Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing
Members
Present:
Derek Pershouse, Russ St.Pierre, Phil Reeder, Mark Lennon
Members
Late:
Barbara Annis, Andrew Serell
Members Absent:
John Brayshaw
Alternates Present:
Brian Patsfield
Alternates Absent:
Ron Orbacz, Lynn Perkins
Selectman’s Alternate Present:
None
Presiding:
Derek Pershouse (until the arrival of Ms. Annis)
Recording:
Sissy Brown
I.
Open Meeting at
II.
Roll Call
Derek
Pershouse acted as Chair for the first portion of the meeting because Barbara
Annis, Chairman, was going to be late. He
appointed Brian Patsfield, Alternate, to be a voting member for the meeting.
He also stated that Richard Stanley had agreed to have his hearing
delayed until Ms. Annis arrives because he is an abutter to Mr. Stanley’s
property and he can’t vote or participate in the discussion of that
application.
III.
Approval of Minutes of the July 5th
Planning Board meeting – A motion
was made and seconded to Approve the minutes as submitted.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
IV.
Public Hearing:
Major Subdivision – continued
from the July 5th meeting
Applicant/Owner:
Violette
Kelly, c/o Connie Kelly,
John
J. Canepa, 140 West Roby
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.
Changes
were made to the plan after the Site Visit was conducted and concerns were
voiced to Mr. Evans. Jeff Evans,
surveyor, made the presentation of the changes:
1.
Single shared driveway because of traffic and vision, contours and
configuration. State likes
developers to have as many common driveways as possible.
This would also make the subdivision less apparent to abutting property
owners and would minimize the visual impact to the abutters.
The driveway will be 22 feet wide.
2.
Straightened out lot
line on house lot
3.
Sequencing schedule drawn up (not brought to meeting, but will send to
office). All lots will be put on the
market except the lot with the existing house.
4.
Increased the area of the lots by taking out the driveway easement and
the area of hydric soil on the first lot
5.
Sandy soil – good site
6.
An abutter has expressed interest in the larger lot
7.
No additional impact on
8.
Common/shared driveway will also be better for the bus stop
Mr.
Reeder said that he hopes to see more drives like the one on the plan in the
future.
Mr.
Evans: There will be 15 feet of
natural green vegetation along the driveway.
Coming down the side of the driveway will be much easier than the
original plan. The slope is more
gentle on the newly proposed plan. Mr.
Evans said that they are in the process of making application to DES as well as
DOT, and hope to have those permits in place by the September meeting.
Mr.
Pershouse asked for a motion to continue this matter until the September meeting
so that the revised plan may be delivered to Lucy St.John at the Central New
Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. Ms.
St.John was at the Site Visit, and it was suggested that her review of the plan
be postponed until the revised plan had been received.
Mr.
St.Pierre made a motion to continue this matter until the September meeting.
The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
V.
Minor Subdivision
Applicants/Owners:
Jody Keeler,
Craig Keeler,
Property
Location:
W. side of Route 103, Warner. Map
3,
Davisville area of Warner
Description:
Construct a 2-family residence with condominium ownership
The conditions of the Board at the previous meeting were:
1.
Abutters’ names tied
to the location of their properties on the plan – this was done on the plan
submitted at this meeting
2.
Approved septic plan
– turned in to the Secretary at this meeting
3.
Landscaping plan –
completed and explained by Mr. Keeler
4.
Review of the condo documents by the Town’s attorney – completed, and
the letter so stating from Don Gartrell was read into the minutes by Mr.
Pershouse: “We
have reviewed the declaration and bylaws proposed by the Warner 103
Condominiums. Please be advised that
in our opinion, the documents conform to all relevant provisions of the New
Hampshire Condominium Act, Chapter 356 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. Walter
Maroney [attorney in Don Gartrell’s office]
Mr. Keeler:
The plan is simply to build a 2-family residence on the lot, which
conforms to the zoning. The
subdivision is one more of ownership than the division of land because we’re
applying for a condominium form of ownership which is a minor subdivision under
your regulations. At the last
meeting, there were 4 items that were discussed that we needed to comply with.
These were discussed earlier in this meeting.
Mr.
Lennon: Is the lot wooded now?
Mr.
Keeler: It is wooded in the back and
the right side. It is open generally
in the area where the building will go.
Mr.
Pershouse: Do you have the driveway
permit?
Mr.
Keeler: Yes.
That was done before the previous meeting.
Mr.
St.Pierre made a motion to accept the plan as complete.
The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr.
Pershouse closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing.
There
were no abutters present. Martha
Mical, the Tax Assessing Clerk for the Town of
Ms.
Mical: How much land will be in
common with the 2 owners?
Mr.
Keeler: It’s shown on the plan.
It’s all common area, but there’s an area on either side of the deck
– there’s an ellipse that goes around the building.
Each owner has an area that is limited common area.
Ms.
Mical: Who is going to own the
remainder of the lot?
Mr.
Keeler: The association.
The association owns all of it, not only the common area as designated.
Ms.
Mical: From the assessing
department, I want to speak against this because a 2-unit condominium
association doesn’t work. The
owners would always say that any problem would be the other owner’s problem.
There are other problems created when there are only 2 owners because if
they can’t agree on something they will drag the Town into it, and it is not
in the best interest of the town. Another
problem is that if the association doesn’t pay the taxes, on the common area,
we take the land from around the house and the two owners own the house.
That doesn’t work out too well, either.
I strongly urge the Board to not approve this because of the 2 person
ownership.
Mr.
Pershouse: As opposed to what number
of owners?
Ms.
Mical: I’d always say an odd
number, so that someone would be the tie-breaker if that situation arose.
A duplex is fine, because you have one owner and they are responsible for
the property.
Mr.
Reeder: If there are two brothers
who own the same property, how would that work?
Ms.
Mical: It would be up to the two of
them to decide who will pay the bill.
There
was a discussion regarding a scenario in which Ms. Mical is opposed to the
concept of a 2 owner condominium project. Mr.
Pershouse stated that the condominium documents have been submitted to Don
Gartrell, and his office has approved them.
He asked if some of Ms. Mical’s questions and concerns could be
addressed in an addendum to the condo documents.
She stated that you can’t force people to get along.
Mr. Pershouse said that was true, but that you could define the decision
making process. It was stated that
the outer walls of the building would also be owned by the town (in Ms.
Mical’s example) because the owners would own from the inner walls inward.
Ms. Mical said that if someone pays the taxes on a property, they own the
building. She said that this would
open a can of worms for the town. She
said that even though the application meets all of the town’s regulations, the
Planning Board has the right to reject the application if it is in the best
interest of the town to do so.
Mr.
Reeder: Have you seen this happen
before, or have you seen this situation come up someplace else where there is a
2 person condominium association?
Ms.
Mical: No.
I have not inquired in other towns to see if they’ve had this problem.
But the law is very specific that if you don’t pay your taxes for 3
years, we take your property.
Mr.
Reeder: What you’re saying is that
if they have a limited common area, that makes a difference?
Ms.
Mical: The common area is owned by
two people.
Mr.
Reeder: The same as if it were an association of 5 brothers that had 5 units.
Ms.
Mical: Right, but if it had 5 units
you’re not going to have – well, you could have – there’s no tie breaker
here. So the association says this
is how it’s going to be, and one is saying yes and one is saying no, they’ll
end up in the Selectmen’s office.
Mr.
Reeder: So have of the tax bill has
been paid and half hasn’t. They
are both still equally have due, thus it is still not fully paid.
So the building and all of the property would go to lien.
Ms.
Mical: No, the building wouldn’t
go to lien because… If one of the owners paid their half of the taxes, for
their half of the building, and their half of the association’s bill,
they’re paid in full. But if the
other owner only pays their building portion of the bill and refuses to pay the
association’s part, we’re going to end up – if this continues for three
years…
Mr.
Reeder: Let’s say you have 3 or 5
people and one pays the building taxes and not the common area’s portion?
Ms.
Mical: The other 4 are going to
badger him to pay.
Mr.
Reeder: Badger him, but…
Ms.
Mical: Or they are going to pay them
themselves.
Mr.
Reeder: But if they don’t?
Ms.
Mical: Then the whole common area gets deeded – the land without the building.
Mr.
Reeder: Right, and that one person
who refused to pay the common area’s tax still has his condo and everybody
else looses their land and the value in their property.
I guess I can understand where you’re coming from.
But I’m still not sure.
Mr.
Pershouse asked about the common area shown on the plan, and if it had to be
common and not bisected in some way. Mr.
Keeler explained the limited common areas and common areas of the project.
The decks and the outside of the buildings are either common area or
limited common area. It’s
basically for privacy purposes – for the decks, or a garden, etc.
Ms.
Mical stated that she doesn’t think that it should be done in this town at
this time. Mr. Reeder suggested that
the town attorney be consulted in connection with Ms. Mical’s concerns.
Mr.
Keeler said that he purchased the property the property after knowing the
town’s subdivision regulations, and has complied with all of the regulations
and conditions presented at the prior meeting.
He said that he was at the meeting earlier where a 4-unit condominium
project was approved, and that could just as easily have a tie vote in an
association matter.
Nancy
Martin: Is there anything in the
regulations that stipulates the minimum number of owners to make up a
condominium association?
Mr.
Pershouse: I don’t know.
I assume that if the documents have been approved by the town attorney,
they are ok.
Ms.
Martin: If you only have an
association of 2, there is less ability to make decisions.
More members would be able to impose the will of the association.
Mr.
Reeder: I still believe that a
larger number could result in the same type of disagreement.
But I think that any number of people can be an association.
Mr.
Stanley: Why would you make this a
condominium instead of a duplex?
Mr.
Keeler: Because a duplex is a single
ownership and for marketing purposes, we’re trying to build some nice units
that would be affordable for first time buyers or empty nesters.
If you double the price of one, then it’s no longer affordable.
Ms.
Mical: If you make it a duplex and
the empty nesters live in one side and the kids live in the other side, it
works.
Mr.
Keeler: I think that the objections
that have been raised – you’re going to find the what-ifs with any issue.
But I know that we’ve tried to comply.
Mr.
Pershouse, hearing no further public comment, closed the Public Hearing and
reopened the Board meeting.
Mr.
Reeder: We don’t know that a tax
problem could happen or not. If
there is a tax problem, the value of the property goes down.
There is never a 100% assurance that this wouldn’t happen if it were a
larger unit. We could go to Don
Gartrell and ask him, but I think that he would say that it is a possibility.
I would go in agreement with this application, and would like to hear
arguments on the other side.
Mr.
Lennon: I would like to have a Site
Visit before approved because I’m not familiar with that piece of land, and a
short letter sent to Don Gartrell to ask about the questions raised by Ms.
Mical.
Mr.
St.Pierre: Would the town put a tax
lien on the property if the taxes aren’t paid?
Ms.
Mical: If the taxes aren’t paid, a
lien is put on the property and if they aren’t paid in 3 years, the town takes
the land around the building. They
could still sell the building.
Mr.
Keeler: It would be subject to the
lien.
Mr.
Pershouse: I think that the Site
Visit should be done, and that the attorney should be contacted.
Mr.
Keeler: If there’s a lien on
common land, no one will be able to sell their unit because it is going to show
up. The title search is done and the
entire association is looked into. These
are nice units that will sell in the $175,000 to $180,000 range.
People don’t spend that kind of money and not pay their taxes.
We’ve tried to comply and have met all of the requests from the last
meeting. I would request that the
Board approve.
Mr.
Pershouse suggested that Mr. Keeler might want to have a discussion with Ms.
Mical regarding her concerns. He
also said that the Board needs to vote on whether or not it wants to conduct a
Site Visit. For the record, he
stated that the applicant has met all of the requirements for doing a
condominium development, and in the 3 to 4 weeks before the next meeting, the
applicant agrees – if it is ok to extend the approval process – that some of
these other areas get explored either by the applicant’s attorney, the
Town’s attorney and the that Town of Warner has the opportunity to head off
any potential problems that are agreed upon by the applicant.
Mr.
Pershouse: I’m sure that you’re
working with a building schedule, and I’m not sure how to resolve that.
Mr.
Keeler: Yes [working with a building
schedule] and I think I can answer the questions – I think that the concerns
that have been raised can be answered logically.
If there is a lien placed on the common land of a condominium, no one is
going to be able to sell their unit because that is going to show up and anyone
that buys something like that looks at the condominium documents and the title
company search and attorney search covers not just that one unit but the entire
parcel that’s being purchased into. So
there’s really no difference here than in any other form of ownership in terms
of the town’s recourse and ability
to either collect taxes or to impose a lien to protect their interest in the
event that the taxes are not paid. The
other issue is that these are nice units – they are 1,400 sq. foot units that
will sell in the $175,000 to $180,000 range.
People don’t spend that kind of money and don’t pay their taxes.
Mr.
Lennon made a motion to do a Site Visit
before approval. The motion was
seconded by Mr. St.Pierre.
Mr.
Patsfield: I know that property very
well. There is a spring.
It is the old soapstone mine. It
is relatively flat and I don’t think that a Site Visit will tell you anything.
If you drive down 103, it is across from Gamil’s.
It is the one property in that area that has all four posts.
It is not like you’re going to see anything major that is going to
change your minds. There is a slight
incline on it. The Site Visit would
be five minutes.
Mr.
Lennon: I just don’t know the
site, and I’m always hesitant to approve a subdivision if I don’t know the
site. But I’m willing to defer to
Mr. Patsfield and his knowledge of the land.
The project is not inappropriate for the town.
I will withdraw my motion.
Mr.
St.Pierre withdrew his second.
Mr.
Pershouse: Should there be any
further work on the condo documents and concerns brought up by the Tax Assessing
Clerk?
Mr.
Lennon made a motion to approve the plan.
The motion was seconded.
Mr.
St.Pierre expressed his views on the condominium ownership/membership and that
if one member didn’t pay his association tax bill he would only be hurting
himself because he couldn’t do anything with his property.
Mr.
Pershouse called for a vote, and the
motion to approve the subdivision application passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr.
Pershouse said that the applicant might want to have a conversation with the Tax
Assessing Clerk because the town might benefit from input regarding the issues
brought up.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ms.
Annis arrived, and will now take over as Chairman of the meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
VI.
Public
Hearing: Minor Subdivision:
Follow up on Revised Plans
Applicant/Owner:
Richard & Barbara Stanley,
Property
Location: same as above, Map 15,
Purpose:
Create 1 new 3-ac lot; 13.9 ac remaining in
The
Board discussed the new plan submitted by Mr. Stanley, and that all requirements
of the Board at the previous meeting had been met by the new plan.
Mr. Stanley said that the part of the plan had been resurveyed as
requested by Mr. Serell and that the portion of the land including the old
Mr.
St.Pierre made a motion to approve the Mylar as presented.
The motion was seconded and approved by a unanimous vote.
VII.
Applicants/Owners:
Roy A. and Virginia T. Ferguson,
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,
The
Secretary said that the necessary signatures had been received from the Ayers
[abutting property owners]. Mr.
Evans explained the Lot Line Adjustment request to the Board.
The Ayers will purchase 20 acres from Mr. Ferguson and it will be
attached to their abutting property. A
signed purchase and sale agreement was presented to the Secretary by Barb Maki,
the real estate agent representing the Ayers in the purchase of the property.
The
plan has been revised to include the shared driveways on the lots that will be
subdivided after the Lot Line Adjustment is approved.
Mr. Pershouse asked if the abutters had been notified, and Mr. Evans said
that they had been. Mr. Pershouse
asked who represents the Chandler Reservation [abuts the property on one side]
and Mr. Evans said that the Town does.
Mr.
St.Pierre made the motion to accept the
application as complete. The motion
was seconded and approved by a unanimous vote.
Mr.
Pershouse will now be voting because Ms. Annis is in attendance.
Ms.
Annis asked for any comments from abutters.
There were no present.
Mr.
Lennon made a motion to approve the
VIII.
Public Hearing:
Minor Subdivision
Applicants/Owners:
Roy A. and Virginia T. Ferguson,
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,
[Mr.
Serell arrived at
Mr.
Evans said that the Minor Subdivision fits the properties in the area.
There is more than the required 400 feet of site distance from the
driveway locations.
Mr.
Lennon made a motion to accept the
application for a Minor Subdivision as complete.
The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Ms.
Annis closed the Board Meeting and opened the Public Hearing.
Hearing
no discussion, Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board
Meeting.
Mr.
Lennon made a motion to have a Site
Visit. The motion was seconded and
passed by a unanimous vote.
There
was one correction of an address that needs to be done to the plan. The
correction was so noted by Mr. Evans.
The
date for the Site Visit was set for Saturday, August 28th at
Mr.
Evans said that he would like to create a separate plan for the approved Lot
Line Adjustment to separate it from the Subdivision that is still under
discussion. He would do so to
alleviate any confusion. The Board
agreed, and he said that it would be delivered to the Secretary for recording.
IX.
Applicants/Owners:
Claire Talbot,
Richard
L. Dahlgren & Virginia M. Dahlgren,
Property
Location:
Map
18, Lots 22, 22-1 and 11-5. R-3 and
OC-1 Zoning Districts
Description:
The
ZBA agreed with the Planning Board: that
the Lot Line Adjustment for the lot off of
Ms.
Annis said that she would like to address the two Lot Line Adjustments
individually. There were no abutters
to speak.
Mr.
Pershouse asked if two separate applications would have to be submitted
retroactively in order to consider the Lot Line Adjustment separately.
Ms. Annis said that she didn’t believe that would be necessary.
Ms.
Annis asked for discussion regarding the Dahlgren portion of the Lot Line
Adjustment. It was stated that the
lot was being increased to make it more rectangular in shape, and that there was
no concern regarding any setbacks.
Mr.
Reeder made a motion to approve the
Ms.
Annis asked for discussion regarding the change in the Lot Line Adjustment for
the lot off of
Mr.
Pershouse made a motion to approve the
second
X.
Property
Owners:
Mary E.
Cogswell,
Janice M. Cutting Revocable Trust,
Property location:
Field & wooded area between the 2 houses: Map 34,
Cogswell: Map 34,
Cutting: Map 34,
Lot 4 R2 zoning
Purpose:
Ms.
Cogswell stated that the lot between their two lots was purchased by the Nichols
Estate. They are dividing the lot
between their respective properties so that no one will be able to build on the
lot in between their properties.
Mr.
Serell asked if this shouldn’t be an annexation and a Lot Line Adjustment.
Ms. Annis stated that according to Jeff Evans at the last meeting,
annexations are no longer recognized by the state.
Mr. Serell asked if this should be two voluntary mergers instead of a Lot
Line Adjustment. The Board discussed
the matter. Ms. Mical stated that
you can’t merge two lots unless the names on both lots are the same.
Mr.
Lennon said that it’s clearly not a Lot Line Adjustment, and is concerned that
the Board can’t approve something that isn’t legal.
Ms. Mical asked why it is different from the previous Lot Line
Adjustment. Mr. Serell said that in
a Lot Line Adjustment, you always end up with the same number of lots that you
started with. In this case, you are
starting with three lots and ending up with two lots.
Ms.
Annis asked for a motion to refer this question to the town attorney.
Mr. Lennon and Mr. Serell said that it isn’t up to the Board to tell
the applicant how to do this. Ms.
Mical said that she would ask Don Gartrell how it should be done.
Mr. Serell didn’t agree. Mr.
Lennon said that the applicant should have their attorney tell them how to do
it, and that isn’t up to the Board. The
applicant said that they came to the town and asked what they should do, and
that they were told that they should do a Lot Line Adjustment.
Mr. Lennon said that he didn’t see the RSA that pertains to a Lot Line
Adjustment, and is concerned about future generations having difficulties
because it wasn’t correctly done.
Mr.
Serell said that the Board should give some advice that the applicant should
check with their attorney and come back to the Board with that information on
how to accomplish what they want to do to divide the lot between their
properties. Mr. Lennon agreed and
said that if he were doing this, he would want to confer with his attorney to be
sure that he would be doing something that is legal. He
said that he suspects that there is a very simple solution, but he doesn’t
know what it is. Mr. Lennon said
that Mr. Serell is correct in that you have to end up with the same number of
lots as you started with, and that this is not a simple Lot Line Adjustment.
Mr. St.Pierre suggested another solution for the applicant.
Mr. Serell suggested again that the same plan be brought back to the
Board next month showing the center lot in common ownership with one or the
other lots.
Mr.
Serell made a motion to continue the
matter until the September meeting. The
motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
XI.
“No
Cut” Easement Plan
Independent
Wireless One Lease Realty Corp., Howard
Kirchner property on Parade Ground Cemetery Rd.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he and Mr. Kirchner and Jonathan McNeal with Cingular
Wireless had had an informational meeting, Since
that meeting, Mr. Kirchner has reached an agreement with the original
applicants, IWO/Sprint. Mr. Kirchner
explained that the tower on his property, to be built by IWO/Sprint, was
approved with the condition that there be a No-Cut Easement document as well as
a plan showing the no-cut area on the approved plan for the tower.
The Mylar showing the easement has been received by the Planning Board,
and Mr. Kirchner provided a notarized copy of the actual Easement, signed by
him.
The
Board asked the Secretary to take the easement document and the Mylar to Don
Gartrell, Town attorney, for his review before the Easement and Mylar are signed
by the Board and recorded at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.
It
was stated that Jonathan McNeal is an approved co-locator on the approved tower
to be built on Mr. Kirchner’s property. The
actual builder of the tower is yet to be determined.
Mr. Pershouse said that the original application approval went to the
tower builder and not to the cellular provider.
Mr. Kirchner said that the actual builder of the tower is yet to be
determined because of the financial status of ATC Realty for IWO/Sprint.
Ms.
Annis read the Planning Board’s Notice of Decision dated
XII.
Conceptual Consultation
Joseph
Abbondanza – Gravel Pit determination on property on Morse Loop Road, formerly
owned by Carl Newcombe.
Ms. Annis gave the Board an overview of the case and stated that there was a Cease and Desist order from the state, and that the Selectmen gave Mr. Abbondanza an Intent to Excavate, which in effect lifted the Cease and Desist order. The property that he owns used to be a junk yard. He helped clean it up and purchased the property. Mr. Abbondanza maintains that he is not operating a gravel pit and that he is just moving materials around on the property. He also brings loam to his property, rents a large screen and screens the loam, and then takes loam back to the property owners.
Mr.
Serell asked how the Intent to Excavate would act to lift the State’s Cease
and Desist order. Ms. Mical said
that on the Cease and Desist Order from the State, it stated that the Intent to
Excavate had to be signed by the Board of Selectmen to lift the order.
Ms. Annis said that Mr. Abbondanza was told to come before the Planning
Board to see if he needs to obtain a Gravel Pit permit.
He is also before the ZBA to apply for a Special Exception to stockpile
raw materials [loam, mulch, railroad ties, stones, gravel].
Mr. Abbondanza said that he helped to clean the property, which was
formerly a junk yard, and that he has leveled the property after he bought it to
make it a flat piece of land. Mr.
Abbondanza said that he has probably moved no more than 1000 yards of gravel
from the lot, and that gravel pits remove thousands and thousands of yards of
gravel. He said that this is not a
gravel pit.
Mr.
Reeder said that he is confused about what is on the property.
He said that he would like to see for himself what is on the lot.
Mr.
Serell asked if he planned to take any more materials from the property.
He said probably not, but he still needs to slope the property and put
the materials that the town brought and smooth it out and spread the mulch over
it. Mr. Serell said that the RSA’s
define excavation as commercial. They
don’t define commercial, but he said that he would assume that commercial
means selling. Mr. Abbondanza said
that he is not selling it.
Mr.
Serell said that if the Board is hearing something about what Mr. Abbondanza has
already done without a permit, it is not the Board’s place to enforce that.
Ms. Annis disagreed, saying that according to state law the Planning
Board is the enforcer of Gravel Pit Permits.
Mr.
Reeder made a motion that the Board do a
Site Visit to see what is being done on the property.
The motion was seconded.
The
Site Visit was set for Tuesday, August 17th at
Mr.
Serell suggested referring this matter to legal counsel.
XIII.
Conceptual Consultation
David
S. Barchey, Tax Map 3,
Mr
Barchey said that he needs to take out 2,000 yards of gravel from his lot
because the cliff is dangerous to his children and needs to be removed.
Ms. Annis asked how he will reclaim the land after the gravel is removed.
He said he will push it back and slope it after it is removed.
It will basically be the same slope as it is now after the material has
been removed. He intends to put in a
garage and level it the same as the house at some point in the future.
Ms.
Annis said that when the trailer home went in, many in town held their breath
because of the problem of the cliff and the rocks.
She said that the front of the house is attractive, but that the Town
doesn’t want another situation that looks like the lot that was excavated and
then left un-reclaimed behind a red house on 103.
Mr.
Lennon: RSA 155 is very clear about
what the Board has to do. The Board
has to issue a permit and he has to comply with the law regarding the operating
standards he has to meet while he is removing the gravel, and he has to meet
reclamation standards after the gravel is removed, including topsoil and grass.
Mr. Barchey said that he has zero grass on the lot.
Mr. Lennon said that the statute is very clear, and that includes topsoil
and grass.
Ms.
Mical asked Mr. Lennon about the removal being “incidental” to the property,
like digging a cellar hole. Mr.
Lennon said that the RSA is very specific and that removing 2,000 yards would
not be incidental. Mr. Serell asked
if the gravel was being moved to his property or someone else’s, and he said
that it would be moved to another owner’s property.
Mr. Barchey wasn’t clear on whether he was going to actually receive
funds for selling the gravel.
The
Board decided that Mr. Barchey needed to fill out an application for a Gravel
Pit Permit. The Secretary would get
a form from the Selectmen’s office. She
made a copy of the RSA for Mr. Barchey to have for his own information.
Ms. Annis said that he shouldn’t begin the excavation until the permit
is in place.
XIV.
Conceptual Consultation
Begin
Construction property at Exit 9. Model
Home to be built on lot: Map 35,
Mr.
Begin showed the Board a plan of his proposed model home and future office
building. There was a three driveway
concept: the existing drive, a drive
extending to the state road, and a drive going to the abutting property to ease
traffic flow onto the state road. The
Begin Construction offices would be in the modular model home.
The existing structure would be used for the office as it is now while
the model home is being built by CSI, a modular home company out of
Mr.
Pershouse asked if he would be working with CSI, and Mr. Begin said that they
have selected CSI because they are in
The
new home would be closer to the road than the existing structure that Mr. Begin
currently uses as his office, and will have a
rear walk-in access. It will be
approximately 8 feet higher than the existing structure. George Pellitierri said
that the design will be further determined once the driveway location is in
place. In the future, the existing
structure will be removed/torn down and a new office building will be built in
its place.
Ms.
Annis said that the office building in back looks on the plan like a strip mall,
which the town has been fighting against. Mr.
Begin said that it would be a colonial design and would have a second story,
main entrance and wouldn’t look like a strip mall.
Mr.
Lennon suggested that Mr. Begin come in before the second phase is started to go
over the design, etc., because the changes in the corridor would need to be
discussed. Ms. Mical suggested that
the Board be sure and not allow the model home to be sold as a single family
residence in the commercial zone, and if it were to be sold as a residence they
would have to come to the Zoning Board first.
28 x 56 feet would be the footprint for the model home. The new office building would be 24 feet deep – it is still being determined. It would be used as a professional building – doctors, attorneys, etc. All of the buildings would be within the setback lines. The Board discussed parking spaces and the number that may be required. It was stated that the final determination of the design of the parking areas would be made after final plans on the driveway. The first building – the model home/office space – would be completed in the Spring/Summer of 2005, and the second building/office building would be completed the next Spring/Summer.
XV.
Communications &
Miscellaneous
·
Capital
Improvement Plan: A
meeting for CIP was scheduled for Monday, August 17th because the
Growth meeting won’t be held that night.
·
Letter
from Marc Violette: Ms.
Annis read a letter from Mr. Violette following up on the issues from the
previous meeting concerning progress being made to date on the TDS tower site on
Mr.
Pershouse suggested that the letter be sent to Lois Shea and Steve Varnum
because they are the spokespersons for the abutters.
The Board should then wait to see what their response is before any
decision is made on the matter.
·
Growth
– A meeting will be scheduled when
the calendar in the Selectmen’s office has been checked for available dates.
The Secretary will notice the meeting when the date is chosen.
·
Mark
Lennon – He still has some work to
do on the Open Space Zoning Ordinance before it is sent to CNHRPC or to Don
Gartrell. He said he will get it
completed.
·
Ms. Mical said that she had the
plan showing the exact same situation of a Lot Line Adjustment approved by the
Planning Board in 2001, where two owners co-owned a common lot and it was split
between the two owners and the common lot was dissolved.
·
Corridor
Study – Nothing has been heard to date from the Department of Transportation on
the grant for the study.
XVI.
ADJOURN
The
meeting was adjourned at
MINUTES
APPROVED: