Minutes of the Meeting
and Public Hearing
Members Present:
Barbara Annis, Derek Pershouse, Andrew Serell, Philip Reeder, Russ
St.Pierre,
Mark Lennon
Members Absent:
None
Alternates Present: Lynn
Perkins, Brian Patsfield
Alternates Absent:
Ron Orbacz
Presiding:
Barbara Annis
Recording:
Sissy Brown
I.
Open Meeting at
II.
Roll Call
Ms.
Annis said that alternates Lynn Perkins and Brian Patsfield will be voting for
Board members Mark Lennon and Drew Serell.
Andrew
Serell – arrived at
Mark
Lennon – arrived at
III.
Approval of the Minutes of the
September 13th Planning Board Meeting
Mr.
St.Pierre made a motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as
corrected. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote.
IV.
Public Hearing:
Minor Subdivision
Property
Owners:
Gerald B. and Judith G.H. Courser
Property
Location: West side of
Map 11,
Description:
Subdivision of one 17.79 acre lot from an original 91.27 acre lot
The
Board reviewed the subdivision plan.
Mr.
Serell: How is the frontage
classified on
Mr.
Courser: It says on the plan – 419
feet is Class V, and the rest is Class VI.
Mr.
Reeder pointed out a typographical error on the plan – the number of the lot
was reversed and needs to be corrected from “43-2” to “34-2”.
Mr.
Serell made a motion to accept the
application. The motion was seconded
and passed by a unanimous vote.
Ms.
Annis closed Board meeting and opened the Public Hearing.
Abutter
Stuart Fortune: I’m here because I
was invited to attend, but I have no comments.
Abutter
Martha Mical asked about the measurements for the boundaries of the new lot, and
the Board pointed out that the second page of the plan has the measurements in
question.
Hearing
no further comments, Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board
meeting.
Mr. Pershouse: Shouldn’t we
be discussing some of the topography and the wetlands, ledge, and so on?
They’re big enough lots – there’s certainly plenty of room for the
site.
Mr. Serell: It’s 14 acres
larger than required.
Ms. Annis: There’s only 1.5
acres of wetlands and 2.27 of ledge – total buildable is 13 acres.
Mr. Pershouse: Does anyone
see any potential problems for a driveway or access to a potential building
site?
Mr. Serell: It shows a
proposed driveway.
Ms. Annis: It shows a
driveway of 400 feet – I think they’ve made a good choice.
There was discussion about the total number of frontage shown on the
plan, and it was stated that it is deceiving, but it is to scale.
Mr. Pershouse said that approval could be based on confirmation of the
numbers.
Mr.
Serell made a motion to approve the
application with the condition that the typographical error made on Page 2 of
the survey be corrected. The map
shows the lot number transposed – it says
V.
Conceptual Consultation:
Application for Earth Excavation –
continued from the September 13th meeting
David and Barbara Barchey, 560
Route 103 East, Warner, NH
The
Barcheys’ called and requested more time to get their plan together for the
Board. Ms. Annis said that the
matter would be put on the Agendas until they are ready.
They said that they plan to do the work in the spring, and Ms. Annis said
that they were told by her that the plan should be presented and approved well
before they plan to start the work.
Mr.
Pershouse asked if the Conservation Commission was going to speak on the Barchey
application. Mr. McLaughlin said
that members of the Commission had been to the site and had met with Mr. and
Mrs. Barchey, and had sent a letter to the Board.
Ms. Annis stated that the letter had been received and was in the
Board’s informational packets received.
VI.
Voluntary Merger
Richard and Linda Donovan --
Merger
of Map 16, Lots 37 and 38
Ms.
Mical showed the Board the lots in question, and stated that the lots are
located in Melvin Mills. Ms. Annis
stated that the Planning Board has to approve Voluntary Mergers.
The applicants have put 3 or 4 lots together over time.
Mr.
Serell made a motion to approve the
Voluntary Merger. The motion was
seconded and passed by a unanimous vote
VII.
Corridor Study – Phil Reeder
Mr.
Reeder reviewed the meeting held on
In
considering the members to make up the committee, it is suggested that there be
12 participants:
·
Planning Board members
·
Board of Selectmen
·
Conservation Commission member
·
Zoning Board member
·
Emergency Management
·
Representative from the Fire
Department
·
Representative from the Police
Department
·
Representative from the Highway
Department
·
Citizens for Smart Growth
·
Property Owners
·
Interested Citizens
Members
should be discussed, chosen and met with soon.
A date for the meeting should be chosen.
Although
it is not 100% guaranteed that Warner will get the grant, the CNHRPC will send
out a Request for Proposal in November so that the town can be up and running
upon approval. The subcommittee
should be meeting in early December, upon approval, to review and select the
Request for Proposal and progress in committee organization.
The first full committee meeting will be in January, with meetings
scheduled for each of the following months.
The meetings will last no longer than 2 hours, with 1.5 hours as the
target.
Ms.
Annis said that the study will be consolidated to 9 months instead of 12 months.
She said that the zoning would need to be changed and Ms. Annis said that
the Planning Board had already begun work on those changes.
Mr.
Pershouse asked if an engineering report would be done in conjunction with DOT.
Mr. Reeder said that it will be combining results of the Charrette
because much of the work done on the Charrette will be a major input to
consultants on this project. This
plan might add more weight in how to implement the Charrette.
Ms.
Annis stated that the suggestion from the Charrette that the Park and Ride be
moved would be a hard sale. Mr.
Reeder said that it is a
VIII.
Conservation Commission
Brian Hotz – Discussion
of a land conservation project along the
Proposed
Project
Description: The WCC has been
discussing a possible gift of approximately 34 acres of land from John &
Terrill Henderson. The land
represents the portion of the
The
proposal would be to do a lot line adjustment with the abutting town land, thus
adding this land to the existing town land identified as
Remaining
Issues:
·
Can the transaction be accomplished
through a lot line adjustment?
·
What, if any, survey work would
need to be conducted?
·
The Henderson’s remaining land
and home will be a nonconforming lot if the conveyance is allowed – What
assurances can the town give to them to prevent any future zoning problems
resulting from the land gift? The
lot is now developed to its fullest extent and couldn’t be further subdivided.
Mr.
Hotz stated that the land is now in current use.
The remaining parcel would be less than 1 acre.
Mr.
Reeder: There are two other lots
that are identical and in the same situation.
Mr.
Hotz: But no one has offered those
to us yet.
Mr.
Reeder: They might not be aware, but
it could be a domino effect.
Ms.
Annis: I don’t think that the
Planning Board can create a lot that is non-conforming, but they can go to the
Zoning Board, or you could go to the Zoning Board in their behalf.
Mr.
Hotz: Have there been creation of a
non-conforming lot if the other lot is fully restricted for further development
– the deed could have restrictions that would prevent further development or
other uses of the property? I
don’t know if that’s the case, but that has been floated here as a possible
solution.
Mr.
Serell: A solution could be to get a
variance from the Zoning Board. But
we can’t create a non-conforming lot even if there were deed restrictions put
on it. All things considered, I’m
not opposed to this but ultimately the Zoning Board would have to look at this
to determine if you have the criteria for a variance.
I think that it should be a lot line adjustment.
IX.
Citizens for Smart Growth
George
Pellettieri
Mr.
Pellettieri: The committee has been
meeting over the summer and have had a couple of meetings over the last month or
so to discuss where we are with the Intervale and how we might proceed to
accomplish some of the things that were set out by the Charrette.
Clearly, the Planning Board is the principal agency of change and
movement for most of the things that we would be looking towards out there:
1.
Most importantly to us, we would like to find out what the Planning Board
thinks the committee could do to assist you in following through with some of
the components that were developed from the Charrette.
2.
We would like to explore the Board’s interest in adopting this possibly
as part of the Warner Master Plan? I’m
not sure of the legalities of that. Could
it be considered? This could be potentially used as a guide and could hold the
same weight as the Master Plan.
3.
Changes to the Site Plan Review regulations per suggestions from the
Charrette; also, changes to the Zoning Ordinances that would have to go before
the Town for a vote at Town Meeting.
4.
Adding weight to the Site Plan Review in the direction proposed by the
Charrette.
5.
We would like an understanding of the Board’s opinions of the
suggestions brought forth by the Charrette – this would be helpful to us as a
citizens’ group.
6.
Would could either to work as a subcommittee or with a subcommittee with
the Planning Board to assist with any of these types of changes and research –
any of the tasks that would be necessary.
7.
Think that the Corridor Study is clearly a part of this Charrette plan,
or the plan should be part of the Corridor Study.
This should be used as a tool in discussing any applications that come
before the Board.
8.
Involve the public in the discussions and ongoing use of the Charrette
materials and any changes that you propose to make.
Some things would have to go for a vote, but we would like to get as much
public input as possible. One
possibility would be to sponsor a town-wide meeting and advertise the meeting. Jeff
Taylor could be asked back to discuss the Charrette.
Board could have a presentation on their views, as well as any other
groups that would like to participate.
9.
We are here tonight because we don’t wish to do anything that isn’t
supportive and we would like to help the Town as a whole.
Would like to know the Board’s feelings on this.
10.
Would like to move forward quickly – Warrant articles need to be in
order for the March Town Meeting.
Mr.
Reeder: As Chairman of the Access
Management Plan, or the Corridor Study, I certainly intend to work closely with
the group but I would like to get names of key people as contacts – 2 or 3
people -- so that they can be brought in as part of that committee.
They can pass that information throughout the organization.
I would like to have their names and email addresses.
Mr.
Pellettieri: I’m acting as the
spokesperson for the group; I’m not responsible for the group.
Mr.
Reeder: This will be a big part of
the Corridor Study and we will be ahead when we begin the study.
There could be the possibility that a Corridor Study hasn’t had to deal
with these issues before and we may be treading on new ground.
Ms.
Annis: I think that some of the
confusion on the part of the Board members is that not everyone has seen the
results of the Charrette – have not seen the packet.
Mr.
Pershouse: Tony Mento, who was on
the Charrette board, is going to speak to the issue.
The Charrette reports had significant errors/typographical errors that
are being corrected. There is a copy
at the Library and a copy at Main Street Bookends.
The changes have been made, but we haven’t gotten them back to Jeff
Taylor and we haven’t decided how we’re going to correct the 35 copies that
we were given. We also are looking
at how many more books we need to print in order to get the proper circulation
when we all agree that it is now a public issue to the point that we want to
send copies to the landholders at Exit 9 as well as have individual copies for
members of the community. As of
tonight, we have corrected copy. We
will probably make a disc available to the public and get the report up on the
town’s website.
Mr.
Mento: I work with an architectural
firm in
Main
focus of the Charrette:
·
Park and Ride relocation to the
West side of 89 to a state owned parcel, which would allow a new entry access to
the entire retail area.
·
New intersection proposed with a
single curb cut. Retain current
entrance to MacDonald’s and Mobil station.
But the egress would be removed so that traffic would have to leave from
a new exit. Adds benefit of flow to
Route103. If properly pitched to DOT
and engineers, this could benefit the community and region and makes it not so
unachievable.
·
A hotel is interested in an area,
and the Charrette planners hoped that a building could be created with a split
entrance so that
·
The Market Basket area would have a
rearranged parking lot with more shade trees and islands, and the road continues
up to a site that the planners thought would be a good site for a hotel with the
parking in the rear so that the buildings match, would have good parking, and a
good line of sight of
·
Discussion of other available
commercial sites. Buildings should
be arranged close to the road with the northern half being single story
buildings built into the sloping grade, and the back half being 2-story spaces
because of the way the terrain is. This
seems most logical.
·
Parking on the south side so that
it is shielded from view somewhat by the buildings.
Weakness
is the Design Standards that need some attention:
·
The idea of architectural design
standards to help the Planning Board guide future developers to styles of
architecture
·
More time and attention and thought
into setting those design standards. I’m
not sure what the Planning Board has in terms of guidelines for that type of
thing.
I
would like to say that Warner was very fortunate to have
Mr.
Pershouse asked the community members if they had any input or questions of the
Board or Mr. Mento at this juncture, and restated that corrected booklets will
be available within the next week to 10 days.
Ms.
Hinnendael: Is this something that
the Town has to vote on, or can the Planning Board approve it as a plan for Exit
9 and recommend it?
Mr.
Pershouse: If the Board endorses it
in its entirety or whatever, I believe that we can adopt it into the Master Plan
without a town vote, just like we make changes to the Site Plan Review
Regulations.
Mr.
Serell: We can adopt that as part of
the Master Plan, but that doesn’t mean that a property owner coming before the
Board could be refused based on that.
Mr.
McLaughlin: I think that it would be
important to have some kind of a committee that represents both the Planning
Board and the other interests in the town. It’s
important for landowners to know how this will affect their own property.
Ms.
Annis: I think that the Board is
doing a lot of what Mr. McLaughlin suggests in the work sessions.
We got the Use Table done [for the Intervale Overlay District].
Mr.
Lennon: I see three things that the
Board can do:
1.
Affect zoning in that part of Warner
2.
Through the Corridor study, we can affect changes that will make this
traffic pattern possible
3.
Review the Site Plan Regulations – even though they are new – to make
sure that they point the way to the vision reflected in the Charrette.
What
we’ve been working on is to carve out a separate commercial district in this
part of town and to change the Use Table and the verbiage to prescribe and
proscribe the uses that are and aren’t allowed in the Intervale area.
One thing that the Citizens for Smart Growth could do is to help with
that verbiage of why those uses are preferred.
This needs to happen within the next couple of months so that the package
can be wrapped up by December to go before the town at Town Meeting next March.
In terms of traffic flow, and what Phil is doing with the state, we need
to stay behind him to create this and input there is essential.
If anyone from your group wants to look into the Site Plan regulations,
into which a great deal of work went last year, that would be fantastic.
I honestly think that the workload that is facing the Planning Board, and
we’ve already spent altogether thousands of hours on the Site Plan
Regulations, I don’t think that it is likely that the Planning Board is going
to make a significant effort to get back into those given the number of other
things that are on our plate.
Mr.
Serell: That isn’t to say that
we’re not interested in hearing other people’s ideas about it.
Mr.
Lennon: That’s true.
Ms.
Hinnendael: Can it be done with one
Warrant Article?
Mr.
Lennon: Yes.
Ms.
Annis: I can see several areas where
we can use this committee. The
committee did an excellent job on PR for the Charrette.
The Charrette had the best turnout for an event of this type that has
been seen by
Mr.
Pershouse: Getting the word out at
this point is very important. Articles
in the Concord Monitor and the Warner Newpaper would be beneficial.
We need to get the word out that the town is doing some new things.
Most of towns in the school district are facing the same issues and will
need to address similar things in the future.
We’re in a very good time in the town right now in terms of the way
we’ve reacted to seemingly pressure situations coming in, and the fact that
we’ve reacted to that and have done these good things – I think that this
will have a regenerative component with some abutting towns.
Warner is a leader, and I think that we need to get that word out.
I would be happy to work with whoever wants to some writing or whatever.
Mr.
Pellettieri: To me, one of the most
important things that the Planning Board can do is to pursue whatever is
necessary to adopt the Charrette into their Master Plan.
Courts have given leeway when Planning Boards have used their well
documented Master Plan as the basis for decisions.
It would be one of the best things to do as part of an action plan to
give it weight.
Ms.
Annis: We’re working on a Gravel
Pit ordinance as well as an Open Space Ordinance.
We wanted to have a Memorandum of Understanding with the DOT.
Warner receives a notice of a Driveway Permit after the permits are given
by the state, but we found out at a meeting that the town doesn’t have to
accept them. If somebody has already
put in the funds, it’s difficult to say no.
The Memorandum of Understanding would allow the Planning Board to see the
applications before the permits are given. When
we met with DOT and CNHRPC, they wanted this Corridor Study done before the
Memorandum of Understanding was done. I
understand what you’re saying as far as other things, but I just don’t see
how many more nights we can give. They
can be on the agenda and on the plan, but we have a limit.
Mr.
Pellettieri: We very much appreciate
that, and that’s why we wanted to come forward because we understand that
you’ve got a full plate. With your
concurrence, we’d like to make a significant effort to rally the public to
help the Planning Board with these types of items that you feel that we can
support you on.
Ms.
Annis: I think that the Planning
Board might very well take that… Yes,
Tony?
Mr.
Mento: Discussions with current
landowners is very important. The
sooner they know that changes are being discussed, the better.
They should be involved and open communication is needed.
Mr.
Pershouse: We plan to send each
major commercial landowner at Intervale a copy of the Charrette book and a
letter bringing them onboard and stating that we expect their cooperation in and
with the process. We have had some
inquiries already to know what happened at the Charrette.
Mr.
Mento: May be difficult because of
changes being made on their land, but with the presentation of the changes could
express the financial benefit they’ll have because of the changes proposed.
Mr.
Serell: Should the Planning Board
wait until the end of the Corridor Study to make changes to the Master Plan?
I think that the Charrette book looks very impressive, and I certainly
need to study it.
Mr.
Reeder: I think that the Board
should wait until after the Corridor Study is completed to make any changes to
the Master Plan, or else there’s no need to do the study.
It is expected to be completed in July of 2005.
Mr.
Pellettieri: Based on that, I would
encourage the Board to vote to adopt the concept of the Charrette.
The Master Plan is, by nature, a changing document.
Many of the things that are represented in it are subject to change.
Anything that comes out of the Corridor Study or any input from property
owners and so on – you could alter it if necessary after the Corridor Study.
As Tony pointed out, we’re making some recommendations on other
people’s property. Clearly, the
Planning Board has no authority to do that.
But adopting it as a concept shows that the Planning Board is interested
in this kind of organization and structure and principles in the development of
the applications that come before you for that area.
Mr.
Pershouse: Based on your earlier
comment, and now you’re reiterating it – If, in fact, we get an application
and things get sticky because we’re behind on a particular issue – access,
for instance – having that in the Master Plan I understand you to say would
mean that courts would pay attention to that were there to be a court challenge.
It would be a statement of our intent and what we’ve done to date.
It would carry more weight.
Ms.
Annis: I questions that approach,
because a couple of years ago we put something in our zoning ordinance, it went
before the town and got approved, and then we turned around and changed our
minds. I wasn’t going to bring it
up, but I have a couple of issues with the driveway portion of the report.
It’s miniscule, but if we adopt it are we in stone with it?
Mr.
Pershouse: No – that’s what
George is saying. Not that we’re
talking to any particular element, but that it’s a statement of intent of what
we have to date and that we are, in fact, continuing to work on this with the
DOT.
Mr.
Pellettieri: The reason that it
carries weight is that it was developed with
Ms.
Annis: I have no problems with
adopting the concept of it, but I have a problem with us incorporating it into
the Master Plan at this point.
Mr.
Serell: I don’t think that we
should decide that tonight. I’m
looking at this for the first time tonight.
I think that we should take some time between now and the next meeting to
at least read through this and familiarize ourselves with it and then we might
want to do one of three things:
·
Not adopt this any of this into the
Master Plan until the Corridor Study has been completed
·
Adopt the whole thing as part of
the Master Plan now
·
Decide that there are things in the
report that we may want to adopt now and others that we might want to wait on
until the Corridor Study is completed
Charlie
Goodwin: There might some real value
in the fact that this can be viewed in two ways.
One is that this is a very specific plan which we could all probably pick
at some tiny portion of. But there
is an overall purpose to this that is broad.
Town has a gateway and the town has a big interest in making that gateway
work and maybe having some general philosophies of how we see that.
That might sidestep some of the technical questions that might come out
of a Corridor Study – i.e., the width of a road or the construction materials
of the road. I don’t think that
those need to be in the Master Plan. But
the general ideas probably won’t change much based on technical or engineering
ideas that come out of a Corridor Study.
Ms.
Hinnendael: If things couldn’t get
together in time for a Warrant Article or a Master Plan, could we draft a
resolution for Town Meeting, and does that hold water?
Mr.
Pershouse: A referendum, you mean?
Mr.
Serell: The Master Plan doesn’t
have to go before Town Meeting, does it? That’s
the Planning Board.
Ms.
Annis: We are going to have zoning
available at Town Meeting – we’re going to be having hearings before then.
Ms.
Hinnendael: What is someone came in
and wanted to apply – do we have a freeze on it now?
Mr.
Serell: Once an application is
accepted as complete, they’re subject to the existing regulations.
Ms.
Hinnendael: But they’re made aware
that we have this pending?
Ms.
Annis: Yes, they’re made aware.
Ms.
Mical: Before there are any votes
taken, the Charrette booklet should be sent to the landowners and their comments
should be received before any vote is taken.
Even if you told them that it might be voted on in the next month, I
think that it would be wise to have the comments from the owners of the land
before anything is done.
Mr.
Reeder: I would ultimately like to
see this sent out to the landowners and then in three days, we should offer to
have a meeting on their land to discuss this and to answer questions soon after
the booklet is received. The
toughest thing is to get these owners to buy into it.
The financial reward needs to be seen by the landowner.
The Board needs to work very closely with them.
Ms.
Mical: I think that is a great idea.
Mr.
Pershouse: All of the landowners
were notified that the Charrette was going to take place.
There have been requests for information from the people that own the
hotel site.
Mr.
Pellettieri offered to donate his time to meet with any landowners as necessary
to explain the plan.
Mr.
Mento: I hope that the letter to the
landowners stresses that this plan is schematic and is not an engineered
detailed plan. It is a hopeful plan
to be achieved. You may get some
opposition if it is viewed as something that the town is going to move on
immediately.
Mr.
St.Pierre: A lot of people were
involved in the plan. I don’t
think that just sending a book to the people is enough.
There should be a party to present the book and go into the corridor
study and the overlay district and explain what the Planning Board is doing to
help incorporate the study’s results.
Mr.
Mento: I would donate my time to
help coordinate such an event and could put the plan in a power point
presentation that could be viewed on a large format on that day.
Ms.
Hinnendael suggested that Election Day be used as a way to get the information
on a presentation out to the public. You
could have a table in town hall with people there to explain the information.
Lois
Shea: The Citizen’s Group could
volunteer to get the word out as we did for the Charrette and get the town
involved in such an event.
Mr.
Pershouse: One problem we have is
that we have two of the landowners clamoring to get their hands on the book.
I don’t see a problem with sending them a book and at the same time
telling them that we’re going to have a presentation, so if we know that in
the next 5 to 10 days, we’ll be in good shape.
There
was discussion about the distribution rights necessary to publish the Charrette
on the website and other places.
Mr.
Pershouse: I see a problem with
putting it on the website before the landowners have received it.
Mr.
Pellettieri: I think we should get
it out there and just make sure that the landowners are the first to get the
books.
Mr.
Pershouse: Bring them into the loop.
Ms.
Mical: Send them the book and put it
on the website at the same time.
The
Board discussed dates for the meetings, and Ms. Annis asked the cost of the
books. Mr. Pershouse said that he
didn’t know yet, and that he was checking on that.
Mr.
Mento said that he believes that the town can use the documents provided to them
as they see fit, but if they start to sell them for profit, he didn’t think
the town could do that. Mr.
Pershouse said that he would check that out.
X.
Open Space Ordinance
Mr.
Lennon: The ordinance is still in
Lucy St.John’s hands at CNHRPC. She
will have comments in advance of the work session in two weeks, and at that
meeting the Growth Committee will take up her comments.
The goal of the ordinance under consideration is to change our rules for
major subdivisions so that all major subdivisions will be disguised and will
leave large chunks of open space rather than parcels of .01 acre lots.
So it will be a major focus of future work sessions.
It is a major rewriting of the Town’s zoning regulations.
XI.
Overlay District at Intervale
Mr.
Lennon: Zoning changes can be made
to create a zone or an ordinance that will fulfill the Charrette vision.
We are working on the use tables for this district.
If you are interested in helping to craft the language for this, you are
welcome to come to the meeting two weeks from tonight.
Rick
Davies: Has the committee contacted
CNHRPC to see if any other towns have similar language to create an overlay
district?
Mr.
Lennon: No, I haven’t done that
yet.
Ms.
Mical: What we’re referring to as
an overlay district is really just a separate district?
You could have a separate column in the use table.
Mr.
Lennon: Correct.
XII.
Communications and Miscellaneous
Sign
Ordinance and Sign
Ms.
Annis said that there is a discrepancy between the language in the zoning
ordinance and the site plan regulations. Mr.
St.Pierre said that he is working on the language.
The
Board discussed the memo received from town attorney Don Gartrell regarding
Allan Jones’ site plan and the necessity for it to be amended after the Zoning
Board’s decision to approve a Variance for an internally illuminated sign.
Mr.
Serell: If there’s something in a
Zoning Ordinance, then an applicant should go to the Zoning Board first to get a
variance or special exception and then come to the Planning Board with a Site
Plan for which he’s already received a variance or special exception.
Theoretically, I believe, the Planning Board could disapprove an aspect
of the plan that was a part of the variance if it otherwise violates the Site
Plan regulations even if the ZBA determined that it meets the criteria for a
variance of a special exception. But
the Planning Board can’t second guess the ZBA and say that an applicant
doesn’t meet the criteria for a variance or special exception, so we’re not
going to accept that as part of the Site Plan.
But the chances of that happening are very slim.
If there’s something in the Site Plan regulations the applicant
doesn’t care for, he has to seek a waiver from us; he can’t go to the Zoning
Board because it’s not an issue that the Zoning Board can deal with.
As I read Don’s letter, he has to go back to the Planning Board anyway.
So I think that even in the case where somebody has site plan approval
from us, they go to the ZBA for something that is not in the site plan –
something that’s not in the site plan – and the ZBA grants them a variance
[or special exception], I think under any situation they have to come back to us
to get the site plan amended. In
this situation, I think that we’re going to be faced with the situation that
the only change in the site plan is an additional sign which both violates the
zoning sign restriction and it also is arguably is not consistent with the site
plan regulations that requires no internal illumination.
So in my opinion, we’re not going to spend much time talking about the
size of the sign unless we can think of another reason why that wouldn’t meet
the site plan regulations. But we
may well want to take up the issue of illumination because that’s not
something that the ZBA can grant a variance on because it is something that is
in our site plan regulations. I
think that is the nature of the conversation that we need to have.
Mr.
Pershouse and Ms. Annis stated that there are other elements of the site plan
that are not as approved.
Ms.
Hinnendael: That’s why we used to
have a representative from the ZBA on the Planning Board.
Ms.
Annis: If something came up like
that again, the Planning Board should be there to defend their position and the
site plan was granted on what was presented.
Ms.
Mical: Maybe if the approval
wasn’t approved until after he goes to the ZBA…
There
was discussion on whether or not he was directed by the Planning Board to go to
the ZBA.
Ms.
Annis: I also know that the ZBA told
him that he needed to turn the sign off at
Mr.
Serell made a motion to ask Mr. Allan
Jones to come back to the Planning Board with amendments to his Site Plan
because of changes that have been noted. The
motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Floodplain
Ordinance
Ms.
Annis: The Selectmen had an
individual from FEMA to discuss the floodplain ordinance.
She said that nothing had been done since 1999, and I showed her our
up-to-date amendments to the floodplain ordinance.
She apologized and we are up to date in the town.
Letter
from Selectmen regarding mapping
Ms.
Mical: The official maps haven’t
been digitized, but they have digitized for purposes of the Conservation
Commission.
Mr.
Pershouse suggested that the person be responded to if the Planning Board is
interested. The letter was shown to
Jim McLaughlin.
Letter
requesting Master Plan
A
college student requested a Master Plan and other materials regarding growth.
The Board approved the sending of the Master Plan as well as a Charrette
book.
XIII.
Adjourn
The
meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Minutes Approved: