Town of
Warner
– Planning Board
Work
Session Minutes
Monday, March 16,
2009
7:00 PM
Warner
Town Hall
, Lower Level
Members
Present: Barbara Annis, Paul
Violette, Hank Duhamel, David Hartman, Rick Davies, Ed Mical
Member
Arrived Late: Dan Watts
Members
Excused: None
Members
Absent: None
Alternates
Present: None
Alternates
Excused: Robert Ricard, Harold French
Alternates
Absent: None
Presiding:
Barbara Annis
Recording:
Jean Lightfoot
From
the Master Plan Committee: Jim McLaughlin
Open
Meeting at
7:00 PM
Roll
Call
Ms.
Annis opened the meeting at
7:00 p.m.
The
roll call was taken.
I.
CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION
Applicant and
Property Owners: Irving Oil/Mac’s Circle K, Rick
Self, Agent
Property Location: 32 Route 103 West, Warner,
NH
Map 14,
Lot
8, Intervale
District
Description: Conceptual consultation regarding
changes to the signs and building at the Blue Canoe Site
Ms.
Annis said that Circle K is asking for some sign changes and a new color
on the building. She asked if the members had seen
what is being proposed. Mr. Self said he had sent
color samples and pictures and the members said they had seen them.
Ms. Annis recognized Rick Self and asked him to explain what the
plans are. Mr. Self said that Circle K bought the
convenience store of all 24 locations of Irving Oil and have recently
purchased 15 more. He said the plan is to have a
higher visibility and they would like to change all the Blue Canoe signs
and replace them with the Circle K logo according to code. He
said they sensitive to the local concerns and that is why they are
speaking with the local people. He said the building
color would be changed to a taupe color from the current yellow, partly
because the yellow does not go with the red, white and blue of the
Circle K. He said the taupe is what is used for all
of their locations. He showed some more pictures.
He said the white trim will remain the same wherever it is.
He said that they prefer to have a white background where the
logo is, but he said they would plan to keep it all the same color for
this location. Ms. Annis asked if the pictures were a
change from what were sent previously. Mr. Self said
they are very similar but he wanted to provide better pictures than what
had been sent. He said in a very commercial district,
they would have red and white stripes pointing to the K, but would not
have them in this location. He said there are three
signs at the location and the existing signs are all larger than what is
being proposed. He said that the Blue Canoe sign is
49 square feet and they are proposing a 25 feet. He
said the smaller sign is 1.5 feet x 7 feet which is 10.5 square feet and
the proposed sign is 7.62 square feet. He said the
pylon sign will only have a face change, and the ATM sign on the bottom
will be removed. He said the building will remain the
same style as it is now. He said the white will be an
eggshell white so it will be subtle and match with the paint very well.
He concluded that it will not be the glaring white that is shown
in the pictures, since it is hard to get the right color when printing
from a computer.
Mr.
Mical asked if the trim area will change. Mr. Self
said no, it will be just the same. He said he could
not get it right on the computer with the taupe color. He
said that the sign with the K will be the same as the Blue Canoe sign
which is raised. He said it will look like it’s a
wood painted panel, although it is not wood.
Ms.
Annis asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr.
Davies asked about what appear to be white gables in the picture.
Mr. Self said there will be no white gables; he said they will
all be taupe. He said there will be no white except
for the existing white that is on the building. He
said that the taupe will be for the whole building, including the
background for the sign on the side. Mr. Davies asked
if everything that is yellow there now will be painted the taupe color.
Mr. Self said yes. Mr. Mical said he would
like to see the actual red color that is planned. Mr.
Self said he has the red outside in his truck. He
said it is a tomato red and it is the corporate color for Circle K.
He added that it is not glossy and is just a matte finish.
Mr. Davies said that their station in Hooksett on Route 3 has a
white gable with the red lettering. Mr. Self said
that they prefer the white gable, but will use taupe for this station in
Warner because it fits in better with the background. Mr.
Davies passed a picture around that he took of the Hooksett site.
Mr. Mical asked if the red at the Hooksett site is the same as
being proposed for Warner. Mr. Self replied that it
is similar but not the same because the material being painted is not
the same, since paint for plastic is different than that used for wood.
Ms. Annis said it may make a difference whether the site is in a
high traffic area where there is a lot of competition and you would want
to stand out or the site is in a more subdued area and you would want it
to blend in. Mr. Violette said that he did not really
care what color they chose to paint it. Mr. Davies
said that he thinks the white makes it look smaller.
Ms.
Annis said that this a conceptual and that Mr. Self has come to the
Board for advice and in which direction to proceed. She
added that the Board will have to decide whether Mr. Self needs to come
back for a full-blown Site Plan Review or if the proposed changes are
not significant enough to require that. Mr. Hartman
said he does not think that a full-blown Site Plan Review is required.
Mr. Davies asked who was with Mr. Self. Mr.
Self introduced Joan Murray, the manager of the store in Warner.
Mr. Duhamel said he agreed with Mr. Hartman. Mr.
Davies said that because the area is not fully developed yet this
building will be a sort of “lightning rod” for the area.
Because of this, he said that he thought that public input should
be requested and a Site Plan Review conducted. Mr.
Self said that in his experience, the only times Site Plan Reviews have
been conducted are when there is a remodel, a change in pump or canopy,
a change or a new sign. He said this is a cosmetic
change and not a change in the site. He said they are
using the existing variance for the signs and, in fact, making the signs
smaller than the variance allows.
Mr.
Violette said that he did not think that a Site Plan Review is needed.
He said that the color is not way off-beat and fits in well.
There was a short discussion about the current yellow color.
Mr. Self said that there are 100 locations for which they have
approval from the local people. Mr. Davies asked what
happened when the building was painted yellow. Ms.
Annis said it was part of a full Site Plan Review because they were
changing everything completely. Ms. Murray said this
is not a major structural change. Mr. Hartman asked
if a Site Plan Review is not required, are we limited to approving the
sign changes. He asked how the sign changes are
approved without having a Site Plan Review. Ms. Annis
said that they have the Board’s input and will take those suggestions
back to his headquarters and they will abide by our recommendations in
order to be part of the community. Mr. Hartman said
again that it seems that there is no Site Plan Review required because
the signs are just being changed from one format to another and it is
all right with him. He said if it is not officially
moved that through Site Plan Review, then there is nothing for the Board
to approve or disapprove and there is only a recommendation and they can
do as they want. Ms. Annis said this is a conceptual
and we are deciding whether they need to have a full Site Plan Review or
not. Mr. Self said that they will do exactly what is
agreed upon tonight and it is a commitment.
Mr.
Hartman said that he thinks that it is fine if he does what is being
proposed and that it is also reasonable for the Board to approve it.
He said that he understands that Mr. Davies would like to do a
Site Plan Review so it can be approved and that would be all right with
him, too. He said that he does not want to
short-change our regulations, but he said he sees no problem with what
is being proposed. He said he understands that it
cannot be acted on tonight. Ms. Annis said if it is
strictly a conceptual consultation, and the decision is that it needs a
full Site Plan Review, then it could not be acted on tonight because a
certified mail notice has not been sent to the abutters and the public
notice has not been printed in the paper. Mr.
Violette asked if there is no full Site Plan Review required, then what
happens. Ms. Annis said that the Board will say it is
not necessary to have a full Site Plan Review because the request is not
enough of a variation from what is there currently. Mr.
Watts asked what the proper way is to document that if we agree tonight
that no Site Plan Review is necessary. Mr. Self said
it is an aesthetic change exclusively. He said the
change is to the color of the building and using the existing signs and
reducing the surface. Mr. Watts asked if a letter to
the corporation indicating what was agreed upon would suffice because he
said he does not think a full Site Plan Review is necessary.
Ms. Annis said yes. She said that the signs
will have external lighting just as they do now; the signs will be
smaller than they are now; the “ATM” will be removed from the
outside sign in front and removing the “Blue Canoe” and putting the
circle “K” there; they will not be moving the ice machines or the
gas pumps. Mr. Self said they will paint the ice
machines white but they will not be moved.
Mr.
Violette MOVED to accept the proposal as presented and waive the Site
Plan Review requirement. Mr. Duhamel seconded.
Mr. Davies said he would like to allow public input for two
reasons: one, the preference between the white and
taupe gables because he said he thinks the white looks better; and,
because it’s in the Overlay District, which is a sensitive one, it has
specific criteria. There was no further discussion.
The vote was taken: Mr. Watts, yes; Mr. Mical,
yes; Mr. Duhamel, yes; Mr. Violette, yes; Mr. Hartman, yes; Mr. Davies,
no. The motion was PASSED.
Ms.
Annis said that a full Site Plan Review will not be required.
Ms. Annis said that the proposal was for taupe everywhere and
that is what is approved in order for the Site Plan Review requirement
to be waived. Mr. Self said that he will send a
letter to confirm this agreement. Ms. Annis said that
the Board’s secretary will prepare a letter after she returns from
vacation. She thanked Mr. Self and Ms. Murray and
they left.
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ms.
Annis noted there were no members of the public there, so there would be
no public comments.
3.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms.
Annis said she was disappointed at the results of the voting on the
Zoning Ordinance articles at Town Meeting. She
wondered who had put the sign out front that said, “vote no on
articles 2-8; keep our town country.” Mr. Watts
said he thought it had nothing to do with the ordinances. He
said that when he was helping to count votes that night, one of the
ballots had written on it that “I’m voting no on this because you
never told us about any of this.” Mr. Davies said
there was a comment in a local paper that “there are a lot of zoning
issues that may affect us and everyone should pay attention.”
He asked how we communicate with them. He said
they don’t come to the public hearings. He wondered
if something should have been published as a group to send out.
Mr. Watts suggested that perhaps something could have been put in
the town newsletter. Mr. Davies agreed and said that
it doesn’t have to be a lot of detail, but explain why it is being
proposed. There was further discussion about the
articles and the length and confusion about them. Mr.
Mical commented that even if the new building code did not pass, the
State Building Code still governs and it will be up to the Selectmen to
be sure that it is enforced over what is still the local building code.
It was agreed that fortunately the Floodplain Ordinance question
passed so that the flood insurance program can continue. There
was a discussion about whether to include more explanation on the ballot
about why the Planning Board recommends certain changes.
There
was no further discussion. Ms. Annis suggested
breaking down into committees. Mr. Violette asked if
the Board wanted to continue as a whole. Ms. Annis
said that the driveway regulations need to be discussed and Sharon Wason
was there for the Master Plan. Mr. Davies said that
members have expressed their wish to be included in both. Ms.
Annis said that this discussion has been had before and said that there
is only so much time and so much to do, and asked what the Board
suggests. Mr. Violette said that the regulations do
not have to be changed. He said there may be a
request for the changes, but it does not have to be done right now, or
even this year. He said that the Master Plan must be
done because of the State law requirements. Mr.
Davies asked if it would make sense to look at one item first and then
have everyone look at the next item. Ms. Wason said
that she would take at most an hour to complete her business with the
Board. The Board agreed to cover the Master Plan
first and then move on to the driveway regulations.
Mr.
Hartman asked Ms. Annis about a response to the Selectmen’s Office
about Planning Board membership. Ms. Annis said she
sent the response to Mary in the Selectmen’s Office and it was that
Mr. Violette wants to stay on, Mr. Duhamel wants to stay on and Mr.
Ricard may not request to be reappointed because of extended work hours.
4.
MASTER
PLAN
Sharon
Wason and Vanessa Bittermann of the Central New Hampshire Regional
Planning Commission (CNHRPC) were in attendance. Ms.
Bittermann handed out some maps that she had developed showing the
development patterns in Warner. Ms. Wason said that
these maps were created as part of the data collection stage of the
Master Plan. She said they were created to try to
show what is on the ground as of a certain point in time. Ms.
Bittermann started with the existing land use map. She
said it shows parcels based on the assessing database. She
said the parcels are broken into colors by type of use or property type:
yellow is residential, red is commercial, green and blue are
exempt and gray is undeveloped or vacant. She said
that the conservation lands were then overlaid on this map to show where
they are. She said that parcels are completely
highlighted if they are classified as residential or commercial, but it
does not mean that the entire parcel has been developed. She
said the purpose is to give a broad overview of what the different uses
are and how much land is left undeveloped.
Mr.
Hartman asked if a property identified as yellow with cross-hatched
green on the top of it is a conservation easement parcel. Ms.
Bittermann said yes. Mr. Hartman said that he
understands that if it is yellow, even with the cross-hatched green,
there is a building on the land. Ms. Bittermann said
yes. Ms. Wason reiterated that if it is a house on a
40 acre parcel, then the whole 40 acres is shown as yellow, even though
the whole parcel is not developed. She continued to
note that the dark blue is for religious parcels and the medium blue is
State-owned. There was some general discussion about
various particular parcels on the map.
Mr.
Hartman said that on the key of the map Class VI roads are shown as gray
dotted lines, but on the map, they are not shown as dotted lines.
Ms. Bittermann said she believes they are dashed, but it’s just
the way the layering comes out on the smaller map. There
was further discussion about identifying the class of road on the map
vs. identification of intermittent streams. Ms.
Bittermann said she will try to make the distinctions clearer and revise
the map. Ms. Wason asked if all the Class VI roads
are on the map. There was a discussion and it was
agreed that the important thing is to be sure that all the roads are on
the maps and classified correctly. Mr. Violette said
that he will ask Allan Brown about getting the list from him of all the
roads and their classification.
Mr.
Hartman said that there is a registration near Bear Pond on the map that
does not line up. Mr. McLaughlin said that this
database was used for the natural resources inventory and some of these
will go away when the maps are completed. Ms.
Bittermann added that the parcel map that she used does not line up with
things, either. There was a general discussion about
the maps and problems with connecting one map with another and the
distortions that result.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that he had a problem with calling this an existing land
use map because of the problem of not identifying specifically which
part of each lot is developed, rather than just showing the entire lot
as developed. Ms. Wason said the alternative would be
to pull out a two-acre section of a lot where there is only a house, for
example, and color that a different color to indicate a structure is
present. She said that would give a better idea
overall of how much of the town is developed. Mr.
Watts pointed out that the land that is in current use, too, could be
identified. Ms. Bittermann suggested changing the
title of the map to better identify what it represents. Mr.
Violette agreed that the title could be changed. Ms.
Wason suggested a title change to Land Use by Assessor Lot. She
said a larger one could be prepared using Google Earth or other software
to identify where the structures are.
Mr.
Violette asked about the difference in acreage per
GIS
and per the
Assessor’s total. Ms. Bittermann said that the
difference is that
GIS
includes roads and
other non-taxable land that is not included in the Assessor’s
database.
Ms.
Bittermann said the next map shows Existing Conditions which shows some
of the key environmental conditions, such as steep slopes as gray, the
conservation lands as green cross-hatching, prime farm land as orange
and brown, the 500-year and 100-year floodplains as pink and brown
cross-hatching, zoning districts and drinking water supplies.
She said one of the interesting points on this map was the well
protection area around the wells downtown that spreads out like a fan
and covers quite a large area, but it is also one of the most heavily
developed areas. There was a discussion about what
the various public water supply signs mean on the map. Ms.
Wason asked if there should be a key as to what each zoning district
means. Mr. Hartman said he thinks everyone knows the
difference, but it was agreed that it would not hurt to have some small
key identifying them as commercial vs. residential, for example.
Mr. Violette said that he knew that the zoning districts were
based on soils data mapping from the 1960s. He said
the soil data was used to even determine the required lot size in those
districts so that they could handle septic systems and leach fields.
He said they tried to use existing boundaries or roads for the
lines.
Mr.
Davies asked Mr. McLaughlin if there is an overlay of what the Water
District serves. Ms. Wason said it is on the inset of
the Existing Land Conditions map. Mr. Violette asked
where the data for the water district came from. Ms.
Bittermann said it came from Peg McLaughlin of the Water District.
Ms. Wason asked about the farms. Mr.
McLaughlin said that the
NRI
mapped all the farms
and they have also mapped the soils of statewide importance.
Ms. Wason said that the soils mapping was updated a couple of
months ago but the change does not affect the mapping at this scale,
however, Ms. Bittermann did use the new soils layer for the current
maps.
Ms.
Bittermann then showed the next map. She said the
dots correlate to parcels that have buildings on them but they do not
represent the actual building locations. She said she
does not have a layer that shows the specific building locations in each
lot. She said the dots are based on the Assessor’s
database matching the building and lot. She said the
point of the map is to look at the town as a whole and get a sense of
which parts are developed and which ones are not. She
said that she chose to look at buildings worth over $10,000.
There was a discussion about the zoning district lines and some
lots that have buildings but are not noted as having buildings on the
map. Ms. Wason said that the greens are those built
at the end of the 1990s and the reds are the more current construction.
She said with this you get a sense of the distribution.
Mr. Violette asked what the plans were for this map. Ms.
Wason said it is a very rough indicator of where things are happening.
She noted the amount of development toward the Mink Hills after
the town had done a lot of studying and prioritized that area for
preservation and you wonder how this message has not translated into
more action. There was a discussion about specific
lots around town with Board members noting lots which have buildings but
are not noted with a dot on the map. Ms. Wason
suggested dropping the lot lines and the gray from the map and putting
the dots closer to the roads if that is possible. Mr.
Hartman agreed that would be more helpful. He said it
would be helpful to him to see what was built just in the last 10 years.
Ms. Annis said that if it’s clear that there are dots missing,
then people will question the accuracy of the whole map. She
agreed that if the lot lines are removed, then the dots will give the
idea of where the development is taking place which is the purpose of
the map, not to be so precise as to include every single building.
Ms.
Wason said that they are hoping to do a second Visioning Session in
April and invite all the Town Boards. She asked if
the third Monday in April, the 20th, would be all right.
It was agreed that it will be on the 20th of April.
Mr. Violette said it would be to get more input. Ms.
Wason said there was a very general list of things that came out of the
December event where the themes were there is still a real dichotomy in
the town between people who are more live free or die and people who are
more directed about what things should and shouldn’t happen.
She said that statistically the survey answers were so similar to
the 1998 survey on many of the questions that it is clear that attitudes
haven’t changed. She said what we would like to
know are specific problems that the other town boards have as pertains
to land use issues and regulation and what their vision of the future
is. She said it would hopefully come out as much more
focused than the tax rate conversation. She said it
would perhaps focus on things like community character and specific
sections of ordinances or regulations that they find themselves tripping
over. She said if the Master Plan says that we want
to encourage development downtown, and we’re seeing that it’s
everywhere but downtown, what have we done wrong – have we not
encouraged to the right degree. Mr. Violette said he
doesn’t know how much you can encourage building downtown since there
are no lots available.
Mr.
Duhamel asked what farmland of statewide importance is. Ms.
Wason said all the soils in the state which are considered agricultural
soils; the top 10%, are the prime ones and the top 25% is considered of
statewide importance. Ms. Bittermann said that these
soils are considered suitable for agriculture in
New Hampshire
, but if you put
that soil in
Iowa
, it would probably
not be of statewide importance. She said for this
state, based on the characteristics of the soil, it is of statewide
importance.
Ms.
Annis asked about the analysis that shows that the town has 35,000 acres
that includes roads and lakes and rivers. She said if
you take away the steep slopes, roads, lakes and 33% that is conserved
because it has State or Town or Conservation Easements, there is very
little left for building. She said they want young
people to stay in
New Hampshire
, but where are they
going to live. Mr. Davies added there is also the
question of where are they going to work when your business and
commercial districts are 2% of the land. Ms. Wason
said that both surveys said that people were interested in exploring
whether Exit 7 was suitable for more commercial development.
Ms. Bittermann said that a lot of the steep slopes are in the
conserved areas, so they may not be mutually exclusive. Ms.
Wason said that it does show that there are 15,000 acres of
residentially-zoned land. Ms. Annis said that that
includes acres that are up on the mountain and those in the Mink Hills.
She said it may be vacant, but it’s conserved and it cannot be
built on.
Mr.
Davies asked where the 25-35% came from for the definition of steep
slopes. Ms. Bittermann said that is how it was
classified in the software. Ms. Wason said that in
most towns it is 15% where they start putting controls and restrictions.
She said that 25% is often considered to be not developable.
Mr. Duhamel commented that perhaps it would be worth an all day
working session to go over how many acres would be needed to attract
more business to town. He said that he thinks it
would require more concentrated work to arrive at a solution.
Ms.
Wason said that’s why she was thinking of bringing other town boards
into the discussion to get their ideas. Mr. Hartman
asked which town boards she was thinking of. Ms.
Wason said Conservation, Zoning, Historical Society, Board of Selectmen,
and Water District. She said it is up to the Board if
they want to include Parks and Recreation and
Town
Forest
. Mr.
Violette said there is also the Warner Business Association that would
be very interested in the small business aspects of the plan.
Mr. Mical suggested including the Public Works Director and the
Fire Chief. Mr. Davies suggested that the Zoning
Board is really a judicial committee since they take care of issues that
are referred to them. Mr. Violette said they have
just provided a list of things they would like the Planning Board to
consider, but he said he thinks they do not see their job as visionary.
Ms. Annis said she would approach the Zoning Board Chair, Martha
Thoits, to see if she thinks they would want to be included as a Board.
She said she agreed that the Fire Chief and Public Works Director
should be invited. Ms. Wason asked if there is a
representative from the
Kearsarge
State Park
who might be
invited. Mr. Violette said no. Mr.
Davies asked if the
School District
should be
considered. Ms. Annis said she did not think so.
Ms. Wason said they are often one of the largest employers in
town. Mr. Violette said it is a regional school
district and the lines have blurred for the interest in the specific
towns. Ms. Wason said she would do an e-mail and send
a packet to the secretary to be sent out to everyone. Mr.
Violette said it would also be advertised to the general public.
Ms.
Annis suggested moving the Work Session to another night and holding the
Visioning Session on April 20th which is the usual Work
Session night for April.
Mr.
Duhamel asked if there is any money that can be made available to Warner
because it had 3 exits on I-89, like there was to the towns along I-93
from Concord south for its expansion. Ms. Wason said
that one thing that Bill Watson, who is the Administrator of the
Planning and Community Development Division of DOT, said was that he
wanted the Upper Valley-Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission and
the CNHRPC to do a corridor plan for I-89 from the
Vermont
border down to the
I-89 and I-93 intersection. She said the plan would
be to look at the land use and safety records and numbers of cars in
each segment and figure out what the commuting patterns are up and down
89. She said whether they will have the resources to
start that work this year starting in July is a question, but she said
she should know by Tuesday afternoon and will let the Board know.
Mr.
Davies asked if Ms. Wason has a record of other towns with similar
layouts where we could compare the commercial vs. residential
percentages of acreage. Ms. Wason said she would look
for
New Hampshire
.
Mr.
Mical asked about the insert on the existing land use map and why the
road color is changed to red. He asked if it is state
maintenance. Mr. Violette said it is state summer
maintenance. There was a discussion about the keys
for the roads on the various maps.
Mr.
McLaughlin said he wants to update the Board on the Conservation
Commission’s work on the Natural Resources Inventory. He
said they have hired a consultant who will be working for the next 8
months or so to complete that piece of the Master Plan. He
said their next meeting will be the first Wednesday in April.
There will be some
GIS
mapping.
He said that it has been suggested that another survey be done in
town on resource issues, as well as meeting with groups, such as the
Trustees of the Town Forests and other groups.
Mr.
Hartman asked how Ms. Wason would like to receive feedback on
corrections that need to be made on the maps that were reviewed tonight.
Ms. Bittermann said it could be e-mailed. Mr.
Hartman said it can’t be e-mailed since it is actually errors on the
maps. For example, he said one map has roads noted on
it that are not roads. He said that the Mink Hills
are full of Class VI highways, but they don’t show as Class VI
highways on the map – they show as black lines, not differentiated
enough to make them Class VI as identified on the key. He
said it’s an important area of town and it’s not being shown as it
should be shown. Ms. Wason suggested dropping the
color coding from the maps and then the roads could be color coded
better. Mr. Hartman said that might help.
Ms. Wason said they will talk with Allan Brown and get the list
of roads and their classifications. Mr. Hartman said,
in addition, there are brooks and water bodies but there are no lines
for them on the map – they are just names on the map, such as
Slaughter Brook which has no line on the map for it.
Mr.
Violette asked if there were any other questions. There
were none. He asked Ms. Wason if she will have any
handout maps of 11x17 for the Visioning Session. She
said yes. Mr. Violette said that the Visioning
Session will be advertised as before with some flyers. Ms.
Wason said there will be a special invitation prepared for the town
boards. There was a short discussion about traffic
count requests. Mr. McLaughlin, Ms. Wason and Ms.
Bittermann left.
Ms.
Annis asked the Board if they want to submit an application for traffic
counts for two – one by the Park and Ride and one by Stevens Brook.
The Board members agreed. There was a
discussion about which one would take priority if there could be only
one. It was agreed to not actually prioritize them,
but to put the Park and Ride on top since that would most likely be the
only one chosen if only one is allowed.
5.
DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS
Ms.
Annis noted that it was
9:22
and asked if anyone
wanted to continue the driveway discussion. Mr. Mical
said that he contacted the Fire Marshal’s office and talked with one
of the inspectors. He said the State Building Code
makes reference to the NFPA and NFPA I, Chapter 18 and talks about
roads. He said he has a copy of it. He
said it does not specifically address driveways, but it does talk about
widths for fire protection access and water supply. He
said that it states that they shall comply with that chapter. He
continued to say that the access roads shall be provided and the
buildings shall not be located more than 150 feet from a fire department
access road. He read from the chapter, saying that a
fire department access road shall extend to within 50 feet of at least
one exterior door that can be opened from the outside and provides
access to the interior of the building. He said he
has not discussed it with Dick Brown. He said it
talks about access roads with unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet, vertical clearance of not less than 13.6 feet, but that can change
depending on the signage. He said that fire
department access roads shall be designed to maintain support the loads
of fire apparatus and provided with an all-weather driving surface,
turning radiuses, etc. Mr. Davies said it sounds
commercial. Ms. Annis said it sounds like a
subdivision. Mr. Mical said it is specifically for
access to buildings for one- and two-family houses. Ms.
Annis said that we only require 24 feet wide for a subdivision road.
Mr. Davies said he had called someone who is in the fire
protection industry and he said he didn’t think there was anything to
do with single family homes that would be in there. Mr.
Mical said this is just Chapter 18 of NFPA I. Mr.
Violette said that is not driveways. Mr. Mical said
no, it does not specifically state that it applies to driveways.
Ms.
Annis asked Mr. Watts if he has had a chance to work on the diagrams.
Mr. Watts said he had one version and will work more on them.
Ms. Annis asked if Allan Brown had seen the draft that Mr. Davies
provided. Mr. Davies said no and asked if it should
be given to Mr. Brown. Mr. Mical suggested e-mailing
it straight to Mr. Brown. Mr. Davies said he would do
that. He asked if his suggestions are heading in the
direction that the Board was thinking of. Mr.
Violette said he thinks they are all talking points and has comments and
suggestions. Mr. Davies said that a good portion of
what is on Allan Brown’s sheet is already in the subdivision
regulations but in a different format. He said that
he thought it would be better to get a consensus of what the Board wants
in the regulations and then weave them into the current regulations.
Mr. Duhamel suggested collecting comments from the Board members
before sending it to Allan Brown. Mr. Davies agreed
that he will forward to the Secretary and she will forward on to Allan
Brown.
Ms.
Annis asked why Mr. Davies had changed will to shall in the draft.
Mr. Violette said will is more absolute. Mr.
Davies said he thought it would give the Director of Public Works more
latitude. Ms. Annis said she disagreed and read some
of the proposed draft items and leave nothing to Mr. Brown’s
discretion. Mr. Davies agreed that one of the items
about the slope would be better to read as it was written, rather than
change it to shall. He said his intention would be to
have a heading at the top saying, the Director of Public Works may okay
something. Ms. Annis suggested for Road Subgrade,
#d., that rather than “as approved by an engineer” it could be
changed to “as approved by the Public Works Director or an
engineer.” Mr. Duhamel agreed. Mr.
Davies said in item e., he said “unless approved otherwise by the
Public Works Director.” He agreed that it needs to
be more general.
Ms.
Annis said there will be no Work Session in April because of the
Visioning Session. Mr. Hartman asked about the first
Monday. Ms. Annis said she doesn’t know if there
will be any applications. She said if there were
none, then that meeting could be used to continue this discussion.
Mr. Violette agreed. Ms. Annis said that Mr.
Brown could be given a deadline of returning his material to the Board
by that Monday. Mr. Violette asked if he went through
Mr. Davies’ list and commented, is it all right to just send it around
to the Board. Ms. Annis said it would be all right so
long as no decisions are made. Mr. Davies asked if
there is something else that we will be looking at. Ms.
Annis said this must be finished. Mr. Davies
suggested that he could gather information on workforce housing.
He offered to begin a comparison of definitions in the various
ordinances to be sure they are in line with each other. Mr.
Violette said that would be helpful.
Mr.
Hartman asked whether Work Sessions are meetings. Ms.
Annis said yes. She said that it is just called a
Work Session because we do not have a subdivision or site plan or other
application that is being considered and it allows the Board to do other
work.
Mr.
Davies MOVED to adjourn. Mr. Violette seconded.
The motion was PASSED unanimously. The meeting
was adjourned at
9:35 p.m.
|