Open Meeting at 7:00 PM
Roll Call
Ms. Annis asked everyone in the room to turn off their
cell phones.
Ed voting for Mark, Brian voting for
Drew
Ms. Annis suggested that the approval of
the minutes of the June Planning Board meeting and the minutes of the June
Work Session/Meeting would be done at the end of the meeting. The Board
was in agreement with the change to the agenda.
Public Hearing: Minor Subdivision – continued from
the June Planning Board meeting
Applicant: George and Deborah
Brown, 351 Collins Road, Warner, NH 03278
Property location: same as
above, Map 8, Lot 15 OR-1 Zoning
Purpose: Subdivide 34.72 +/1
acres into three lots: 5.45 ac, 6.27 ac, 23 ac
Jeff Evans, surveyor, Landmark Land Services
represented Mr. and Mrs. Brown at the meeting. He said that he had
updated plans to present to the Board.
Mr. Evans stated that he was before the Board at the
June meeting and that the Board had given him a list of changes. He said
that he believed that the changes had been completed.
Allan Brown, Public Works Director, had
been on vacation so the verbal approval of the driveway was not
received until the day of the meeting
Mr. Brown had no problems with the site
distance, but at the time of the driveway application he will want
culverts installed.
Ms. Annis stated that according to the
minutes of the June meeting, there was an issue of rebar v. granite
markers.
Discussion of the boulders and the markers
used. Mr. Evans said that he thinks that has been addressed.
Drill holes have been set in boulders
rather than putting in granite markers. He said that he hoped the
Board would accept that alternative. He said that the boulders are as
permanent as granite markers.
Ms. Annis read from June minutes: Item 2:
Three corners that are marked as rebar need to be marked as granite
markers on the map.
Mr. Evans: They are now drill holes.
Ms. Annis: The minutes state that when the project is
done, the granite markers need to be installed.
The Secretary checked the abutter errors
that were on the first plan and stated that there is still one
spelling mistake.
Mr. Pershouse: You’re saying that the granite
markers that were required are not drill holes?
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mr. Pershouse: In every case? Where the granite
markers were supposed to be?
Mr. Evans: Where granite markers would be used, if we
hit a boulder or sizable stone that we can’t move, we’re not going
to be able to permanently set stone bounds in that location. So we drill
a hole in the granite boulder.
Mr. Pershouse: So how many of the particular granite
markers are not set?
Mr. Evans: All of them. We set drill holes in all
locations that were in question.
Mr. Pershouse: So you’re saying that you moved in
immovable boulders and put a drill hole in them?
Mr. Evans: It’s one of those situations where, what
do you do? That’s a solution. What we want to do is try to get down to
asking the Board to accept the drill holes in a large immovable stone
– we put a stub of rebar in there and they’re marked with survey
caps. They’re epoxied into the drill hole.
The Board said that they were fine with that
alternative.
Ms. Annis: view easements need to be shown on
the plan. Mr. Evans said that they had discussed view easements, and he
showed the Board the proposed view easement on the plan and stated that
they were put there in order to force the building sites where we think
they should be without encroaching onto the view of the existing house.
The view is down over Lake Massasecum.
Mr. Pershouse: Barbara, your question is whether there
is a written draft of the easements?
Ms. Annis: That’s how it’s stated in the minutes.
Mr. St.Pierre: We decided that they didn’t need a
written easement because they really weren’t concerning us. It wasn’t
access; it was just a view easement.
Ms. Annis: Ok. But it says that it needs to be shown
on the plan.
Mr. St.Pierre: And they’ve shown it on the plan.
Ms. Annis: Ok. The next thing on the list is the
locations of proposed driveways. I realize what Allan said – that the
driveway locations are ok, according to him. Outstanding perc test
results?
Mr. Evans: We didn’t do any because the lots are all
over 5 acres. We had discussed that originally.
Ms. Annis: Ok. Do you have anything from the NH
Natural Heritage Bureau?
Mr. Evans: The NH Natural Heritage Bureau letter was
received. There are "Small Whorled Pogonias" [spelling from
the report received] "in the area" but not on the property.
They also went so far as to tell the applicants that the property used
to be used as a golf course. The report says only that the plants
referred to "may be present in the area."
Ms. Annis stated that those were all of the comments
that were given to Mr. Evans to be completed, and asked the Board what
they wished to do.
Mr. St.Pierre made a motion
to accept the plan as complete. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder.
Ms. Annis called for a vote: Mr. Serell: Yes; Mr.
Cook: Yes; Mr. Lennon: Yes; Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, Mr. Pershouse: Yes; Mr.
Reeder: Yes.
Ms. Annis closed the Board meeting and opened the
Public Hearing. Hearing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Annis closed the
Public Hearing and reopened the Board meeting.
Mr. Lennon made a motion to
approve the plan subject to the changes made as discussed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Pershouse.
Ms. Annis called for a vote: Mr. Serell: Yes; Mr.
Cook: Yes; Mr. Lennon: Yes; Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, Mr. Pershouse: Yes; Mr.
Reeder: Yes.
Ms. Annis said that Mr. Evans would bring the Mylar to
the Secretary with the spelling change.
Major Commercial Subdivision
Property Owners: Alan &
Lee Ann Wagner, Jr., 33 Newmarket Road, Warner, NH 03278
Property Location:
Intersection of Route 103 and I-89 southbound off-ramp Map 14, Lot 10,
C-1 zoning district
Description: Subdivision of
existing 13.03 ac. lot into 4 commercial lots: 2.90 ac., 3.44 ac., 2.75
ac. & 2.56 ac.
Stefan Toth, engineer for the project, represented Mr.
and Mrs. Wagner and presented the plan to the Board. He asked if the
Board was going to accept the plan before he discussed it, and Ms. Annis
said that the Board doesn’t accept a plan until it is complete.
Mr. Toth stated that he had been before the Board
twice for conceptual hearings.
4 lot commercial subdivision
Have met with Allan Brown to go over the grading of
the roadway and to look at the proposed driveways
Easements for a common driveway have been added to the
subdivision plan with the understanding that those easements could
change depending on the uses of the subdivision lots.
Drainage is shown on the plan
Most of the road is a 10% grade.
The plans have been submitted to the different
departments: DOT District V had some comments. The geometry and location
of the driveway is fine and the grading is fine; they suggested the plan
contain locations for stone water retention areas for pre and post
development; requested a study of projected traffic in and out post
development.
When the plan will have a notation on that at the time
that each lot comes to the Planning Board for development, they also
have to send in an application to DOT’s District V for a driveway so
that they can look at each development so that they can make sure that
it has the proper improvements and drainage. They will also have to
submit site specific maps.
The plan has also been submitted to the State for
subdivision approval, and no comments have been received from that
submission.
The centerline of the road has been set and marked, if
anyone wishes to take a look at it.
Letter received from the NH National Heritage Bureau
stating that there was one adult male wood turtle found dead on the side
of the road. The turtle is not an endangered or threatened species, and
in 2000 there were six adults and young wood turtles observed.
Have not received comments on the plan from PSNH to
show the Board re: placement of utility poles
Mr. Pershouse: What consideration has been given to
underground utilities for the entire site as opposed to underground from
the front to each lot?
Mr. Toth: For underground, we would set one pole and
then go underground to each lot on the site. We could do that, but from
my considerations with Allan Brown, the fewer amounts of utilities in
the roadway is his preference. That’s why I designed the roadways the
way I did; for the least amount of drainage crossings and such.
Mr. Pershouse: If this is an industrial or heavy usage
site, that might affect the overall usage and appearance of the entire
site; with transformers and such. I’m trying to anticipate what we
would be thinking and discussing in a site plan review because we do
have some serious concerns about utilities.
Mr. Toth: I don’t think you’d see the poles from
the road at all. I will have further with Allan Brown. I would show pole
locations, but I haven’t been able to get information from PSNH. I
hope to have that for you very soon.
Ms. Annis: Allan is supposed to have comments for us
tonight, but I don’t see them. I personally called him today.
Mr. Toth: If the Board says we need to go underground,
then that’s what we’ll do because we certainly want to work with the
Board.
Waiver requested with the application regarding the
town’s preferred design for a cul-de-sac. The roadway
"teardrop" has been redesigned on the plan to accommodate
large trucks.
Has there been a discussion regarding the town taking
over the road?
Town Administrator wrote a letter stating that the
Board of Selectmen is in receipt of the proposed road names for the
project and will take it under advisement. She also said that he should
plan on contacting the Selectmen’s office once final approval is
obtained so that this request can be acted upon.
Mr. St.Pierre said that the issue in his mind was the
Selectmen’s process – were they concerned that the Planning Board
would accept the plan and then the Town might not want to take over the
roads?
Mr. Cook: If you want us to give an opinion, I’m
sure we can have a discussion and give you an opinion if that would be
helpful to the Planning Board.
Ms. Annis: It’s my understanding that the road has
to be built to Town specs in order for the Town to accept it, and that
is one of the things = you have to build it and hope that the town
accepts it.
Ms. Annis said that she had contacted CNHRPC and
Provan and Lorber, and that they will be able to do a review of the
project.
CNHRPC said that they would have the application back
within 2 weeks. Does the Board want them to review the plan prior to the
Board accepting the plan as complete?
As long as the review can be done within 2 weeks, the
plan will be taken to them for review of completeness before the August
meeting. Results should be sent to the applicant prior to the next
meeting. The process will begin before the Board goes through the
checklist and that CNHRPC should review the plan for completeness.
Ms. Annis asked if the Board would like the CNHRPC
representative at the August meeting, and Mr. Pershouse and Mr. Cook
suggested reserving her time in advance and then they could let her know
if her presence at the meeting is not necessary at a later date.
Ms. Annis asked if road bed and drainage to be looked
at by Provan and Lorber? They would be looking at the engineering
portion of the plan.
Mr. Lennon said that the areas that would need to be
looked at would be roads, slopes, drainage, buildable area and erosion
control plan, and grades of the finished cuts. It was also decided that
a representative from Provan and Lorber should be asked to attend the
August meeting.
Discussion of driveway easements for the lots as shown
on the plan.
Mr. Toth said that he would like for Provan and Lorber
to talk with Allan Brown before submitting their plan because in the
past Mr. Toth has seen them issue reports without discussing the plan
with the Road Agent and the design is sometimes done the way it is for a
reason that Provan and Lorber aren’t aware of.
Mr. Cook said that Mr. Brown would be in town for the
next two weeks, and then would be gone for a week.
Proposed extension – private driveway or town road?
Answer: private driveway. Town will not be responsible for it.
Richard Cook asked what the Selectmen need to get to
the Planning Board, and Mr. St.Pierre said that they don’t need to do
anything at this time. Mr. Cook said that if the Planning Board needs an
opinion from the Board, they should let them know.
Mr. Serell: We can approve this plan and the Selectmen
can decide later if they’re going to accept the road. It is probably
between the applicant and the Selectmen.
Mr. Toth would like to get the names approved for the
roads as soon as possible so that he can begin putting them on the plan.
DOT is ok with the design, but would like more
drainage consideration for retention.
Fire Chief said that it is ok with him. Driveway needs
to be large enough to accept emergency vehicles. The rest of the plan
looks fine.
Have not received comments from the Road Agent and the
Police Department to date.
Home Occupation Application
Diane R. Hall, 57 Retreat Road, Warner, NH 03278
Organic gardening classes, lost arts from the 1935 era
Asked over the years to give lessons on farmsteading
and organic gardening
Wants to preserve New Hampshire lost arts
Teach a healthy lifestyle
Has been asked over the years if she will give
classes
The house only 2 neighbors, and they’ve been
notified and they’re fine with her plan
The driveway is about 200 feet deep off of the road.
There are no neighbors in site and the Warner River bank is across the
road. Organic garden is in the back surrounded by trees.
Very quiet neighborhood and it would be a very quiet
class
Mr. Pershouse: What is the total number of people
attending?
Ms. Hall: I plan to keep it small because she has
other agendas and I want to do it part time. I’m probably looking for
3 to 6 people per class.
Relaxing and enjoyable class
Low impact and low key
Driveway is three cars wide
Additional parking on the side
8 cars can be comfortably be parked on the side and
away from Retreat Road
The lot is level
Ms. Hall read an introduction that she had prepared
for the lessons
Mr. Lennon made a motion that there would be no site
plan required for this application. The motion was seconded.
Ms. Annis called for a vote: Mr. Serell: Yes; Mr.
Cook: Yes; Mr. Lennon: Yes; Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, Mr. Pershouse: Yes; Mr.
Reeder: Yes.
Home Occupation Application
Lawrence Turcotte, 8 East Sutton Road, Warner, NH
03278
Auto repair, NH state inspection service
Ms. Annis stated that this is the
former location of Steve Lamora, located on Route 103.
No sign for the business
Small business with himself
as the only employee
24 x 24 building is a small garage near the
house.
Had the house painted recently and has been doing
some work on the property
Mr. Pershouse: You won’t need the appearance of the
building to bring in customers? You won’t be opposed to landscaping
and shielding of the garage?
Mr. Turcotte: No.
Mr. Pershouse: You would have a maximum of 3 to 4 cars
parked outside? Would the business grow over time and people be hired?
Mr. Turcotte: It’s possible, and I might hire a part
time employee in the future. There’s no plan for this to be a garage
business.
Mr. Serell asked about the total square footage of the
building and the house, and stated that this might need a variance.
6520 total floor area of the building for the
business. The area used is more than 25% of the square footage of the
house and basement, which is the requirement in the ordinance.
The property is not in the commercial zone – it is
residential
The ordinance requiring that the business not be
more than 25% of the home and basement was not in place when Mr.
Lamora had his home business on the property.
There was a discussion of the total square footage and
the definition of gross floor area, and it was decided that either
definition would still come out to the proposed business taking more
than 25% of the square footage of the home and basement.
Mr. Lennon: What he wants to do is entirely
appropriate given the layout of the building, but he needs to get a
variance from the ZBA because it doesn’t qualify as a home business.
Mr. St.Pierre: If at some time it was a legal use by
Lamora and it has been less than a year since it was used by Lamora as a
service station – even if it was a non-conforming use… According to
our definition, if a non-conforming use hasn’t been used for over a
year, it goes away. That’s why I asked how long you’ve owned the
property. You said you’ve owned it 11 months.
Mr. Cook: It wasn’t a non-conforming use at that
time [when Lamora owned the property] because it was a home occupation.
Mr. Lennon: It was home occupation, and according to
the ordinance a home occupation ceases the minute you stop the home
occupation.
Mr. Cook: And it isn’t a non-conforming use because
it was a home occupation.
There was a discussion of non-conforming use versus
home occupation when it was owned by Mr. Lamora, and the Secretary said
that she would check with ZBA Vice Chairman Martha Mical for
clarification of whether or not it was a home occupation at that time.
It is either a grandfathered use or it is a
variance. It doesn’t fit under the definition of a Home Occupation.
The variance would be under Article III (H).
Mr. Reeder: I agree with Drew, but I would really like
to approve this application.
Mr. Serell: Yes, but we can’t approve it just
because we think it is a good idea.
Mr. Reeder: I think Lamora owned the property and
could have been using it up until the day he sold it by keeping a pair
of pliers in there to work on his vehicles.
Mr. Serell: We don’t have that information.
Mr. Reeder: We don’t need to have that information,
I don’t think. I think it was a business until he sold the property,
and we have one more month left until one year is up. It could be valid.
I still think the grandfather clause might carry on for now.
Mr. Serell: I think that the clock starts because he
has already made the application. I don’t think coming back a month
from now would change that.
Mr. Reeder: I’m not sure we really need that if we
consider the date of sale as the day that Mr. Lamora ceased his
business.
Mr. Pershouse: Would a letter from Mr. Lamora to the
Board help?
Ms. Annis: Would the Board accept a letter from the
former owner saying he had maintained his business up there until such
and such a date?
Mr. Lennon: I’d accept a letter and a receipt
showing that he actually performed his job until a certain date. I just
don’t think we can stretch the rules because we think that it is a
good idea.
The Board reread the ordinance and pertinent
definitions. Because a home occupation permit ceases to exist when the
person who obtained that permit ceases to use it or sells the property,
Mr. Turcotte couldn’t use that permit but could apply for a new home
occupation permit.
Ms. Annis: So you’re going to leave it up to Mr.
Turcotte to decide which direction he wants to go in? Either to present
us with some proof that Steve Lamora had a business going there within
the last year or go to the ZBA and get a variance in regards to the 25%?
Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. St.Pierre: The only real question before us is
whether he needs a site plan or not. Have we decided that?
Ms. Annis: No.
Mr. Serell: It doesn’t make sense to say that he
needs a site plan and then say he needs to go to the ZBA for a variance.
Mr. St.Pierre: But we don’t have to do one or the
other. We need to decide if he needs to go for a site plan.
Mr. Lennon: No, if he doesn’t have a home
occupation, then it’s not a question of whether or not he needs a site
plan.
Mr. St.Pierre: Then we need to tell him that he doesn’t
qualify as a home occupation.
Mr. Lennon: It does not qualify as a home occupation.
It’s either a grandfathered use or he needs a variance. There’s no
way it fits under the definition of a home occupation.
Ms. Annis: Because of the 25%.
Mr. Reeder: If he receives a variance, it could be a
home occupation.
Mr. Lennon: Yes.
Mr. Turcotte: So what do I need to do?
Mr. Lennon: You need either to get some documentation
from Lamora that it was used as a repair place within the last year, in
which case it is a grandfathered use and you don’t need a site plan
because you’re just continuing an existing use…
Mr. Cook: I don’t think that the Board of Selectmen
is going to look at the zoning ordinance in that way. It appears from
our existing ordinances that a home occupation doesn’t go forward with
the property. Is that correct?
Ms. Annis: Yes.
Mr. Cook: And Mr. Lamora was operating under a home
occupation permit.
Ms. Annis: Right.
Mr. Cook: So if he comes in to the Board of Selectmen
and the Selectmen could say, "You don’t meet the 25% rule, so we
can’t give you a use permit." So it seems to me that the best
course of action would be to resolve that and have him get a variance.
Unless someone can tell my why Lamora's wasn’t a home occupation.
Ms. Annis: It was. It was on the second lot for a long
time.
Mr. Cook: And it had a variance?
Mr. Proulx, abutter: May I speak?
Ms. Annis: It is a closed meeting, but if you have
information I’m going to ask you. I have that right.
Paul Proulx, abutter: I was there when Lamora built
that place. He got a variance for a home occupation and built the garage
before the house was built.
Ms. Annis: That’s correct.
Mr. Proulx: He had a lot of stipulations on that piece
of land and violated all of them. He cut down every tree – we call it
the Desert of Warner. He had a variance for a home occupation. I’m not
sure what the variance was about – I don’t know if it was the 25% or
what. I don’t know how he could have measured it because he hadn’t
had the house built. There was a lot going on there. He ceased his
operation some time last summer. He had an auction there, and he had
stopped his operation well before the auction. I guess if you talk to
him, it would be very difficult to find out exactly what date he ceased
his operation but I know it was last summer when he sold all of his
equipment out of there.
Ms. Annis: At this point, it seems that there is no
option; he needs to go and get a variance. Do you understand this letter
H that we keep referring to? It’s part of the definition of a home
business and it is letter H, the one that describes the 25%, which is
the hang up here.
Mr. Young, former ZBA Chairman: That 25% didn’t
exist when Mr. Lamora was granted his variance, did it?
Ms. Annis: That’s correct.
Mr. Pershouse: It was only added 4 or 5 years ago.
Ms. Annis: I don’t know what variance Mr. Lamora
got.
The Board decided that the applicant needs to get a
variance from the Zoning Board. He was advised to come the next
Wednesday morning to see the Secretary and get assistance with an
application for a variance.
Mr. Turcotte: I have one a question. If you didn’t
use the whole building, does that fit into the 25% question some how?
Mr. Serell: Theoretically, yes – if you restricted
the size. But we would have to look at what size the business would be.
But I think that your best bet is to get a variance.
Mr. Cook: You need to get good measurements of the
square footage of your house, because your house has a lot of twists and
turns in it.
Conceptual Consultation
Mark Feenstra, RAW Investments Trust
Property location: South side of NH Rt. 103 West,
Warner, NH Map 35, Lots 4-1 & 4-2, C-1 Zoning
Mark Feenstra represented RAW
Investments at the meeting.
Review of the new plan submitted by Mark Feenstra,
including side elevations and landscaping and parking
This is a new and different plan than the conceptual
plan that was submitted at the previous meeting.
Addressed all of the things that the Board and Mr.
Feenstra had discussed in the two previous conceptual meetings –
basically making one building totally different than the other
building.
Brought the second building forward to make it
easier to get a tractor trailer behind the building
The cross easement to Lot 3 is behind the building,
where it’s always been
Took away a row of parking in the front of the
second building and put more parking on the side
Put more landscaping – more trees and flowers
Page 4 of 9 – landscaping plan for the project
Mr. Pershouse: Does the current configuration of the
buildings on the site still allow for the possibility of cross easement
into the Citgo station?
Mr. Feenstra: Yes. I’ve called Doug with Citgo a
couple of times and left messages, and I’ve received no response. But
they did go down and cut the lawn and pick up some trash.
Ms. Annis: Laura Buono, Town Administrator, has sent a
letter to the Citgo people and we’ve ask them to come in to our work
session next week to discuss traffic lights and other things that will
be going on down there. We’ve not heard confirmation from them.
Mr. Feenstra: I’ll call him again, too. The cross
easement could be accomplished easily because all we have there is a
retaining wall.
Mr. Feenstra asked about the parking for
the proposed Hampton Inn, and was told that they are now going to use
an entrance off of North Road.
The buildings are now larger because of the
Board’s request for a second floor on the second building.
Parking was increased by 2 spaces.
Would like to amend the previous application to this
configuration and continue instead of reapplying so that the process
can begin sooner. All permits are in place and the blessing has been
received from the fire and police departments.
Mr. Lennon: Because this is such a vast improvement
over what we’ve seen before, I would have no problems with this
application. The only question I’d have is that there is enough room
for the parking. But as I recall, we did not accept your previous
application so you will have to make a new application.
Mr. Reeder: I really like this plan much better than
the last one, but I have a question about the dumpster location. It
seems like an odd place to put them out here in pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Feenstra: We can move them. This is just a
starting place because we had to put them somewhere. They are 10 yard
dumpsters, and there would be a maximum of 1 or 2.
Should be noted on the plan that it is in the
Intervale Overlay district of the Commercial District
Now using a new design firm that uses a CAD system,
so that changes made on one page of the plan are automatically carried
over to all pages of the plan.
Mr. Lennon told him to check his heights because the
roofline is now 39 feet. He recommended that Mr. Feenstra read the
definition of height in the zoning ordinance.
Design quality would trump the issue of a variance
for the height.
Need lighting plan for the buildings and the parking
areas, as well as the types of lighting to be used. Page 7 has
lighting details, but they’re not really lighting details.
Plant list question about the crimson barberry
banned from the state or will be, and it is shown on the plan. The
Conservation Commission may be able to help with the landscaping list.
Ms. Annis: So we’re all agreed that Mark should fill
out another application and go through the check list. Are we going to
hold on to these plans, or have him make the changes suggested? Did you
keep the copy of the driveway permit? It should be included in the new
application, along with other materials received from the state and
other organizations.
Mr. Feenstra: Can I get a copy of all of those
documents? I’ll come in on Wednesday and look through the old file and
pull things out that I need.
Ms. Annis: We’ve not received anything back from
FEMA. Are you going to be able to all of this between now and the 19th,
which is the application deadline for the August meeting?
Mr. Feenstra: I should be able to.
If Mr. Feenstra gets the application in to the
Planning Board office by July 19th, Ms. Annis proposed having
the meeting with him on the third Monday in August and giving him 3
hours instead of an hour at the regular August meeting. Mr. Lennon
suggested the discussion for completeness be done at the August work
session/meeting and the public hearing at the regular September meeting,
if the application has been accepted as complete. The Board also
discussed sending the application to CNHRPC for their determination of
its completeness. Mr. Feenstra and Ms. Annis agreed that the last time
the previous plan was sent to CNHRPC, suggestions were made on the plan
and none of the suggestions were followed. He didn’t see a reason to
send the new plan to them because it was a waste of time.
Mr. St.Pierre: We had talked about realigning the
driveway and having it line up with the Park & Ride. Is that still
the plan?
Mr. Feenstra: Yes. We made that change. We’re just
waiting for DOT to come back and say that that is the way they want it
– do they want it turned at an angle; do they want it to go in
straight.
Mr. Pershouse: You mean they’ve agreed in concept…
Mr. Feenstra: Concept, yes. It’s just a matter of
getting those guys to put it in writing.
Ms. Annis: Ok. So we will see you the third Monday in
August.
Mr. Feenstra: Let me just go over the list: You want
to see more on the landscaping, lighting, check with FEMA, height of the
building issue – whether or not you need a variance. If you need a
variance, you’ll need to get that before we can vote on the
application being complete.
It was stated that the ZBA meets on August 9th,
and the Planning Board meets on August 7th. The Work
Session/Meeting for the Planning Board is on the third Monday in August.
Mr. Feenstra asked if the Hampton Inn had been approved by the ZBA, and
it was stated that it had been approved but there are 30 days after any
decision for appeal. The Secretary told Mr. Feenstra that he would need
to have an application submitted by July 19th for either
Board if he wanted to be at the August meetings.
Chris Connors, from the audience: I
just wanted to say that it’s not a variance; it is a special
exception. I was just worried that he would go to the ZBA and ask for a
variance instead of a special exception.
Mr. St.Pierre: No, it’s a variance.
There’s language in there to allow you to get a special exception if
you can meet certain criteria. But if you can’t do that, and obviously
in this case you can’t, then you need a variance.
Ms. Annis: The height definition is on
page 3 of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Annis told Mr. Feenstra that he
would be applying for a variance to Article IV (I) of the zoning
ordinance.
Approval of the Minutes of the June 4,
2006 Planning Board Meeting
A motion was made and seconded to
approve the minutes of the June 5, 2006 Planning Board meeting as
submitted.
Ms. Annis called for a vote: Mr. Serell: Yes; Mr.
Cook: not at the meeting; Mr. Lennon: Yes; Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, Mr.
Pershouse: Yes; Mr. Reeder: Yes.
Approval of the Minutes of the June
18, 2006 Planning Board Work Session/Meeting
A motion was made and seconded to
approve the minutes of the June 17, 2006 Planning Board Work
Session/Meeting as submitted.
Ms. Annis called for a vote: Mr. Serell: Yes; Mr.
Cook: not at the meeting; Mr. Lennon: Yes; Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, Mr.
Pershouse: Yes; Mr. Reeder: Yes.
Communications and Miscellaneous
Fee schedule for documents in the
Zoning and Planning office.
The Secretary said that she went to
New London to Flash Photo and made two copies of the Abbondanza plan,
which cost $3 each. Time and mileage was also charged. The Board
discussed a set fee schedule, and decided to allow for flexibility on
the Secretary’s part – whether to go to Concord or to New London –
and charge individuals requesting copies of large documents on an
individual basis based on a formula: mileage plus cost of postage plus
time.
CIP
Mr. Mical gave his report:
Memos were sent out
CIP committee will meet
with the individual departments
Information sheets are due
back to the committee by the end of July
CIP meeting is scheduled
for the first part of August to go through the information
The committee has met twice
to date
New forms have been created
by Mr. Mical
Ms. Annis said that the
Planning Board will discuss the CIP at the next Work Session/Meeting
Planning Board Regulations
Mr. Serell and Mr. Eigabroadt haven’t met yet. Mr.
Serell said that he would find out what Mr. Eigabroadt has done so far
because he had previously stated that he had done some work on the
regulations. Mr. Mical said that the process had been started. Mr.
Serell said that he would try to set up a meeting with Mr. Eigabroadt as
soon as possible.
Earth Excavation Regulations
Mr. St. Pierre said that he would have the information
to present at the next Work Session.
Master Plan
Mr. Lennon said that he will have something ready for
the next regular meeting.
Miscellaneous
Mr. St.Pierre: Does anyone know where the ZBA is on the
hotel appeal?
Secretary: The rehearing was held, and the ZBA upheld
its previous decision. The deadline for an appeal is July 14, this coming
Friday.
The Board briefly discussed the upcoming ZBA agenda and
the Irving application.
A letter was received from New Hampshire
Division of Historical Resources concerning the cell tower co-location on
the existing tower on Mt. Kearsarge. The letter is 2 pages long and is
available to anyone that wants to read it.
Ms. Annis stated that she had the
Secretary pick up some color samples at Home Depot to have as reference
materials when the Irving application comes to the Planning Board for site
plan review. Mr. Pershouse said that he thought that the building should
be left as it is.
A motion was made and seconded to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting was Adjourned at 9:30 p.m.