Open Meeting at 7:02 PM

Roll Call

Approval of the Minutes: November 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting as submitted. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Public Hearing – Site Plan Review – continued from November, 2005 meeting

Property Owner: R.A.W. Investments, Ray Wentzell

Property Location: South side of NH Rt. 103 West, West Main Street, Warner, NH Map 35, Lots 4-1 & 4-2, C-1 Zoning

Purpose: Each lot to have a 10,080 sq.ft. building with multiple rental units for commercial use in accordance with Use Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Anticipated uses fall under the "Retail and Services" category and include:

Retail establishments, eating and drinking places, personal and consumer service, professional and business offices; and under "Accessory", any accessory structures in connection with those uses. The lots will share an access driveway from NH Route 103 as approved by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation and will share driveways, loading area, parking, drainage and utility services through cross easements on the lots.

Peter McGrath notified the Planning Board the day of the meeting that the traffic study was not yet complete and that they would like to be continued and placed on the Agenda for the January 9^th meeting.

Change of Use

Applicant: Richard Clark, dba White Mountain Gourmet Coffee, P.O. Box 537, Epsom, NH 03234

Property Owner: Boron, LLC (Bob Egan), P.O. Box 267, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: Unit 3, 2 East Main Street, Warner, NH (formerly the Cricenti building)

Purpose: Change use from flower/gift shop to a coffee shop/retail food service with takeout and seating.

Mr. Clark explained his plan for a café and coffee shop to the Board:

24 seat café and retail food service with takeout and seating

small deli, sandwiches, espresso, cappuccino, regular coffee, other hot beverages, baked goods made on the premises, fresh fruit, yogurt, soup, ice cream, fruit smoothies, iced coffee beverages, whole bean coffee, pre-ground coffee, coffee brewing equipment, coffee grinding equipment, mugs, etc.

The sign hasn’t been decided upon to date

Ms. Annis asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Mical: Where is the second exit? Is that going out through the loading dock?

Mr. Clark: I was told by the landlord that the square footage wasn’t enough to need a second exit in the back.

Mr. Mical: I think that needs to go through the Fire Chief for clarification. If you’ve got equipment back there that could potentially.

Mr. Eigabroadt: There is a door in the back. But I would assume with this type of an operation, you’re going to have coffee makers and hot plates, etc., right?

Mr. Clark: Yes. There will be a gas convection oven and a gas water heater.

Mr. Pershouse: What is the anticipated maximum occupancy at this point?

Mr. Clark: If every table is filled, that is 24 seats. There could be potentially a line with another 8 to 10 people, so 30 to 35 people.

Mr. St.Pierre: Do you operate a similar facility in other locations?

Mr. Clark: We have a similar shop in Concord, where we have a café and where we do all of the coffee roasting. It’s located at 15 Pleasant Street, very close to Main Street. The location here that we want to establish will be very similar to that location.

Mr. Pershouse: Ed, are you satisfied with the ingress and egress issues? Is it a matter of fire code? Do we need another exit to the exterior?

Mr. Eubank: Do you mean, do we need a third exit? There are two exits on the plan now.

Mr. Mical: The one at the side has no stairs; it is a 3-foot drop. It is actually a loading dock.

Mr. Clark: It is more of a receiving dock.

Mr. Pershouse: That’s one concern that I think needs to be reviewed by somebody, perhaps the Fire Chief.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I don’t know what the fire code is on that.

Mr. Pershouse: You need to have 2 exits that don’t lead into public areas.

Mr. Pershouse: Is it your understanding that the customers will use the parking lot across Kearsarge extension?

Mr. Clark: Yes, across that little side street. The parking there will be more than sufficient. In all the times that I’ve been there, I’ve seen four cars, maximum, there.

Ms. Annis stated that Mr. Wayne Eigabroadt took the plan upstairs to check with the Fire Chief, Dick Brown, on the exit situation.

Mr. Mical: In your proposal, where you talk about hours of operation – Monday through Friday: 6:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Saturdays: 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., closed Sundays. It says that you might expand the hours. What hours do you plan to expand to?

Mr. Clark: Possibly Sunday morning, but we don’t know what kind of customers we’ll have in this location. If people request that we open on Sunday mornings, then we may do that. As for nights, typically it’s not profitable to run a coffee shop at night. Personally, I don’t want to work beyond 5:00 pm. It would take a lot for me to expand the hours in the evenings.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I just consulted with the Fire Chief. He said that the standard code is if the layout is more than 40 feet from the current egress, or front doors, then you need another point of egress -- and the exit that goes to the side won’t suffice. If it is more than 40 feet, you’ll need to use the rear exit down the stairs and it will need to be clearly marked. The door by the kitchen is not a life-safety egress because it doesn’t have stairs on the outside.

Mr. Serell: Is that 40 feet just for customer use?

Mr. Eigabroadt: For anyone in there – employees as well – because it is a life safety issue. And just for clarification, he said that would be the outside foyer door, not the two inside doors, because they still need to get out of the building. He would measure from the single front door back.

Mr. Serell: So the door by the kitchen isn’t an exit?

Mr. Eigabroadt: It’s an exit, but there are not stairs. It’s a drop to the parking lot, so it’s not considered a safety egress.

Ms. Annis asked if the Board wished to approve the plan with the condition of the extra required exit. Mr. St.Pierre asked about parking, and Ms. Annis said that Curves and the medical office don’t utilize very much of the parking over there, and they come and go from the front parking area fairly quickly.

Mr. Pershouse: We need to formulate the condition into a motion, that the café meets all state codes for an establishment of that nature.

Ms. Annis: I don’t think we concerned ourselves with the ventilation of the kitchen or the smoke detectors or anything like that with the restaurant that was going to go into the Perkins store.

Mr. Eigabroadt made a motion that the application be approved with the condition that the business meet all life safety codes, with particular attention to egress. Mr. St.Pierre seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis: You have your permission and you know the conditions. If there are any questions at all, I would recommend that your contact the Fire Chief before you go too far.

Mr. Clark: I’ll contact him first before we do anything.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Could you send us correspondence, too, updating the Board?

Mr. Clark: Sure.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I hope you have great success.

Communications and Miscellaneous

Ms. Annis: It’s not on the agenda, but last month we had Mr. Leone here and we discussed with him whether or not he could do another minor subdivision within five years. We posed the question to Don Gartrell, and we got an answer from him. It is comment number 1 in the memo from Don.

"In response to the question regarding re-subdivision of Gerald Leone’s land, I have examined Section IV, B of the Subdivision Regulations to determine its applicability. First, I infer that the purpose of the provision is to prevent a landowner from avoiding the process of Major subdivision review by a succession of Minor subdivision approval applications. To re-subdivide within 5 years of a Minor subdivision approval, the owner may seek further subdivision through the Major subdivision process regardless of the number of lots proposed. Section IV, B does not forbid further subdivision; it merely preserves the integrity of the Minor subdivision process. Since it is my understanding that Mr. Leone is not the owner of the land who sought and obtained the prior subdivision approval, it would appear to me that the Board may either waive the application of Section IV, B or require that the further application be reviewed under the Major subdivision procedure."

Ms. Annis: My feeling is that we shouldn’t take any action on this tonight, but advise Mr. Leone that we have received this information for Town Counsel and that he can go one of two ways and leave it up to him as to which way he wants to go. Don says that he can either ask for a waiver or because it is being subdivided within five years he can proceed with a Major subdivision procedure. Does the Board concur?

Mr. Eigabroadt: Can you give me a little more history? I know parts of it, but…

Ms. Annis: If you remember back in 1958, the property was subdivided and there were two lots taken off at that time. Two years ago, Richard Stanley subdivided a 3 acre parcel off, and you cannot have another minor subdivision within 5 years. If you do, then it is treated as a major subdivision.

Mr. Serell: And at issue was a two lot subdivision?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Eigabroadt: So if we were to in fact waive that issue tonight?

Ms. Annis: I don’t think we can. He has to apply for a waiver.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Right, but if we were to do that, then that 5 year period would start over again because it is a new action taken on the lot, right? And could we put a condition in there that a waiver would not be sought again within a 5 year period? Can we do that?

Ms. Annis: Yes, we can put any type of restriction on it that we want to.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I think that we need to stick with the spirit the next time around.

Mr. Serell: What are the requirements for a major subdivision – what are the alternatives? I mean, treat it as a major subdivision but waive some of the requirements.

Mr. St.Pierre: I think it’s mostly a question of the information that they have to gather, as far as surveying, etc.

Mr. Serell: Yes. I think procedurally, it seems to me that it would be cleaner if we treated it as a major subdivision but allow waivers for specific information requirements as opposed to saying that we’re going to waive that requirement and treat it as a minor subdivision.

Mr. Eubank: After the last Town Meeting, major subdivisions fall into the new Open Space ordinance.

Mr. Serell: OK. Good point.

Ms. Annis: I think it is up to the applicant as to which way he wants to go. He came before us as a conceptual; we said that we would want legal guidance on it; we’ve received the guidance and now we can give it back to Mr. Leone that he can go one of two ways. We have to go by the zoning as it is now.

The Board agreed with Ms. Annis.

Smart Growth request for a Public Hearing regarding the Charrette – Barbara Annis

Ms. Annis: At the last meeting, Smart Growth requested that the Board hold a public hearing to receive input on having the Charrette as an appendix to the Master Plan. After George Pelletieri presented his appeal to the Board, I asked about having Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission have some input – that we could have some advice from them, and they agreed to it. I talked with Lucy St.John of CNHRPC, and she said that the Charrette does not belong as an appendix to the Master Plan – that parts of the Charrette could be included in the Master Plan itself. But Lucy said that she would speak with Mike Tardiff. During the presentation, George referred to the fact that he is not a lawyer; however, he did know that the courts relied heavily on a Master Plan and what it said. I’m not a lawyer, either, so I sought the advice of our Town Counsel to see how much courts do weigh on the Master Plan. You have a copy of what Don has said to us.

"With regard to George Pelletier’s suggestions that the Charrette be adopted as an appendix to the Master Plan and that courts rely "heavily" on the Master Plan in weighing land use appeals, he has a point – but I would characterize it a bit differently. The courts will look at land use board decisions for consistency with the aspirational planning goals of the community, but provisions of the Master Plan do not rise to the importance of specific zoning ordinances or planning regulations in land use appeals. For one thing, Master Plans are typically a long-range planning tool which receive periodic scrutiny and undergo revisions to reflect changes in fact or planning direction, depending upon the actual circumstances within the community. Certainly, the Charrette represents the product of a substantial effort at such a periodic review and probably deserves to be reflected in the Master Plan for the area it covers. Although I am generally familiar with the Charrette report, I am not sure that it is in a textual form that would be a good "fit" with the Master Plan by simply adopting it as an appendix. I would suggest that the Board review the Charrette and consider either condensing its format and conclusions or re-writing it to conform to the context of the Master Plan to eliminate confusion or doubt if anyone later needs to determine clearly what the Master Plan has specified for the area of Town covered by the Charrette. In any event, the Charrette may be appended to the Plan to support the conclusions placed in the Plan itself. If you wordsmiths need assistance with such an effort, I would be glad to help."

Don also advised that parts of the Charrette could be incorporated into the Master Plan, but not as an appendage. At the last work session that we had, I addressed the subject with Mike to see if Lucy had talked with him, and he said she had. I brought up the subject directly at the last work session, which most of you attended, and both Mike and Dominic said that neither the Charrette nor the Corridor Study belong as an appendix in the Master Plan; that both the Corridor Study and the Charrette do have very good very good valid points and that they should be placed in the open space portion of the Master Plan, but not by themselves. Mike also volunteered that the staff of CNHRPC would be happy to assist us in accomplishing the task of rewriting that portion of the Master Plan. Don, in his letter, also agreed to write some verbiage for us. Based on that, I would like to make three recommendations:

That we deny the Citizens for Smart Growth’s request for a Public Hearing

That we put this on tonight’s agenda after we talk about the Fire Department’s request, which is not on your agenda, but we’ve received something in our packet from the Fire Department and I’d like to have a further discussion on it.

Further, I’d like to know how you people feel about it.

 

Mr. Eigabroadt: I think that it is a good idea to adopt portions of it as conceptual – but, as he says, the Master Plan is a long term planning tool. A lot of work went into the Charrette and they came up with some very good ideas that people would love to see down there as a best case scenario. But to adopt the whole thing I think would be more of a hindrance to the planning process because it is conceptual – people see these visions in their heads and say, "I wish we could do this, this, this and this." But it’s more difficult to do the planning portions; actually getting down to details. I would like to see portions of it adopted and put in there, or even keeping the whole thing if it were condensed and put into a more usable format. But as is, I think it would just be confusing.

Mr. Eubank: I got pretty interested after that last session, and I went back and reviewed the Charrette and the Parking Study. My memory of the work session is that he said that we should try to incorporate elements of those into the future land use section – basically rewrite it with those incorporated. Also, there were four recommendations for zoning ordinances; one on cross easement, one on Planned Unit Development, one on noise and one on light. I’m very interested with meeting with those folks to try to guide a process that would write that new future land use, especially incorporating the Charrette, because the Charrette has very good… I think we all got caught up in the drawing, but there are a lot of very good, basic planning ideas that I think we could be using right now. In reading the ordinance about plans, they do have a certain strength and value to you when you make decisions like was made with Wentzell last time about the positioning of the buildings – if you have a long term plan that incorporates them. I don’t know what the process is. So I’d like to recommend that we rewrite that and get the zoning regulations on warrants for this Town Meeting because that access thing pointing out that 96 acre parcel; that scares me.

Ms. Annis asked for further comment.

Mr. Mical: I agree with what’s been said. I think that the information in the Charrette should be broken down and consolidated.

Mr. St.Pierre: When the Site Plan Regulations were amended to include aesthetics and other things, we amended the Master Plan to give us more direction and I don’t see why we couldn’t’ do that again to include the concepts that came out of the Charrette without adopting the document.

Mr. Serell: I think that we’re all in agreement with that. But to accomplish that, should we have CNHRPC take the first cut at the project, or do we want to start the process ourselves in a work session and then get CNHRPC’s comments? There are many options that we have, and the question is, "Where should we start in the process?" That would be the first step.

Ms. Annis discussed where the process would fit into the work sessions. Mr. St.Pierre said that a natural place to discuss this would be with the commercial area.

Mr. Perkins said that he didn’t think that there was going to be enough time to pick apart both the Charrette and the Access Management Study and that he didn’t think it could be done within the time frame before the January deadline for the warrant articles.

Mr. Eubank said that would be put on next year’s agenda and that he was concerned about what might happen if a developer came in with the 96 acre property and there was nothing in place to deal with that. A future land use plan would incorporate that 96 acre lot and the whole commercial district. The Charrette overlay district is only a small part of it. The Planned Unit Development portion was specifically directed at large portions of land such as the 96 acre parcel. The Board discussed how they would take care of fitting in this project in the scheme of things. Mr. Eubank volunteered to chair the effort.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Can the Board of Selectmen adopt land use ordinances, like we’re talking about, during the year and having them voted on at Town Meeting, like they can other ordinances?

Mr. Serell: Land use ordinances have to be voted on at Town Meeting. I haven’t researched it, but I’m pretty sure that is the case.

Mr. Lennon: As I recall, it is possible to call a special Town Meeting for something that rises to the level of calling a special Town Meeting. And just to discuss Dan’s point, we took that chance with the subdivision regulations because they weren’t ready; they were close to being ready but we said that we can’t push it through because we decided it made less sense to try and push it through before we were really happy with them then it does to take a risk and work on them another year – I don’t regret that decision. I think that the Charrette, the Corridor Study and dealing with what we want to do with the Commercial zone as a big piece – I don’t see that we’re far enough along with any of the sub-pieces much less the whole piece to move forward.

Ms. Annis: The unfortunate thing is that we were supposed to have started the Corridor Study a year ago in November and we didn’t start it until this spring because it got caught up in Governor’s Council. If it had started when it was supposed to have started, we would be much farther ahead of where we are.

Mr. Perkins made a motion that the Public Hearing that was requested by Smart Growth for adoption of the Charrette should be held off until the parts of the Charrette were ready as well as the land use matters. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. St.Pierre: Could we task Smart Growth with coming up with the language that they would like to see as part of the Master Plan? The idea came from them.

Mr. Serell: That’s a good idea – we could look at their language and then discuss it.

Mr. Eigabroadt agreed with the concept. Mr. St.Pierre said it would be a big help to the Planning Board, and Ms. Annis said that it would save time.

Chris Connors of Citizens for Smart Growth said that they had already gone through the Charrette and the Master Plan and incorporated concepts into areas of the Master Plan where they should go. Mr. Eubank said that he would like to work with her and look at what they have written as well as the Access Management Plan because it also needs to be incorporated into the Master Plan. Ms. Annis said that Mike had commented on the fact that the Charrette is a conceptual document whereas the Corridor Study/Access Management Study is factual – the traffic study and aerial photos are factual, so that incorporating the two studies as appendices to the Master Plan might cause a developer to say, "They’re both in the Master Plan – which one doe you want?" A developer might be confused, but if we took the good points out of each document and melded them into the Master Plan, it would help a developer.

Ms. Hinnendael: What do you do in the meantime? This Board has the power to make conditions if someone comes in with some huge development based on the Access Plan, correct? For example, tell a developer where the access points have to be – are you able to do that now?

Ms. Annis: No, that is the next thing on our agenda, when we’re going to talk about the Corridor Study.

Ms. Hinnendael: That concerns me a lot. I thought that it was said to give the Charrette out to anyone who is contemplating developing in Warner – tell them that it’s not voted on, but…

Ms. Connors: I spoke with Lucy St.John of CNHRPC, and she said that both the Charrette and the Corridor Study could stand on their own to support the Board because both had been voted on by the Town and paid for as a study. So I think that they both have weight, according to her.

Ms. Annis: Mike stopped in earlier tonight, and the next thing on the agenda is the Access Management Plan/Corridor Study.

Access Management Study/Corridor Study

Ms. Annis said that Mike Tardiff had brought by 8 copies of the plan to the office before the meeting. The Board discussed the manner in which the study could be adopted, and whether it was or was not as a part of the Master Plan. Mr. Serell said that he wasn’t aware of an RSA that allows the adoption of plans outside of the Master Plan.

Ms. Annis read the memorandum from Mike Tardiff to the Board:

"Eight copies of the draft Town of Warner Access Management Study are attached for the Planning Board’s review. The Access Management Plan is a subset of the overall study. Following the review by the Planning Board, we recommend that the Board consider adopting the Plan itself, while only accepting the overall study. Through an adoption process similar to that followed by the Planning Board when adopting a Master Plan or regulations as per RSA 675:6, the Board is acknowledging that the Access Management Plan will play a large role when considering development plans in the Warner Intervale area. We do not believe it is necessary to adopt the remainder of the study in this manner as it contains background information used in the development of the Plan as well as proposed language for changes to the site plan review regulations and zoning ordinance that is considered a starting point for discussion by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment. Please contact me with any questions."

Ms. Annis: He is saying that if we adopt the plan, it will have more weight with DOT when we go before them possibly having a memorandum of understanding; also possibly asking for some financial aid.

Mr. Pershouse: What about the cross easement issue with any particular applicant?

Ms. Annis: I don’t know if that’s in the Access Management Plan.

Mr. Pershouse: I don’t know if it is specifically referred to, but effecting the Access Management Plan may well require a cross easement. So if it’s adopted it might give us some muscle, if needed.

Mr. Eubank: The cross easement is a little short piece and we could also put it on the warrant and at least that piece would begin this year.

Mr. Pershouse: Yes. 

Mr. Serell: I don’t know how we adopt this as a separate plan. The statute that says you can have regulations, you can have a master plan, but I don’t know that the statute talks about an Access Management Plan or talks about the ability to have a plan beside the master plan. Unless I’m missing something, I think we would need to adopt it as part of the master plan, not as some stand alone plan.

Mr. Pershouse: I don’t have a specific answer for you, but a lot of the work that Dominic presented, he referred to the work that was done in Bedford, NH. They have, over a 10 year period, developed a plan for commercial development around Route 3 or 3-A and as I understood his explanation, this has been a principle tool of their growth and management in their commercial district. I don’t in what technical language, but it is a tool that has been used by the town/planning board to make that development happen in an effective way.

Mr. Serell: But is it part of their Master Plan?

Mr. Pershouse: I don’t know.

Ms. Annis: He did not go into that.

Mr. Serell: There is a specific RSA that says here is what a Master Plan is; here is what it is used for. But I don’t know that that applies to any other plan that the Town wants to adopt. Why wouldn’t we just adopt this plan as part of the Master Plan if we think it is that good?

Mr. Pershouse: It is kind of a hybrid, because if you’re talking about Access Management, you’re talking about intersections and rights-of-way, and it could be argued that that is not a Master Plan; that it is not conceptual. As Barbara said, it has very specific issues that have come out of that process that will be used to make a developed area effective and in concert with what the Town’s overall goals are. A simplistic example might be a parking requirement. If the town adopts a parking concept, does that have to be in ordinance form?

Mr. Serell: I think so. I think it’s one or the other. I think it is either you have something that is conceptual and, therefore, it is in the Master Plan, or you have something very specific and therefore is in either an ordinance or a regulation.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I think the intent was for these to go into the Master Plan, and then the other ordinances would be done at the Town Meeting and voted in separately.

Mr. Pershouse: Rather than incorporate a plan into the Master Plan, can the Master Plan have reference to a study, in other words, referring to the concept for a commercial development – in this case, at Exit 9. The Master Plan simply says that the goals of the town are best fulfilled by incorporating a concept that came out of the Charrette and the Corridor Study, or whatever, but basically no more. It states their existence as entities that will be used in the planning process. But the Master Plan wouldn’t have to go into much detail.

Mr. Serell: The statute doesn’t say a lot about what a Master Plan can or can’t be, but if it’s in the Master Plan, then it has importance that the statute attaches to it. It seems to me if you feel strongly enough about something to want it to have some teeth and to be a guide, then it should be in the Master Plan. Why wouldn’t you want it to be in the Master Plan?

Mr. Eubank read from RSA 674:2 (II): The master plan shall include, at a minimum, the following required sections: (a – b). (III): The master plan may also include the following sections: (a – m). m. An implementation section, which is a long range action program of specific actions, time frames, allocation of responsibility for actions, description of land development regulations to be adopted, and procedures which the municipality may use to monitor and measure the effectiveness of each section of the plan.

Mr. Eubank: We don’t have the last section (m). It sounds to me like the Access Plan would be very similar to that. It is much more detailed than even that [the statute language] is. It looks like it could be used as guidance.

Mr. Lennon: I think that what Dan says is right on the money. The master plan gives us a leg to stand on, unlike an ordinance or regulation, which are the foundation to stand on. In influencing people in advance of an ordinance or regulation, the Master Plan is the tool we have to do it. So I think our immediate trick is to figure out what in the Access Management Study and the Charrette are the most important things that we want to get adopted, how we structure the language and how we use specifics from both documents. I think that there are things in here that can be translated into that kind of language very quickly.

Mr. Eubank: I’ll be happy to try. From what I read in here, we can adopt additions or amendments to the Master Plan as a Planning Board.

Ms. Annis: No, we have to RSA 675:6 states that a Public Hearing needs to be held to make changes to the Master Plan.

Mr. Serell: But it doesn’t have to be voted on at a Town Meeting.

Ms. Annis: So then, do you tonight – in order for us to have teeth with DOT – if you’re not going to adopt the plan, shall we say we’re accepting the study? Or do you just want to put it on the shelf until we have it part of the Master Plan and sit on the traffic light?

Mr. Pershouse: I think that as a matter of public record we should accept the document that has been prepared and go on record that the Board acknowledges the study and have it basically endorsed by the Board. We could adopt it, too, if that’s what the Board wants to do. But I think we need to do something.
Mr. Mical: Can we get clarification on how Bedford did it? We could call Bedford and ask them about their Access Management Plan and ask them how it was adopted and have they made changes in it, etc.

Ms. Annis: OK.

Mr. Lennon: Barbara, do you have this on a diskette?

Ms. Annis: No, I just have this.

Mr. Lennon: It would be easier for Dan if we had it on a diskette. He’ll come up with a 2 page implementation plan.

Mr. Eubank: Could I get that in a word format?

Mr. Pershouse: Call Central New Hampshire and ask them if it is on a diskette or if it could be obtained from them.

Mr. St.Pierre: Could we vote to accept the study adopt the Charrette and the Access Document as guidance documents? It’s not a regulation; it’s not an ordinance – it’s just adopting them as guidance documents.

Mr. Serell: My gut sense would be no, that the Master Plan is the way to implement that. The statute says that if you want to adopt something as a guidance document, here is the mechanism – the Master Plan.

Ms. Connors: It does sit out as something separate. It is recognized, but I don’t know how. An access management study does stand alone.

Mr. Serell: I could be wrong. There could be a regulation or an ordinance that I don’t know about. But without knowing what it is, I’d be leery of doing that. I just think if we’re going to do it, we should do it right and we should do it as part of the Master Plan. I think if we do it some other way, we’re just taking our chances on whether it has weight or not.

Mr. Lennon: If something happens in the next two weeks or the next six weeks, we have this discussion in the minutes that says that it was the clear intention of the Board to adopt the principles set out in the traffic study and the Charrette as guides that will be incorporated into the Master Plan – we already have as much of a leg as we can build to stand on right now, until we go through the process. But I think that we should go through the process. I also think that it would be unwise to adopt something as our position, dated December 5^th, when really no one has had a chance to go through the study and see what it says. We just got the document on December 5^th.

Ms. Annis: How are we going to present this to DOT?

Mr. Lennon: I would just say we accept, thank you, and you will see our formal action on it within 6 weeks time.

Ms. Annis: So you’re suggesting a letter to Hiram Morrell saying, "Enclosed you will find a copy of the Access Management Study. We are in the process of incorporating this into our Master Plan, which will be done shortly."

Mr. Lennon: I would say that we’re in the process of doing something.

Mr. Eubanks: I would like to try to get something within 2 weeks from now.

Mr. Pershouse: I think the letter to DOT could be very general. We could say that we accept it and thank you and that we’re in the process of incorporating it into the Master Plan.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to accept the Access Management plan. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

NHMA Meeting

Ms. Annis: I went to the NHMA annual meeting and the court update with Susan Slack and the Right to Know session with Susan Slack also. I’d like to address all of that, but Mark is on the agenda before I am.

Mr. Lennon: What I need to go over could take until 9:30 easily – we need to go through and review the changes to the Subdivision Regulations. If you want to talk about what you need to talk about before that, go ahead.

Ms. Annis: Russ, do you have any comments about the Earth Removal Regulations?

Earth Removal Regulations

Mr. St.Pierre: The document is with Don Gartrell, and he hasn’t gotten back to the Board. As soon as he has conveyed his comments, the Public Hearing will be set.

 Proposed Driveway Requirements

Driveways shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet in travel distance from the intersection with the town maintained road.

Driveways shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width.

No driveway shall exceed a ten percent (10%) maximum grade.

Driveways shall not terminate more than fifty (50) feet from the primary occupancy.

Driveways over eight hundred (800) feet in length shall have at least one turnout, placed one half the length of the drive, to accommodate the need for emergency apparatus to pass each other. The turnout shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet and a minimum length of forty (40) feet.

Suitable parking area shall be provided for emergency apparatus at the termination of the driveway. This area shall be a minimum of eight hundred (800) square feet with the shortest side being not less than twenty (20) feet.

All driveways shall be constructed of sufficient strength and materials, including bridges and culverts, as to support vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of at least twenty five (25) tons (50,000 lbs.). Driveway construction plans must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to commencing work.

No more than two (2) houses shall be placed on a single driveway.

Changes in direction of any driveway shall have a minimum radius of sixty (60) feet.

Mr. Perkins asked of there was anyone from the Fire Department that could answer questions about the proposed driveway requirements. Mr. Mical said that he might be able to do so.

Mr. Perkins: Where do these numbers come from? Like 1,500 in travel distance? If someone is building a house and he has to go 1,600, is there going to be a problem in getting a waiver? Is the Fire Chief going to say, "Wait a minute?" Do we have a problem now?

Mr. Mical: It’s accessibility into the spot and hose length and things like that.

Mr. Perkins: I would think that the width of a driveway – I look at 10 feet and think that’s not very wide But if the width of a driveway is fine and you have the turnoff points that you’re asking for – the turnouts – where is the problem? Why 1,500 feet? If the driveway regulations say that you have to have a turnout every 300 feet to allow emergency vehicles to come in and be able to pass each other, why the 1,500 feet?

Mr. Mical: That’s the length of the hoses we have right now.

Mr. Eubanks: I have a further question. The Master Plan says that they’re recommending no density residential development be more than 500 feet back from the road. According to the Master Plan, that would be way too far to go.

Mr. Perkins: Can we waive that 1,500 feet and say you can do 1,600 feet, but you have to put in one more turnout? That’s what I’m looking at.

Mr. Eubanks: How come you’d even say 1,500 feet if the Master Plan says 500 feet?

Mr. Perkins: I don’t know. I’d close that up [Master Plan] right now.

Mr. Eubanks: No, I think it is a legitimate question.

Mr. Perkins: We must have houses around here that have been built over the years that are more than 500 feet.

Mr. Eubanks: But it just says that from this point forward, they want to keep it within 500 feet.

Mr. Perkins: Maybe the Planning Board didn’t see the necessity of making it 500 feet, so they didn’t incorporate that into the regulations.

Mr. Mical: I don’t know.

Ms. Annis: We don’t have any density as far as that goes. You can go 2 miles into the woods if you want to. The thing is, if we’re going to put this into the zoning, we have a time schedule. The last day to post public notice for a first hearing is January 13^th. We’ll be meeting on January 9^th.

Mr. Lennon: The first question is, is this a regulation or an ordinance?

Ms. Annis: He wants it as a Driveway Ordinance.

Mr. Eubanks: How can it be an ordinance if it says 1,500 feet and the Master Plan says 500 feet?

Mr. Pershouse: How about softer language, such as ideally a driveway shall not exceed whatever number of feet?

Ms. Annis: Would Dick [Fire Chief] still be upstairs?

Mr. Eigabroadt went upstairs to see if Dick Brown was still in the building. He was, and he came down to discuss this matter with the Board members.

Dick Brown, Fire Chief:

 

 Why 1,500 feet for the length?

Mr. Brown: Because that is a reasonable length of hose that we have on the truck to run a line from the main road to the house

 You’re going to be in a rural part of town, so you’re going to be looking for water transported in and dumped…

Mr. Brown: We would dump it at the beginning of the driveway, not up by the house because if you get up next to the building that’s involved, it is almost impossible to run tankers back and forth and get them turned around and go back out. So we dump at the main road and pump the water up to the problem.

 What is a person comes before the Planning Board and says that his driveway is going to be 1,600 feet. Do we have the right to waive this 1,500 feet?

Mr. Brown: They should discuss it with the Fire Department first. The other thing that is coming down, and it’s already been accepted by the NFPA, is that all single and two family residences built in the United States from August 18^t, 2005 on are going to have to have a sprinkler system. A lot of towns adopted it before the NFPA adopted it. We’re trying to get something together now with the correct wording to add it to our building permit process. It is already a requirement and we can require it. If somebody wanted to do something different than our driveway requirements that were already written, then I’d say that they would have to have their own water supply in order to do that. That adds about $1.30 to $1.40 per square foot to the cost of construction for a sprinkler system. If you think that a 2,000 or 3,000 square foot house is being built, it would only add about $3,000 to the cost of the house to protect it, and the insurance rates are going to go down and the damage rate is going to be next to nothing because those systems really work. The sprinkler heads are in the ceiling and they go off at 135 degrees, which is not very hot up next to the ceiling. Once that sprinkler head goes off, the fire is out. I’ve seen them work time and time again.

 Do they have to be monitored?

Mr. Brown: No, they have to have their own 250 to 300 gallon water storage tank under pressure, and basically what happens is when the power goes out if you’ve got something pressurized up to 50 or 60 pounds, you’re going to get a lot of water out of that before a pump has to start. 99% of the time, there is going to be enough water to handle the situation.

 The cost seems disproportionate if you have a small house – adding that much to the cost of construction.

Mr. Brown: But a small house is going to cost a lot less to install the system. It’s just one of those things that is going to have to be done. It’s already a federal law.

 How does that dovetail with our concerns about driveways?

Mr. Brown: If a building has a sprinkler system, then the regulations for the driveway wouldn’t be as strict because we wouldn’t have to worry about the firefighting capability like we do now.

Mr. Serell: We could just add a provision at the end or something that says that these requirements can be waived with the concurrence of the Fire Department.

Mr. Brown: We have to look at each individual situation.

Mr. Eubank: I have to bring it up again, being from the Conservation Commission, that the Master Plan doesn’t want anything more than 500 feet back. That would be even better for you.

Mr. Brown: We increased the length of the driveways because no one is building next to the street anymore. And we now have, which we never had before, 1,600 feet of 4-inch hose on our main tanker.

Mr. Eubank: But what I’m saying is that if we’re doing a driveway regulation, there are multiple reasons to have one. On is fire; another is the conservation approach that you group developments closer to roads to preserve a layer of unbroken space. That’s the reason for the 500 feet.

Mr. Perkins: But if you have a guy that has 25 acres, are you going to tell him he can’t build his house back there?

Mr. Eubank: The Master Plan says we would – yes, we are.

Mr. Perkins: Well, I don’t know where the 500 feet came from; maybe it’s a misprint.

Mr. Eubank: It’s a public article; they took it to a public hearing and it was brought forward by a committee.

Mr. Lennon: I say if we want to limit driveways for reasons of conservation, we should go there in a straight line rather than sort of side door it with a driveway regulation.

Mr. Perkins: Do you have any feel for how long some of the driveways are that exist today?

Mr. Brown: You’ve got a couple of real problematic ones now – some with tight curves and grades that are straight up. But I can’t think of any off the top of my head that are much more than 1,500 feet. 1,500 feet is quite a long driveway.

Mr. Lennon: What’s the rationale for no more than 2 houses on a driveway?

Mr. Brown: The 911 system in Concord doesn’t want more than 2 numbers per driveway.

Mr. Perkins: That’s interesting because our minor subdivision regulations allow 3 lots per subdivision. You look at Josh Moulton’s subdivision, which he was struggling to try to get, and he couldn’t make it work with 2 lots but he could with three. That was one of the reasons why.

Ms. Annis: He originally came in with two driveway permits and he changed it.

Mr. Brown: The 911 system is the reason for no more than 2 numbers per driveway. If you want more than that, the driveway would have to be put in to town speculations and there would be a new numbering system.

Ms. Annis: Do you have a preference whether this goes in under a zoning ordinance or as a regulation?

Mr. Brown said that it didn’t matter to him if it were a regulation or an ordinance as long as the wording was there for what they were trying to accomplish.

Mr. Serell: The statute contemplates that we would do it as a regulation.

Mr. Lennon: I agree that we should do it as a regulation because it is easier for us and if somebody does want an exception then we can say to come in and ask for a waiver rather than getting a variance.

Mr. Annis: I also notice that now that the larger subdivisions are requiring one lot to have a cistern on it?

Mr. Brown: Some of them are.

Mr. Eigabroadt: If we get this new regulation that requires that every house have a sprinkler system in it, then it won’t make any difference because the houses will be protected.

Ms. Annis: The building process is also us. When are you going to do that? That is part of the ordinance that has to go before the town, in January for public hearings.

Mr. St.Pierre: The requirement for sprinklers – is that being adopted by towns or by the state?

Mr. Brown: It is the National Fire Protection Agency’s requirement of having new construction in subdivisions have sprinkler systems, and it would be made a part of the BOCA code

Mr. Eigabroadt: The Town of Warner has accepted the BOCA code and NFPA fire safety codes, and all of that has already been accepted. So anything that is added to that is automatic.

Mr. Perkins asked about the requirement of driveways having to be constructed of sufficient strength to support 25 tons, and Mr. Eigabroadt said that was mainly referring to bridges and culverts and things like that.

Mr. Brown said that he would check to make sure that the sprinkler requirement is a part of the BOCA code, but that it also needs to be made a part of the building permit process. Ms. Annis said that if it isn’t part of the BOCA code, the Board needs to know before January 13^th or earlier so that it can be posted for a public hearing. Mr. Brown said that he would find out.

Mr. Pershouse: What about if somebody is doing a build-out? We had someone in earlier that is building out the building across the street for a coffee house.

Mr. Brown: It only applies to buildings that serve 100 people or more. They’d have to have a sprinkler system no matter what they’re doing – restaurant, movie theater, etc. I’ll get a copy of that entire regulation.

Mr. Patsfield: Who is going to regulate the driveway regulations?

Mr. Brown said that he and the Building Inspector work together on the inspection and approval process.

Mr. Perkins: I would suggest putting into these regulations that a waiver is possible, in the event that dimensions are exceeded it would have to go before the Fire Chief’s waiver approval process.

Ms. Annis: I had written on mine, "These requirements may be waived by the Fire Department."

Mr. Serell: Is there a permit process? I think that we should say that they may be waived with the concurrence of the Fire Department, because the Fire Department doesn’t issue the permit.

Mr. Mical: How is this going to work with the state, when they issue the driveway permit?

Mr. Eigabroadt: It is still our responsibility. All that the state issues are the curb cuts themselves.

Ms. Annis: After we adopt this, we will send the State DOT a copy.

Mr. Lennon ask if Mr. Brown had this document on diskette, and the Secretary said that she would retype it so that it can be rewritten in language for a regulation.

Mr. Brown: RSA 154:2 which gives the Fire Chief authority to do what I want to do. The Fire Chief, at any given time, has the authority to make decisions according to whether he feels that the safety of an individual is at stake. If I wanted to say that this Town Hall needs a sprinkler system before anyone else can come in it, I can do that.

 Miscellaneous

Ms. Annis read from information she received at a meeting regarding meetings, voting, appointment of alternates to vote, emailing, etc:

1. Planning Boards should try to write their ordinances or regulations clearly so that different individuals don’t try to interpret them in different ways.

2. The Planning Board and not the applicant decides when an application is complete.

3. At a public meeting, the public need not speak unless asked to do so.

4. At a hearing, the parties involved should have the right to speak.

5. A meeting is whenever a quorum of a board meets to discuss or act upon matters in its jurisdiction. It must have proper notice and be open to the public. This also refers to any advisory or subcommittee.

6. No agenda has to be posted for a meeting or for a hearing.

7. Some planning boards take roll calls in deciding whether a site walk is necessary to decide if a quorum is going to be present. If a quorum isn’t going to be present, then it’s not a meeting. But if a quorum is present and it is a meeting, then others coming and observing cannot participate. They cannot talk to the applicant or the planning board.

8. A quorum is a majority of the board present.

9. You must have a quorum to take any action.

10. Do not ever ask an applicant if they are willing to accept less. If you cannot get a quorum, you call and start getting people to come to the meeting. People should call if they’re not going to make it to a meeting so that other arrangements can be made.

11. If you have a quorum of 4 and 3 vote yes and one abstains, it will still pass because you have a quorum.

12. In some towns, chairs vote and others do not. Include this in the rules of procedure.

13. The chair has the same right on a board as any other member.

14. The chair can participate and still conduct the meeting fairly.

15. Chairs can make motions.

16. Alternates: There is no definite rule on when or how you should appoint an alternate to vote, but it should be spelled out in the rules of procedure.

17. Example: If a member is absent and an alternate is chosen, and the case is continued to the next meeting, is the board member able to determine all of the merits that apply to the applicants by only reading the minutes of the meeting and vote on the issue, or should the alternate continue in the capacity of a board member at the next time they are voting? This is Laura v. Town of Greenland because the trial court remanded the matter to the ZBA specifically and found that a member who had failed to attend two of the five hearings should have been disqualified from the final vote.

Ms. Annis: We may want to take a look at our proceedings to see how we want to go and appoint alternates, when we want to appoint them and that sort of thing. The other thing was emails. If I was going to send out an email to all members of the Board and ask for you opinion on something – they can’t prove that I did it, they can’t prove that I didn’t do it but it is frowned upon if it ever gets out to the public. I can email a couple of you, and that’s all right. But I can’t email the entire Board and ask for input.

Mr. Pershouse: The legislature is discussing that, and it is basically conducting business electronically.

Ms. Annis asked the Board to be aware of the 2006 meeting schedule and that there are some Planning Board meetings that are not held on the first Monday of the month because of holidays.

 

Subdivision Regulations

 

The Board went over the revisions to the Subdivisions Regulations and made the final changes and corrections to the document.

Adjourn

 

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was Adjourned at 9:30 p.m.