw: I just think it’s
interesting that the six other companies that have come into the Selectmen’s
office, as well as the Zoning and Planning offices, had other sites that have
been proposed throughout the Town of
Mr.
Pershouse: I think the ball was in
our court to contact Carrie, and I was to start the information flow on that.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: He was prepared to
come here tonight, but judging from your full agenda, we thought that perhaps
we should set a separate work schedule for that.
The only other two sites that I know of that have come before the ZBA
have both ask for variances as well. We
can’t accomplish our coverage objective without having to ask for a
significant variance, as was the case with those [others].
We wouldn’t consider that a viable site.
We would triangle forward with the site that would require the least
variances that would be in keeping and in conformity with the sprit and intent
of the ordinance as written. Before
we would go forward and try and pursue alternatives and to sign leases and get
candidates with alternatives, we would have to come in and ask for variances.
Mr.
Brayshaw: My concern is just with
the formality, and that it was promised that [the information] would be here
tonight.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: We didn’t have any
viable candidates. I can get a
list of property owners that perhaps may have been contacted and/or letters
that were sent, but as far as putting together what we call candidate packages
for alternative sites, there really weren’t any.
Mr.
Brayshaw: If I remember correctly,
the last time that you were here before the Board, you had stated that there
were three or four different towns in the vicinity that you had done some work
with. Not just
Ms.
Fitzsimons: We’ve done work all
over
Mr.
Brayshaw: I think to be consistent
with other companies that have come in with proposals is that we need to
secure a list of references, and I don’t see why we can’t ask that of you.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: That’s fine.
Mr.
Pershouse: So we are talking
somewhat about two different issues in alternative sites as opposed to
additional sites. My query had
been toward what would be potential additional sites and how does it relate
from a propagation point of view to this site, as it stands now.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if there were any comments from the Board, as far as the
completeness of the application. Mr.
Wallace said that he thought it was a complete application.
Ms.
Annis asked how the site walk went. Mr.
McLaughlin said that three Board members met with Carrie and Toby Nickerson
and looked at the site where the pad would be sited and walked some of the
road. It looked like, from that
site, that the visibility is pretty well guarded by the tree cover on the
property, but also on the adjacent property – by Ward’s lumber company.
One of the issues that has to do with the final configuration of the
tower is what happens if much of that tree cover on the adjacent lot were
removed. Because that’s not in
Mr. Nickerson’s ownership, we could potentially lose a significant amount of
the canopy that guards or provides visual screening of this site from Hwy. 89
and from 103.
Mr.
Fitzsimons: For those of you who
weren’t able to make it to the Site Walk, I have some photographs of the
site. The best way that I could
answer that question would be so show you the picture of the site from Rt. 89,
to get a good feeling of what the existing tree cover is and where the site is
in relation to that. And what you
can see from the picture is that the majority – the tree cover is
everywhere, and you’d have to take out a very large number of trees in order
to actually affect the way that the pole is currently screened from the
highway. As we discussed at the
site, there’s really no way for us [ATC] to secure the continuation of the
trees on the property not belonging to our property owner, which are the ones
that are providing the most screening to the site.
Mr.
Pershouse: This would be an issue
that would be addressed in detail in the Site Plan Review.
This is a preview.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if anyone wished to entertain a motion.
Mr. St.Pierre asked if the checklist has been covered.
Ms. Annis asked if the Board had a letter from Mr. Nickerson, saying
that ATC could act on his behalf. Ms.
Fitzsimons said that at the site walk, she had provided a copy of the signed
lease. Mr. Pershouse said that
they had a copy. Mr. McLaughlin
asked if the Board would be comfortable delaying the acceptance of the
application until the next meeting. At
that time, the Public Hearing could be scheduled and have the acceptance of
the plan at that point. Mr.
Pershouse asked what the Board was missing.
Mr. St.Pierre said that the ordinance has a lot of requirements and he
wanted to be sure that the application had met all of those requirements.
Mr. McLaughlin said that at the Special Board Meeting on January 16,
the checklist can be gone over. He
suggested that each Board member ought to look at the application and plans,
and get the Site Plan Review Ordinance and Regulation and in his own mind be
satisfied that everything is in place.
Mr.
Brayshaw: I have a question.
At the last meeting, we had talked and you [Ms. Fitzsimons] had
mentioned that there might be a possibility of you looking at a second
location at the other end of town. Do
you know what that location might be?
Ms.
Fitzsimons: That’s what we are
bringing the VP of engineering to discuss.
He did the site design. We
haven’t actually gone to look at individual candidates.
What we’re doing right now is identifying the general area for the
town, showing where the next need is going to be and how that will close the
gap in coverage.
Mr.
McLaughlin and Mr. Wallace said that the Board can only deal with one at a
time. Mr. Brayshaw said that he
would at least like to get an idea. Mr.
Pershouse said that question falls pretty heavily on the propagation from this
site that we’re dealing with, and it has a lot to do – from ATC’s point
of view – in determining where they would want that other tower.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that once a tower is in, you have to let other companies in.
Mr. Pershouse said it would be on a “per tower” basis.
That’s why they are asking the question now, as to where that second
site might be, to help justify the location of this one, in terms of coverage
– especially up the 89 corridor – that’s the real focus.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: That’s why we wanted
to do it – not as part of this application, but as maybe a separate work
session. It really is a fine line.
We’re coming in asking approval for this one tower and we don’t
want to make this tower approval contingent on acceptance of another site
because we don’t know what property restrictions are, zoning, building of
the tower and lease of the land. We
did want to show that we’re trying to get a continuous line of coverage up
the 89 corridor and if this site is approved, where you next site might be to
maintain that continuous coverage. We
want to provide a general long term plan for the town.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that he knows that there was something a while back that said
that if you let one tower in with three carriers or six carriers, you may have
200 carriers and you have to let them all in.
Ms.
Fitzsimons: There are a finite
number of licenses that have been issued in this market – 6 PCS and 2
cellular.
Mr.
Pershouse said that that condition doesn’t hinge on our approval of the
first site. It is a federal law
that you cannot turn telecommunications people away.
You’ve got to provide some site or sites in the town.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that approval of this site will help the town in
that argument, because you haven’t prohibited wireless service in the area
– you’ve actually provided for it, and then the burden shifts to the
wireless service provider to show why they can’t co-locate on that existing
tower and why they can’t use that existing site before the town is mandated
to grant them their own site.
Mr.
Brayshaw: My comment to the Board
is that he would like to see a Master Plan, and exactly what your master plan
is for going up 89. I’m speaking
for the townsfolk.
Mr.
Pershouse: That was the intent in
getting together with the technical forces, to see basically what the ballpark
looks like. Ms. Fitzsimons said
that he’s done the drive testing and that they have the hard data and the
plats to show – the question was when they could get the Board together, as
well as any interested parties that would want to do an informal work session
and to discuss general RF questions as well.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he would get together with Mr. Brayshaw to set a date for
the meeting.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the Board would delay the acceptance of the application,
so that the Board can have sufficient time to review it, until the February 4th
meeting, at which time there would be an acceptance and the Public Hearing.
VIII.
Minor
Subdivision: Michael
and Cynthia Cook,
Tony
Lamarine,
Mr.
Lamarine said that the purpose of the application is to divide the original
parcel of 14.18 acres into 2 lots – 3.58 acres and 10.6 acres.
The small lot will be deeded to the Cook’s daughter and son-in-law
for their home. The remaining
parcel with existing buildings will belong to the Cooks.
The zoning requires 250’ of frontage and a minimum of 2 acres of
land. The proposed lot would have
643.93’ of frontage and 3.04 acres of buildable lot area, when areas of
ledge, steep slope, etc., are factored out.
The remaining parcel has 846.81’ of frontage on
Mr.
St.Pierre said that the minimum buildable lot definition enters into play
because there is an area of slope in excess of 25% that cuts the new lot into
two pieces. Under the current
definition, the acreage isn’t continuous.
It is suggested that they postpone the application until after the Town
Meeting, at which time the revised definition of minimum buildable lot will be
voted upon.
Mr.
Pershouse suggested that one possibility would be to move the line to meet the
current definition and then do a lot line adjustment at a future date to bring
it to the size that they want. This
would be logistics, in order to accomplish their goal.
Mr.
Lamarine said that wouldn’t allow the plan to be approved at this meeting,
based on a change in the plan. Ms.
Annis said that she wouldn’t advise it because as soon as the line is moved,
the current use on the larger piece will be lost.
She said that the requirements are 10 acres plus whatever the house,
barn and septic system use.
There
was discussion regarding other alternatives:
petition the ZBA for a variance, because it is their ordinance, or wait
until after Town Meeting to see if the definition of buildable lot is changed.
Mr. McLaughlin said that the applicant is suggesting a conditional
approval based on the receipt of a revised plan showing 3 acres of continuous
buildable area.
Mr.
Cook said that he wished to continue the hearing until the April 1st
meeting of the Board.
IX.
Communications
and Miscellaneous
Subdivision
of land on
Mr.
McLaughlin said that this item isn’t on the agenda, and normally the Board
wouldn’t be able to say too much about whatever they wanted to discuss.
But because they had traveled a long distance to come to the meeting,
and someone in Town Hall had told them that they should come tonight to the
Board meeting, they would be allowed to ask their questions and tell the Board
what they had in mind.
Ms.
Randall said that the property is a fairly clear piece of property with one
house on the land. There are 34
acres and they propose to subdivide the land into six lots and put up upscale
houses, which would increase the value of the whole neighborhood.
There would be no variances required.
She said that the six rectangular lots would have nice views and would
have slopping backyards. The
houses being considered are modular homes – two-story colonials and capes.
She said they are looking at attractive houses and, according to local
Realtors that they have talked with, would be priced in the $300,000 to low
$400,000 range. She said that Mr.
Lamarine would be doing the surveying work for them.
She asked for any comments from the Board before they begin the
engineering process.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse: Are you
indicating to us that you want to do the subdivision and you want to build all
six lots in the near future on a speculative basis?
Answer:
Ms. Randall: Yes.
Or if we sold a lot, we would have a covenant with the lot sale that
would require that the houses all be kept in the same scale of things, so that
no one could come in put a little trailer home on the lot.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse: But
effectively, you would be looking to actively market the subdivision.
Answer:
Yes. There is one house
there now, so there would be 5 new houses.
Each of the lots would be nearly 5 acres.
The smallest would be 4.5 acres.
Ms.
Annis stated that there is a big wetland area in the back of the property.
Ms. Randall proposed building the houses staggered so that there would
be clear views. Mr. McLaughlin
said that an issue would be the road leading up to the property -- that there
is a very sharp turn coming up from Warner.
Ms. Randall said that with modular homes, they would have to come in
another way.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that the road is currently scheduled for work.
Ms. Randall said that it is a Class V road that is in pretty good
shape.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that since this part of the meeting is totally unscheduled,
the interested people in the audience could ask questions as long as they
weren’t too extensive.
David
Minton, Steve Lindblom, and True Kelley, abutters,
were present and had several questions.
Mr.
Minton asked what the Town of
Mr.
Lindblom said that one of the big concerns of the
abutters is the road, because this would be doubling or tripling the amount of
traffic on the road. There are
fire concerns present even at this point, with the small number of homes there
now. He said that last winter a
plow truck got stuck and bottled up the entire road for several hours until
the truck could be towed out. If
there were an emergency, and a fire truck or car got stuck, the road would be
blocked off. The Board should
consider the fact that recent builders of homes have had to make substantial
improvements and that if someone is going to build a subdivision – that the
Town wouldn’t want to get into another Split Rock situation, where the town
ends up paying for major road improvements after a developer has made a lot of
money.
It
was stated from an abutter that the town should have the right to enable to a
developer to improve the road, widen the road, and pave the road as a
condition of development. Most
towns require this. He said that
the road does wash out at times and that it is only 1-½ car widths wide, at
best. In the wintertime, it is
only 1 car width wide. You
literally have to pull over to let another car go by, or back up to allow a
truck to go by.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that the Director of Public Works, Alan Brown, should be
consulted in situations like that. If
the road has to be widened, it is usually at the expense of the developer.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that it is a dirt road, and often when new people come to an
area where they are used to paved roads – when they’re on a dirt road,
their expectations are different and they don’t like the dust and all of the
other problems that go along with it.
The
abutters said that they are not happy with the thought of a development of
that size going in on that property. They
always knew that some development was inevitable, but not on this scale.
It will totally destroy the nature of a nice little back road.
Ms. Randall said that 5 houses on 34 acres aren’t that many.
The abutters said that there are no trees and it is still in sight of
the road. Ms. Randall said that
there would be trees long the road when they are finished.
________________________________________
Capitol
Improvements Program
Mr.
Brayshaw handed out copies of the corrected version from the Selectmen,
covering General Government, Fire Department, Police, Highway and Transfer
Station and Equipment Inventory.
Mr.
Pershouse asked for an overview, in anticipation of any particular number
issues, as to where the Budget Committee is on this.
The Planning Board is technically supposed to endorse the numbers, but
now it is after the fact.
Mr.
Brayshaw: The Budget Committee
that we have right now is a good Budget Committee.
My own personal feelings on the Budget Committee’s overview of the
CIP is that the Budget Committee likes to “pay as you go.”
The Board [of Selectmen] decided to put this together and put the
numbers in it and go forward with it. I
know this year the Budget Committee has, besides the
Mr.
Pershouse: I don’t want to
create more of an issue, but we’re in an awkward situation where the
Planning Board sent out the requests for the information and we received only
one reply. I’m not sure, and
think it would be helpful, if you as the representative of the Selectmen’s
Office as well as Budget Committee, could tell us what and how we can view
this information in a meaningful way and what we can do to get the process at
least working in some optimal form so that our endorsement means something.
Mr.
Brayshaw: I don’t know what to
tell you, really. I think we’re
dealing with a mindset that’s basically “pay as you go.”
We’re dealing with a program that’s been going for years that seems
to be working. There are some
people that are for it and some against. I
don’t know why this money isn’t being considered.
Ed
Mical: The budget that was
presented was higher than last year’s budget and the idea is to try to keep
the budget in line. One way to do
that is to go through and cut some of the capitol reserve items.
Mr.
Pershouse: Are you saying that
there are no significant increases?
Mr.
Mical: The
budget is still ongoing at this point, but some of the recommendations that
were put forth by the Board of Selectmen to the Budget Committee, as far as
capitol reserves, were not recommended for approval in this year’s budget by
this year’s Budget Committee.
Mr.
Brayshaw: For the record, it is my
personal feeling that this Budget Committee is “pay as you go.”
Ms.
Annis said that she was told that there was an 11% increase in the operating
budget over last year, not the capitol budget, and therefore something had to
go. They started with the capitol
reserves and are now working on the operating budget and cutting that.
She said that her personal opinion is that something should be put
aside every year, and that maybe $50,000 is too high.
Mr.
Pershouse said that the Planning Board has somewhat of a fiduciary
responsibility to the town to at least advocate for whatever the financial
steps are to be able to affect whatever the Planning Board is endorsing.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that there are two spectrums of responsibility – the fiscal
and planning, and they are clashing.
Mr.
Pershouse said that, just because of sequence and logistics, the Planning
Board hasn’t addressed any of the capitol improvement numbers this year, the
fiscal and fiduciary. He said this
concerns him in principle. If the
Board is going to be responsible for recommending or advocating a Capitol
Improvements Program, the Board should be doing something or get off the hook
and say it isn’t their purview and we’re not taking responsibility for it.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that in the three years that he has been doing this, the Budget
committee was not the same one at the beginning as the one now.
The first year, the process seemed to be to put money away.
The second year, different people were in place and he saw that people
seemed to be throwing numbers out without really any real reasoning or
explanations on why cuts were made. He
said that this year the budget committee seems to be a little more intact.
His personal feelings are that in the budget process, numbers shouldn’t
be arbitrarily thrown out just to try to make a budget meet a goal.
The town’s needs should be discussed and goals set to get to those
numbers.
Mr.
Pershouse said the last two years, he got specific criticism of the Capitol
Improvements Program. The program
does come out under the name of the Planning Board, and the concern is that
the Planning Board hasn’t had anything to do with it this year and it comes
out stating that these numbers are the recommendations of the Planning Board
to the Budget Committee or to the Town or to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Brayshaw said that, basically, someone has to stand up before the
Town at Town Meeting and present the numbers.
Mr. Pershouse said that he is uncomfortable, as a member of the
Planning Board, saying that this is the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Ms.
Annis said that the CIP comes from the Planning Board, with input from the
Selectmen. This year, it has come
from the Selectmen. The General
Government should come from the Selectmen, but the Fire Department, Highway
Department, and Police Department should come to the Planning Board – and
then the Planning Board puts together the CIP program and gives it to the
Board of Selectmen to present to the Budget Committee.
That is the sequence that has happened in the past.
Mr.
Pershouse said that this budget year, everything was moved up two or three
months, into August as opposed to October.
Mr. Brayshaw said that this year is his first year to have anything to
do with this. He said that the
public needs to have a good understanding of what the CIP is in order for them
to accept it. Ms. Annis said that
she doesn’t mean to exclude the Selectmen, and there is a time when someone
from the Planning Board would have to sit down with the Selectmen and discuss
the plans to fund the items.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the CIP provides an independent gathering of things that
need to be done and things that the town needs to consider in their planning.
Whether they chose to do only 10% of the things that are recommended in
the first year – that’s another issue.
He said that what the Planning Board can contribute to this process is
to take some of the burden off of the Selectmen and become the focus of
attention in terms of gathering information and putting it together.
Mr. Brayshaw said it would be a lot better for the Planning Board to
sit in front of the Budget Committee instead of the Selectmen.
The Selectmen are presenting 30 or 40 other items.
Mr.
Pershouse asked Mr. Brayshaw where the requests for information that were
requested by the Planning Board went. Mr. Brayshaw said that he didn’t know,
and that it didn’t come to his office. Mr.
Pershouse said that his understanding is that what happened is that the
responses came as work sessions with the individuals and the numbers were
developed jointly with the Selectmen, instead of the information coming to the
Planning Board in writing – as requested.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that it had a lot to do with the department heads.
Ms.
Annis had a question regarding the
Mr.
Pershouse asked Selectmen Brayshaw and Mical:
Out of the total CIP requests, in general numbers – from zero to 10%,
what is your judgment of what percentage of the total program will be accepted
or recommended by the Budget committee? Mr.
Brayshaw said zero. Mr.
Mical said that the Budget committee hasn’t recommended any of the capitol
reserve at this point. He said
that isn’t to say that once they are done with the operating budgets, they
might not come back and look at some of the reserve monies at that point.
Mr. Mical said that of capital expenditures, the Budget Committee has
approved the revaluation and the highway excavator.
Mr.
Pershouse said that his suggestion to the Planning Board is to not have the
CIP go out under the Planning Board’s name this year because it has come out
of the budget process with the Selectmen.
He also recommended that the Planning Board not vote to endorse it
because they haven’t been a part of the process.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that if he goes to the Budget Committee without an endorsement,
it won’t be approved. Mr.
Pershouse said that it wouldn’t be approved anyway, so it is a moot point.
Mr. McLaughlin said that he agrees with Mr. Pershouse – since the
Planning Board hasn’t been involved in the process whatsoever.
If the Budget Committee is going to keep its schedule as it is and
begin its deliberations in early September, the process needs to start much
earlier in the year. He said that
this year the Planning Board should pass on it because nothing on the CIP has
been discussed.
Mr.
Brayshaw asked what it takes to get the process started.
Mr. Pershouse said that the requests for information had been sent out,
following past years’ model.
Mr.
Mical recommended that packets requesting information from the various
departments be sent out in July and that the Planning Board have
recommendations for the Selectmen by September.
He said that the budget will be started in October again in 2002.
Postings
and Minutes
Mr.
Brayshaw said that some subcommittee meetings have not been properly posted
and that minutes haven’t been taken. He
said that he would be meeting with an attorney the next day to find out the
legalities, but that he has been told that subcommittees can only be appointed
by the Selectmen.
Mr.
Pershouse said that the Planning Board would, then, have to come to the
Selectmen to get their endorsement for people that want to serve on a
subcommittee. Mr. Brayshaw
said that the members of the public as well as the Selectmen would like to see
the minutes, the notices of hearings and a list of the subcommittee members
for the last ordinances that were changed – as well as the same information
for the current subcommittee and what that subcommittee is doing.
Ms.
Annis said that the last three meetings have been posted, but that she hasn’t
seen any minutes.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that until the information regarding last year’s subcommittee
meetings is given to the Selectmen (dates of meetings, minutes and members),
there shouldn’t be any more changes to any ordinances brought before the
Town.
Ms.
Annis asked if there was the insinuation that there is the possibility that
because the public wasn’t notified of subcommittee meetings last year, the
changes to ordinances voted on last year at Town Meeting are illegal.
Mr. Brayshaw said yes.
Mr.
Pershouse said that his response is that zoning changes, in all cases, have
come before the Planning Board with a Public Hearing and with the text of the
changes, as well as the development of those changes – the result of work of
the subcommittee. The Planning
Board has, to his knowledge, processed all of those documents and changes in
the appropriate and legal manner to have them adopted by the Town.
There have been Public Hearings, there has been discussion of the
changes and it has all been done in writing.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that the most important thing, out of those mentioned by Mr.
Pershouse, is the question: Was
public notification given on all of those changes [in 2001]?
Mr.
Pershouse: Absolutely.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that he needs to see evidence of that.
Mr. Pershouse said that that is in the minutes.
Mr. Brayshaw said he means posting in three places in town, whether it’s
at the Transfer Station, the Library… Mr.
Pershouse said that there is a murky area here.
He understood Mr. Brayshaw, so far, to be talking about the minutes of
the subcommittee meetings. Mr.
Pershouse said that he is putting that one aside, and is saying that at the
time the changes were developed for the Planning Board by a subcommittee –
whether it was properly appointed or not, or if there were minutes or not –
all of those changes came to the Planning Board and to the public in an
appropriate fashion.
Mr.
Brayshaw said eventually they did, after the changes were made.
Mr.
Lennon said no. He said that there
was no secrecy undertaken, and no attempt was made to slide anything by the
public. Mr. Brayshaw said that isn’t what he is saying, and Mr. Lennon said
that it is the clear implication – that either Mr. Brayshaw or someone is
saying that proper procedures were not adhered to, in some sort of attempt to
create things out of the public eye, and that is clearly not true.
Mr. Brayshaw said that he is saying that some meetings were not
properly posted, and that is against the law.
Mr.
Pershouse said to take the argument to extreme:
If one single person had developed the changes (whatever ordinances
they were), brought it to the Planning Board and said, “Here is my
recommendation as an individual – here is my recommendation to the Planning
Board for an ordinance to do thus and such.”
There is no meeting, no public discussion – simply bringing it to the
Planning Board and saying, “Here is what I, as a citizen, am recommending to
the Planning Board for change in the zoning ordinance.”
Mr. Brayshaw said that if you gather people into a subcommittee, you
have to post it. That is what it
boils down to.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he would like to solve the problem and not perpetuate it
by nit picking. If someone or some
individuals in the town don’t approve of the process that has been used in
the past two or three years, they need to bring that to court.
If it is a legal issue that is being framed and developed here, then so
be it. Mr. Brayshaw said that it
isn’t the Board of Selectmen, but that it came to them from the public.
Mr. Pershouse said that he doesn’t understand what the issue is,
other than that someone is unhappy with an ordinance.
Their legal recourse, if they don’t like something that a board,
whether it is the Board of Selectmen or Planning Board or Zoning Board, is to
come to a public hearing. No
material was arbitrarily made into an ordinance or brought to a vote without
hearings.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that he is going back to the subcommittee.
The subcommittee brought something back to this Board, the Board
voted on it and did whatever they had to do from there.
He said that people meeting as a subcommittee, proposing an idea and
then bringing it back to the Board – and not having proper notification of
the subcommittee meeting is the issue. He
said that what the Selectmen are looking for is proper notification of
committee meetings and minutes taken of the meetings.
Mr. Pershouse and Mr. McLaughlin said that they have already agreed
to do that. Mr. Brayshaw said it
isn’t coming from him, but from a member of the public.
Mr. Pershouse asked Mr. Brayshaw to pass the word on from the
Planning Board that if they have a problem with what’s being done, that is
why there are public hearings and a public forum, and that the Planning
Board is operating as best as it can under the law.
If someone has a legitimate complaint, they should write a letter to
the Planning Board.
Statewide
Building Codes
Ms.
Annis said that she had seen in the Legislative Bulletin that the legislature
would be voting on Statewide Building Codes that will supersede local
ordinances. Mr. McLaughlin said
that he didn’t know anything about it, but he thinks it might be a perennial
question that comes up and generally gets defeated by this legislature.
It could be an attempt to standardize building practices from town to
town and state to state.
Mr.
Mical said that at the NHMA conference, there is an international code that
they are trying to adopt as a replacement of the BOCA code.
Ms. Annis said that she knows Warner has adopted part of the BOCA code,
and that the Planning Board could go in and eliminate a portion of the
ordinances if it is included in BOCA. She
asked if they are redundant.
Mr.
Pershouse said that would be like saying that the State should handle
everything. He said that if there
is redundancy, it is a help to everybody because not everyone will be familiar
with every aspect of the BOCA code.
Mr.
Mical said it might be a good idea to have the Building Inspector come in and
discuss this with the Planning Board.
Mr.
Lennon thanked the Board for their patience over the last few months.
His Dad has been ill and he has been commuting back and forth to
Mr.
Brayshaw said that on 103, Mr. Wentzel has filed the proper paperwork as far
as excavation. Mr. Lennon asked if
he will remediate that when it is completed.
Mr. Brayshaw said that the Selectmen responded to a complaint and have
made sure that everything is done properly as well as on Schoodac – being
sure that the road is being cleaned properly.
Mr.
Lennon said that the law states that the property will be regraded
and replanted if it is visible from the road.
He asked if that will be done on Schoodac.
Mr. Brayshaw said that he isn’t sure about that, but that it is where
the house is being moved [from Exit 9]. Mr.
Lennon asked if the work being done is incidental to putting in a house, does
that mean that it doesn’t count as excavation.
Mr. Brayshaw said that is correct.
Mr. Mical said that there is a building permit issued for the Schoodac
lot -- for the house to be put there.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that Mr. Wentzel has to stabilize
whatever banks he leaves exposed on Schoodac and 103.
There is a sheer cliff behind the house on 103.
He said that the Conservation Commission had asked him to mention it to
the Planning Board. Mr. Brayshaw
said that he is keeping his eye on it and will make sure that it is all
completed as necessary. Mr. Mical
said that it is an issue of excavation vs. conservation.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that he would like to know what plans are being made to
stabilize the cliff behind the house on 103.
X.
Adjourn
A
motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The
meeting was adjourned at