Ms. Annis asked Lynn Perkins to vote for the duration of the meeting.

Ms. Annis said that the original plan included the wetlands area as part of the 3 acres.

Mr. Pershouse: The back line was moved back the equivalent distance of the wetlands and the old unused roadway and the strip of land running parallel to it along the road. Moved back 75 feet.

Ms. Annis: The area is shown on the plan as 3.77 acres (on note). It looks like they are still using the whole area (included the road and the strip).

Mr. Pershouse: I’m wondering if they picked up the wetlands area. That is only .04 acres.

Mr. Brayshaw: I think they moved the line back 85 feet. It looks like they moved the property line back to compensate.

Mr. Pershouse: The plan shows 3.77 acres overall. They need 3.02 acres to make it a net buildable lot.

Ms. Annis: How can we assess that parcel of 3.77 acres when it includes the road, and they don’t own the road?

Mr. Pershouse: We don’t know that they don’t own the road, or what the status is. And it is complicated by the fact that the road continues into the part of the original land by about 150 feet, and I don’t know how that is dealt with as well. That road doesn’t terminate at the east boundary of the new site; it continues up onto the lawn of the front of the house on the original site. There are a lot of inconsistencies.

Mr. Pershouse: John, since the last meeting have the Selectmen had any discussion about this?

Ms. Brayshaw: No, we had to cancel our meeting to go up there that Saturday morning because of the rain, and we were going to look at the drainage problem up there as well.

Mr. Pershouse: I just wondered if the issue of the road had been discussed.

Mr. Brayshaw: No.

Mr. Eigabroadt: If I may, I’ve discussed the problem with Allan Brown, and he had taken me up there and showed me the area you’re talking about. His explanation to me was that though the research he has done, he has supposedly found some documentation that, at least, proves to him – he’s confident – that the town owns the property. I’ve not seen that information yet – he’s getting it all together.

Mr. Pershouse: The town owns the property, not the current owner?

Mr. Eigabroadt: Correct.

Mr. Pershouse made a motion that although the subdivision has been Approved on the condition that the line be adjusted to get the proper net acreage for a buildable lot, the matter should be continued until the next meeting and we should continue to research the issues. The reason for the continuance: it seems that there are a lot of open-ended questions that perhaps the Tax Assessor should look. And if the Road Agent has new information or additional information, I think that should be brought to bear.

Mr. Eigabroadt said that in the meantime he would get with Allan Brown.

Mr. Brayshaw I have a question. The crux of the matter is the road, for this approval? If they have three acres of continuous land outside of the road area, why don’t we move forward with that?

Ms. Annis: I would have no problem if it said, "Lot 15-3 is going to equal 3.02 acres".

Mr. Brayshaw: OK. Your main concern is the way that it is written?

Ms. Annis: Yes. If you’ll look at the line, it goes all the way down to the other side of the road. It comes down to the present road.

Mr. Brayshaw: But just say that the road is out of there – that would give him more than. 3.02 acres.

Mr. Pershouse: It would be 3.77.

Mr. Brayshaw: Well, 3.77 including the road. My guess would be that it is somewhere between 3.02 and 3.77, taking into account that little strip of land in the front. He meets the setbacks and he has the property.

Mr. Pershouse: That hasn’t been disputed in terms of the approval. It fits the model. The problem is that we don’t know the status of the road and how it is being taxed. If this is the recorded drawing, it seems to me that the approval includes the unresolved issues.

Ms. Annis: Drew made the motion with the condition that, "The portion of the lot lying north of the former roadway exceeds at least 3 acres. The calculation of the total lot, including the roadway, be shown on the plan. The calculation of the portion of the lot that is north of the former roadway be shown on the plan. The location of the proposed driveway needs to be shown on the plan.

Mr. Brayshaw: I guess my point is that for assessing purposes, that is something that can be done down the line – as far as determining where the road is. The applicant – we moved him forward another month here and we’re moving him forward another month again, three months out. I don’t know how soon he wants to get going on this or whatever. I’m just saying that what I see in front of me via the wording, "Tax Lot 15-3". I’m sure it’s 3.77 acres, minus the road. We can determine that for assessing purposes. But I think that as far as what we have presented here, it is complete.

Ms. Annis: Do I hear a second to Derek’s motion?

Mr. St.Pierre: Second.

Ms. Annis asked for any discussion.

Mr. St.Pierre: I was hoping that they would have come back in with more information on the ownership of the road. I don’t think that we can go forward with the subdivision if it includes the road, and we don’t know who owns it. In this case, it might be the town’s property. The town doesn’t know whether or not the town might still own.

Ms. Annis: What you’re saying is that the line should be up here and not down here?

Mr. St.Pierre: Well, I don’t know. They haven’t really, in proposing a subdivision, completed their work. They’re showing a piece of land in a proposed subdivision that is an old roadway, and they have not researched the status of ownership. OK – but if you want to subdivide, then don’t include that in the lot. I guess that would be my point. If you don’t know who owns it, don’t include it.

Mr. Brayshaw: I would be with that, I think. You’re saying that you would like to see the line north of the roadway?

St.Pierre: If they used that northerly stone wall as the boundary line, as the southerly boundary line of that property, they could do that fine. And then the determination could maybe be made, or maybe the town could reach an agreement with them, or something – to establish ownership of the land. And then they could just annex that land onto that lot later on, if they wanted to.

Brayshaw: I just look at all the property in Warner – there are discontinued roads here and there and drives and stuff like that. I’m looking from the tax payers’ viewpoint, and that road has been discontinued for more than 100 years. If we have to get into establishing the bounds of this old discontinued road, then there are going to have to be town setbacks that have to be established – whether it is 66 ft. from the center or 32 ft. from the center – I just think it’s trivial.

Annis: It’s abandoned, it’s not discontinued.

Mr. St.Pierre: That’s their job, if they want to subdivide. I mean, they could just as easily go up to the northerly section of that lot, further up Pumpkin Hill Road, and they’d be free and clear.

Mr. Brayshaw: I don’t think there’s a term for abandoned in the State of New Hampshire. Roads are discontinued by three status: Discontinued by reversion back to owner, Discontinued by gates /bars, and just Discontinued. It might be abandoned, but at some point back in the records, there has to be something saying it was discontinued and voted on at Town Meeting. Because there had to have been an exchange of property for the new road to go through there.

Mr. Pershouse: Could we ask Wayne again: Wayne, what did Allan say was the documentation?

Mr. Eigabroadt: I believe he said it was old Town Meeting stuff, but I’m not positive of that.

Mr. Pershouse: Showing that the town …

Mr. Eigabroadt: If there is some way that you could approve this contingent on the outcome of that discontinued road.

Mr. Pershouse: Well, essentially that’s what we did last time. The reason it is so open ended is that…

Ms. Annis: I was under the assumption when they left that the line was going to go above the road; that the road and the land below the old road wasn’t going to be included in this at all.

Mr. Pershouse: Yes, but he still owns the land south of the road.

Ms. Annis: No, he doesn’t.

Mr. Brayshaw: How do we know that?

Mr. St.Pierre: That is the question. He may own it, and I’m sure he’s being taxed on it. But there’s still the question of who rightly owns it.

Mr. Brayshaw: No, I understand. And surely he can move the line north of that, but then if he did own the land in the front, do we as a town have to go and seek for him to give it to us as a conservation easement or something like that, or turn it over to the town? I guess it is an old road that’s been there a hundred plus years and that no one has squawked about ever. Certainly, me as a taxpayer and a Selectman and a Planning Board member – I don’t want to spend any of my money researching this road that leads to nowhere.

Mr. Pershouse: Try this on for a what-if: Let’s just say that, including setbacks and other lot requirements, there was room to build a house as part of the lot. Is that something that would be permitted? In other words, is the buildable lot from new Pumpkin Hill Road, the main road, all the way to the back line as drawn – or is the buildable lot using the boundary as the north wall of the unused roadway plus a setback… In other words, if the lot were configured a different way such that the old roadway were closer to being in the middle of it, what would be the owner’s right to use that as far as building area? Just for the sake of argument, move the unused road up to closer to the middle of the lot.

Mr. Brayshaw: I see what you’re saying. All that I’m saying is that this road has meant nothing to anybody for 100’s of years, and all of a sudden this little section of road that is in the middle of this guys property, that was discontinued at some point in time so the town could run up another Pumpkin Hill Road on the outskirts of it; to answer your question, I’d say that if it were in the middle of the property, I would say that, yes, it is part of the buildable lot, the way everything is situated up there now. Because there’s no way that the Town would ever need to use that road as an access or fire access or anything. It looks the road was moved over due to the drainage problems from a while back.

Ms. Annis asked if there were any further questions or comments.

Mr. Brayshaw: I would just like to say that I think that we could do it on a contingency or whatever, but we’re just putting this person off for another month. I think that they have, in good effort, given us everything that Drew asked for at the last meeting. The roadway hasn’t been established yet, but regardless if the town owns it or whatever, it’s not going to change tonight.

Mr. Pershouse: But the reason that they were asked to increase the buildable lot area – the new lot area – was because of the uncertainty.

Mr. Brayshaw: Which she did.

Mr. Pershouse: Yes, I understand that, but if it doesn’t make any difference then they shouldn’t have been asked to do that.

Mr. Brayshaw: But I think that we were talking continuous property; buildable property because the road was in question. It was whether or not that road was encompassing the continuous property. I think that is where Drew’s statement came from at the previous meeting. I’m just saying that if he increased it by 85 feet to the north, to give him 3 acres of continuous property whether or not the road was included. The proposed driveway and everything else he asked for is there, and he spent money to have this done. I just don’t see any ramifications to the town by approving this tonight. I don’t.

Ms. Annis asked for any further comments and if the Board was ready to vote.

Ms. Annis called for a vote – for all those in favor of Derek’s motion. The motion passed by a majority vote: St. Pierre - Yes; Pershouse - Yes; Perkins - Yes; Brayshaw - No.

Ms. Annis: We will contact the individuals involved and say that we would like very much to see the line shown north of the old road.

Mr. Pershouse: Could I qualify that – it’s the north wall of the old road.

Ms. Annis: North wall, so that it shows the exact amount of buildable acreage.

Mr. Brayshaw: So are we saying that the additional property south of the border will go back into Lot 15?

Ms. Annis: That’s the part that was unknown, according to Wendy and Steve Hall. Back when this road was relocated, the land all the way up to the old road was owned by her uncle.

Mr. Brayshaw: I’m just saying that if he moves that line north of the wall, and if he does own that piece, will that piece have to be included back into Lot 15, or will he make a separate lot?

Mr. Pershouse: It could be Tract I and Tract II.

Ms. Annis: The ownership of that land is unknown.

Mr. Pershouse: So Tract II becomes an unknown quantity.

Mr. Brayshaw: They’ve been paying taxes on it.

Mr. St.Pierre: But that doesn’t mean they own it.

Mr. Brayshaw: Well, adverse possession.

Mr. Jeff Evans [surveyor]: You can’t claim adverse possession in a municipality.

Mr. Brayshaw: But that’s not municipal property.

Mr. St.Pierre: But they still need to come in with something to clear up that ownership issue. They just can’t claim…

Mr. Brayshaw: It is just like the Gamil Azmy situation on Rt. 103, in establishing the boundaries of that road.

Mr. Pershouse: Is that something that could be done by the Selectmen, John? Issuing a letter of your understanding of the situation so that something is on the record?

Mr. Brayshaw: We could do that.

Ms. Annis said that the Secretary would send a letter to the Stanleys’ saying that the Board would like to see the line shown as being on the north wall of the old road, and showing the 3+ acres above that point.

Mr. Pershouse: What about the lower line…

Ms. Annis: That is an unknown factor.

Mr. Pershouse: And to just eliminate any reference to property lines south of the new south line.

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: While you were discussing that, I asked John if the Selectmen could write a letter to the Planning Board indicating their understanding of their position on the road, so that we would have something on the record.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes. I just don’t want him having to come back next month because there is something else wrong north of the road and his having to wait another month. I’ve seen these things happen. I know that due process is important, but… I’m more than willing to go to the Board with this decision.

Mr. Pershouse: Sissy is going to write a letter to them?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: Could we ask them to contact us so that there isn’t another misunderstanding?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: Have them call the Chairman of the Board and if there are any outstanding issues before the next meeting, we can debate and discuss them between now and the next meeting.

Mr. Brayshaw: Just for the record, you [Mr. Pershouse] had recused yourself at the last meeting because you are an abutter.

Ms. Annis: Yes, you did.

Mr. Brayshaw: I just wanted to point that out that you really shouldn’t be commenting tonight.

Ms. Annis: And you made a motion. I forgot all about that. Thank you, John.

Mr. Pershouse: Well, my position was looking only at the technicalities of the decision.

Ms. Annis: So we will go back. We have had the discussion and we need a motion on whether we will accept the new plan as presented or what is your desire?

Mr. St.Pierre: So are we back to square one?

Ms. Annis: Yes. We need a motion.

Mr. Perkins: I find the whole thing confusing at best. I’m unsure what I’m seeing, and can’t tell what’s what.

Mr. Brayshaw: Can we make a motion contingent on the line being moved? That way if he has the plans, at least he can move forward with them.

Mr. St.Pierre: They need to do one of two things: 1. Create a line that excludes all of that land that is of questionable ownership; or 2. Satisfy that issue and leave it as it is.

Mr. Perkins: Could we make the approval contingent upon the ownership of the roadway and the strip of land below the road? And if they can’t satisfy that condition, then they have to come back next month?

Mr. Brayshaw: I’d be fine with that.

Ms. Annis: Do you want to make that a motion?

Mr. St.Pierre: No.

Mr. Brayshaw: Russ, is your main concern the fact that everything south of the road is questionable – including the road. Putting that all aside, he has 3.02 acres north of that area. It is a very small contingency, but I would say that if he could prove ownership either way of everything south of the northern border of that road, I don’t see anything else wrong with this plan.

Mr. St.Pierre: No, I don’t either. Except that they haven’t done that.

Mr. Brayshaw: But we have made concessions for other plats.

Mr. St.Pierre: Right, but I don’t think we can concede ownership of land.

Mr. Perkins: I didn’t see that until we went back over it again, and he has three acres without that roadway and the piece below it.

Ms. Annis: Yes, he does.

Mr. Perkins: So I would say, yes, give him the approval.

Mr. Brayshaw: Contingent upon – the Selectmen and the Assessing office can check it out and take care of the tax map and anything else we need to do.

Mr. Perkins: That was our only concern at the last meeting – that they had three acres not including those wetlands and the road.

Mr. St.Pierre: Right, but what they’re proposing is to create a lot that includes those. Even thought they have three acres that excludes those, the lot that they are proposing includes that land.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, on this map. I would say to make the approval contingent on the new plan showing the 3.02 acres separated from that lower property to give us time to investigate it. We’ve investigated things like this that have taken half a year – trust me.

St.Pierre: That’s not our job, aside from the fact that the town might own a portion of their land. That’s their job. And if they want to present a plan that says, "We don’t know who owns it, but we’re going to include it in our lot," then it is incumbent upon them to satisfy who owns that land or just forget the whole thing, or do it differently. I don’t think it’s our problem.

Mr. Brayshaw: I’m not saying it’s the Planning Board’s problem – it’s the town’s problem. In the Selectmen’s office we can hire Provan & Lorber or Tony Lamarine to take transits and we can spend $5,000 or $6,000 trying to establish that road. The road is abandoned or discontinued or whatever you want to call it. You could care less about that road as much as I could care less about that road. All I’m saying is that if he has to pay taxes on it, let him keep paying taxes on it. I mean, if he feels that way. If he wants to prove it’s not his so that he doesn’t pay taxes on it, let him do that.

Mr. St.Pierre: But let him prove that it is his if he wants to subdivide it.

Mr. Brayshaw: What I’m saying, though, is if he puts that line north of that boundary where the 3.02 acres is, then it’s not included in that anymore. Move the entire land north of the stone wall, and the Town could take whatever time it takes to research the ownership of that property.

Mr. Brayshaw made a Motion to Approve the subdivision contingent upon Mr. Stanley providing a copy of this plat with the southern boundary of the new lot being the stone wall on the northern side of the old road. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Applicant/Owner: John and Virginia Brayshaw, 289 Horne Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: same as above, Map 8, Lots 21 and 22, OC-1 Zoning District

Description: West side of Horne St., Lot 21: 26.19 acres; Lot 22 23.83 acres

Mr. Brayshaw recused himself from the Board since he is the applicant. Selectman Eigabroadt sat in for Selectman Brayshaw as his alternate.

Mr. Brayshaw explained to the Board that they are proposing taking a 5.8 acre lot piece from their Lot 22 and adjoining it to Lot 21.

Ms. Annis asked the Board if there were any questions.

Mr. Eigabroadt: John, you’re taking that 5.8 acre piece out of Map 8, Lot 22 and adding it to Map 8, Lot 21?

Mr. Bradshaw: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: So the existing drive comes in over the original lot?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes. I originally had to run a driveway easement over my Class V property to access a piece of land, so what I’m doing now is just cutting a 5-acre piece off that encompasses that road so that I have a road instead of an easement.

Ms. Annis: So you’ll own your own driveway.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, I own my own driveway.

Ms. Annis: Do you have a building up here already?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, I have a building permit.

Ms. Annis: Are you living in it yet?

Mr. Brayshaw: Almost.

Mr. Pershouse: So the existing lot is 22, and the one under construction, or almost completed, is on Lot 21?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: So the drive will serve only Lot 21?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: Your current house is on Lot 22, which is a Class V road?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: Do we need to question wetlands or anything like that because it is a Lot Line Adjustment?

Ms. Annis: No.

St.Pierre: I’ll ask the question. How did you get a building permit to build on a Class VI road?

Brayshaw: By running a… Does that have to do with these minutes, because that has nothing to do with a Lot Line Adjustment? I’d be glad to discuss that with you outside of public session. I had to get a Class V easement, a road to my Class V property.

Mr. St.Pierre: Oh.

Mr. Brayshaw: Because there is another neighbor right across from me, across the hill, and I got permission, if I wanted to, to upgrade 150 feet of Class VI road to do it. I decided not to make the taxpayers pay for another 150 feet of road, so we granted the easement instead through my Class V piece of property.

Ms. Annis: So by doing this, John, it basically gives you the frontage?

Mr. Brayshaw: No, no frontage. Just a Lot Line Adjustment.

Mr. Pershouse: You own both lots?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: So why did you need an easement to cross your own lot?

Mr. Brayshaw: Because I didn’t have enough frontage and it’s a Class VI road.

Mr. Pershouse: Oh. In terms of a buildable lot, you mean.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, in terms of a buildable piece of property.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Plus, if you ever decide to sell that upper lot, then that still keeps your new one in conformity.

Mr. Brayshaw: The main reason I didn’t want to do it is because my neighbor was thinking on building across the street up there – a cluster development. I didn’t want to increase the Class VI road to make it easier for him to build at the time. Now he’s moved. He already approached the town.

Ms. Annis asked if there were any other questions.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to Accept the application. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis asked if there were any abutters present that would like to comment. No abutters were in attendance.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to Approve the application for Lot Line Adjustment. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Applicant/Owner: Violette Kelly, c/o Connie Kelly, P.O. Box 13, Bradford, NH 03221

John J. Canepa, 140 West Roby District Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: West Roby District Road, Warner, NH Map 16, Lots 6, 7 and 8, R-2 Zoning District

Description: Annex a portion of Map 16, Lot 8 (jointly owned by Kelly and Canepa) to Lot 6 (owned by Kelly) and a portion to Lot 7 (owned by Canepa)

Mr. Eigabroadt continued to take the place of Selectman Brayshaw for this application.

Jeff Evans, Surveyor, is presenting the application for Ms. Kelly.

Mr. Evans: The first phase of this is a Lot Line Adjustment which is along the West Roby District Road and it follows the old railroad right-of-way. Apparently before 1840, when the railroad came through, the farm used to have access to the old Route 103. As we all know, the railroad was abandoned and Mr. and Mrs. Kelly along with Mr. and Mrs. Canepa purchased the entire right-of-way, basically from West Roby District Road to the Warner River. They did this in one deed and it was done for their protection. All that the Kelly’s had was the right to cross the railroad, which was given them to them as a farm crossing and is shown on the railroad plan. The Kelly’s and Canepa’s had tried to separate the parcel back in the 1980’s, through an attorney, but it was never completed. But they had decided on a physical location to divide the property. What is defined here is that the part of the railroad right-of-way that is in front of the Kellys’ farm is to become part of the Kelly piece, and the other part will become part of John Canepa’s property.

Mr. Pershouse: How wide was that originally?

Mr. Evans: It varied from 99 feet to 2 rods originally – so I have not idea. We’re eliminating the old railroad, actually. And part of that process is that there is no legal frontage on West Roby District Road, at this time, because of the railroad.

Ms. Annis stated that before going on to the subdivision application for the same property, owned by Kelly, the Lot Line Adjustment has to be approved.

Mr. Pershouse: Because they are going to two different property owners, are we considering them together?

Secretary: Both property owners have signed the application.

There was a discussion about the difference between an annexation and a Lot Lint Adjustment. Mr. Evans said that the state no longer recognizes the word "annexation" and that it is no longer in the RSA’s. They are the same thing.

Mr. Eigabroadt made a motion to Accept the Lot Line Adjustment application as proposed. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis said that the application is complete and signed by both parties, and that Mr. Evans has been authorized to speak for them. Ms. Annis asked if there were any abutters present who wished to speak.

Abutters: Andrew Rushia: Could you point out on the map exactly where the parcel will be divided? Jeff showed him on the map.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to Approve the Lot Line Adjustment. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

John J. Canepa, 140 West Roby District Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: West Roby District Road, Warner, NH Map 16, Lots 6, 7 and 8, R-2 Zoning District

Description: Subdivide 25.03 acres into 5 lots: 3 of 2.015 ac, 1 of 12.66 ac, 1 of 5.8 acres w/ existing house.

Mr. Evans: The family needs to subdivide because they need to support Mrs. Kelly. This is 5-lot subdivision with three 2 buildable acre lots on Rt. 103, a large 12-acre lot on Rt. 103, and the original house – 5.16 acres – and frontage on West Roby District Road will stay together. I haven’t yet applied to DES or DOT for the driveways. He pointed out wetlands. The proposal is for a common drive for lots 2 and 3, and to hopefully use the existing woods road for access to the 12-acre lot. There should be a nice view from the old field. Someone might come in and clear the land for use for horses. The Warner River has to be dealt with. He pointed out the lines on the map. One area of wetland, shown on the map. Not in the floodplain.

Mr. Pershouse asked about the site distance for the driveways and the slope, and Mr. Evans said that the site distance is very good. The bank has already been cut, and it is all sand. More will have to be removed to meet the slope requirements, but there is no ledge at that particular point.

Mr. Eigabroadt: What is hydric soil?

Mr. Evans: In order to have wetlands, we have to have greater than 50% of certain types of vegetation defined as that found in wetlands; have to have hydric soil, which is soil that exists in a somewhat saturated state (high water table). It doesn’t make it wet land, but you can’t put a septic system in there. You can do whatever else you want because it’s not considered wetlands.

Mr. Pershouse pointed out that the Board had received a letter from Mr. Paysen, an abutter, and that it should be read at some point in time. Ms. Annis agreed and said that it would be read during the Public Hearing.

Ms. Annis: The Board needs to accept, reject or continue the application. It should be noted at this time that we have it in our Subdivision Regulations that major subdivision will be referred to Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. So if it is the desire of the Board, we can accept the application, refer it to CNHRPC, and the clock starts running. The Board can continue and send it to CNHRPC and I don’t believe the clock starts because it has not yet been accepted. We can reject it if we have a reason not to go the other routes.

Mr. Pershouse: Where does a Site Visit come in? In terms of the sequence.

Ms. Annis: We could do one simultaneously with CNHRPC, or separately. I think we could schedule a Site Visit as well as sending the application to CNHRPC.

Mr. Pershouse made a motion to continue the application until the August meeting, schedule a Site Visit and at the same time, send the application to CNHRPC and see if they can attend the Site Visit at the same time as the Board. The motion was seconded. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis explained to the audience that because the plan hasn’t been accepted as complete, no public input can be given at this time because there is no Public Hearing at this time. It will be sent to CNHRPC as soon as funds are received for CNHRPC to review it.

John Brayshaw: Was a phasing plan sent in with the subdivision plan, because that is part of our regulations.

Mr. Evans: No.

Ms. Garcia: I just want to know the definition of a major subdivision.

Ms. Annis: It is more than 3 lots.

A member of the audience stated that there was soil information that was not shared with the public and that the driveways have not been shown on the map. Ms. Annis said that the plans haven’t been accepted yet, and that the information will be shown on the maps when completed. Mr. Evans pointed out that the soil information is on the plan at this time.

Site Visit: Saturday, July 17 8:00 a.m. Meet on West Roby District at the house – 143 West Roby District Road. Mr. Evans said that he would like to attend and that it might be helpful if he were there.

The Secretary will contact CNHRPC and send information regarding the subdivision application and Site Visit.

Ms. Kelly gave a check for $500 to the Secretary for the CNHRPC review.

Applicants/Owners: Jody Keeler, 8 Huntington Rd, Henniker, NH 13242

Craig Keeler, 566 Pembroke St., Pembroke, NH 03275

Property Location: W. side of Route 103, Warner. Map 3, Lot 68, R-2 Zone

Description: Construct a 2-family residence with condominium ownership

Mr. Brayshaw will be voting for the duration of the meeting, and Mr. Eigabroadt will step down.

Mr. Keeler explained the plan for the 2-family condominium and the Board looked over the plans.

Mr. Pershouse: You came in for a Conceptual Consultation – will there be any significant changes in this plan from the previous preliminary plan?

Mr. Keeler: No. There are no major changes. The house plan has changed slightly, but no major changes.

Ms. Annis: Why condos?

Mr. Keeler: From a marketing point of view, both parties would be owners.

Mr. Pershouse: Have the condo documents been submitted?

Secretary: Yes, I have them.

Mr. Pershouse: How far from the sidelines will the building be?

Mr. Keeler: There is a house on one side, and if there is a house on the other side, it is a long way away.

Mr. Brayshaw: I have a question on the topos. You show 342 at the road, and at the back section you show 366. Are the numbers correct for the slope in the back? I know this property well; I can’t believe that it’s not more than that.

Mr. Pershouse: Do you think that the sharp pitch is sort of a pocket.

Mr. Keeler: Yes, as far as I know, those numbers are correct. The plan was done by a licensed surveyor.

Mr. Brayshaw: Has there been a determination of the location for a septic system? Do you show the perc test locations?

Mr. Keeler: There was an approved system from the State for a 3-bedroom, but we are amending that application and haven’t received it back from the engineer. The perk test has been done and we are awaiting approval for the new application.

Mr. Keeler showed the approximate location of the perc tests on the plan – there was also an additional test done for the amended plan. The original septic system would have interfered with the current proposed driveway.

Ms. Annis: Where is the dumpster going to be located?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, where’s the dumpster going to be located, and will it be screened?

Mr. Annis: Will there be a dumpster, or will the owners go to the Transfer Station?

Mr. Keeler: It is a small building, and there is no plan for a dumpster.

Ms. Annis: Does anyone feel confident in looking over the Bylaws, or should it go to the Town attorney?

Mr. Pershouse: I think that the documents should be sent to the Town attorney for his approval.

Mr. Brayshaw: Will the dwelling units be set back from the road?

Mr. Keeler: It will be about 60 feet back from the road, so it will be visible from the road.

Mr. Brayshaw: We went over that in detail with the last condo application, as far as screening and landscaping.

Mr. Brayshaw looked at the plan. Ms. Annis noted that it is an attractive building.

Ms. Annis: I’m assuming that the driveway will be tar?

Mr. Keeler: Not necessarily. It is only about 60 feet in.

Mr. St.Pierre: I would like to see the abutters’ names tied to the location of their properties on the map.

Ms. Annis said that the following items need to be done prior to approval of the plan:

1. Abutters’ names tied to the location of their properties on the plan

2. The septic plan approved

3. Review of the condo documents by attorney Don Gartrell

4. Landscaping plan

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to continue the application until the August meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Keeler gave the Board $500 toward legal fees for review of the condo documents.

Applicants/Owners: Roy A. and Virginia T. Ferguson, 7 Kirtland St., Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: North side of Mink Hill Lane, Warner, NH Map 13, Lots 2 and 4, OC-1 Zoning District

Description: Take property from Map 13, Lot 2 and add it to Map 13, Lot 4

Jeff Evans explained the subdivision to the Board. The Ayers will add 20 acres to their property. The Secretary reminded Mr. Evans that nothing had been received from the Ayers’ stating that they are part of the application. She said that she had left him a phone call the week before and he thought that Mr. Ferguson was to get that information to the Board, but he didn’t. Ms. Annis questioned if the Board had the right to annex land to someone else’s property [Ayers] without their signatures of acknowledgement/approval of the application. Mr. Evans suggested that the application could continue to be addressed and approved contingent on the signatures from the Ayers. He stated that he didn’t think it would be a problem to get signatures from the Ayers.

Mr. Brayshaw had a question about the lot line that is to be removed. Mr. Evans went over the Lot Line Adjustment together with the Minor Subdivision that would follow. One can’t be done without the other because it is taking 2 pieces of land owned by the same person, combining them and subdividing a portion and annexing a portion to an abutting piece of property owned by the Ayers. Ms. Annis said that it had to be done together, not the subdivision of the lower portion first as suggested by Mr. Brayshaw, because that would create a landlocked piece of property and that can’t be done. Mr. Brayshaw stated that it could be done in a Lot Line Adjustment because a Lot Line Adjustment can’t be denied.

Ms. Annis said that the Lot Line Adjustment application must first be accepted as complete. Mr. St.Pierre stated that the application is incomplete without the signature of the Ayers. Ms. Annis said that she didn’t know how the Board could address the balance of the application without the signatures. Mr. Evans agreed with that decision.

Mr. Perkins made a motion to continue the Lot Line Adjustment application until the August meeting. The motion was seconded and the motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Property Location: North side of Mink Hill Lane, Warner, NH Map 13, Lots 2 and 4, OC-1 Zoning District

Description: Subdivision of Map 13, Lot 2 and Map 9, Lot 7 into 3 lots: 24.1 acres, 12.1 acres and 12.0 acres

Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to reject the Minor Subdivision application pending the Lot Line Adjustment approval. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Richard L. Dahlgren & Virginia M. Dahlgren, 9 Jackson St., Highland Mills, NY 10930 (Lot 22-1)

Property Location: 381 Kearsarge Mt. Road (west side of road) & North Road

Map 18, Lots 22, 22-1 and 11-5. R-3 and OC-1 Zoning Districts

Description: Lot Line Adjustment on three connecting pieces of property

Mr. Evans: There are two lot line adjustments being done on one plan. Map 18, Lot 22-1 was subdivided previously. Because the other Lot Line Adjustment was being done, the owners of the new lot requested that their lot be made more of a rectangle. The second Lot Line Adjustment adds part of an L-shaped lot to the farm that fronts on Kearsarge Mtn. Road and then leaves a 5.7 acre lot with frontage on North Road. There is no change in frontage on any of the lots.

Mr. Pershouse: There’s an approved cell tower site on Carol Pletcher’s land. There is a requirement in our telecommunications ordinance that there has to be a fall zone of, I think, 150 feet for the tower. I’m not sure how that might impact this project, but it is a preexisting condition at this point. Mr. Evans said that he would look into that.

Mr. Pershouse asked if there were a house on the lot fronting on North Road. Mr. Evans said that there was not. Is the OC-1 500 feet back from Kearsarge Mt. Road? Mrs. Garcia said that she thought OC-1 starts back 1,000 feet from Kearsarge Mt. Road.

Mr. Brayshaw: We’re not creating any new lots here; it is a pretty straight forward and simple Lot Line Adjustment. I think that not only for tax mapping, but what we were trying to strive for with Mrs. LaBelle last year as far as trying to keep the contour of the lots up there squared off, I think it is a smart move here on Lot 22-1. As far as the Lot 11, on North Road, I think that as far as it being a buildable lot, the wetlands are going to have an effect on it. I know that land along there pretty well.

Mr. Evans: I think it’s buildable. You’ve got an access road right up through there.

Mr. Brayshaw: But do you have 5 acres of continuous property? There are a lot of wetlands there.

Mr. Evans: There’s not as much wetlands there that actually qualify as wetlands. But that’s why we went up to 5.7 acres. I didn’t say it was a good lot – I don’t think much of any of those lots along North Road.

Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to Accept the application. The motion was seconded.

Mr. St.Pierre: I have a question of the lot on North Road. We exclude land that has a slope of greater than 25%. If you take out the wetlands and the areas with a slope of greater than 25%, it looks like we’re creating a lot of less than 5 acres of buildable land.

Mr. Evans: All of those lots on North Road are the same. They all have wetlands in front of them. And they’re all over 25% slope.

Mr. St.Pierre: Right. But as the lot exists right now, you have a very large property with well over 5 acres of buildable land.

Mr. Evans: Well, we’re not sure.

Mr. St.Pierre: According to the topo map, when you get up to the top there is lot of relatively flat land on the top of the hill. What you’re asking us to create is a lot that has probably less than 5 acres.

Mr. Evans: Buildable, yes, but when you really get down to it the only one you can enforce that on is R-2, where it specifies buildable lot. If you had specified "buildable" in your ordinances, which I believe the only one that specifies "buildable" is the R-2 zoning district. "Land not considered suitable for subdivision" means you shall not bring in a plan showing a subdivision on the side of Mt. Kearsarge, or you shall not bring in a plan showing a subdivision of a giant swamp.

Mr. Brayshaw: We’ve had conversations concerning continuous versus contiguous.

Mr. St.Pierre: No, not even that.

Mr. Brayshaw: I’m just saying that looking back on what we were talking about, I think contiguous goes beyond our big…

Mr. Evans: That is contiguous, but… And it’s a Lot Line Adjustment, not a Subdivision. This might have been brought up at the time that the subdivision was actually done.

Mr. Brayshaw: But I think his point and my point is that you’ve only got 5.7 acres there. If you put another acre or two in there, you might have… I don’t know if you’ve read some of the new ordinances, but you might have a buildable lot where you might not have here. If this were a lot of record, it might be a different story.

Mr. Evans: The lot is a lot of record, but exists as a 28 acre piece.

Mr. Pershouse: But if we change it…

Mr. Brayshaw: If we change it, it comes under the current zoning laws.

Mr. Evans: If it is made smaller, it becomes just like the other lots on North Road, only slightly bigger. You have wetlands all over those lots.

Mr. Brayshaw: But those lots were built 2 or 3 years prior to [ordinance changes].

Mr. Evans: I don’t think the ordinances have changed that drastically.

Mr. St.Pierre: The ordinance has changed significantly to deal with the issue of buildable land.

Mr. Evans: What would you like?

Mr. St.Pierre: What I’m saying is we can’t create a substandard lot.

Mr. Evans: I’m not saying that it is substandard. I know that I can get an approval to build on the lot. You can build on ¾ or ½ acre of land.

Mr. St.Pierre: But according to our regulations, we are looking at creating a substandard lot.

Mr. Evans: That’s what I’m saying to you. What do you want to do to correct this?

Mr. St.Pierre: You could either 1) make it bigger such that you have 5 acres of buildable land, by definition.

Mr. Evans: By making the lot 7 acres or so?

Mr. Brayshaw: The second option is you could apply for a Variance.

Mr. Evans: I don’t think it’s worth it to apply for a Variance.

Mr. St.Pierre: I think that a point that you could raise is that it would be similar to lots already on North Road.
Mr. Evans: But that doesn’t constitute a hardship.

Mr. St.Pierre: No, but in this day of hardship…

Mr. Evans: Hardship is the hardest thing for anyone to approve.

Mr. St.Pierre: Not since Simplex.

Mr. Evans: Do you want to suggest how big we should go? Do you want me to investigate the 5 contiguous acres?

Mr. St.Pierre: It doesn’t have to be contiguous.

Mr. Brayshaw: How much would it be to bring it over to the iron bound up in the corner there, and square it off?

Mr. Evans: If we had that, that’s got to be at least 7 acres or more. The topo is obviously better up here.

Mr. Brayshaw: I think that Russ brings up a good point. But it’s not for us to decide.

Mr. Evans: I’m looking for suggestions.

Mr. Pershouse: Is it OC-1 on North Road?

Mr. Evans: Yes.

Ms. Annis: And OC-1 must have a minimum of 300 feet of frontage and a minimum lot area of at least 5 acres.

Mr. Pershouse: Are we recommending that the lot be made bigger to eliminate the question of being a buildable lot?

Mr. Brayshaw: We recommending that, but he doesn’t have to do it. We can’t deny a Lot Line Adjustment.

Mr. St.Pierre: Yes we can.

Mr. Pershouse: Yes.

Mr. Brayshaw: Because it would be non-conforming? Is that what you’re saying?

Mr. St.Pierre: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse: Yes, because it creates a lot that is non-conforming.

Mr. Brayshaw: But do we know that for a fact?

Mr. St.Pierre: Based on the contour that is being show there, I think that you’re going to end up deducting something.

Mr. Brayshaw: Certainly, there are wetlands up and down there – I’ve seen that.

Mr. St.Pierre: First there are the wetlands, and then you have to look at the slope. You’ve got 25 feet change in elevation in certainly less than an inch, which is 100 feet.

Mr. Brayshaw: You’re right. That’s a big portion of it there – at least a third.

Ms. Annis: So are you going to reject this application until such time as this lot is increased in size so that there is 5 acres, at a minimum, of buildable area?

Mr. St.Pierre: That would be my suggestion.

Ms. Annis: There’s no question about the other one – that looks fine.

Brayshaw: I don’t think we can deny it, to be honest with you, whether we’re doing a non-conforming or not. I went to a course on this stuff. It’s not a building lot; we’re not designating it as such. It’s open space. No one can ever build on there if they wanted to. Who’s to say that someone will ever build there? I don’t think we can deny it.

Mr. St.Pierre: I disagree.

Mr. Brayshaw: We do that every now and then. I agree with Russ that it is non-conforming, but by state RSA, supposedly the only thing you can’t deny is a Lot Line Adjustment.

Annis: We can’t, by adjusting a lot line, create a non-conforming lot.

Perkins: What is the difference between a non-conforming lot and a buildable lot?

Mr. Brayshaw: Your question is kind of what I’m directing at; we had this discussion a while back where I said that you can put a rod anywhere and sell a piece of property to anybody you want, and Russ and I disagreed on that. But who’s to tell someone what they can and can’t do to their own property.

Pershouse: If we create a lot, it is a saleable piece of property and that is a different ball game. If we create a lot and it is designated as a buildable lot and it is sold to somebody as a house lot or a buildable lot, and technically it isn’t, then we’re all in trouble.

Brayshaw: But that’s the whole idea of the Building Permit process. If someone applies for a Building Permit, they come in and all of that stuff is handled.

Mr. Pershouse: Do they find out after they’ve bought the lot?

Mr. Brayshaw: But not the topos and the wetlands for continuous property. That is not looked at the Building Permit information packet.

Ms. Annis: Exactly.

Mr. Brayshaw: So that’s something that we absolutely need to address. That’s been a shortcoming of our permit application process. But I would say if this was me doing it, that I would be certain that I had 5 acres of continuous land, from an investment standpoint, much less anything else.

Annis: It is continuous land. The question is, does it have within that "buildable" area?

Mr. Brayshaw: The wetland cuts it, though.

Mr. Evans: Not there. The wetlands as shown on here are accurate. They extend across the road just above this lot.

Mr. Brayshaw: I thought it cut in at David Dalrimple’s house, and then came out again a short spell down and coming into that lot.

Mr. Evans: This is up past any development now.

Mr. Pershouse: It seems to me that if that is a buildable lot as it stands when you came to us tonight, then any lot line reconfiguration should not limit the quality of the lot from its original status. I would look at it from the point of view of whoever the owner is that: Why would someone want to create a lot which is questionable or, worse than that, one which technically would be a nightmare to put a house on, whereas – and I don’t know about access in this case. In other words, by making this lot too small or making it questionably smaller, it seems to me that it puts the ownership in jeopardy for the current owner and if they should sell it. It diminishes the value of it.

Mr. Evans: I agree with what Mr. Brayshaw said – the job of the Planning Board here isn’t to sell or establish values. This is why we go on and septic design engineers are hired daily here by people looking to buy land. People aren’t as ignorant as they used to be. They’ll go out and dig for these people for a half a day to tell them what they’re looking at for a septic system. You’ll find that Purchase and Sale Agreements are written all the time that are contingent on a perc test. This is because people are building on 30, 40 and 50 acre lots. There’s no guarantee that any of those are buildable, either. And simply the state just throws up their hands and says that we don’t want to deal with anything over 5 acres – we’re satisfied that somewhere on the 5 acres we can get a septic system. Well, may yes; maybe no. But to get back to this, yes you can get a septic system and a house site in here just like all of the other ones on North Road. I’m not saying it’s the nicest one, but you can do it.

Mr.Pershouse: So the intent, maybe we’re not supposed to be figuring out, but I need to figure it out to see in which direction we’re going; the intent of the owner here is to just increase the size of the main lot?

Mr. Evans: Yes, the farm. Because all of the riding trails are down here.

Mr. Pershouse: So this lot is, in loose terms, a discard?

Mr. Evans: Right. I mean, I don’t know if it is a discard.

Mr. Pershouse: Well, I’m just wondering what the purpose of this lot is for all parties.

Mr. Evans: I don’t know what the purpose of the lot is. I’m not privy to that information.

Mr. Brayshaw: See, that’s the whole thing. We have no mechanism to check that, either. Assuming we didn’t have the continuous property or non-conforming in mind, this would go into the record as a 5 acre lot, a Building Permit would be issued whether it is conforming or not. Nobody goes back and checks the topo or wetland issues and stuff like that. We're looking at it now as this stuff comes before the Planning Board – subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments, etc.

Pershouse: But the intent of an ordinance and, in this case, the ordinance is to not have buildings on substandard lots. That is the whole purpose of the ordinance. So cumulatively, if you say that you look the other way each time because you say that it doesn’t make any difference to the town, in fact it does because in terms of the intent of the ordinance – which is the number of units built and where they are located on the site.

Mr. Brayshaw: Just for the record, I’m not saying any of that. You’re saying it. I know exactly where you’re saying…

Mr. Pershouse: That’s exactly what I heard you say.

Mr. Brayshaw: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Pershouse: OK.

Mr. Brayshaw: Basically what I’m saying that it is not up to us to determine whether or not a building is going up on this lot. What I’m saying is that that are lots all over town – lots of record and lots being created that we don’t go out and check and check the topos on it.

Mr. Pershouse: The ordinance says that if we create a lot by whatever means, it has to have x-number of acres of buildable land on it.

Mr. Brayshaw: But we’re not creating a lot here.

Mr. Pershouse: We’re moving a line around so that…

Mr. Brayshaw: You said it before – you said that this is a new lot. But it’s not a new lot. It is an existing lot, and we’re shortening it up to be non-conforming. That’s what we’re doing. We’re not creating a new lot here; that would be a subdivision. It’s a Lot Line Adjustment.

Mr. Pershouse: We’re doing something to a lot.

Mr. Brayshaw: It’s a lot of record of 20-someodd acres. It is a lot of record, and we’re reducing acreage on that lot.

Mr. Perkins: To move this along, would it be advisable for you to go back to Claire and say let’s take the original line that we talked about a while ago and move that back line back, make it a larger lot, and be done with it?

Mr. Evans: I think that is probably the best solution. I think we should base it on the question of the buildability of the lot and to ensure that we have enough land.

Ms. Annis: So may I have a motion to reject this plan?

Brayshaw: I don’t think we can. I don’t have an RSA book here, but the Planning Board cannot reject a Lot Line Adjustment. You can continue it or accept it.

Ms. Annis: Then why do we have three things [action options on the Agenda]?

Mr. Brayshaw: I don’t know – it’s always been on there. But by RSA, we cannot reject a Lot Line Adjustment as long as it falls within the zoning guidelines, and it does. It is a lot of record; that is the difference. This 20-something acre lot was created years ago and the zoning ordinances that were passed 2 or 3 years ago don’t apply to it.

Mr. Evans: If, for example, we waited ten years to do this and these lots separated, there would be a house up on North Road and would be on the 5-acre piece. If we then wanted to come back and do a Lot Line Adjustment, you would willingly sign it because you would accept that 5 acres as buildable because there would be a house on it.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, but the lot itself is grandfathered to a certain degree. I mean, it has grandfathering to it. This is not a subdivision; not creating a new lot.

Mr. Evans: It is a 1980 subdivision.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, it doesn’t fall under the zoning ordinances of 2 or 3 years ago.

Ms. Annis: I can’t find Lot Line Adjustments in the RSA – I can find mergers.

Mr. Brayshaw: Is that RSA 673:24? I can go out to my car; I’ve got it in there.

Mr. Pershouse: John, to follow your logic, does that mean that anyone that has a conforming piece of land with 300 feet of frontage could do a side Lot Line Adjustment and reduce the frontage? I’m just using a hypothetical situation; if someone came to us and said that they wanted to bring that side lot in and reduce the frontage from 300 feet down to 200 feet, that’s non-conforming? In other words, if my neighbor wanted to get enough…

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, if there was no residence on it. If there is a pre-existing residence there, you couldn’t. Blank property – sure. It would be an unbuildable lot, but you just can’t build on it.

Mr. Pershouse: But you’re saying, in this case, that whatever we do to this lot a person can build on it?

Mr. Brayshaw: No, I’m not saying they can or they can’t. That’s not our place to determine that.

Mr. Pershouse: OK.

Mr. Brayshaw: All I’m saying is that this is a lot of record. We’re not creating a new lot. We’re moving a lot line and keeping it within 5 acres for that zone. There are people that have 5 acres in OC-1 and don’t ever plan on building, and we have little parcels of acres around the Minks and conservation easements. Who’s to say what they’re going to do with it. If they want to go with 5.7 acres, I’m saying with this, because this is a grandfathered lot of record, yes, go ahead, do it. If you want to build, that’s for somebody else to deal with. That doesn’t come back to the Planning Board. The reason I mentioned that was out of courtesy, in the beginning. From an investment standpoint, why don’t you throw a couple of more acres on there just to be safe?

Mr. Pershouse: That’s why I was talking about intent.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes. I mean, I just said that out of courtesy. But I don’t know. My guess is that it is a lot of record that’s been lot line adjusted; it would fall into the ordinances in place at the time it was created, it being grandfathered to 1980. My other question, and this I don’t know, is by doing a Lot Line Adjustment – does that put it back into the current zoning ordinances; does that bring it out of the grandfathering and back into what we’re doing today. I know with a subdivision it does that, but I don’t know with a Lot Line Adjustment. When you call Concord, Lot Line Adjustment is not even mentioned anymore. It is Annexation. That term of Lot Line Adjustment is kind of out the door.

Mr. Evans: It used to be Annexation, and then they didn’t use it anymore and then it became Lot Line Adjustment. Now you’re saying its back to Annexation.

Mr. Brayshaw: It’s old New Hampshire law.

Mr. Pershouse: The owner may want to consider issues, and I don’t know what the answer is, but the smaller that lot is, the less that can be put into current use.

Ms. Annis: Neither a 5 acre lot nor a 7 acre lot would qualify for current use. It would have to be at least 10 acres.

Mr. Pershouse: Is the 22 acre parcel in current use?

Mr. Evans: I don’t know.

Ms. Annis: I’m sure she would like to get this matter cleared up, because I know that she has one person that is interested in the farm.

Mr. St.Pierre: As a horse farm:

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to continue this application until the August meeting. The motion was seconded.

Mr. Brayshaw said that he would do some research through the Selectmen’s office and asked Mr. Evans to check with his client.

Mr. St.Pierre said that if the application were denied, it would actually give the applicant more options. They can still come back with a revised plan.

Mr. Evans: But since we’ve already gone through the Dahlgren part of the plan, maybe a continuation would be best.

Mr. St.Pierre: But you could consider a Variance too, considering that our rejection was based on a condition of the Zoning Ordinance. You could appeal our decision to the ZBA.

Mr. Evans: I can still take that route, if need be, but the easiest thing to do would be to talk to the client and see if we can increase the acreage.

Ms. Annis said that the RSA reference in the Subdivision Ordinance is 676:4. The Secretary checked on-line to see if a reference could be found for Lot Line Adjustment. RSA 676 refers to Planning Board procedures.

A vote was taken on Mr. Brayshaw’s motion and it passed by a unanimous vote.