|
Town of
Warner – Planning Board Minutes of Meeting Monday, June 2, 2008
7:00 PM Warner Town Hall, Lower Level Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, David Hartman, George Pellettieri Members
Excused: None Members
Absent:
None Members Late:
Ed Mical Alternates Present:
Dan Watts, Rick Davies (both present but not voting) Alternates Excused:
None Alternates Absent:
None Alternate Late:
None Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Open Meeting at 7:00 PM Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
The roll call was taken. 1.
CONCEPTUAL
DISCUSSION Property
Owner: Chalk Pond
Investments, LLC, Christian Hartshorn, President Property
Location: 285 Pleasant Pond
Road, Warner, NH, Warner Map 3-Lot 22 and Map 2-Lot 6, R-2 and OR-1
zoning districts and Hopkinton Lot 206-21 Purpose:
Discussion and information about developing affordable housing Ms.
Annis recognized Christian Hartshorn and asked him to explain his
concept. Mr. Hartshorn said
he wanted to start a dialogue about the direction he might move with the
land that he has. He
explained that he was denied a variance as a building lot for Lot 22 on
Map 3 because he does not have adequate frontage through the Town of
Hopkinton’s lot. He said
he had wanted to subdivide so the part of the lot where his house is
located would be separate and he would still have access to the back of
the land. This was not
allowed because he could not show a hardship that was not self-inflicted
because of where he chose to build his house.
He said he wants to begin to talk about some of the things he
might be able to do with the lot in regard to housing.
He asked if the town has a position on affordable housing.
He said his original thought is to build some stick-built homes
that could be affordable to the mean income of the average household in
Warner, which is $44,000 a year. He said that he computed that based on 30% of that, the cost
that an average household could afford is $140,000.
He said he cannot afford to build the number of allowable homes
on his land based on the zoning ordinance at a cost of $140,000 each.
He said he would like to move forward with the town to see what
the town would like to see in terms of affordable housing and what could
be done to achieve the goals of the town.
He said he is thinking of a co-housing type of development, where
there are small clusters of houses, connected by walking paths, higher
density with less chopped up space than is normally done with a
conventional subdivision. He
said he envisions having land dedicated for residents to grow their own
food and, possibly some husbandry, like sheep or chickens. He said he thinks this may meet a demand as more and more
people are looking to have to buy less food.
He said his vision actually is the way things were done in the
area 200-300 years ago. And,
he asked what the town’s position is on affordable housing and density
restrictions that current zoning regulations impose. Mr.
Duhamel said that he and Ms. Annis were at a meeting at the end of April
where there was a round-table discussion and the question came up,
“how much is affordable housing?”
He said that none of them were able to come up with a number, so
he was glad to hear that Mr. Hartshorn had come up with one way of
computing it. He asked if
this was similar to one that he’s heard of on Nantucket or Martha’s
Vineyard. Mr. Hartshorn
said they are all over New England.
One of them is in Nubanusit in Peterborough.
He said they are 1-4 bedroom units, but the price is not
affordable for Warner, since the mean income for Peterborough is not the
mean income for Warner. He
said there’s an area for growing food, an area that’s flex-space for
people who may have a woodshop or they need space to assemble something
or greenhouses. Mr.
Hartshorn continued that as he was calculating what cost would be
affordable for Warner, based on the 30% of mean income for a mortgage
payment which is recommended by the New Hampshire Housing Finance
Administration, he was thinking about the size of the house that would
fit with the affordable cost (and aside from what the land cost would
be) and he said he arrived at just under a 900 square foot house.
It could be a two-story, cape-style cottage with a loft upstairs.
He said that based on the amount of land he has and the zoning
requirements, he could only get 8 units on the lot, and he could not
afford to do only 8 units. He
said that with the “Open Space Development” regulations, he could
cluster them to save on road costs, but that still does not help him
because the number limitation is what prevents him from being able to
build them. Ms.
Annis said there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that refers to
affordable housing. She
said is up to the person who is developing the homes.
There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that requires a certain
number of homes be affordable. She
added that the only thing she could see that relates to the issue is the
Open Space Development section which allows for cluster development and
allows the area around it to be open space where there could be a
garden. She said there is a
table on page 26 of the Zoning Ordinance which shows the minimum density
and how many units are allowable. She said that he would have to build the road to access the
property. She said the
biggest concern would be how the land would be used, assuming that he
would have to subdivide. Mr.
Pellettieri asked Mr. Hartshorn to describe the property.
Mr. Hartshorn said he has 105 acres and he has about 468 feet of
frontage, all of which is in Hopkinton.
There is no frontage in Warner.
He said he has .8 acres of land in Hopkinton and the rest of the
land is in Warner. He said that, for the Hopkinton zoning requirements, if there
is a subdivision, he has to dedicate at least two acres of the Warner
land to the Hopkinton piece to assure that the lot where his house is
meets the buildable lot requirements in Hopkinton.
He said he does not have enough frontage for two lots on the road
because of where his house is. He
said he can build a road into the Warner piece because he would have
enough frontage for that, but not enough for another buildable lot.
Mr. Hartshorn indicated on a map for the board members how the
lots are configured and where the access road would go.
Mr.
Hartshorn asked if there is a demand for affordable housing.
He said he knows that the State Legislature recently passed a
bill to help expedite affordable housing.
Ms. Annis asked the Board members if they had heard anything and
suggested that real estate agents might know.
Mr. Violette said that the Master Plan Committee is in the midst
of preparing the Master Plan and there is a survey which will be coming
out soon and the questions are asked about various types of housing. He said that we don’t know how much input we’ll get from
the survey, but it might be valuable. Mr.
Davies asked about the table on page 26 referred to by Ms. Annis and
what is meant by “1 unit.” He
asked if that is one living unit or one lot for multi-family housing,
for example. Ms. Annis said
she understood it to be one unit is equal to one family.
There is no specific definition for it, she said.
Mr. Davies continued to say that he was looking at the use tables
in R-2, where it is permissible to have two and multi-family housing.
He said that in OR-1, it is not permitted, so perhaps there would
be a pro-ration of the number of areas in which Mr. Hartshorn could
apply toward it. Ms.
Annis said because all of his road frontage is in Hopkinton, how can
Warner say that he’s allowed to develop something in the back area if
he can’t get the road frontage granted by Hopkinton.
Mr. Davies explained that the Zoning Board went through that
issue a couple of months ago. He
said his understanding of the law and court cases, is that Hopkinton has
to allow Warner access to the land as if it were Warner land.
He said if it is a subdivision, he believes there would be a
joint board meeting of some type. He
said Hopkinton would have to look at things from their end and Warner
would look at things from our end, but there is a certain limitation
that Hopkinton can put on Warner. Mr.
Violette asked what allows this. Mr.
Davies said it is an RSA and a recent court decision, Churchill v.
Dover, which says we cannot be blocked off from using our land, but, at
the same time, Hopkinton has a say about what goes on in their area.
Mr. Davies recommended reading the minutes from the Zoning Board
of two or three months ago which will give an idea of what the issues
were. Ms.
Annis asked what the Zoning Board did not grant a variance on the front
footage of the second lot. Mr.
Hartshorn replied that he did not meet the criteria for a hardship.
He said his hardship was self-inflicted in that he chose to put
his house where it is. He
said he could have placed it further back into Warner another 300 feet
and had enough frontage for two lots in Warner’s R-2 district. He said since he chose to put the house in Hopkinton that
required a 300 foot frontage, which left only 115 feet for the other lot
and where Warner required 200 feet.
He explained that he had received a building permit from
Hopkinton on .8 acres, which is an undersized lot, without a variance
where the required acreage is 3 acres and 300 feet of frontage to be
allowed to build. This was
done because the RSAs provide that land that overlaps municipality lines
and is contiguously owned can be treated as one lot.
He said he was hoping for the frontage variance from Hopkinton
and Warner because the use of the lot was going to be in Warner but the
frontage was in Hopkinton. He
said it was denied by both towns. Ms.
Annis said she thought that he was still going to need a variance from
Hopkinton, too, since the Hopkinton lot would be divided, too, and the
required frontage was in Hopkinton.
Mr. Hartshorn said that he will need joint approval from both
towns for any subdivision but, he does not believe he’ll need a
variance from Hopkinton because he is proposing a road, the frontage of
which will be solely in Hopkinton, going through .1 acre in Hopkinton on
into Warner. Ms. Annis said
that she thinks he would need a variance from Hopkinton because the lot
in Hopkinton will be divided into two:
one where the house is and one for the road.
She said she thought he will still have to conform to the
Hopkinton frontage requirements for the second lot.
Mr. Davies said he believes he would be doing a development, so
it would be a fully designed town road going into the back of the lot.
Mr. Hartshorn said he would be creating his own road frontage
with a town road built from the Hopkinton road.
He showed Ms. Annis on the plan where he would propose the road
be built. She asked if
Hopkinton was going to allow him to build a road.
He said that if he meets their setbacks, then, he doesn’t think
they can deny him the permission. Mr.
Pellettieri said that if the road is built, then he thought he would be
able to subdivide off of the new road since that would give Mr.
Hartshorn the required frontage. Mr.
Davies said that from the Zoning Board discussions, he thought that
Hopkinton would be having a similar discussion with Mr. Hartshorn.
He said it is very complicated and at the joint meeting of the
Hopkinton and Warner Zoning Boards, it took some time, with the
assistance of counsel to understand what Mr. Hartshorn was proposing.
Ms. Annis said she now understands that Mr. Hartshorn would build
a new town road and subdivide off that new road in the back of his
property. He said he has
105 acres and does not want to do a normal subdivision.
He said he is hoping to do something unique and different with
co-housing. Mr.
Hartshorn concluded by saying that he hopes to work with the town on the
development and that is why he is starting the dialogue now.
Ms. Annis said that if Hopkinton will allow him to build a town
road and he can meet the Warner road specifications, which are quite
stringent, then, it may be possible.
Mr. Hartshorn said his biggest concern is that if he moves
forward with the road, then he can only get 8 lots in the area without a
variance. And, he said,
with that, he would have to build expensive houses because of the road.
He said he does not want to build expensive houses.
He said in order to build something affordable, he needs to have
additional units and asked how to go about having that discussion.
Ms. Annis said that discussion would have to be with the Zoning
Board of Warner. Mr.
Hartshorn said he would like to submit the plan that the town would
want, rather than having to fight for it.
He said he would go to the next Zoning Board meeting.
He said that based on his calculations, to meet the $140,000
range, he will need 43 units, all of which will be separate homes.
He said that he was also thinking of perhaps doing some larger
units with an in-law apartment. He
said he could then be in a higher price range and reduce the total
number of units. Ms. Annis
said in the R-2 and OR-1, single family dwellings are permitted, but
with an in-law apartment, it would become a two-family dwelling. Mr.
Pellettieri said that what Mr. Hartshorn is proposing to do seems
reasonable and suggested that if he were to draw something up showing
the road and an idea of what he is proposing to do, taking into account
the regulations for both towns, and take that to a joint board meeting,
they may accept it based on those criteria for a variance.
He said it does need to be submitted for a variance, and without
something on paper as a starting point, it is hard to conceptualize what
he is talking about. Ms.
Annis asked if there were any other comments.
There were none. Mr.
Hartshorn thanked the board and left. 2.
COMMERCIAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION Property Owners:
Alan & Lee Ann Wagner, Jr., 33 Newmarket Road, Warner, NH
03278 Agent: Stefan Toth,
P.E., Toth Engineering, PLLC, 5 Bernards Rd, Suite 37, Merrimack, NH
03054 Property Location: Intersection
of Route 103 and I-89 southbound off-ramp Map/lot: 14-10 10, C-1 zoning Description: Subdivision
of existing 13.03 ac. lot into 4 commercial lots: 2.90 acres, 3.44
acres, 2.75 acres & 2.56 acres. a. Application Accepted 2/5/07 b. Public Hearing held in 3/5/07 c. Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove/Continue Ms. Annis said that another letter has been received from Stefan Toth
requesting another extension for the Alan and Lee Ann Wagner subdivision
because NH DOT is still considering the proposal.
She said that the letter has been provided to the board members
and he has explained what he has done with DOT and what the plan is. Mr.
Hartman asked if anyone knows what is going on with this request.
He said he hasn’t seen any documentation as to what DOT is
contemplating. Ms. Annis
said the last time he came, there was a lot of discussion about the
drainage. She said there is
a plan on the drainage; DOT has given approval on some parts of it; also
there is the consideration of the island and the on-traffic is going to
have to be re-routed. Mr.
Duhamel said it was pointed out when the Board walked the property.
Ms. Lightfoot told Mr. Hartman that there is a big plan that was
not included in the packet of materials which were copied for him, but
that the large plan is in the Planning Board office that is available. Ms. Mical MOVED to grant the request for another 65 day extension. Mr. Violette seconded. Ms. Annis said that would take us to August 6, 2008.
Mr. Pellettieri asked what number extension request is this.
He said he thought it was about five extensions.
Ms. Annis agreed. She
said she finally asked at one of the meetings she’s been to and a
lawyer there said that he’d had a request to DOT continue for two
years. Mr. Violette said
that it is his understanding that it is not because there’s a problem
with what has been submitted to DOT; it’s because they haven’t had
time to work on it or finalize it.
Ms. Annis asked if the Board wished for her to call DOT to see
what the status is. Mr.
Pellettieri said that there is a reasonable time frame for every kind of
application. He said that as of now, we have no idea of how much longer
this will go. He said he
was sure that the public has little recollection of the details of this
application. He said that
even most of the Board members do not have a good recollection at this
point. And, he added, to
give this a fair analysis and fair review, he thinks there should be a
considerable amount of effort on the part of the Board to understand it.
He said he thought the public should have a period to make
comments on it because during the process there have been changes,
conditions, and requests for additional information, some of which has
been provided. He said he
understood that some of this is out of their control, but the reason
there are limitations on different types of applications is for that
reason. He said he thinks
that that limitation has been reached on this application. It is a complex project with a lot of details and to give it
the significant time and effort required to review it, it cannot be done
in one meeting or one work session or one public hearing. Mr. Violette said there has been a public hearing on this.
He said he understands what Mr. Pellettieri is saying, but if the
delay is because a State agency simply does not act due to a lack of
staffing or time, and it’s not because the information submitted is
incorrect or improper, he doesn’t think that stopping it now makes
sense. Mr. Duhamel said
that the reason that there are boundaries of time lines is so that the
applicant will do it moderately fast.
He said that it was not put in because of State agencies failing
to act. He added that as far as the public goes, there really are
minor changes and the Board acted after the public comments.
He said that there is a lot of reviewing to do and agreed that
one meeting will not cover that review.
He said as it continues, costs are going up and ends up costing
the applicant, as well. Mr. Hartman asked about questions that will not be answered at the
next meetings. Ms. Annis
said that she wants to go back to the March 28, 2007, meeting where a
list of questions was prepared. That
list was given to Mr. Toth and he was to make changes based on those at
the February 2008 meeting. She
said that she wants to go back to that list and be sure that those
changes have been done. She
agreed that it will take more than one meeting.
In addition, she asked the Board members to be thinking about the
following: if they are thinking of denying the application, there must
be very good reasons for denying it; if they are thinking of approving
the application, ask if there will be conditions and what conditions.
She asked them to start thinking about conditions to be placed on
the approval, if it is to be approved.
She said that will take time, too.
There was no further discussion. The motion was PASSED. Mr.
Duhamel, yes; Mr. Mical, yes; Mr. Hartman, yes; Mr. Violette, yes; Mr.
Pellettieri, no. 3.
MINUTES Ms. Annis asked for review of the May 5, 2008, meeting minutes. Mr. Hartman MOVED to approve the minutes as written.
Mr. Violette seconded. Mr. Davies asked if there is a name for the “assistant with Mr.
Carlson” referred to on page 2. Ms.
Annis said that he did not identify himself.
He said on page 5, second paragraph, there is a reference to a
PBS program and asked if there is a name for the PBS program.
Ms. Annis said it was on page 4, “Something of Consequences.” There was discussion about whether it was actually
“Community or Consequences.” There
was further discussion and confusion about what the name was. Mr. Hartman said he didn’t think it needs to be changed.
It was VOTED unanimously to approve the May 5, 2008 minutes. Ms. Annis asked for review of the May 19, 2008, work session minutes.
Mr. Violette MOVED to approve the minutes as written.
Mr. Hartman seconded. There was no discussion. It was VOTED unanimously to approve the May 19, 2008 minutes.
Mr. Hartman said it was not clear to him if there is an Alternate
Member present and if that person is actually voting, or designated for
that evening. Ms. Lightfoot
said on the May 5 minutes, she had put at the top that the alternates
were present but not voting. She
said on the minutes of the work session, no one said anything about the
alternates, so it was left blank. Mr.
Hartman asked how many members there are.
Ms. Annis said seven. He
said that we had five members present, and we had two alternates
present, and asked why they would not fill in for the absent members.
Ms. Annis said that normally at work sessions, it’s everyone
talking. Mr. Hartman said he was referring to the May 5 minutes.
He said he has not been sure who is actually casting the votes.
Ms. Annis said that usually she will ask them, but did not do it
then. Mr. Hartman said that the two alternates were not elevated
for the work session and he said it seems that they should be elevated
to be part of the process. Mr.
Davies said that the only situation where you would not raise an
alternate would be if someone has resigned because you cannot take
someone’s place. However, if they are absent, then an alternate can take their
place. Ms. Annis added that
if Mr. Hartman is absent, then, an alternate may not take his place. Mr. Hartman said he would have to be replaced by Richard
Cook, the Selectmen’s alternate, and he would try to be sure he would
attend. Mr. Pellettieri
asked if there is any RSA requirement that the alternates elevated so
long as there is a quorum. Ms.
Annis said no. She added that she does not know why she did not elevate them
at the May meeting and work session.
Mr. Pellettieri said that his experience is that the only reason
an alternate might not be elevated is because they don’t have the
experience and were new to the Board, and it might be possibly
inappropriate for them to be voting on something that they may not have
knowledge about. Ms. Annis said that Mr. Watts was not elevated because he had
recused himself and she had not thought to elevate him when he returned.
4.
DISCUSS BUDGET COMMITTEE’S SCHEDULE FOR CIP PRESENTATION Ms. Annis said that the Budget Committee has scheduled Monday,
September 22, for the CIP Presentation from the Planning Board.
She said that that is the 4th Monday of September and
the Planning Board is not scheduled to meet that day.
She asked if the Board wanted to meet three Mondays in a row in
September, since the 1st is a holiday and that meeting will
be on the 8th. Then,
the work session will be on the 15th and then the 22nd
for the Budget Committee. Mr.
Duhamel said that the 22nd would work be all right for him
and he might not be available on the 15th.
There was further discussion.
It was agreed to leave it on the 22nd and not have the
15th meeting. Mr.
Mical said that means the public hearing for the CIP will have to be on
September 8. Ms. Annis
asked Mr. Hartman to let Laura Buono know that the 22nd will
be acceptable to the Planning Board for the CIP presentation.
She asked Ms. Lightfoot to contact the Budget Committee to let
them know the CIP will be ready by September 22nd. 5.
REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEES Ms. Annis asked Mr. Duhamel about the CIP.
Mr. Duhamel said he has two people who have agreed to be on the
committee and a third who needs to be followed up.
He said letters have gone out to all department heads and the
follow up will begin. Ms.
Annis said that we have three months in which to complete it.
She said there has to be a public hearing the first of September
and that has to be posted; and, she said the Board needs it at least a
week ahead of time, so it has to be ready by the end of August. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical about the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Mical said there have been three meetings.
They have reviewed the fire prevention chapters and made some
changes. He said there will
be a change in the plan from 2003.
He said one of the things that FEMA has recommended is to pick up
the human and technological hazard which is being done. He said the format for the plan will be different.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Violette about the Master Plan Committee. Mr. Violette said that Sharon Wason was at the last meeting
and he thinks that everyone has received the Regulatory Audit draft as
part of the 2008 Master Plan update.
He said it points out the various areas in all the codes and
rules and regulations and ordinances where we need to consider looking
at where things are different and bringing them into compliance.
He said they sent two more maps that CNHRPC has created that show
new homes and buildings from 1999 to 2007, including their locations and
types of use and how many per year.
These were constructed by using building permit data.
He said there will be maps included in the Master Plan to show
the data we’re working with. The
next meeting is at a work session which is two weeks from tonight
(the16th) and Ms. Wason and her team will be at that meeting. We
will be reviewing the draft of the Regulatory Audit Update tonight. 6.
REVIEW DRAFT OF TOWN OF WARNER REGULATORY AUDIT UPDATE Mr. Duhamel said that the first page says that the only document that
is actually out of date is the Master Plan.
He said they show the year each document was updated and whether
it is up to date or not. He
said they go on to make comparisons of the plans, codes and ordinances
and list where there may be problem areas for each one and a
recommendation to correct it. He
said he felt there is a need for a little more of an explanation of
where we’re going and we can ask Ms. Wason that when she’s here.
Ms. Annis said that she thinks some of them can be discussed by
the Board members right now, or at least some of the considerations that
we need to start thinking about. For
example, she said, on page 7 on the top, it says that the definition of
a façade is not consistent. She
asked the Board members if anyone has had a chance to compare the
definitions in various parts. She
referred to the Building Code and the differences between the State and
the Town regulations. She
said that the State says that you cannot use cinder blocks, and yet in
our Town Building Code, we say only that chimneys shall be made of
non-combustible material with no thimbles, etc.
She said they want to clarify the difference between a normal
repair and renovations. She
then referred to the word, “building,” which she said we tried to
change a couple of years ago. She
said that apparently building is defined differently in the Site Plan,
Subdivision and so on. She
asked if anyone wanted to take this task on.
Also, she said there appears to be confusion about frontage,
front road, front yard, front lot and reverse frontage; abutter is
different. Mr. Violette
said that he thinks these things need to be corrected.
Ms. Annis agreed and said she would like the rest of the Planning
Board to meet on this in two weeks while the Master Plan Committee is
meeting separately. She
said she would like to look at the different definitions, compare the
State Building Code to the Town Building Code, and decide what can be
deleted, what can be added, and what needs to be clarified.
Mr. Violette said we need to find out what the correct definition
is and then be sure it’s inserted in each section.
Mr. Pellettieri said that we’ve known for some time there are
conflicts within our regulations, but it is eye-opening to see them laid
out in black and white. Ms.
Annis suggested having the definitions in one place and then have all
the others refer to that place. She
said it’s a lot easier than trying to remember to make changes in
every place where it’s mentioned.
She said that she hopes that the members would do some review in
the next two weeks and then be prepared to compare notes at the next
meeting of what was found. Mr. Davies reported that the Transfer Station Facilities Committee
made a report to the Selectmen about three weeks ago laying out the
status of where things are and a time line of what they know.
They will be going through at least the fall with meetings for
gathering information and then producing a report to the Selectmen.
He said there seem to be two main types of recycling programs
that are up for consideration. There
are two or three other technologies that are evolving that the committee
is trying to get more information on.
He said that they are trying to be flexible because the
technology and regulations seem to be changing. 7.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Annis said she and Mr. Violette met with the Board of Selectmen
last Thursday night. She
said that Dan Watts will be elevated to be a full Board member to
replace Wayne Eigabroadt; and Harold French will be coming back on the
Board and he will be taking Mr. Watts’ place as an alternate.
This will leave one alternate vacancy.
She said she thinks the Selectmen are going to ask Mr. Ricard to
come in. Mr. Hartman said he wasn’t sure if it was the Planning
Board or the Selectmen who were going to ask him to come in. Ms. Annis asked Ms. Lightfoot to get together with Mary
Whalen to see who will be inviting him in.
Mr. Hartman said there apparently was confusion at the Thursday
meeting and, as a result, Mr. Watts may not have been officially voted
to be a full member. He
said that Mr. French’s nomination was voted on properly.
He said it will be corrected at the next meeting.
Mr. Davies asked if there is a way for the members to view the large
drawings that are not sent in the packages when they cannot get to the
office when it’s open. Ms.
Annis said they are posted upstairs.
Ms. Lightfoot said that so long as something is not removed from
the office, any member may go in look at the drawings which are in the
Planning and Zoning Office. She
said that people in the Town Hall have a key to her office and can let a
member in. Ms. Annis said the next item to consider is the letter from Joan and
George Packard. Mr. Watts
moved from the table to sit in the audience.
Following is the letter:
“Letter of Concern
“Date:
May 15, 2008
“From:
Joan and George Packard, 126 Waterloo St., Warner
“To:
Barbara Annis, Chairman, Warner Planning Board
(cc:
Warner Selectmen, Warner Zoning Board, Laura Buono)
“Re:
May 5, 2008 “conceptual Consultation” with Norm Carlson on
proposed construction, Madgetech, Rt. 103
“Dear Barbara:
“We are writing to express our strong concern with both the
process of inquiry taken by the planning board and the decisions
rendered by the board in regard to Norm Carlson’s presentation of May
5.
“We are making a formal request to the planning board to
reverse its decision about ‘insubstantial’ vs. ‘substantial’
changes and the declaration that a site plan review is not required now
for Madgetech.
“We ask also that the planning board perform a site plan review
now, before any changes are made on the Madgetech property, to establish
a documented baseline on which to base its decisions if Norm or a new
owner of the property asks for other changes in the future.
“Our reasons for these requests are as follows:
“Our property is directly south of, and below – literally
perched beneath – the Madgetech property.
During the past several years, the business has grown from a
handful of employees to around 30, and now represents a strong, positive
presence in the town’s economy. Norm
in general has tried to minimize the impact of the business on the
character of the rural Waterloo neighborhood and has been willing to
listen to our concerns about increasing noise levels and night-time
lighting.
“To our knowledge, Madgetech began doing business at its
current location without a site plan review and without a variance for
light manufacturing. The
planning board didn’t require a site plan review when Madgetech moved
to the building probably because Norm proposed at that time no changes
at all to the site. And
apparently there was an informal understanding that Madgetech was, in
fact, a light manufacturer, but nobody on the zoning board ever pressed
the issue.
“However, such a casual approach in the past to overseeing the
activity of a business wedged into a rural neighborhood with residences
abutting on three sides does not excuse the town from tightening its
oversight in the present.
“From our reading of the minutes of the May 5 meeting, it
appears that the primary issue before the planning board was whether
Norm’s proposed changes (expansion of the garage (now used to house
production machinery) and construction of a new parking lot below the
house) would require a site review.
“The board apparently asked several easy questions about both
proposed changes, and explored the proposed parking lot construction in
slightly more detail than the building addition.
There was minimal discussion about the effects of the parking lot
on drainage towards the unnamed ‘neighbor’ (us), and even though Mr.
Pellettieri expressed some concern about changes in drainage engendered
by a flat parking lot, the planning board apparently took at face value
Norm’s assertion that he would provide ‘protection’ for the
neighbors. None of the
board asked whether the abutters had been contacted, and no one
questioned whether a 14 car parking lot built to within yards of our
boundary line would have any impact on our quality of life or our
property values. Let us
assure you that it would have a huge and negative effect on us as well
as on the abutting neighbors (Duane and Lori Souder) to the west of the
property.
“Mr. Violette moved not to require a full scale site plan
review, saying that he felt the changes were not a ‘substantial’
expansion. Ms. Annis
agreed, saying that she thought the proposed changes do not create a
substantial change to the property or its use.
Mr. Pellettieri said he thought it was a good plan for creating
more parking, and apparently no one on the board asked whether Norm had
explored other alternatives for parking.
The board decided that no site plan review was required.
“We take great issue with this judgment.
“First, since the board does not have any site plan review on
file it has no documentation to establish a baseline of the use of the
property from the time when Madgetech first moved in.
We find it alarming that the board would not take this
opportunity to correct that problem.
“Furthermore, how can the board document, without a prior site
plan, that Norm’s current proposed changes offer no ‘substantial’
changes?
“Does this mean that in the future, if Norm or a new owner of
the property asks for approval of additional changes, the board will
view those as insubstantial as well, even though on a cumulative basis
all changes may have, in fact, added up to what must be considered major
changes?
“Please forgive us for putting it this way, but this process is
inexcusably sloppy. If this
represents a trend in the way the planning board approaches other
issues, the town may be opening itself incrementally to a host of
liability problems, to say nothing of simply failing in its duty to
ensure that growth and development in the town follow an orderly and
rational path.
“Norm has said (to us) that Madgetech will continue to grow
rapidly, and that he needs to move to a larger site.
However, in the short term (the next year?) any growth that
Madgetech experiences will almost certainly have to take place on the
current site. That would
mean, we assume, additional employees and the need for additional space
for new machinery.
“As a business owner under extreme pressure, Norm will be
inclined to make changes as quickly as possible and to see h is primary
responsibility as focused on his business needs and his employees.
We don’t fault him for this, but we have asked him to inform us
of any proposed changes. He
has agreed to this.
“It is the town’s responsibility to oversee any changes at
the Madgetech site and to ensure that those changes do nothing to
degrade the quality of the Waterloo neighborhood or force abutters to
make any further accommodations to the business than they already have.
“Business owners usually understate their effect on the
neighborhood in order to gain approval; they know there is little
oversight of such growth activity in this town and they know what they
have to say to get their application accepted.
They also know that the penalties for non-compliance are minimal
and delayed and it is worth it to them to forge ahead.
The planning board, zoning board and selectmen would be naïve to
not have this as a very basic understanding.
Therefore it would be prudent to be very cautious in granting any
approval for this type of proposal for changes of a commercial nature in
a residential neighborhood on a lot designed to accommodate residential
use and, in our case, literally perched over another residential lot.
“We have no quibble with the siting of a small business in a
residential area, as long as its presence doesn’t degrade the value of
the residences or force its neighbors into accommodating its growth if
that growth threatens to degrade the quality of the neighborhood.
We know, from past experience in our neighborhood (Brayshaw
Printing), that this is very difficult to guarantee, because good
businesses can grow – in ways that residential properties with
families do not.
“We feel that when a business is located in residential
neighborhood [sic], the town must apply its rules, laws and procedures
with particular rigor and attention to the impact of that business,
because these situations, if poorly overseen and managed by the town,
can quickly move out of control, to the detriment of the neighborhoods
and the disruption of the business.
“Sincerely,
“Joan and George Packard(/s)” Ms. Annis asked if anyone had any comments.
Mr. Hartman asked Mr. and Mrs. Packard what the one or two main
points would be if they were to condense their letter.
He asked what action they are requesting the Planning Board to
take. Mr. Packard asked if
Mr. Carlson decided to build a parking lot tomorrow between his building
and their lot line, would that be acceptable.
Ms. Annis said that Mr. Carlson submitted a plan which he must
abide by. Mr. Packard asked again if Mr. Carlson would be allowed to
build a 14 car parking lot behind his building without further approval
from the Planning Board. Ms.
Annis said if the Planning Board knew about it and it was different from
the plan, then he would probably be asked to come before them again.
She added that there are many things that go on in this town that
the board members see or hear about after the fact. Mr. Packard asked again if Mr. Carlson needs further approval
to build a parking lot tomorrow. Ms.
Annis repeated that if he builds it where he said he was going to put
it, then the answer is no because that is what was approved. Mr. Packard said he wanted to be sure what was approved and
that would be to put a road around the building and build a 14-car
parking lot with fill and grading.
Mr. Duhamel said that that is not what was described at the
meeting. He said it was
along in the front. There
was further discussion about the parking lot, with some members
understanding that the parking lot was to be behind the building.
Mr. Packard said, then, the key point of the letter is that they are
extremely concerned about the Planning Board’s decision to allow it
and are asking that the Planning Board review and reverse that decision
because they believe it was made in error. Mr. Davies said that he understood in the discussion that the parking
lot was going to be down and around the back.
He said that the sketch doesn’t show that.
He said that the sketch showed something off to the side but not
down and around the back. Mr.
Packard said this illustrates the reason for his concern about the way
the decision was handled. He
said that it seems a little sloppy.
Mr. Pellettieri asked what has been done so far.
Mr. Packard said they have had a good relationship with Mr.
Carlson for some time. However, he said, when Mrs. Packard saw trees tagged, it
appeared that they were moving closer to their property. He said that Mr. Carlson has assured them that he will not
build the parking lot. He
said that Mr. Carlson has said a number of contradictory things to them,
including the fact that he didn’t know that his guy was proposing the
parking lot there. He said
that he’s not entirely sure that they can now trust what Mr. Carlson
is saying or has said, even though, in the past, he’s been truthful
with them. Mr. Packard
added that all they have to go by are the minutes of the May 5 meeting
as to what was said. He
said that his concern is with the process that the Board used to review
the request and with the decision.
He continued to say that Mr. Carlson has only proceeded with
building the temporary addition to the garage to house his $100,000
machine that he desperately needed to fill orders.
He said that, other than doing a little clearing to make space
for a Public Service truck, he has done nothing else.
Mrs. Packard said that Mr. Carlson has hauled in a trailer within
what she believes is 15 feet of the abutter’s property.
Ms. Annis said that the trailer was not addressed by the Planning
Board. Mrs. Packard said
that she was just saying that it was a change to the property. Mr. Packard said that his greatest concern is the status of
the Planning Board’s decision about granting him approval.
He said again that he tends to trust Mr. Carlson, but, looking at
the worst case scenario, and he sells out in the next month or two and
someone else buys it discovers they have approval to build a parking lot
and they do it. He said
again that he thinks the decision is a bad one. He said the other point he wished to make is the issue of
site plan review. He said
that a site plan review of that property has not been done and he thinks
it should be done. He said
if no site plan review was done when Mr. Carlson first moved in and none
has been done so far, and the Board has decided that one is not needed,
then, there is a piece of property that is changing in use, having new
construction on it and, yet, still has not had a baseline site plan
review. This would provide
documentation to show what is going on there and what was there before
things started being built. He
said that he thinks that this is not a good place to be when you have a
changing use of property in an R-2 district.
He added that he thinks that the Planning Board is aware that the
Town has asked Mr. Carlson to apply for a light industrial variance to
comply with what everybody knows he’s doing, but nobody bothered to
ask him to comply before. He
reiterated that he believes that a site plan review is a very important
thing to do so there is documentation of what the property looks like
right now. Ms. Annis said that the Planning Board could ask for a full site plan
review, but added that many times it is not required because it
increases the costs for the applicant with engineering studies and so
on. She said that the
members still feel that many small town businesses do not require that
additional information. She
said that often rough sketches are provided by these small businesses
and we are negligent in following up on it.
She said that there is now a Zoning Compliance Officer, Peter
Wyman, for commercial properties. She
continued that for many years it was requested to have someone because
the Planning Board may approve it, the Building Inspector looks at the
building, but does not inspect the landscape or the driveway.
Mr. Packard asked if that means that he looks at the site usage,
whether it’s in compliance or not.
Ms. Annis said yes. Ms.
Annis said that if and when Mr. Carlson builds down where he says he’s
going to build, he will have the commercial Zoning Compliance Officer to
be sure he’s in compliance. She
said when Knoxland built, the Compliance Officer was sent down because
of the shrubbery and the entranceway.
It was to be sure that it was attractive and also that the
building was in compliance. Ms. Annis added that there is now a much better relationship between
the Planning Board and the Zoning Board.
Mr. Duhamel asked what does that mean.
Ms. Annis said that it used to be that the Zoning Board would
grant something and then would not tell the applicant that they now have
to go to the Planning Board. She
said that people would get variances on footages for a subdivision but
then they didn’t come to the Planning Board for a subdivision.
She said that the Planning Board would learn about it when they
went to sell it. She said
that now there is more continuity, the Boards talk to each other.
She said that she used to purposely not attend Zoning Board
meetings because she wanted to hear things fresh from the applicant.
She said she now occasionally does go to the Zoning Board
meetings to be sure that the applicants’ answers are consistent to
both Boards. Again, she
said, however, Mr. Carlson did get an approval for a Special Exception
in 2000, but the Planning Board never knew about it until they were up
and going. Mrs. Packard
added that what they got approval for is not at all what is happening
now. Ms. Annis said that it
helps that the current secretary advises both Boards about what is going
on in the other and Ms. Thoits has been good to work with as chair of
the Zoning Board. Mr. Packard asked again what would happen if Mr. Carlson decides to
build a parking lot tomorrow. Mr.
Hartman replied that if he decided to build a parking lot tomorrow
between his building and the Packards’ home, he would take great
exception because the drawing that was presented was acceptable.
He said that it was his understanding that it was not going to
increase the number of vehicles; there were not going to be any
additional vehicles coming to the building because of the additional
operation that he was going to have.
He continued to say that the argument was that this was strictly
a temporary situation when he came before the Selectmen for a building
permit. This was the same
issue when he came to the Planning Board asking for a waiver to the site
plan review, which the Planning Board granted.
He said that the Planning Board was looking at the plan which
does not include any parking area down in back of his building near the
Packards’ home. He said
that if he is going to do that, he would try to convince the Planning
Board that this does deserve a baseline site plan review because he’s
substantially changing the character of that lot from what it was when
he started several years ago. Mr.
Pellettieri added that if Mr. Carlson goes beyond what is in the sketch,
he wondered if the Planning Board could ask for a cease and desist order
because it goes beyond what he requested approval for.
Mr. Pellettieri said that he had thought it was reasonable because
Mr. Carlson was in an untenable situation in terms of safety and that
that small amount of work would help alleviate some of those issues,
though he said he did express some concerns about it.
Mrs. Packard said that this kind of change has impacted the
abutters and the property values have decreased because of the kind of
activity that’s going on. She
said that they would appreciate being notified when these types of
decisions might be of interest to them.
Mrs. Packard said it’s hard to define temporary and what
restrictions might be required. Mr. Packard said if someone else were to go in there after he
moves, the lot is still in the R-2 district and it should trigger a site
plan review. Mrs. Packard
said that the temporary use might become permanent.
Ms. Annis said that she understands the concerns about the future.
She read from the Site Plan Regulations on page 2:
“Site Plan Review by the Planning Board is required for all
industrial, commercial developments for the change or expansion of use
of all industrial, commercial or multi-family uses, and for the
conversion of an existing building, in whole or in part, from a
residential use to a nonresidential use or a mixed use . . .”
She said, therefore, if they leave and another business comes in,
again, the change of use would have to come before the Planning Board.
Mr. Packard said there was a change of use in 2000 and there is a
site plan review missing that should be done.
Ms. Annis said the regulations were done after 2000.
It was done in 2003. Mr.
Pellettieri said there have been other changes in businesses in town
where site plan reviews were not done, and the regulations were changed
to try to tighten that up. Ms.
Annis said that that does not mean that a full site plan review would be
required. She said that the
Board has the right to say what is proposed is congenial with what is
there or what is being added is not significant.
She said that adding a 16x22 addition to a garage which is only
half the size of the current garage did not seem that it was an
outstanding change. Mr.
Packard said that he is still puzzled that the conversion from
residential use to business use in 2000, even though that was before the
regulations were in place, and there has been little oversight by the
town. He said that now the
regulations are in place and Mr. Carlson is asking for incremental
changes, it would seem that because this is a prominent property a site
plan review would be warranted. He
said it is essentially a guest in a residential neighborhood. He said he
assumed that the purpose of a site plan review is to establish what is
going on with the property and whether it is still consistent with what
is acceptable in an R-2 district. Mr.
Pellettieri asked if Mr. Packard has considered asking Mr. Carlson if he
would consider removing that small additional amount of parking at the
time that he leaves. Mrs.
Packard asked if he meant that if he were to go ahead and build it,
would he take it away. Mr. Pellettieri said yes.
She continued to say that, first of all, he has already cut a
number of trees and was planning to cut more trees which is what alerted
her to the plan. She said
they were going to be cut trees for a walkway from the parking lot which
were right behind the only private place that they have to sit in their
yard. She added that what the Planning Board sees is abstract in
that whatever Mr. Carlson tells them is what he tells them and he is
going to do something different from that.
She said it is understated in the minutes.
She asked that even if Mr. Carlson said he would do something,
what would bind him – what would be the punishment if he didn’t do
what he said he would do. She
noted that growing businesses have a lot to gain to tell you what they
need to (and, maybe even believing it) and then when the business
change, then the property use will change.
She said that the current property is not being cared for; it’s
being used. She said the
business has been growing every year and it has not fit the property for
years and now it looks like he has an emergency that he wants help with,
but, “the lack of planning on his part . . .”
Mr. Packard received a copy of a plan provided by Mr. Carlson to the
Planning Board in May. He
said that he thought that Dwayne Souder should be more concerned than
they are. He said it is apparent that there was not a plan to build a
parking lot behind the building. He
said it looks like the parking lot as sketched in the plan is about a
few feet from Mr. Souder’s two surface wells.
He repeated that a site plan review, even for a small change like
this, can reveal things like that that may not be known with looking at
directly. Mr. Hartman said
that they would not have known unless someone had told them.
Mr. Packard said they would not have known if Mrs. Packard had
not noticed that some trees had orange tags on them leading down around
the back of the building. Mrs.
Packard added that in the minutes it says that the driveway will be put
in around the trees and said that a lot of trees have already been cut.
Mr. Packard said that they were not told about the plans.
He said he would normally have gone to Mr. Carlson directly to
ask what he was doing. He
said it was Mrs. Packard who actually got the minutes and started asking
questions and saying they had not been told about it.
Ms. Annis said if it had been a full site plan review, they would
have received notice. She
asked if they are requesting that the Board reconsider their decision. Mr. Packard said yes. Mr.
Duhamel said it is a matter of trust. Mr. Duhamel MOVED to stay with the decision if Mr. Carlson stays
within the boundaries of what was presented on May 5. Mr. Violette
seconded. Ms. Annis asked
for further discussion. Mr. Violette said that the drawing that was presented showed a 16x22
addition to the garage and a cut and fill for parking in area on the
side. He said he also had a
place for a dumpster. He
continued to say that was the reason it was decided to waive the need
for full site plan review. Mr.
Pellettieri said he would prefer if the Planning Board were to send Mr.
Carlson a communication expressing the concern that has been addressed
to us that he’s going beyond what was presented to the Board.
He continued that he would say if Mr. Carlson intends to go
beyond what is in the sketch, then he needs to come back to the Planning
Board. Mr. Davies asked if
we know where the flags are relative to the sketch.
Mr. Packard asked if it was all that the Board saw before making
their decision. Ms.
Lightfoot said there were also drawings of the building addition.
She added that the parking lot was not on the actual application,
and that it was only a side discussion, raised by Ms. Annis, according
to the minutes. Mr. Packard
said that the parking lot has the potential of having a far more
dramatic effect on the neighborhood, including Mr. Souder’s two wells.
Mr. Duhamel asked if the contamination from all the traffic on
Route 103 impacts the neighborhood.
Mrs. Packard said that they have had a new well dug by the State
because of the salt contamination.
Mr. Packard reiterated that they are talking about incremental
changes on a residential site in the R-2 district that begin to add up.
He said he is quite alarmed that the parking lot that was
proposed potentially affects Mr. Souder’s two wells.
He said when you add two to three feet of fill, grade, cut trees
and park more cars on an unpaved space which has no provision for
drainage or capture of oil or other effluents from the cars, this is
very significant change. He
said he worries about Route 103, but this is significant, too.
He said he thought it should not be ignored because of its
potentially big effect on the adjoining properties.
He said that by saying Mr. Carlson does not need a site plan
review, the Planning Board is institutionalizing the fact that this will
not be looked at closely. He
added that he thinks that any change like this should be looked at
closely by the Planning Board. He
repeated that a 14-car parking lot is significant. Mr. Davies said that there is a variance request to the Zoning Board
and asked if that is a change of use if that is allowed.
Ms. Annis said not necessarily.
Mr. Davies asked if a change of use falls under the site plan
regulations. Ms. Annis said
there are two different variances, use or area.
Mr. Davies said if it’s approved it’s a variance to do a
different type of use of the building than what it was before, and as
such, would that trigger a site plan review.
Ms. Annis said not necessarily, because the video store changed
to the sale of signs, and that was not required to do a site plan.
So, with a change of use, she said, a site plan is not always
required. Mr. Davies said he didn’t want to have that required, but
wanted to be sure that two days from now we did not end up with it back
from the Zoning Board for a site plan review. Mr. Violette said it is the garage that is the concern.
Mr. Davies said that the special exception was for an office type
of use and now it’s being requested for a light industrial use
variance. He said his
question is for clarification – is that a change of use or a change of
description of use? Mr.
Pellettieri said that he would disagree because the example that Ms.
Annis has cited which is a video store to an art store is not a
substantial change in use since both have a small amount of traffic.
He said that if it were going from a video store to a bar, that
would be a change in use. He
said if it’s something that generates a similar amount of activity and
traffic and doesn’t entail any changes to the structure, then it’s
not a change in use. He
said that he hopes the Zoning Board will alert the Planning Board of any
instances where a request for an area variance includes a change in
actual use of the property because he said he thinks that would trigger
a site plan review. Mr. Violette asked if it was possible to take more time than right
now to reconsider the waiver. He
said, for example, perhaps it would help to see what the Zoning Board is
going to do on Wednesday. Ms.
Annis asked if he was thinking of making the decision at the work
session two weeks from now. Mr.
Violette said that was one thought he’d had.
Mr. Pellettieri said that there has been a request and a concern
presented that the applicant may be doing more than he presented to the
Board. Mr. Packard said
that he did not want there to be an erroneous impression from them about
what Mr. Carlson is doing or is saying he’s doing.
He continued that Mr. Carlson had told them that he will not
build a parking lot between their property and his building.
He said that he is very unhappy that Mr. Carlson said that he is
building no parking lot and yet on the sketch there is a parking lot, so
he said he’s having less and less trust.
He continued to say that neither Mrs. Packard nor he was coming
tonight to say that Mr. Carlson is getting the grader out to build a
parking lot between their house and his.
He said again that they were at a point where they don’t really
trust Mr. Carlson but they see no indication that he is moving to build
a parking lot between the two houses. Mr. Pellettieri asked if Mr. Packard has a problem with what
is on the sketch. Mr.
Packard said yes, but it is more directed towards Mr. Souder’s two
surface wells that are nearby. He
said at that location it has less potential effect on them.
Mrs. Packard disagreed and said she felt there is an effect on
them. Mr. Violette asked if
he owned the land and he wanted to cut trees to 15 feet from the side
boundary, did they think he should have the right to cut the trees or
not. Mrs. Packard said if
it’s a resident vs. a resident, as opposed to a business vs. a
resident it may be different. Mr.
Violette asked then if he were a resident, then it would not be a
problem. Mrs. Packard said
she was not saying it would not be a problem.
Mr. Violette asked if she was saying that he may not have the
right to cut trees on his own land.
Mrs. Packard said no. She
said she thinks residents do all kinds of things that neighbors don’t
particularly like, but it’s legal.
Mr. Packard said it becomes a gray area when you have a business
and the neighbors may require trees to somewhat insulate their
properties from the business in a nonconforming use, which this business
is. Again, he said that
grading the parking lot, filling the two to three to four feet of
gravel, changing drainage systems and cutting trees which hold water,
and when you have two wells there, even if it is a residence, clearly
one is affecting the neighborhood.
Mrs. Packard said that the trees are the only buffer that they
have and help them to feel that it’s not a business.
She said the more trees that are cut, the more the feeling is
that there is a business there rather than a residence.
She said when they felt it was a residence, they had few
objections and they would talk with Mr. Carlson and he would ask if
everything was okay and they would say it was okay.
She said, however, that things kind of exploded in the last month
– the trailer came in, the garage came in, noises, and there’s a lot
more activity. Mr. Packard added that Mr. Carlson is under extreme pressure from a
couple of different areas. He
said he has a huge new order that if he couldn’t fill it, there would
be a serious affect on his business.
He said that’s the reason for the extreme rush to get the
garage addition on. Mr. Hartman asked if Mr. Carlson has started to use the new
equipment in the addition. Mr.
Packard said he didn’t know. Mr.
Pellettieri asked if the addition met what was proposed to the Planning
Board. Mr. Packard said
that it was supposed to be just a temporary building.
He said that a concrete slab was poured and an area was graded
for a service entrance so Public Service trucks can get in.
He continued that a roof has been built over the temporary
structure and the garage. He
then asked, “What’s a temporary structure?”
He said again his personal concern is not with the garage
addition. He said they have put up with the sound of a compressor for
the last couple of years. He
said that Mr. Carlson had to buy a new compressor and he placed it on
the other side of the building. He
said the change of the lay of the land is of immense concern to them
because they are on a steep slope below Mr. Carlson’s building and so
is Mr. Souder. Mrs. Packard said you cannot shelter for privacy when he is
above their home. Mr. Pellettieri said that when Mr. Carlson came to the Planning
Board, and presented a reasonable application and a reasonable case for
what was intended, he showed a small addition, a small additional amount
of parking that would help alleviate some of the safety issues that were
there and it was only temporary until he could build a new building near
Exit 7. He said that under
those guidelines, he was willing to waive a site plan review requirement
because it sounded reasonable, particularly given the fact that there
would be an end in sight to his growing use of the facility.
He added that he still thinks that that is reasonable.
He said that a concern has been expressed here and he thinks
it’s reasonable to send a communication to Mr. Carlson that a concern
has been raised and expressed. He
said that a concern about drainage was expressed to Mr. Carlson and if
he knows about a well and other things there and does not address them,
then it might be a health and safety issue that the Town might want to
consider. However, he said, to be fair to Mr. Carlson because the
waiver was granted, and to be fair to the adjoining property owners, he
thinks the Board should let him know of the concerns so he’s on notice
and has an opportunity to respond and to do something that hopefully
will be acceptable to the Packards and the other abutters.
He said he thinks this is a reasonable response from the Board to
both Mr. Carlson and the Packards and the other abutters and, hopefully,
it will be resolved. Mr. Hartman suggested that the motion be voted on.
Mr. Duhamel said that he would suggest that after voting on his
motion that Mr. Pellettieri’s idea of sending a letter would work
well. Mr. Violette said a
vote in favor of the motion is a vote to not change the decision on what
was sketched originally for the Planning Board.
Ms. Annis said that then the letter proposal would be voted on to
say that due to concerns of various individuals.
Ms. Lightfoot repeated the motion to be to leave the decision as
made by the Board based on the sketch as presented on May 5.
Ms. Annis called the roll. Mr.
Duhamel, yes. Mr. Mical, abstain. Mr.
Violette, yes. Mr.
Pellettieri, yes. Mr.
Hartman said that he thinks this is an important lesson for a Board that
sometimes things are done in haste and this was certainly done in haste.
He said it has been done in perspective from 2000 until 2008 that
this moment would come and it came suddenly and suddenly all of the
rules are asked to be waived. This
includes the Selectmen who were asked to waive their insight into
issuing a building permit. To
the Planning Board, it was said that they needed a waiver because there
won’t be that much of an impact on the site.
He continued that it does have an impact on the site and it
should have gone through a site plan review.
He added that it was found that there never has been any review;
there never has been established a line of authority of giving this any
authority to exist. In
conclusion, he said he would vote yes. Mr. Pellettieri said he concurred with Mr. Hartman’s comments.
Mr. Pellettieri MOVED that correspondence be sent from the Board
to Mr. Carlson expressing a concern that he may be doing more than he
proposed to us with his request for a waiver and that concern was
generated by a letter from an abutter and our understanding was that he
would adhere to the sketch and his intention to do the right thing.
Mr. Hartman seconded. There was no further discussion.
Ms. Annis called the roll. Mr.
Duhamel, yes. Mr. Mical,
yes. Mr. Hartman, yes. Mr.
Violette, yes. Mr.
Pellettieri, yes. Ms. Annis said that the public comments will be opened in a few
minutes at which time others will be given an opportunity to talk. Mr. Duhamel said that the Board members were all extended an
invitation to drop by the property and he said before the next work
session, he will go by and see what is happening.
Ms. Annis said she went up and saw what was going on.
Mr. Packard said that they may have made an error in interpreting
from the minutes about the location of the parking lot, and if that
error was made, then their immediate concern is a degree or two less
poignant because Mr. Carlson is not building and never had intended to
build a parking lot between the two buildings.
He continued to say that there is still very concerned about the
process that the Planning Board went through in reviewing the decision.
He said, again, grading, cutting trees and creating a large new
space without any review of drainage or of concern about capturing
effluents from cars, all near a border of a neighbor, without a review
by the Planning Board is still a real concern.
Mr. Duhamel said that Mr. Pellettieri had asked about the
drainage. Mr. Packard said
that the Board is sitting in the basement of the Town Hall, looking at a
very crude sketch without any connection to the reality of what that
means on the ground. He
said that Mr. Carlson proposing to build a 16 foot extension on a garage
is one thing, but making fairly dramatic changes to the lay of the land
on a very pitched slope is a major change in a residential area and,
having no site plan review in place as a baseline when he moved in, the
Planning Board’s decision to allow him to build a parking lot
establishes a new use and change and configuration of that property
which is set as your baseline; and, still a site plan review has not
been done. He added that
Mr. Carlson plans to be there for 6 months to a year more and there’s
no telling when he’ll be able to move and he may make another change.
He said again that every incremental change he makes on that
residential site is pushing the use of that land further from what it
was. Mr. Pellettieri said
if there are changes beyond what this Board reviewed, you are within
your rights to bring it to the attention of the Town.
He offered to go and speak with Mr. Carlson, since he knows
something about trees and drainage, and will take a look at the
situation. He added that
his agreement with the waiver was based on Mr. Carlson saying that he
was going to address the concerns.
Mr. Packard asked if Mr. Carlson had presented anyone with that
expertise. Mr. Pellettieri
said that Mr. Packard keeps saying that he is building a parking lot.
He said that Mr. Carlson is expanding an existing area of parking
and, in fact, the area where he is currently parking probably never was
for parking. So, extending the parking area seemed to Mr. Pellettieri to
be reasonable as a temporary solution.
Mr. Packard said that to call it an extension of a parking lot is
not appropriate. He said
that Mr. Carlson is not paving it.
Mr. Pellettieri said he hoped that he would not pave it.
Mr. Packard then said that the business is in an area where it does
not have a variance to use its property in the way it’s currently
being used. He said the
business has grown from a small in-home business to over 30 employees in
the last several years and claims that there are parking problems.
He said he hopes that the Planning Board would be saying to that
business that there should be other plans and strategies being put in
place for parking those cars, rather than just ramming them into the
site. He said there are
parking spaces that could be rented in various places and have a shuttle
that brings employees to the business, rather than doing such large
changes on a small property in a residential area.
He said that there is no way that Mr. Carlson can return the area
to the way it was when he leaves. Mr. Watts returned to the Board. 8.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Annis said this section has been started for the last few months
because this is a meeting of the Planning Board where the public is not
allowed to speak. She said
this section was added so it is open to the public for comments in
regard to what is being discussed tonight, in regard to Zoning, in
regard to anything that someone wants to discuss.
Mr. Paul Proulx said he wanted to get his comments in before the
final vote was taken because he said there were a lot of errors that
took place. He said that
Mr. Carlson has been in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for about 4
years. He said the original variance only requested 6-8 parking
spaces with 2-3 employees. He
said now there are 22 cars and 30 plus employees.
He said that someone once said, “Some people will sell their
soul to the devil to get what they want.”
He said he thinks this is a good example of it.
He continued that they’ve done exactly what they wanted to do
disregarding anything that happens in the R-2 zone.
He said that he thinks that Mr. Hartman said he thought that Mr.
Carlson wants to increase only 2 or 3 cars.
He said that it’s already been increased by 90%.
He asked if we should reward someone for doing that, by saying,
“You can add on two or three more.”
He said that another thing that bothered him was when Mr.
Violette asked about cutting trees.
He said if you and I are abutters, you can cut right up to the
border of our properties. He
said, however, that there is a zoning ordinance that says between
commercial and commercial use and residential properties there must be a
25-foot buffer, or, if there is not enough of a buffer, something must
be erected so that the business cannot be seen throughout the course of
the year; that is, fences, and if it’s trees, they must be conifers,
not deciduous. He said that
Mr. Carlson has already gone beyond that. He said that he’s been violating the abutters’ property
on all three sides for over four years.
He said that he thought that once a site plan is approved, there
is a notification that you are in total compliance with all zoning
regulations for that district. He
said he thinks that if someone comes to the Planning Board who is in
violation of the zoning regulations, and doesn’t tell the Board about
it, then that person should not be rewarded.
He said that Mr. Carlson is going to the Zoning Board for a
variance for light industry. The
prior special exception was for a home business and residence.
He said that people haven’t lived there for five or more years. He said he thinks because of this, there should have been a
site plan required. He said
he heard Mr. Violette suggest that this decision could have been
deferred until after the Zoning Board met.
He thinks the Board should have waited.
He said that there should have been a cease and desist order
issued, and not wait until the last minute when the business is in
trouble and calls a hardship, but a business cannot create its own
hardship to meet some of the zoning requirements.
He said he wished he’d had a chance to say this beforehand
because there are so many discrepancies in what was presented by Mr.
Carlson to the Planning Board to try to get what he wants. Mrs. Packard said that their trees are all deciduous trees so they
lose their leaves. She said
about 4 months of the year; there is some shelter for their property. It is quite stark the other months of the year and to see the
gas tank, the increase in the cars parking will be quite visible.
She added to cut those down and put conifers in is not a good
solution because they would have to be very high.
So, she said that privacy is an issue.
Ms. Chris Connors had an announcement that will be forwarded. She said that the Conservation Commission is going to host
DES who will present changes to the Shoreland Protection Act.
She said it will be on Thursday, June 26 in the Town Hall at 6:30
p.m. She said that the DES
has asked that Hopkinton, Henniker, Bradford and Sutton be invited.
Ms Annis asked if the law has finally been amended and passed.
Ms. Connors said there is a lot of confusion because a lot of the
Act goes into effect on July 1st.
The Legislature initially put it into effect on April 1st
and then rescinded it. However,
she said, the Saco and the Pemi were not under that and they now are and
the 15 foot setback for all buildings.
Ms. Annis said she had attended the Shoreland Protection section
of the OEP Seminars and they said not to do anything now.
Ms. Connors said that those people who applied for a permit when
it was in effect for April 1st are still going through that
permitting process, so there is a lot of confusion.
She said that the Conservation Commission is trying to get the
announcement out to the various boards and the town’s people.
Mr. Paul Kestner said that he has rights to a well on the Packard
property, so he said he wants to be sure that isn’t polluted.
He said that he thinks the Planning Board should do a lot of soul
searching about some of the things that have been going on, not only
with Mr. Carlson. He said
that they have been very lenient. Ms. Annis asked for other comments.
There were none. 9.
REVIEW FLOOD PLAIN MAPS Mr. Mical handed out copies of the proposed new flood plain maps for
the members to review. He
said the comments need to be returned to the State.
Each member took copies and made corrections as necessary of
street names, bodies of water, etc. Mr. Hartman MOVED to adjourn. Mr.
Violette seconded. Passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
|