Mr. Larocque distributed a map of the lots for
discussion
Norman Larocque lot 46-3, would like to give part
of his lot to Dennis Larocque 47-5 to allow him to build in
compliance with current setbacks.
Both lots are lots of record
Lot 46-3 approx. 8 acres with 300’ frontage
Lot 47-5 approx ½ acre, 258’frontage
Though 47-5 is a lot of record it is not
buildable due to the current set backs. The acreage requirement does
not come in to play as it is a lot of record predating zoning
regulations.
OC-1 zoning does require that Norman keep 5
acres.
Contour of 46-3, has a brook running North –
South.
The house is deep into the lot on the left side.
The proposal is to square off, the substandard
lot of record, 47-5 to comply with the 50’ setbacks.
Derek Pershouse: If we are not requiring the
acreage because it is a lot of record, does it make sense to require
part of the ordinance, the setbacks. The only ordinance 47-5 does
not currently meet are the 50’ setbacks.
Martha Mical: I believe it is in RSA 674-28 or
674-41 that states a lot of record only has to meet the current
setbacks. The acreage and frontage does not have to be met for a lot
of record.
Phil Reeder: The intent of the 5 acre ordinance
was to keep open space. No matter where you draw the property line
between these two pieces of property there is only going to be one
house on each lot, it can’t be subdivided. It is possible that an
additional ½ acre is all that is needed, whatever is needed to meet
the 50’ setbacks. For future accessory buildings, it is up to
them, it might make sense to make 47-5 big enough to do so.
N. Larocque: I’m suggesting giving him an acre
so the lot is 1 ½ acres and kind of square it off, plenty from any
lot line.
Board: That seems reasonable. Basically keeps in
spirit with the open space and provides a buildable lot, which is
equitable in this case.
Board: Addressing Mr. Larocque, you do have to
come back to the Planning Board once the surveyor has does his work.
MOTION made to recommend an adequate amount of
acreage be granted to the nonconforming lot (15-47-5) in order to
meet setbacks, maintaining 5 buildable acres on lot 15-46-3. MOTION
SECOND and PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (Ed Mical, Phil Reeder, Derek
Pershouse, Barbara Annis).
COMMERCIAL SITEPLAN – continued from
October 16, 2006 meeting
Property Owners: RAW Investment Trust, Inc., PO Box
596, Newport, NH 03773
Property Location: Route 103 West, West Main St.,
Warner, NH 03278 Map 35, Lots 4-1 & 4-2
a. Action taken – Approve/Disapprove/Delay
Ms. Annis: Are there any changes?
Mr. Feestra: Yes, in relation to the Park &
Ride, elevations.
Ms. Annis: So this differs from what is currently
posted?
Mr. Feenstra: Yes.
Points of Discussion:
Presented changes per DOT on page 2. Changes
were highlighted.
The response from FEMA will be 30-60 days.
The landscape designer was unable to attend to
answer questions – would be glad to respond via phone or email.
Mr. Pellettieri was asked if he would take a look at the
landscaping. To the best of our knowledge, he has not yet.
Exaction fees are the focus of a meeting with
Central NH Regional Planning on Nov 28th.
Reviewed samples of siding colors.
Mr. Feenstra: What further is needed for
approval?
FEMA – needs to approve. If in error and it
is granted, we may possibly jeopardize our participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program, and our ordinances specifically
relating to that program.
Bond will be required. Mr. Feenstra volunteered
to obtain some information.
Proven & Lorbar to review.
Exaction Fee will be determined for a portion
of the traffic light.
Basement area to be used exclusively for
storage to be in writing.
Mr. Feenstra: Free flowing traffic between the
proposed establishments and Evans would be ideal.
Response: Evans has not responded to our letters.
Mr. Mical: Has the lot east of you contacted you
in reference to access? Begin.
Mr. Feenstra: No. He has a right of way now
across the front of lot 3. We have not received any written request
from Begin.
Mr. Feenstra: NH State Liquor Store has stepped
up to the plate, they want 10,000 feet – 5, 000 retail space and
5,000 below for storage.
Mr. Mical: One of the things I asked about, based
on an experience with the existing Market Basket entrance, the
little island which is private, they are no longer maintaining it -
Consider condition of approval clear enter, exit lines lanes that
are well striped including ongoing maintenance. What about turning
lanes?
Ms. Annis: We can address turning lanes with NH
Department of Transportation (NHDOT) when we meet with them on Nov.
28th.
Ms. Annis: In preliminary talks with NHDOT, the
width is already there for turning lanes.
Mr. Reeder: On the permit you have listed what
you intend to have going in to your retail spaces. If there is a
change in use a new permit will be required.
Points of Discussion:
The driveway permit from NHDOT is based on
specific types of businesses listed, traffic generated.
Intended square footage as outlined in the
NHDOT permit is a proposal – change in use as outlined in the
NHDOT permit requires approval of the Planning Board.
#14 on the driveway permit specifically talks
about plans prepared by Essex Survey, submitted and revised on
November 13th – these are the plans presented
tonight.
We are in the process of determining the cross
and timing of putting in a traffic light. In those discussions,
consider the possibility of a halfway measure such as a blinking
light and two stop signs on 103 or some alternative traffic
management other than a light?
Jim Lillas, NHDOT District Five, his response
to Ms. Annis’ question on the issue of sidewalks and crosswalks
was that he discouraged both – discouraging pedestrian traffic.
NHDOT did not respond to the questions outlined in Ms. Annis’
letter dated October 18, 2006. Board discussed possible
crosswalk/sidewalk options.
Drainage – Mr. Feenstra reported the drainage
has not changed. Mr. Pershouse agreed to take the proposed plans
to Provan & Lorbar to look for consistency, particularly in
regard to the drainage - Mr. Mical will try to attend.
Nancy Martin: Representing the Conservation
Commission, to be sure that Mr. Feenstra is aware of the commission’s
concerns regarding the drainage, the swale and how it should be
constructed to protect the well head and the water that runs not
only in the conservation area behind the lot into the river and
upstream from the town’s well – we have some serious concerns
about that. Those concerns are addressed in the November 14th,
letter from the Commission to RAW and the Planning Board. I would
like Provan and Lorber to look at the letter and address our
concerns with regard to the drainage plan.
Ms. Annis: The swale is in the state right of
way, the state had to approve what he is doing in their right of
way.
Ms. Martin: We have some suggestions about grasses and the fact
that if he constructed something like Market Basket has it might
have to go on a portion of the property, whether or not that is
feasible, that’s the best case scenario – like what Market
Basket has done with the grasses, weeds and cattails over there that
remove the pollutants from the runoff.
ZONING CHANGES - RECOMMENDATIONS
Board reviewed a list of zoning changes proposed
at the June 18th meeting by Zoning Board of Adjustment,
other individuals and boards.
Zoning board suggested some clarifications. On
Page 2 and 5, "structure" is currently defined the same as
"building", they should be differentiated, e.g. a cell
tower is not the same as an occupied building. Currently, building
"means any combination of materials having a roof and enclosed
exterior walls, fixed to the land, and constructed for the shelter
of persons, animals or property. [amended March 1999]".
Question, would a fence be considered a structure? Would it
therefore come under zoning? It was suggested that a building is a
structure, but a structure is not a building. Discussion: Types of
structures that may qualify as a building under zoning regulations,
pools? Pole barns? etc. Suggested we could obtain definitions from
one of our neighbors, Hopkinton. Board agreed to further research
definitions. RSA 155-A:2 VI. "Structure" means structure
as defined and interpreted by the International Code council’s
International building Code 2000.
Page 4: Major subdivision – state in definition
"4 or more".
Page 3: "Height" definition – After
discussion, no changes to the definition.
Page 3 "Gross Floor Area" and Page 16, Section X.I. F.
@ 20,000 square feet gross floor area. The intent of XI. F. is that
no building should exceed 20,000 square feet per building; no lot to
exceed 40,000 sq. ft. (two buildings). After "The maximum gross
floor area…" remove "gross floor area", replace
with "footprint…" and "Where more gross floor
area is required…" remove the word "gross".
Page 3, Gross Floor Area does not need to be redefined. Versus
making an additional change to the definition we are changing
section XI. F.
Page 3-4 h. [home occupation] reads 25% of dwelling OR accessory
building. ZBA recommended and Planning Board concurs that it should
be changed to 25% of the total floor area of dwelling, including
basement and all accessory buildings. It is the intent of the
ordinance to assure that the primary function remain a dwelling vs a
business. Remove "(either in the dwelling or in an accessory
building)"; add "and accessory building" to read:
h. utilizes an area of not more than twenty-five (25%) of the
total floor area of the dwelling (including any functional
basement) and accessory buildings.
Page 6, IV. B. Delete entirely and replace with "Refer to
Earth Excavation Regulations adopted November 8, 2006.
Page 6, IV. I. 2. Question: Include ornamental, e.g. spires, etc.
as part of the height calculation? 2. Change "structure"
to "structure/building" in first line. Cupolas and facades
are not listed… or similar non-functional building components.
Decision: add "structures" after "ornamental" in
line 4, to read:
2. The structure is any of the following and does not
constitute a hazard to an established airport: television and
radio towers, church spires, belfries, monuments, tanks, water
and fire towers, stage towers and scenery lofts, barns, silos,
cooling towers, ornamental structures, towers and
spires, chimneys, elevator bulkheads smokestacks, conveyors, and
flagpoles.
Page 6, Article IV. F. Use Permit. This has not been applied –
either we have to do it or remove it. Use Permits are zoning
compliance; a Use Permit issued prior to a building permit stating
they are in compliance with what they propose to do with regard to
the zoning regulations. Decision: Leave in. Make the Selectmen’s
Office aware of the Zoning Compliance Officer not issuing Use
Permits.
Page 7, Article IV. P – Compared to Use Table on page 38, 1.
Decision: change Use Table to agree with definition of "Home
Occupation" g. (page 4) allowing employment of equal to one
full time person outside the family.
Page 7, Aritcle IV. M.- storage containers. Requested change is
unclear – leave as is.
Page 18, Article XII – temporary signs. Possibly needs to be
defined so as not to require permitting for events such as yard
sales, church suppers, real estate signs, etc. Decision to further
review.
Page 19, Article XII, C. & D. Decision: further review.
Page 23, Article XIII F. 4. and G. – No action at this time.
Page 32, 2. This section was originally a
suggestion, intended as a guide - it was not intended to be an
ordinance. Recommend it be deleted entirely.
Building Code Ordinance, Page 1. Article II, A.
It is confusing as to whether a building permit is needed when a
structure is being restored, which does not alter the principal use.
Current interpretation is if you are not going outside the current
footprint, you do not need a building permit. "Interior"
building permits were discussed.
Second sentence: change "Any exterior construction
shall" to read "Any exterior construction or
replacement shall". New state building code is
applicable to all commercial buildings. This issue may need more
discussion.
Page 1. Article II B.1-a. Language should be replaced to read
"current HUD standards". To read construction
safety standards to be the current year’s Department of
Housing and Urban Development.