MINUTES OF THE MEETING
June 5, 2000
Members Present: Nancy Martin, Linda Conners, James McLaughlin, John Brayshaw, Barbara Annis, Theodore Young, Andrew Serell (late)
Alternates Present: Cynthia Dabrowski, Derek Pershouse, Mark Lennon, Russ St. Pierre
Absent: Stephen Morin
Presiding: Nancy Martin
Recording: Barbara Annis
Transcribing: Judy Rogers
I. Open Meeting: 7:40 p.m., Warner Town Hall, Lower Meeting Room
Motion to accept minutes as corrected, seconded, vote taken, all in favor, motion passed.
II Voluntary Lot Line Merger, Bean Road, Jean Louise Collins and William G. Crannell
A. Review Merger
Martha Mical, Tax Accessing Clerk, gave members copies of the map of the properties to be merged and the Town form, "Notice of Voluntary Merger". (on file)
M. Mical explained:
- Lots to be merged are: Map 13 lot 3-2 and map 13, lot 3, approx. 48 acres
Asking for but hearing no objection, a motion was made to Approve the Merger. Seconded, vote taken, all in favor, motion carried. N. Martin signed the Voluntary Merger Form.
III. Preliminary
A. Possible Subdivision: Marsh Lane
Richard Marsh explained a map to members which showed two lots his mother owns on Marsh Lane: her house is on one lot and his house is on the other lot. He said an attorney told his mother she may need a variance to subdivide the lots in order to sell the lot Richard’s house is on to him because there is a public paved road (Pleasant Lake Road) and a private dirt road (Marsh Lane).
N. Martin said the two lots, on either side of Marsh Lane, a private but a recognized road like Tom’s Pond Road, are listed in the Town tax maps as two separate lots of record. The board discussed and agreed it would be a matter of rewriting and recording the deed in order to convey the lot from Mrs. Marsh to her son Richard Marsh and a subdivision was not necessary.
No one in attendance to speak
IV. Public Hearing –Decision to Accept the Application Delayed, May 1, 2000
4 Lot Sub-Division: 17 +/- acre property owned by Ray Wentzel, RAW Investment Trust, Inc., PO Box 596, Newport, NH, 03773, located on Route 103 West, Warner, New Hampshire, 03278, Map 35, Lot 4, Commercial Zone: Proposing Lot 1- 1.34 acres, Lot 2 - 1.64 acres, Lot 3 - 1.84 acres, Lot 4 - 12.04 with an easement.
A. Review Application – Accept/Deny/ Delay
N. Martin asked for a briefing of the project to date.
Introduced were: Fred Mock, McFarland- Johnson, representing Ray Wentzel, and Matt Walsh, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Representative (CNHRP), liaison between Mr. Mock and the Planning Board.
Mr. Mock:
- he has had written correspondence with, spoken to and met with Mr. Walsh several times
- Mr. Walsh had requested that he present to the Board his findings about the completeness of the application
- if there are questions after the presentation, Mr. Mock will address them
- Mr. Mock displayed a map of the parcel of land proposed to be subdivided
- explained the parcel is near exit 9, next to Evans convenience mart, abuts the Warner River
- Mr. Wentzel is proposing 4 lots – lot 1 closest to Evans and lot 4 to include land proposed with a conservation easement to the Town
- lots will have Town water and sewer
- pointed to an existing house and old foundation on the site
- pointed to the closest abutter’s lot, going toward Town, which is served by a driveway on Mr. Wentzel’s lot
- in the past meetings, he has said he would do either 2 or 3 different things:
- has completed wetlands mapping
- There is a qualified soil scientist – licensed like an engineer – on his staff
- the wetlands boundary was established by his mapping
- boundaries were located in the field by a survey crew
- current army corp. engineer scanners were used to locate the mapping standards
- flood plain currently rises to elevation 421
- this 17 acre lot was part of the construction of the interchange of Rt. 89 and exit 9 and Rt. 103
- formerly, Rt 103 was closer to the frontage of the lot
- due to the construction, one parcel was used as a "borrow" pit, material form the lot was used in the construction of the roads
- as a result, the current right of way along Rt 103 changed (Mr. Mock pointed to a dark line on the map) - normally, in NH, a right of way is 50 ft., but this ROW is much larger
- setbacks to the property lines and hence the buildings, would be more in line or further back than the Evans gas station
- last meeting, he went through a completeness review and explanation
- at the last meeting, the Board had asked Mr. Walsh to review the plan and determine its completeness against the subdivision checklist points and report to the Board any recommendations from his findings
Mr. Walsh:
- in reviewing the initial map presented at the last meeting, there were minor items missing
- those that have been updated are: adding the approval block, pavement widths of Rt 103 and North Road were added
- the Board had expressed concerns with erosion control and drainage
- to accompany his plat, Mr. Mock has a preliminary erosion plan and fill plan to serve as supporting documentation for the application
- he did conduct a completeness review of the application and it is his opinion that it is compete
- he had his checklist with 4 pages of comments attached, for the Board to review
- he has recommended that Mr. Mock request certain waivers for items that are not applicable or pertinent
- Mr. Mock has submitted the requests through Mr. Berniers’ letter copied to members (on file)
- applicant is requesting waivers for:
1. septic systems location for existing structure, no plan can be found, probably done before regulations were in place, recommend the Board approve the waiver
3. not to show the exact soil type at the site: it is included and noted in Mr. Mocks letter, three arguments why current soil types are not particularly relevant
- recommends granting waivers as requested
- it is common knowledge that water and sewer lines run through the area
- right now, lines are being drawn to divide the lots – there is no building going on – it is not relevant to have the location and the size of the mains
- when uses for the sites are discussed, such information will be relevant
- it is his understanding, the fees have been paid, application is complete, the waivers have been requested in writing
- recommends the Board accept the plat and continue to the more technical review stage
J. McLaughlin commented that the scale size, 1/60 is "larger" than 1/100. Mr. Walsh agreed and said the waiver still had to be requested due to the variation from the requirement.
N. Martin asked J. McLaughlin if he had concerns for the composition of the current soil and its ability to compact as it supports what would be added to it and built on it.
J. McLaughlin said he has talked to an engineer at the Department of Environmental Services who said that it may be a concern depending on the soil type; that a lot of "pillage" could create problems if the underlying material is of a certain type (?); it is an engineering issue.
Mr. Walsh said he is not sure if the Board grants waivers before or after they accept the plat, but the soil at the site is known as a " GB Soil" which is basically a gravel material soil whose characteristics can be further explained by Mr. Mock if necessary.
T. Young said in the event of any fill, it would be excavated to the subsurface. Mr. Walsh said that is an engineering detail that is relevant later in time and his letter deals with what would be appropriate as conditional approval when building occurs.
The Board discussed their views on the completeness of the application.
L. Conners motioned the Board Accept Ray Wentzel’s application. Seconded. Vote taken, all in favor, motion carries.
Mr. Walsh continued to address his letter to the Board:
- (Part 3: Planner Design Review)
- Rt 103 is an important roadway and the applicant has made efforts to consolidate the driveways and curb cuts, which in his opinion, is good planning in regards to the congestion of the sites when they are in use
- he concurs with the driveways across from the park and ride and North Road, but his concern is with the driveway on lot 3 that leads to the private residence that must stay where it is because it is deeded
- he has concerns with the site distance at the driveway because of the hill
- may want to leave the drive as a private drive rather than have it become a common drive for the commercial lots because of the safety issue and not knowing the use or the traffic that will be generated by the use
T. Young asked why the private drive needs to be maintained if there will be two commercial driveways. Mr. Walsh said it is something the Board needs to keep in mind for the future because the driveway is being proposed to serve the land being subdivided and because of the safety reasons. He said the Board may want to designate the driveway be used only for the private residence. He said because the traffic that will be generated is unknown and the use is unknown, the issue is best discussed at Site Plan Review.
Mr. Mock said because the uses are not known, he wanted to identify the driveways now knowing that he will have to return to Department of Transportation at Site Plan Review.
Mr. Walsh said:
- ( giving members the Flood Plain/Erosion Plan to review) the plan is required because soils are disturbed at the site
- fill line is the dash line, pointed to the natural drainage way, another fill line, proposed grades that the fill will be built to
- the plan is conceptual
- lots must be filled to elevation 422, but possibility that more fill will be used and the elevation raised
- his opinion is that the elevation of the filling is not "super" important provided the filling does not go above Rt 103 as it exists as it goes up the hill (stated in his letter) and does not impede wetlands or natural drainage ways
- once filling is done proper stabilization in the form of grass seed, loam is done to the slopes on the site in general
Mr. Mock explained he was filling to get the site out of the flood plain, an average of 3 or 4 feet above where it is now, still below the level of Rt 103, because not knowing what the use of the property will be, zero to a "lot more" fill may be required. He said he would be seeding when the fill is completed to avoid erosion of the site – it is on the drawing and the letter. He said he would not be filling all 4 lots at one time because lot filling relates to the demand for a particular lot, sources of materials and filling and stabilizing.
Mr. Mock said he was proposing that they set a timeline under which the entire filling is done. He said it could all happen at once but that is unlikely. He said he does not know where the material is coming from, they have to quantify the amount of material it will take to get there, it depends on if they can find "X" thousand yards in one location that is suitable and cost effective.
N. Martin expressed concern that Mr. Mock is asking for a subdivision of a large parcel of land that needs to be raised 4 feet and will be in 4 different stages of development. He said the feed back from the Board on this topic has been that if he incorporates in "additions" when the filling occurs, it is a suitable way to register a plat and meet the Town regulations.
N. Martin said the subdivision could be approved conditional to the fill but her understanding was that conditions, according to the regulations, had to be completed within 90 days.
A. Serell read page 9, Section X, Conditional Approval from the Subdivision regulations that said the Board can grant conditional approval on an application or plat and the Board’s approval of a final application shall lapse if all conditions of final approval have not been met within 90 days from the date of the condition.
Mr. Walsh said 90 days is very reasonable for certain physical improvements to be completed but he remembers the Board discussing allowing up to 3 years to meet conditions.
A. Serell said there is a provision in the Town Regulations that allows the Board to waive any portion of the regulations but any request for waver must be in writing, stating the undue hardship or injustice that strict application of the regulation would impose. He said unless there was another provision applicable, the Board would have to waive the condition.
Mr. Mock said he has presented his plan based on previous input from the Board. N. Martin reminded him that this is an "evolutionary" process and prior meeting discussions are non-binding. He said he understands and wants to be on the same understanding level.
Mr. Walsh said that page 29 of subdivision regulations says that no more than 3 years from approval of final plat may improvements be done, and in this case, filling is an improvement. N. Martin said she sees the filling not as an improvement but as something that makes subdivision possible. She said the land must be filled in order for the Board to allow subdivision.
Mr. Walsh agreed but said it is no different from requiring someone to build a road – that will take more than the 90 days.
N. Martin asked what if the Board allows the subdivision and the lot adjacent to Evans is filled, and the remaining lots are never filled; the subdivision has been granted but the applicant has not fulfilled the agreement that specifies that in order for the lots to be subdivided, he has to fill in the lots.
Mr. Walsh agreed. He said on pg 3 of his letter, he has a stipulation that because of the nature of the improvement, if the lots are not filled within 1 year, the subdivision is null and void. He added that the plan can not be recorded at the Registry until the conditions are fully met: lots may be filled one at a time, but they must be completed within 1 year. Mr. Mock added that a lot may not be sold until the plat is recorded.
Mr. Mock:
- his goal is to get the plat recorded
- he understood that the plat could not be recorded because there was a condition addressing certain filling "practice or depth"
- situation is odd because the parcel was changed and he is asking that they return it to what it was
- lot was not always in the flood plain
- and yes he is asking that the Board allow subdivision before it is returned to what it was but with a condition
- if a lot sold, it would still have a condition attached to it
- any of the lots can not be developed without coming back to the Planning Board for site plan review
- he sees the sale of a lot as funding the rest of the work that will go on
A. Serell said the Board must treat the parcel as in the flood plain because that is the way it exists, how it got that way is not relevant and what Mr. Mock is asking might better be addressed as a wavier request.
D. Pershouse said this is a substantial project in dollars and as such, gets into performance bonding issues. He said he sees a pitfall if there was not that protection: one lot is sold, developed and then things "go sour" and the Town is left with a one lot and no project. He said the bonding issue answers Mr. Mock’s concerns because that is his financial commitment to complete the project.
Mr. Walsh said he would be worried if unforeseen circumstances occur that stop the project, but ask that the Board seek adequate assurity for loaming and seeding and it is not necessary to have everything filled if the obligation cannot be met.
D. Perhouse:
- Mr. Walsh is talking about the "appearance" of the site
- if the project goes "belly up" does the Town want to have one lot developed and seeded and yet the Town has approved a subdivision and there is no performance bond that the whole project will be completed
- the Board would approve the subdivision based on the fact that they are looking at the completion of the 4 lots to make the one subdivision whole
Mr. Walsh:
- his concern is that the fill would be applied but there would be no loam or seed
- then if it rains, there would be mud everywhere going into the wetlands
- it would not look good with fill and no loam and seed
- he is saying that there should be enough loam and seed "assurity" that all lots are filled but there is no loam and seed applied
T. Young said a portion of the job is to excavate the subsurface. He said the topsoil there is fairly deep and it would be rolled back and returned to the top again
Mr. Mock agreed and Mr. Walsh said it is less expensive to reuse materials.
J. Brayshaw asked if it was the intention to ask for a waiver and sell the lots and have purchasing venders fill the lots.
Mr. Mock:
- there are many combinations of central buyer and commitment
- the applicant, the owner of the subdivision, is bound by conditions of approval to complete the lots.
- on the other hand, if it is within the one year time frame, and an agent wants to develop a purchase and sales agreement with a lot, if it is incorporated in the P&S who is responsible for what and in what time frame, the smart buyer will say he won’t pay for loaming and seeding because that is a condition of purchase
- but it may be the way the sale is regardless
- it is difficult to say which way it will go
- what he is trying to say is that within the one year time frame, every lot will be at that elevation, stabilized, outside the flood plain, eroding control elements in place during the restoration and growth until the sites are stabilized
- how that happens because of whose dollar accomplishes that, is not that important specifically
- the standards of care will have been incorporated into 1) the erosion plan the Board is reviewing and 2) the conditions of the approval
- it is always speculative
- in the sense that someone can take a lot and build something
- Mr. Wentzel could take a lot and build something and it’s speculative for a certain use
- for a while, Mr. Wentzel will own all the lots and how he develops them is uncertain: does he sell them, does he sell 3 and own 1
- this is an economic question and is unpredictable
D. Pershouse:
- there are many variables that cannot be predicted
- his concern, from the Town’s point of view, is that there not be a partially complete project and there is no dollar offset to complete it, either to a future owner or to the Town
N. Martin:
- said she thought the performance bond was discussed relative only to seeding and grass
- she is also concerned about the fill
- if only 1 lot is seeded and has grass, what about the other lots that are partially filled
- she would like an assurity bond to cover all of it
Mr. Mock:
- if they fill the lots, they have to restore growth, so they have to loam and seed
- he said he believes that is what they are talking about: a guarantee to the Town that this will happen
- there are many ways that can be structured: a blanket for every lot, require the assurity up front, or lot by lot (as soon as 1 lot is stabilized, the bond is released and continue on)
- many ways to craft it to protect the Town
- the issue of protection is probably more for water quality than any other
D. Pershouse said marketability becomes the Town’s issue if the prime developer defaults
Mr. Mock:
- not if the property is restored, loamed and seeded
- if the prime developer defaults, this plat disappears in a year
- property goes back to the original condition it was in before Mr. Wentzel became involved
D. Pershouse said the Town has a less marketable project if it is partially completed, partially filled, even if one site is filled, seeded and protected from deterioration. N. Martin added that the remaining lots have not been lifted out of the flood plain.
Mr. Mock said the lots have not been changed though and the lot lines have disappeared.
N. Martin said that the lots will have been subdivided under a condition.
T. Young said if one lot at a time is made available to sell, it is less likely that the developer will default.
B. Annis said the plat cannot be recorded until the conditions of subdivision met, so one lot completed does not enable the plat to be recorded; therefore there is no subdivision.
Mr. Mock said their firm goal is to have the plat recorded.
A. Serell said he is still not convinced the Board has the authority to grant conditional approval a year out for lots that will be recorded that are really not consistent with the Town regulations. He said when the plat is recorded, the lots will be sub standard lots, land will not be out of the flood plain.
Mr. Mock said he thinks the Board has the authority to waive the regulations.
A. Serell said the request for waiver needs to be in writing expressing undue hardship and then the Board can address it.
J. McLaughlin:
- to do any fill –as talked about at the last meeting – the engineer said 485:17A did not apply, "Alteration of ***"(?)
-he explained the project to someone at the Department of Environmental Services (DES) who affirmed 485:17A does apply
Mr. Mock said he did not know what questions Mr. McLaughlin had asked DES, but he can "absolutely, categorically" "without a doubt" say that 485:17A does not apply because he is not disturbing 100,000 square feet of "contiguous " area.
Pointing to the area of the map, Mr. Mock explained that the areas were less than 100,000 sq. ft. that were being filled, separated by undisturbed land between each filling activities, which was done purposely because he does not know precisely about the filling, grading or how much fill is needed. He said DES, through the Site Specific Program, would ask him specifically what the intended use would be.
Mr. Mock:
- he is not purposely avoiding the State requirements; he does this all the time
- he knows how to do this
- he knows the regulations thoroughly
- he has no anxiety about getting the approvals if needed, but in the best interest of his client, he did not approach the requirements
- why invoke the wetlands board or the Site Specific Board if he does not need to
- he has only compounded the permitting process for his client if he goes ahead with a different route
- for his client, there is an issue of urgency and also timing: short window of activity for a sale and construction activity in this climate
- it is not avoidance, but a recommendation to his client
- he recommended they provide filling activity in this way so that filling is not occurring in 100,000 contiguous sq. ft.
A. Serell:
Mr. Mock said the simplest way would be to bond materials, they will build and bond.
A. Serell:
- said that is the condition, without requesting waiver
- the second issue is when can the plat be recorded
- the statute does not speak about conditional approval
- it says the subdivision plan cannot be recorded until it is approved by the Planning Board and enforced in writing
- does not see where the Board can approve and endorse the plan in writing until the conditions have been met
- if a waiver is granted up to 1 year out, he does not know how the Board can sign off on the plat and have it recorded
- options are to do the fill before the Board approves the subdivision or Mr. Wentzel comes to the Board each time he wishes to sell a lot
T. Young said he thought option 2 was Mr. Wentzel’s original plan but the Board had asked that the entire plan be presented.
Mr. Mock said the regulations state an applicant cannot return with a subdivision until 3 years after the prior one.
Mr. Walsh read page 25, Warner Subdivision Regulations, " From the time of the Board’s approval of the final plat, the Board may specify a time limit not to exceed 3 years within which all required improvements, …shall be completed. In the event that no time limit is specified….such improvements…shall be completed within 3 years from the final date of approval. Time limit may be extended subject to mutual agreement…"
- he did not know how the Board wanted to interpret improvements, but it could include everything from filling to building a street or sidewalk
- but this is the Board’s interpretation decision
R. St. Pierre:
- thinks Mr. Walsh is taking a broad definition of improvements
- regulations say 40,000 sq ft is needed in the commercial area before you can build in a space
- that required footage does not currently exist
- creating that space is not an improvement, but basic to the subdivision and granting the subdivision
- without it, there is no legal lot
Mr. Mock:
- does not think it is much different than if the lot had to be serviced by water and sewer
- if it did, the Board would not accept on site wells or septic systems
- it is not uncommon, and allowed in the ordinances, that the utilities be extended to allow for a time frame for that work to occur to meet the standards of the ordinance
R. St Pierre said that is an improvement, but Mr. Wentzel has to do work just to create the lot itself.
Mr. Mock said he had to extend water and sewer just to make the lot a viable lot.
R. St. Pierre said in the example, there may have been 40,000 sq ft of buildable land, a legal lot, which may need improvements to make to work, but in this case, the buildable land is not there.
Mr. Mock said in this discussion, one is no more important than the other. Members disagreed.
Mr. Mock used another example of a road that needed to be built to create frontage for lots: the frontage is no less important than water and sewer or square footage. He said this is done by having the Board approve the subdivision, condition that certain improvements occur within a time frame, the applicant takes a bond for certain activity that they would guarantee by condition that they would achieve. He said approving a subdivision with a road is the same as what he is asking: until the road exists, the subdivision does not exist.
Going on to the next issues, Mr. Walsh explained:
- access to the abutter’s house is guaranteed in perpetuity, already a deed on file that cannot be taken away
- removal of structures: house, concrete pad, removed prior to filling
- if any septic systems or sewer or water connections are found, they would be properly capped
- he included an example of a condition in his letter
- if there is a septic system, it would have to be cleaned out and the tank removed
J. Brayshaw asked if any of the fill for the lots 1,2 & 3 would be taken out of lot 4, which is very steep and how does Mr. Mock propose to fill that lot.
Mr. Mock answered that no fill would be taken out of lot 4. He asked members to look at the preliminary grading plan, for lots 3 and 4, which is a guess of how the filling will occur. He said there are also trees along the lot and of the 4 lots; lot 4 will have the least intense use.
B. Annis asked why the house needed to be removed: couldn’t it be renovated for commercial use?
Mr. Walsh said the house is not in the flood plain, but if one is going to fill, especially in the volume they are considering, the structures and any foundation underneath would need to be removed. He said the house is not going to be saved for the long term, whatever the use may be.
Mr. Mock said the footprint of a use on that lot is likely to be greater than the house and to incorporate the house into a building would be expensive.
Mr. Walsh expressed his conditions that he feels will protect the Town and are fair to the applicant
D. Pershouse:
- concern about curb cuts
- would like a designated study by an independent traffic engineer
- many driveways have been discussed
- potential development on the other side of the road with driveways may affect traffic patterns
Mr. Walsh said because the use is unknown, it is difficult to predict traffic and every use will have to have site plan review which allows the Board to change or move driveways.
J. McLaughlin said he thought it may be to early for DOT to review this area.
D. Pershouse said he’d be satisfied to have the study done at the time of development when there is a better idea of the use.
Mr. Mock said a requisite of site plan review is to look at traffic impacts, so at this stage it is premature: varying impact uses range from a real estate office with 2-3 people for traffic to a Burger King with a higher issuance of traffic.
D. Pershouse asked if the two planned common access egress and curb cuts are theoretical. Mr. Mock said they were because that is all you can do until you have a site plan.
M. Lennon asked if Mr. Mock is proposing theoretical curb cuts, and if the 4 lots are approved, does that mean that once they are developed, the lots could have more curb cuts.
Mr. Mock said he is not asking for more curb cuts than what is shown on the plan, but he does not know what the specific location or dimensions will be. He said he tried to balance the cuts against the centerlines of the park and ride driveway and North Road. He said the ultimate reviewing party, the State, may decide to shift the cut one way or move it on an angle, depending on the usage.
M. Lennon asked if the square footage for the easement on lot 2 was included in the 40,000 square feet required for the buildable lot.
Mr. Mock:
- was not looking at it like that
- he has looked at a site plan to try to identify locations
- boundaries are set but there will also be paved areas, a road around the building, emergency egress, loading and unloading of materials, parking
- there will be a secondary road, parallel to Rt. 103 which will be the 24-foot travel lane which will be in front of two uses
- this will not affect the square footage required or the setbacks required
R. St. Pierre read page 10 of the subdivision regulations: No land described above or any land described as follows shall be counted toward the required minimum building areas. And: Areas that are subject to an easement or right of way.
R. St. Pierre said if Mr. Mock sets aside 10,000 sq. ft. for the easement, he would still need an additional 40,000 sq. ft.
M. Lennon said that before the Board could approve subdivision, they would need to know how much land is set aside for the common driveways and easements and how that will effect how much fill is required. M. Mock said there is a minimum fill line to get above the flood plain. He said they can do more filling without invoking a wetlands permit and there is room to replace the area taken up by the easement and driveways in order to meet the minimum sq. footage.
M. Lennon said he did not disagree with Mr. Mock in theory, but if he were doing the plan, he would show approximately where the easement is, take that number of square feet out of the buildable lot size and show that the minimum can still be met. He said he would not approve a plan before he saw that.
M. Lennon looking at the bottom right side of lot 4 on the map which has a steep embankment coming down from Rt. 103, for an elevation that is easily 450 and asked if Mr. Mock is saying that he only needs to fill to 422 to arrive at a 40,000 square foot buildable area. He said that Mr. Mock, if looking at the contour lines at the bottom right, would have to come up higher to create a buildable lot.
Mr. Mock said he has stated that he could go up to 436 elevation. M. Lennon said the 436 would give the 40,000 sq. ft. but the bank cannot be built on. Mr. Mock said it is in agreement with the regulations that the lot be out of the flood plain. M. Lennon said he does not see any level area to build. Mr. Mock said the lot meets the minimum standards and not knowing the use, cannot predict the actual amount of fill needed to accommodate a specific use. He said this lot will be the least intensive use and probably the least salable. He said at the site plan review, the Board can review the viability of the lot and use.
Mr. Mock answered D. Pershouse that it is possible that lot 3 and 4 could be purchased together if a user wished to merge the properties and build a larger sq. ft. building. He said the market would have to demand that.
B. Open the Public Hearing
Phil Reeder, resident on West Main Street and property owner that boarders the Warner River, said he was concerned with the drainage of the property and asked how that would be handled.
Mr. Mock said storm water runoff from the property will go to the Warner River and the wetlands. He said that is the only plan for drainage because there are no on site uses yet.
Mr. Reeder said, looking at the worst case, the total sq. area that can be covered on the property is roughly 3 ½ acres, 140,000 sq. ft., a ½ inch of rain would create around 30,000 gallons of water coming from the property, as well as cigarette butts, oil, sand, and other things. He said those items would be thrown into the wetlands and he would like to see a retention pond required by the Town to capture all the items that are dumped there.
Mr. Mock said there will be many areas of pavement and roof surfaces when the sites are developed and there are many ways to deal with issues of water quality. He said one example is a catch basins which is effective in dropping sediments out and another example is to include grass strips of certain grades and square footage when the lots are developed that the water passes over at a certain rate of speed to minimize hydrocarbons and metals that transported. He said in a gravel pit, 90% moves into the ground water table, and in pavement, 99% has to be transported off the site.
Mr. Reeder said he is concerned with contaminating the River with miscellaneous items and water quality needs to be addressed. He said they need to be concerned because the area is connected to the Town aquifer, about 300 feet or less, where the Town water is drawn. He said there are 2 potential future use wells on his property and a right of way that are in the gravel aquifer in the area. He said he is concerned with contamination of ground water and a lined retention pond would contain contamination and could be easily pumped out.
Addressing the Planning Board, Mr. Reeder said:
- talking about lines on land that is not there, is a big consideration
- it is not the Town’s responsibility to protect the developer from performance by granting a waiver to say he can get the lines
- it is bad judgment not to have clean fill before the lines are drawn and permitted
- it is good to have development there, but not without having the lines drawn
- the issue of the driveways – the area traffic is already bad - 3 driveways will make it worse
- thinks that one driveway would be appropriate for the traffic that will be there
- lots will not be housing small offices or parks- it is a transient area where people are going in and out
- the uses will have many cars and a lot of parking
Joanne Hinnendael, resident on Bible Hill:
- asked the Board if someone could subdivide without a driveway permit
- asked Mr. Mock why there needed to be 4 lots, other than for the money, knowing that lot 4 is not a good buildable lot
- 3 better sized lots would be easier for people to accept
- asked about the fill permit and the 100,000 sq. ft and thought there could only be a subdivision if a lot was buildable.
- would like the State to look at the lot for permitting
Mr. Mock:
- does not want anyone to think he is inferring lot 4 is not a buildable lot
- the public use will be less intense re: the building and parking
- the lot is buildable but small, yet large enough to meet the standards of the ordinance
- this is no different than if he had a residential subdivision and he needed to put a road in to establish frontage
- at the time the subdivision occurs on paper, the lots are imaginary until they meet the standards
- subdivision approval is issued because there is contingency and conditions of approval
- the fill is an issue needed to meet the standards
To answer another question on liability for the lots if sold, Mr. Mock told Ms. Hinnendael that if the plan is recorded in Merrimack Registry of Deeds, then the lots can be sold but they cannot be developed. He said the only way they can be developed is if an owner comes back to the Planning Board with their use of the lot. He said the Purchase and Sale will be subject to prior approval by the Planning Board and the Town cannot be sued if the proper process is followed and the site plan of an applicant is turned down.
Wesley Hays, abutter on West Main Street, said his concern is that the location of his house should be shown on the map and would like to know why it is not because he will be looking directly at the 4 lots.
Mr. Mock said Mr. Hays has been noticed as an abutter and listed on the map as an abutter. He pointed to the map to the Hays property line.
Ms. Janan Hays said a developer has a right to develop a commercial lot he has purchased but to develop 4 commercial entities would be creating a substandard development. She said she does not understand how it can be done properly and raising the elevation of lot 4 would be placing it on par with the level of her property. She said she does not want to hear the business that would go on at the site, she already sees and hears the business and noise of Evans when the leaves are off the trees. She said she is not opposed to good commercial neighbors but 4 entities are risky at best. She said the drainage specialist she spoke to said any fill brought in will affect the drainage of the property. Ms. Hays had pictures of the wetlands. She said the development is a mistake, there is other commercial property available and the Town should not be in a hurry to "cram" 4 lots into that area.
Mr. Mock:
- if the subdivision is approved, Ms. Hays will continue to have the same view she has now of the area
- the only time the view will change, is when an applicant comes before the Board with a site plan
- the Hays’ are noted as an abutter on the map
- the Hays’ elevation is lower than the 4 proposed lots
The Hays’ disputed that elevation and said their house is 100 ft above the elevation of the Warner River; the lower elevation is in their lower field. They pointed to the location of their home on the map for Mr. Mock.
Mr. Mock said any filling will change drainage. Ms. Hays said it will change the flow of water into the Warner River and subsequently a drainage plan should be done. Mr. Mock said a drainage plan was done to show what could happen. He said each site will have to have drainage review scrutinized in site plan review. He said it does not follow that because there is development, there will be impact on ground water quality or to the Warner River: there are standards and mitigating factors that can be employed
Ms. Hays said she feels approval of the subdivision ties the Board’s hand and limits the recourse the Board has on the type of development that comes onto the lots. She said some uses would dramatically affect her property value, quality of life and if there were only 3 lots, those effects are lessened.
Mr. Mock said the review standards are in the site plan review.
Ms. Hays said she would like to see it remain 1 lot or perhaps 2 if the Board thinks that is in the best interest of the community. She said whoever purchases the lots at the asking price of $250,000 is going to have a large commercial operation. She said those uses are for transients and she would like to see uses that benefit the community and uses the people of the community can take advantage of. She said the Town needs to develop intelligently. She does not wish to offer more to the transients who disrespect the Town with trash but wishes to see more to benefit and enhance the Town.
Mr. Mock said the existing Master Plan recommends the area for commercial use and the promotion of water and sewer encourages development of smaller lots.
Paul Montoe, (?), owner of McDonald’s, Rt 103 West, commented on the types of development, egress in and out of the site, the site will need a pump station like his restaurant did, his suggestion is to try to develop the uses together with one entrance and to take the opportunity to minimize the traffic now and for the future. He said he disagrees with developing one lot at a time and the single driveway that he shares with Mountain Mart is a good example of controlling the traffic flow.
Ms. Hinnendael asked that the Board consider allowing the least amount of lots possible.
Ms. Hays commented that the light generated by commercial lighting would impact her greatly and there would be increased traffic noise. She said she is not opposed to commercial development, obviously her property abuts commercial property which is currently one lot. She said she would like the Board to use its judgment and allow may-be 2 lots, but also that the development be kept closer to Evans and the area closer to the residential area be kept as it is.
C. Close the Public Hearing
D. Reopen the Meeting
A. Serell said he felt there were still some preliminary issues and legitimate substantive issues. He is still not comfortable with the Boards right to grant conditional approval although Mr. Mock made a good point that there are other subdivisions that were granted conditional approval. He said it is a "close call" under the regulations and it is a significant enough issue to be worth getting the opinion of Town Counsel. He said his suggestion is to frame questions like the following for counsel, get answers before the next meeting and address the other substantive issues.
N. Martin asked for a motion to request answers from Town Counsel to the questions just stated by A. Serell and address the response at the next meeting. Seconded.
B. Annis asked if the land that is used by the driveway and easement should be in a question for counsel.
A. Serell said he thought the Board was clear on the regulations and that the land in the easement and driveway is not included in the buildable lot. Discussion followed. The board asked Mr. Mock to draw new lines on the plan show the area that will be buildable and Town Counsel’s response will help determine the authority of the Board.
Vote taken on the motion, majority in favor, motion passed.
Mr. Walsh suggested a motion to continue to the July meeting.
Mr. Mock suggested that a question be included that a bond may be appropriate.
M. Lennon asked if the site was flagged, Mr. Mock said the wetlands are, M. Lennon said he would like to walk the site, discussion followed regarding a site walk, Saturday, June 17, 2000, 8:30 am was scheduled for a site walk of property.
Motion to continue the meeting at the July Meeting, seconded, vote taken, motion passed.
At this time, it was noted that C. Dabrowski left the meeting.
V. Communications and Miscellaneous
for payment of services provided for the RAW subdivision and suggested they and the Town split the cost.
J. McLaughlin stated that one of Mr. Walsh’s suggested conditions of subdivision approval was to have the applicant pay for CNHRP’s services. The Board discussed this and agreed to make payment of Mr. Walsh’s services a condition of approval.
B. Correspondence from Hopkinton: (on file) regarding the Bear Pond Watershed in Warner. There is concern about the logging on land abutting the Pond; it is the primary drinking source for the precinct in Contoocook; the precinct is in the process of getting a state grant to map the watershed and establish a watershed management plan; in the future, will be asking Warner and Henniker to develop a plan to protect the land; commissioners respectfully ask planning boards to restrict development in that area for 12 months to allow the completion of the watershed plan; upon completion the commissioners will seek input on the management of this resource.
Discussion followed: J. McLaughlin provided more background on this topic, have an abutter or interested party purchase the land and put an easement on it, logging has already been done, have no authority to ask them to stop anyway, land has been devastated, Town Forrester needed to be involved, letter is serving as Hopkinton’s interest and concern about the property, Contoocook precinct owns 150 ft. around the perimeter of the pond.
C. Planning Board Clerk Position: N. Martin said Barbara Proper had resigned from the position of transcribing the planning board minutes, if someone else is available to transcribe the minutes, Judy will be able to stay on as planning board clerk. . She said transcribing the minutes is the most time consuming part of the job for Judy now that she is full time in the Clerk’s Office. N. Martin said another view of the position is to have only one person do all the secretarial work related to the clerk position. She said with 2% unemployment, it may be difficult, but someone may be interested.
Discussion: the board should advertise and try to fill the position with one person, difficult to transcribe minutes without attending meetings, what if the board ends up with no one?, are zoning and planning boards effected or could Judy continue as clerk for the ZBA, advertise for one person as planning board secretary and not just someone to transcribe the minutes, position includes flexible but specific weekly office hours but currently Judy is available to the public during the weekly Town Clerk hours, suggested that a new person hold office hours that coincide with Selectman and Town Clerk open hours, consider the budget for the position, office hours may need to be increased if assistance is not available "all week" from the Selectman’s and Town Clerk’s offices, mentioned that "salary negotiable with Selectman", advertise the position as discussed and publish on cable.
D. Zoning Regulation Books: Complete and ready to print? CNHRP said Master Plans are in the office, in process of editing, printer will proceed when completed, PB will forward a copy to Richard Cutting to post on Town Web site.
E. Cable Announcements: discussed at last meeting to discontinue using cable because of inconsistency of publishing reliability, viewers begin to rely on cable information and untimely or lack of information could be impactive. Discussion: OK to post meetings but not agendas
Class V road specifications, policy will be written and published in a policy book the Selectman are putting together.
VI, Adjourn.
Motion to adjourn, seconded, vote taken, all in favor, meeting adjourned at __________ pm.
__________________________ Minutes accepted.