|
Town of
Warner – Planning Board Minutes of Meeting Monday, February 4, 2008
7:00 PM Warner Town Hall, Lower Level Members
Present:
Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Drew Serell, Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical,
Wayne Eigabroadt, George Pellettieri Members
Absent:
None Members Late:
None Alternates Present:
Stacey Cooper, Harold French Alternates Late:
None Alternates Absent:
Dan Watts Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at 7:00 PM Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
She then recognized Mr. Richard Cutting. 1. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Property Owner: Richard M. Cutting
Revocable Trust, 169 Parade Ground Cemetery Road, Warner, NH 03278 Agent:
None Property Location:
169 Parade Ground Cemetery Road and Kelly Hill Road Map/lot:
10-53, 06-16 and 06-17, R-3 zoning Description:
Increase size of existing house lot #10-53 from 5.14 acres to
10.51 acres by reducing adjacent lot #06-16 from 17.79 acres to 14.33
acres and lot #06-17 from 9.41 acres to 7.5 acres. Mr. Cutting explained that in 1985 he had
built his house on the lot which is designated as tract 2 on the plan.
He said he had acquired Lots 06-16 and 06-17 in subsequent years,
which directly abutted his house lot in the back.
He also acquired Lot 10-55 from John Hill in about 1989.
He said that after acquiring the other pieces, he wanted to add
more distance between the house and the back lot line.
The other lots were very deep and with the proposed changes, they
will still be quite deep. Lots
06-16 and 06-17 have no structures – they are just wooded lots.
He said he also had wanted to have a real survey done on the
properties involved. He
said there was never a plan recorded on a subdivision of these lots that
was done in 1971, so that was another reason to get them surveyed and
recorded. Lot 10-55 will not be adjusted by this change.
Ms. Annis asked if there were any
questions. There were some
clarifications about what is shown on the plan and the waiver that was
included with the application. The
checklist which was submitted was reviewed by the Board members.
Mr. Serell asked what the State Grid Coordinate System refers to.
He said he wasn’t sure what to look for on the plan to find
this. Mr. Serell read from
the Subdivision Regulations, “Survey shall be tied to the State Grid
Coordinate System where a monument reference to the system is within one
boundary.” Mr. Violette
said that a monument in that system might be some State monument, like a
historic marker. Mr. French
said that he believed it was the benchmarks.
Mr. Eigabroadt agreed, but said he wasn’t certain.
Mr. Serell noted on the right hand side there is a note that
says, “tie,” and there are a number of coordinates listed under it.
He said he thought this was probably what is being referred to.
It was agreed by the Board that if no one thought the reference
was missing, it is assumed that these “tie” references are the
markings that are required. There
were no further questions or comments. Mr. Violette MOVED to accept the
application and the waiver as requested.
Mr. Pellettieri seconded. Mr.
Eigabroadt clarified that this was a motion to accept the application as
complete, as well as granting the waiver.
Ms. Annis said yes. The
motion was passed unanimously. Ms. Annis said on a lot line adjustment
application there is no public hearing but any abutters who are present
may be allowed to speak. She
asked if there were any abutters present who wished to speak.
There were none. Mr. Violette MOVED to APPROVE the
application. Mr.
Pellettieri seconded. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. 2. COMMERCIAL MAJOR
SUBDIVISION Property Owner: A&P
Investments, LLC, 14 Knox Road, Bow, NH
03304 Agent: J. E. Belanger Property Location: West side of
Warner Road/Kearsarge Avenue near Old Warner Lane Map/lot: 03-39, C-1 zoning Description: Subdivision of
16.48 acre parcel into 4 commercial lots:
4.70 acres, 3.84 acres, 3.39 acres and 4.61 acres. Ms. Annis recognized Mr. Jacques
Belanger, representing A&P Investments, LLC.
Mr. Belanger said that this project was discussed last month as a
conceptual and they have now submitted an application for the commercial
major subdivision. He
explained that there is a 16.48 acre tract of land on the west side of
Warner Road that they want to subdivide into 4 commercial properties.
Two years ago, the lot across the street was subdivided by
A&P. To the south is a residential lot in Hopkinton, a mixture of
commercial and residential to the northeast, and the other lots are
owned by Dimond Flag Station and by the State of New Hampshire.
He said the Natural Heritage Inventory has been notified and said
there was nothing on the property and there are no records of any
threatened or endangered species in the area.
The State Subdivision Approval has been received.
There is a waiver request to use an existing drill hole as a lot
corner as opposed to setting a granite bound.
Ms. Annis noted that the corrections
requested have been made, adding “approval” and changing Todd Pond
to Tom Pond, on the map. She also asked about the two additional
abutters which had not been included.
Mr. Belanger said they had been added to the list of abutters to
be notified. She
asked if the Board Members had any questions.
Mr. Pellettieri asked whether the cross-traffic easements issue
has been addressed. Ms.
Annis said it was not addressed because it is a commercial area and
it’s not subject to open space considerations.
Mr. Mical said he had raised the issue and has looked at the
Zoning Ordinance. He said
the Zoning Ordinance specifically addresses it in the Intervale
District, but it is not addressed in other commercial districts.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that we had asked about it at the last
meeting and requested that they keep the idea in mind as the development
progresses. It may be something that we may ask that they consider, but
not that would hold anything up. Mr.
Serell said he thought it would be considered as part of the site plan,
but not now. Mr. Mical said
he thought that this may be the time to do it to get the easement as we
consider the subdivision, rather than wait until we get the site plan.
Mr. Mical asked if there was anything that authorizes Mr.
Belanger to act on A&P Investments’ behalf.
Mr. Belanger said a letter was submitted last month and he
submitted another copy. Ms.
Cooper asked if the Town of Hopkinton had been contacted so they would
be aware of the development going on in this area.
Mr. Violette said this has been a commercial district since 1971,
so the areas abutting in Hopkinton must be aware of the development.
Ms. Annis said they were notified as an abutter since they were
on the list of abutters. Ms.
Cooper asked how this would interact with the research coming out of the
Natural Resource Inventory that the Conservation Commission is working
on. Mr. Eigabroadt said
that Mr. James McLaughlin is present and it was decided to include this
discussion in the public hearing. Ms.
Annis asked the Board Members to review the checklist with the
application. Ms. Annis asked if there were any
questions from the checklist review.
Mr. Mical said they had noted that the adjoining road had not
been identified. He thought
it was Old Warner Lane. Mr.
Belanger said he would add the label to that road on the map.
Mr. Eigabroadt noted that the legend delineates the test pits as
dark and light squares, but on the map, the test pits are circles.
Mr. Belanger said he would fix that to clarify the legend.
Mr. Eigabroadt asked how to confirm that the subdivision complies
with the Town of Warner Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, as provided
on page 3 of the checklist, item V.C.3. Mr. Serell said that the regulation reads that it shall
comply with the Town of Warner Flood Plain Development Ordinance.
Mr. Eigabroadt said if it was important enough to ask, then there
must be a way to confirm that it applies or does not apply.
He asked what the flood plain elevation cut-off is.
Mr. Mical said it depends on the area.
He said he thinks it depends on the Flood Plain Development Map,
and he checked the map. Mr.
Eigabroadt said it would be helpful to have the map available at the
meetings so this issue could be confirmed when necessary.
Mr. Serell noted that the certification at the top had not been
filled in with the signature. Mr.
Belanger said they would add that to the Mylar.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that on the lower corner, it was noted “as
approved by the Planning Board Meeting held on March 6, 2006.”
Mr. Serell also asked about the “erosion plan.”
He said that they had assumed that it referred to a road, even
though it was not specified in the regulations.
Ms. Annis agreed that it related to a road.
Mr. Mical said that he had reviewed the
flood plain map and part of the lot is in Zone A.
Mr. Belanger asked if that was based on elevation.
Mr. Mical replied it’s based on an old FEMA map that shows it.
Mr. Belanger said they could overlay the Zone A area on the Mylar
to be produced. Mr. Serell
asked what they have to do with the plan to comply with the Flood Plain
Development Ordinance. Ms.
Cooper asked if it is just a small pocket or if it affects the buildable
area. Mr. Violette said it
appears that it’s just in lot 39-3 and there are no precise
measurements on the flood plain map.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that Zone A is an area that’s rated as
having a 1% or greater possibility of flooding in any given year. Mr.
Violette asked about the elevation.
Mr. Belanger said there’s no base elevation now and it will be
completed in the spring. Ms.
Annis referred to the regulations saying that the Code Enforcement
Officer in A Zones would review and utilize any 100-year flood elevation
data from Federal, State or other sources for development proposals.
Mr. Serell MOVED to GRANT the waiver to
use the existing drill hole as a lot corner as opposed to requiring a
granite bound to be set and to ACCEPT the application on the condition
that the Flood Zone A is designated on the plan and the overlay is
included. Mr. Duhamel seconded. There
was no discussion. PASSED unanimously. Ms. Annis opened the public hearing and
asked if there were any abutters who wished to speak.
There were none. James
McLaughlin of the Conservation Commission said that for the Natural
Resources Inventory, he had nothing that specifically related to this
parcel of land. He said he
thought the wetlands and flood plain would be the two natural features
that would be of most concern. He
said that he thought so long as the wetlands were delineated and the
flood zone was added to the plan, the important things were covered from
their perspective. Mr. Rick Davies said that he had found in
the Zoning Ordinance, Commercial District, C-1, a reference to the
cross-easement requirement. It’s
in Article XI, Item C.3.b, where shared access arrangements are
discussed. Ms. Annis said
that there is a letter from Allan Brown saying that he would grant 4
driveway permits for this property.
Mr. David Hartman noted that he believed
there was a big rock between the two lots and said that now when two-lot
subdivisions are being granted for houses, it is asked to have the
driveway access joined at the approximate boundary of the lots.
So, he suggested promoting the idea of having only two driveways,
instead of the four, where the two driveways are situated between two
lots each. He said for the
Town purposes it was better to have only two accesses, rather than 4 in
the middle of each of the lots. There was no further discussion. Ms. Annis closed the public hearing and re-opened the
Planning Board meeting. Mr.
Pellettieri said he thought that if no provision is made now for
cross-lot connections, it is possible in the future as these lots
develop and there is a lot of traffic in the area, we would not want
four different driveways, and would prefer a more controlled access.
He said this would occur during the site plan review, but
there’s no provision made for it during the subdivision process, and
he said he thinks this has created a problem in that we have not been
able to require the land owners to have cross-lot connections.
He said he thought it was the intent of the regulations to
address it now during the subdivision process.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that could be a major part of the site plan,
depending on where buildings are placed, where septic is placed, and
other considerations. Mr.
Serell asked Mr. Davies which article in the Zoning Ordinance he was
referring to. It was
Article XI, Item C.3.b. Ms. Annis said she believed it was related to site plans.
Mr. Mical said that it was stated that one may reduce setbacks if
certain criteria are met. Ms. Annis agreed that there are frontages and you have to set
back a certain number of feet from a boundary and so many feet from a
roadway. However, she said,
this is entirely up to the individual owner – if they will grant
cross-easements and all other things, items a, b and c in this Article,
then we may allow the building to be set back 50% of the requirement. Mr. Serell noted that the cross-easements were noted
specifically in the Intervale District part of the Ordinance, but not
part of the C-1 part of the Ordinance.
Ms. Annis said this can only happen in the site plan process.
Mr. Serell said that his understanding is that outside of the
Intervale District, unless they’re requesting a waiver of normal
setback requirements, they don’t have to comply with cross-easement
requirements. He also added, given where this is located, and the
stretch of road, he did not see it becoming a high traffic area any time
in the near future. Mr.
Eigabroadt said that he thought Mr. Hartman’s idea of minimizing the
curb-cuts, having one driveway serve two lots, is a good one. It would
help alleviate some of the concerns we’re talking about with the
cross-easements. He
clarified that it would be only asking and recommending that it be done
that way, not requiring, since we cannot require it from the Ordinance. Mr. Duhamel said he agreed that it has a lot of merit,
but that this was not the time to consider it.
This is an application and we have no rights to ask them to do
it. He said since we
can’t force them to do it, he didn’t think we should not even be
discussing it tonight. Mr. Eigabroadt said that we were not forcing them
to do it and noted that during the conceptual discussion, we asked him
to keep it in the back of his mind as a possibility as they proceed with
the development, in case it would come up in the future.
Ms. Annis said it was a misunderstanding in regard to that
section and she said she believed it has been clarified.
Mr. Eigabroadt said that he also was not
completely clear on the flood plain considerations.
He said he now understood that it is more of a concern at the
construction phase when the building permit is to be applied for.
He quote from the Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Warner,
“for subdivisions having land designated as a special flood hazard
area [which Zone A is] by the National Flood Insurance Program, the
Planning Board shall review the proposed development to assure that all
necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies
from which approval is required by Federal or State law, including
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972,” which was discussed in our Flood Plain Ordinance, talking about
the septic system. He
continued, “The Planning Board shall require that all subdivision
proposals greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser,
including base flood elevation data within such proposals.” An example is the flood plain boundary and the 100-year flood
elevation. “It shall also
require the applicant to submit sufficient evidence, construction
drawings, grading and land treatment plants, so as to allow a
determination that all such proposals are consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage. All
public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical and
water systems, are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate
flood damage and adequate drainage is provided so as to reduce exposure
to flood hazard.” He said
he didn’t know if this was applicable at this stage in the process,
but what brought up the issue was the item on the checklist certifying
that they are complying with the regulations.
He said he thought that the area designated as wetland should
have a part of it delineated as flood plain on the plan.
He suggested that this be added as a condition to the subdivision
approval. Mr. Belanger said
it is not elevation-based, so the best route is to overlay the flood
plain portion on to the plan, and they will do that.
He said that he thought the remainder of the issues related to
the flood plain would be considered in the site plan review.
Ms. Annis added that the issues related to the cross-easements
would also be considered in the site plan review.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. McLaughlin if putting
the Zone A flood plain overlay on the plan would assist the Natural
Resources Inventory in their efforts.
Mr. Duhamel asked if delineating the flood zone area would impact
the buildable areas on the subdivided lots.
Mr. Mical asked Mr. Belanger if on the plans they have delineated
the buildable areas. Mr.
Belanger said yes, the buildable area was all outside the wetland area.
Mr. Mical said that from the information that’s been provided,
it appeared that Lot 39-3 and possibly 39-2 are in the flood zone noted. But, it was agreed that you can’t tell until the overlay is
actually done. Mr. Mical
said that a draft of the new maps for Merrimack County are in digitized
form and are on the internet. Mr.
Belanger said they will overlay the flood zone on the map.
Mr. Belanger said that the wetlands
scientist will be going to the property after the snow melts to get one
more look at it and then it will be certified.
So, the completed plan will not be submitted for a few months.
Mr. Eigabroadt MOVED to CONDITIONALLY
APPROVE the application with the following conditions:
1. The flood plain
Zone A will be clearly delineated on the plan.
2. The wetlands
scientist favorable certification will be added.
3. Old Warner Lane
will be clearly identified on the plan.
4. The dates on the
certifications at the top of the plan are corrected. 5.
The legend for the test pit and the actual test pit areas on the
plan will be corrected to match one another. Mr. Mical seconded. There was no
discussion. Passed
Unanimously. 3.
MINUTES January 7, 2008 Meeting minutes approved as written. January 21, 2008 Public Hearing and Work Session minutes approved as written. 4.
REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEES Mr. Violette reported for the Master Plan
Committee. He said the
minutes for a meeting held on January 18 with Sharon Wason, the
Executive Director of the Central NH Regional Planning Commission
(CNHRPC), and two of her associates, have been provided to the
Members. We laid out the scope and what our plan would be to get
started on the Master Plan. He
said a contract was signed in December with CNHRPC for Phase I. We encumbered funds that we had on hand to cover that
contract. Currently, the
plan is that they will prepare a written work plan, base maps and land
use data, which will be ready for the next meeting, which will be during
our work session on Monday, February 18th.
He said some of the first phase will be an audit of our current
regulations so everything does flow back and forth properly and
references made in one place are appropriately tied to the other place.
Ms. Annis then reported for the
Subcommittee on Traffic Control. They
have met three times – on January 16th, the 24th
and the 29th. The
first time was to come up with an RFP.
We borrowed one that the Selectmen had used and adjusted ours
from that one. We have
received responses from other towns about their experience with
roundabouts. She said they
are not saying that a roundabout will be built there, but they wanted to
gather information from the other towns.
The meeting on the 24th was not held because Mr. Mical
was called for a fire call and could not attend.
On the 29th, the verbiage of the RFP was concluded and
it has been sent out to 8 different companies.
The RFP requests information about the company, what they have
done, what their qualifications are, etc.
The names of the companies came from the towns.
They were companies that they had used for their roundabout
design. Mr. French asked if
Ms. Annis had read the article in the Concord Monitor about the Keene
roundabout on Route 101. There
was then some discussion about the roundabout in Keene and roundabouts,
in general. Mr. Violette said that the aim is to get some idea of the
cost and how things might work in that area.
Ms. Annis said that the point is to try to look at all
possibilities so they can be presented to the Selectmen.
And, the subcommittee will not be again until some of the
proposals come in. Ms. Cooper said she had communicated with
the State of NH because they are in the process of drafting what will be
included in the certificate of occupancy regarding residential water
quality testing. She said
that the direction seems to be toward what would be the priority for
different towns. She
thought it should be done sometime toward the end of this month.
Mr. Mical asked about the Rules of
Procedure. He said the
Members have a draft copy of the Procedures, but no final ones.
He asked if it had been forwarded to the Town Clerk.
Ms. Lightfoot said it was adopted on January 7, 2008, and a copy
was forwarded to the Town Clerk. She
said she will forward a final copy to each of the Board Members.
Mr. McLaughlin said that he will bring in
the Natural Resources Inventory map for the meeting with Sharon Wason on
February 18th if the Board wishes, hoping that this would
prevent her from repeating their work.
Mr. Violette agreed, but wasn’t sure if it would be covered on
February 18th. Mr.
McLaughlin said he will know by Wednesday night when the Conservation
Commission meets if it will be ready.
Mr. Violette said they did not want CNHRPC to be duplicating our
work. Ms. Annis noted that the Board will be
considering a two-lot subdivision at 7:00 on February 18th.
She said that the driveway permit for that subdivision is for one
family, not two families. A copy was sent to them so we should be receiving the updated
permit from the State before we can proceed.
After that, the Master Plan Committee will be meeting.
She asked if she and Mr. Mical could meet on the Building Code.
He agreed. Mr. Eigabroadt and Mr. Watts will be concluding their
work. Ms. Cooper and Mr.
Serell are nearly finished with the water quality, except for waiting
for the State to respond. Ms.
Annis asked if Ms. Cooper would be joining another committee.
Ms. Cooper said she is on the Master Plan Committee. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical about the CIP.
Mr. Mical said he would be willing to work on the CIP, but not
chair the committee. Mr.
Eigabroadt said he would work on the CIP with Mr. Mical. Mr. Duhamel
said he would chair the CIP Committee.
Ms. Cooper agreed to serve on the CIP Committee, as well. Mr. Mical suggested that a memo be sent to the Budget
Committee and the Board of Selectmen asking what changes they would like
to make to the CIP for this year so the process can be started early
enough. Mr. Hartman said he had raised the issue
of all the legislation that’s active related to municipalities and the
notification that the Local Government Center sends by e-mail every
week. He agreed to ask
Laura to add the Planning Board to the e-mail list.
Then, Ms. Lightfoot will forward the e-mail to each member.
No further business.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
|