Town of Henniker

Next meeting is scheduled for December 1, 2004. See posted agenda at Town Hall, the Post Office or the Library for starting time.

TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

August 25, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; James McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Judith Englander, Board Member; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planner; and Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Stephany Lavallee, Ron Lavallee, Marc Martel, Jim Boyle, Ralph R. Joyce, Marty Davis, Ted Parkins, Martha Sunderland, Peter Furmonavicius, Steven R. Forster, Tracey A Bruen, Grace Cohen, Roger Belson, Holly Green, Gene Brown, and Peter Flynn.

Meeting called to order by Chairman, Scott Osgood at 7:05 p.m.

Kristin Claire (Selectman Ex-Officio alternate) will be a voting member in place of Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio for this meeting.

Don Armstrong will be a voting member for this meeting.

Minutes

7:10 p.m. Minutes from Site walk on August 11, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the August 11, 2004 Site walk meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved with one abstention.

7:15 p.m. Meeting Minutes from August 11, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the August 11, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved with one abstention.

Public Hearings

7:15 p.m. Continuation of - Case 2004-10. Major Subdivision Application for Map 1 Lot 645-X, on Mt. Hunger Road in the Rural Residential District. Ralph Joyce has submitted the application for the creation of a 5-lot subdivision.

Laura Scott said there were memos provided to the Board Members. Those memos are from the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Highway Department, and the Conservation Commission, details were discussed later at this meeting.

Jim Boyle a staff surveyor from Bedford Design was there to answer any questions. Mark Martel was also there to answer technical questions. Additionally, Mr. Joyce offered to answer any questions.

Martha Sunderland spoke on behalf of the Conservation Commission. She brought the map submitted to the Conservation Commission, by the applicant. The map submitted was different from the one attached to the Major Subdivision Application and was not of the entire site. She said, Mr. Ralph Joyce was not present at the Conservation Commission’s meeting. Therefore, the Commission could not ask questions of him. The Conservation Commission did not have enough information to respond the Planning Board’s request.

New information and maps were provided to the Commission, which they will review at their next meeting. They will address the following concerns:

Potential impact on Pleasant Pond

Impact on existing wetlands

Lack of response from the Conservation Commission does not mean there is a major concern, it simply means they did not have enough information to respond.

Jim McElroy asked how to proceed.

Laura Scott answered the options available:

Table the discussion until the Conservation Commission has responded by memo and continue this application to the next Planning Board meeting.

Proceed with discussion of information provided by other departments, and continue this application to the next Planning Board meeting to review response from the Conservation Commission.

Scott Osgood read memos from other departments in response to the Planning Board’s questions.

The Police Chief responded by memo that there were no adverse concerns with this site view and traffic.

The Highway Department responded by memo that their only concern would be winter maintenance issues. They advised any increase in traffic could slow down snow removal and currently it could be 5 hours or longer between plow trips, and any increase would add to the time between plow trips. They would like residents to be aware of this and plan accordingly.

The Fire Department responded by memo that their only concern is a lack of water sources in the Mount Hunger Road area. They suggested a cistern would alleviate this issue for this proposed subdivision.

7:45 p.m. opened to public comment

Peter Furmonavicus said that he appreciated the time and money that the Planning Board put into the Master Plan. The Master Plan has objectives to preserve the rural character of the Town of Henniker.

Within the Master Plan, specifically named in regards to rural character are the following:

Potential Historic Sites

Scenic Sites

Steep Slope areas

Surface Plans

Wetlands

This area of Henniker has many examples of the features listed above. The Master Plan discusses the importance of those features to Henniker and describes their importance as an effort to maintain the integrity of the land.

Additionally, the Rotary Club publishes a book annually that names this area as a scenic area.

Grace Cohen said that when the Master Plan was developed there was discussion about the Quaker District. A decision was made not to pave the roads as to preserve the rural character. New homes and new owners in a new development may have different aspirations. School bus concerns and their routes were of particular concern. The Quaker District is important to both Henniker and the State of New Hampshire. People who currently live in this area take this in stride. The wetland disruption and the flow to Pleasant Pond could have long term impact.

Marty Davis said page 97 of the Master Plan discusses slope and gives guidelines of 25%. "This property has more than 25% of slope," she said.

Scott Osgood said at this time, under current subdivision regulations there must be 1 acre of buildable land and these lots would meet this requirement.

Cordell Johnston said the Master Plan is a document that the Planning Board uses as a guide. It is an advisory document to help create a framework for moving forward and meeting the public expectation of changes in Henniker to ensure a healthy community. The Planning Board uses this document to plan for the future by amending current regulations to meet this model. This is a process that happens over time. Zoning ordinances and Sub-division regulations are the enforceable regulations that must be adhered to.

Marty Davis said this is the time to look towards the future. This neighborhood has spoken loudly at every public meeting. If we are looking toward the future then we need to take the Master Plan into consideration.

Cordell Johnston said the Planning Board would take public comment into consideration as legally permissible.

Don Armstrong asked about school bus routes and historically what has happened.

Marty Davis said having children walk to a bus stop, even if it is only a mile is unsafe especially during the winter season as it would be hard for drivers to see children.

Steve Forster said it is not a safe walking even on a day like today. Speeding cars are a factor as some drivers use this as an alternate road. He has asked the town for road widening. At this time there has been no road widening. He has given the town an easement to expedite widening the narrow spots in front of his business, however it’s safety first unless it cost money, in his opinion.

Roger Belson said an issue he has been reading about in the Planning Board meeting minutes over the last year is length to width ratio. What is the concern and how would it affect a sub-division such as this one?

Kristin Claire explained that the Planning Board is working on this. The long sliver type of lots creates issues with setbacks, safety, and neighbors. She further said the Zoning Sub-committee is looking into defining this. Scott Osgood said the best use of the land is the driving focus. Better neighbors and neighborhoods.

Roger Belson said most lots in this neighborhood are 40 acres and proposed lots are 10 acres. This will impact the character of this neighborhood.

In response to a question about site plan review, Cordell Johnston said site plan review is for non-residential or multi-family residences. These are the regulations that deal with harmonious development, buffers, and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Currently there is nothing like that in the sub-division regulations.

It was mentioned if the road was ever brought up to town road standards paved the lot size would drop from 10 acres to 5 acres.

Gene Brown asked if the plans provide for one acre of buildable land on each lot. He was answered that the plans shown one acre of buildable land on each of the proposed lots.

Marty Davis asked what was decided about requiring a topographical plan. Laura Scott said it was waived and the Planning Board accepted the application as complete.

Steven Forster said this is all a matter of semantics the abutters being here. Does it have any bearing on the decision of this proposed sub-division?

Scott Osgood said that public comment always helps the Planning Board make decisions and move forward. Without public comment a growth management ordinance would not have been conceived, planned and put in place.

Steven Forster said he has been living in this area for 26 years. The value of the property has risen and now others have an interest in this neighborhood. He also said Mr. Joyce would come in and put up the homes and then leave with his profit. His quality of life won’t be affected.

Tracey Bruen said the quality of life should be considered. She said this area has a scenic quality of life for our community, our neighbors, and us. She wanted to know if this would be taken into consideration.

Kristin Claire said that by the abutters attend the public hearing and, as a community to expressing what you want, is what the Planning Board needs to know. As the Planning Board works to put change in place that is aligning with public opinions, needs, and desires. Cordell Johnston said the Board would be going through subdivision regulations and as part of the process, which includes public comment.

Steve Forster said that he hoped public comment is not a waste of time.

Gail Abramowicz said it is never a waste of time when community members take an active interest, in town government by voicing their concerns. It is definitely important for abutters to voice their opinion in this process. This process is a civil way for abutters to convey their questions and concerns to the applicant. It is equally important for the applicant to hear those concerns. She tries to see life’s issues at 360-degree view. The applicant has the right to enhance his quality of life by doing something to his property. She said "maybe I am naïve, but I can’t see the applicant putting all the time, energy and money into developing something that does not fit into the character of the area." Gail Abramowicz continued by saying that never should anyone feel that being a part of a public meeting and getting involved in town government would be a waste of time. Any and all comments are appreciated.

Marty Davis said this proposed sub-division would have great visual impact on her view, although she is an abutter. She further questioned why the Master Plan does not show her land as wildlife protected land. She wanted the Planning Board to be aware or find out what she needs to do to correct this.

It was acknowledge that her land could have been missed and the Board apologized for this.

Gene Brown said Mr. Joyce is going to build 5 houses with 10 acres lots. He is going to maximize his profit. It is not going to affect his quality of life other than the moneys he receives. But if we look a little further into the future, maybe the neighborhood members will be unhappy with the quality of life and decide to leave. They may then also put their properties up for sale. Other contractors could buy and subdivide and then more 10 acres lots are built up and down that road. Eventually it will resemble the North End of Manchester. Mr. Brown said he would like the community to stay as it is today.

Gail Abramowicz said, in reference to the Rotary Club’s historical calendar she is glad people of that era didn’t feel that things should always stay the same, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

Don Armstrong said we want to hear public input and hear what the majority of people want.

Judith Englander said the Master Plan is what the board and the town collaboratively wants to see happen. The Planning Board is one board with a few community members who provide input. Hearing from the public tells what they support and what is most important. The Board might start with 30 issues needing work or updating and it may be narrowed down to 4 or 5. We strive to accomplish the most important town issues and work hard to complete as many issues as possible each year.

Gene Brown said in the time I have been in this town the Planning Board has done many things. We (the public) are appreciative for those items.

For the record, Gene Brown wanted to clarify that North Manchester is not a bad place to live.

Public Hearing closed 8:30 p.m.

Gail Abramowicz said that the other departments have answered our questions adequately.

Scott Osgood wanted the cistern recommendation to be passed along to the developer of this proposed subdivision.

The Board discussed the lots their configurations and the slope.

Jim McElroy said we are in a situation of relying on the driveway permit process. For Planning Board purposes all the plans need to show is the driveway location for each proposed lot.

The abutters feel the Quaker District is of local lore and historical value can this be quantified. It has never been quantified because Henniker does not have a historic district, Laura Scott said. Even if it were registered with the national registry, a 5-lot 10-acre sub-division would not be excluded.

Cordell Johnston read a provision in sub-division regulations pertaining to harmonious development and preservation of natural resources and historic areas.

Gail Abramowicz said we need to look at all the information and the charge of the Planning Board is to plan for the future.

Don Armstrong said if someone invests in a certain parcels of land, and they are constrained too much you might find you have unintended consequences.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to continue public hearing to The Planning Board’s next meeting, September 8, 2004. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Conservation Commission

9:15 p.m. Martha Sunderland reviewed the Draft Henniker Conservation Plan. The Planning Board provided feedback and suggested changes.

Major Sub-division Applications will be automatically forwarded to The Conservation Commission for review. Minor Sub-division Applications, Site Plan Review, and Lot Line Adjustments will go to Conservation Commission as requested by the Planning Board.

2005 proposed definitions to be submitted for Town Meeting

9:45 p.m. The Planning Board reviewed the proposed definitions and made editorial changes. The Planning Board reviewed memo from Laura Scott dated August 24, 2004. Laura Scott will review these sections and bring information back to the board for final decisions at a future date.

2005 Planning Board budget

10:05 p.m. The Planning Board discussed the 2004 budget and how it applies to 2005. The Planner’s position was discussed. Scott Osgood will draft a letter to the Zoning Board, Historic District Commission, Recycling Committee and Conservation Commission to enlist support for a planner’s position.

Selectman Update

10:00 p.m. Joe Damour has resigned from the Board of Selectman.

PetroFiber Site Plan discussion

10:35 p.m. Cordell Johnston recused himself from this discussion. Laura Scott reviewed the file and the approvals from DES. PetroFiber site plans were approved in 1993 and 1996. Laura Scott noted site plans are available in the files. Scott Osgood said he would follow up with DES to make sure the town has the most recent permits on file.

Cordell Johnston rejoined the Board.

Correspondence

10:50 p.m. Laura Scott reviewed correspondence with the Board. The mitigation plan from Nextel arrived. The Impact Fee contract also arrived.

Planning Consultant Report:

10:55 p.m. Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be September 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

August 11, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman, James McElroy, Board Member; Geoffrey Hirsch, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Judith Englander, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planner; and Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

David Hodder, Roger Belson, Ralph R. Joyce, Peter Furmonavicius, Ted Parkins, Steve Forster, Marty Davis, Tracy Bruen, Jennifer Hardwick, Eugene F. Brown, Linda Fish – Brown, John W. Sargent, Fawn Nixa, and Peter Flynn.

Meeting called to order by Vice Chairman, Cordell Johnston at 7:10 p.m.

Don Armstrong will be a voting member for this meeting.

The Board decided Meeting Minutes from July 28, 2004 would be reviewed at the conclusion of the scheduled Public Hearings.

Public Hearings

7:15 p.m. Case 2004-10. Major Subdivision Application (preliminary and final) for Map1 Lot 645-X, on Mt. Hunger Road in the Rural Residential District. Ralph Joyce, on behalf of Ronald and Patricia Goodell, has submitted the application for the creation of a 5-lot subdivision.

Site walk happened at 6:00 p.m. this evening just prior to start of the meeting. Several Board Members, the applicant, and several public members were present for the Site walk. The group walked and viewed the property. The applicant answered many questions.

Laura Scott advised she had reviewed the application. There are two minor outstanding items. The first was editorial completion of some abutter names. Secondly, the applicant is requesting a waiver for the topographical plan. Laura Scott advised Mr. Joyce has submitted an easement to the Town of Henniker for future road widening of the road.

Ralph Joyce presented the proposed project. He and his brother Terrence both from Horace Lake in Weare, NH will work on this project together as a joint venture. This is a subdivision that creates 5 lots. This house construction project will take place over 2 or 3 years. They will build 1 or 2 houses a year. Each will be placed on 10 to 12 acre lots. Each lot will have approximately 300’ of road frontage. They are requesting a waiver for the topographic plan, as they are not building deep into the lots, only building closer to the road. The rear of lots will not be cleared. The construction will stay within the 165 to 175 feet closest to the road frontage.

The Board had conversation on how a topography plan would help the Board make a decision. The applicant said that topographic lines were displayed on the plans for areas that the construction of houses, wells, and septic systems would affect. The applicant proposed a covenant for the deeds. This covenant would protect the land from future subdivision in the event of future changes in zoning or otherwise.

The applicant advised there would be no clear cutting or harvesting of the timber. The applicant advises he would be willing to add harvesting to the previous offered covenant. The options were discussed.

The Board continued to look at completeness concerns. The Board asked that the plans be updated to proposed locations of wells, septic, and driveway. Laura Scott further mentioned the plan needed minor editorial changes (abutter name completeness) to the plans. By accepting the application as complete this waives the topographical plan request.

MOTION made by Don Armstrong to accept the application as complete subject to the updating the plans with the proposed driveways, wells, and septic and minor editorial changes. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

Public Hearing opened 7:55 p.m.

Steve Forester spoke about the topographical plan. His concern was how would the Board know if there were issues if no plan is submitted.

Ted Parkins said every drop of water from the five proposed lots would drain into Pleasant Pond. He also said he does not believe the distance is a great factor in filtration as there is a lot of ledge.

Peter Furmonavicius said he was told it would take over 324 truckloads of fill to build up one driveway on one lot.

Ted Parkins was concerned that he could have to live with a devastated site over the next four years.

The applicant said he would be mindful of the view and did not believe there would be a devastated site the community would have to view. He did acknowledge that with any construction there would be times when the site appeared less than desirable.

Linda Fish-Brown shared her concern about maintaining the integrity of the land and keeping it scenic. She said it was her understanding that this area is the highest elevation in Henniker. This elevation creates beautiful scenic roads and the rural atmosphere the community strives for.

Ted Parkins said that there is view potential for these lots. He is concerned that although the applicant talks about not clear cutting and harvesting timber, potential owners may mow down trees to emphasize the view from their homes.

Don Armstrong said the longest run on the property is 1,807 feet and there is an approximate 240 foot differential between the front and back of the property. This means that the homes will overlook the trees and there are not many 200 feet trees and this means the trees will not need to come down in order to have a view.

Ted Parkins noted this means homes will overlook abutter homes.

The applicant acknowledged there would be visual impacts, however his intention is to prevent stripping of the lots.

Deed restrictions and open space subdivisions were discussed.

The applicant said that he might choose to market the properties as horse properties.

Gene Brown commented it would be difficult to do much with horses on 10 acres of land dropping 240 feet.

Ms. Judith Englander asked Linda Fish – Brown, with her experience of equestrian real estate, to comment on the proposed subdivision used as equestrian properties. In her opinion after considerable clearing, stumping, and reconfiguring of the land 10 to 11 acres is adequate for a couple of horses.

Soil legends on the plan were discussed. The legends reflect slopes and drainage. Depths were not on the legend. Soil types and filtering were discussed.

Marty Davis shared a concern regarding the lawns. In her opinion homebuyers who purchase residences of this size and cost generally are concerned about the appearance of their lawns. Chemical treatment is the usual manner most people use to remove critters or weeds. She would like Pleasant Pond and other environmental concerns to be assessed.

The Board discussed the process sending this application to the Conservation Committee.

Gene Brown asked the Planning Board if they would ask the Highway Department to comment on the impact of trucking in the amount of fill needed. Additionally, could the Road Agent review the driveway plan for safety concerns?

The Board Members discussed the process of obtaining feedback from other town departments in writing. It was decided the best way to approach this would be to draft questions and send them to the appropriate departments.

Marty Davis said that the climate in this area is very different from other areas of Henniker. She further discussed slope and weather intensity of the area.

The Planning Board discussed the best way to proceed would be to draft questions, send them to the appropriate departments and continue the hearing to a future date.

Laura Scott will follow up with the following departments:

Highway Department

Truck traffic on the roads.Location of driveway and safety of road

Snow removal concerns.

Police and Fire

The driveway locations.

Safety concerns and issues.

Conservation

Potential impact on Pleasant Pond.

Impact on existing wetland.

Steve Forster commented on safety concerns.

Gene Brown said information regarding snow accumulation. He emphasized the climate can be very different in this area of Henniker.

Marty Davis wanted the Planning Board to consider the expense of additional maintenance needed for the upkeep of these roads.

MOTION made by Don Armstrong to continue public hearing to the Planning Board’s next meeting, August 25th. Seconded by Geoffrey Hirsch and approved unanimously.

8:40 p.m. Case 2004-11. Site Plan Application for Map 1 Lot 588-A the property is located on 24 Flanders Road, in the Commercial Recreation District. The application has been submitted by Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. on behalf of Crown Castle Atlantic, LLC and New Hampshire RSA 2 Partnership, for the installation of 12 panel antennas, associated coax cables, and ground equipment on the existing tower.

David Hodder represented Nextel.

Laura Scott has reviewed the application and there are no outstanding items.

David Hodder said that a structural analysis was done and could be located in the information binders.

He then reviewed that Nextel wanted to add 12 additional panel antennas at 128 feet on the tower. There will be 4 antennas (antenna specifications are tab 5 in the information binder) per sector (3 sectors). These sectors will be connected to an equipment shelter 12 X 20. This will be a new equipment shelter (as pictured in tab 5 of the information binder). Total height of the tower is 160 feet. Currently US Cellular, Verizon, Sprint, and Nextel all use this tower.

MOTION made by Judith Englander to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.

A technician will perform quarterly maintenance unless there is a problem.

Truck traffic will be limited to delivery trucks. Equipment will arrive after the shelter is set.

Jim McElroy asked about a mitigation plan and/or statement from Nextel addressing contingency plans if the frequency interferes with 800-megahertz system.

David Hodder said he would need to obtain this information from Nextel.

Public Hearing opened 9:00 p.m.

John Sargent said the tower is ugly. He’s concerned that they want to mount additional antennas and will it look like Goffstown.

The Board said the reason they place additional antennas on this tower is to avoid additional towers. This will minimize impact to other areas of Henniker.

Public Hearing closed 9:10 p.m.

The Planning Board requested Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. provide the mitigation plan that Nextel proposes to use in Henniker to avoid interference with 800 Megahertz in compliance with recent FCC decisions.

This could be a matter of safety if the 800-megahertz emergency systems were affected.

The FCC orders the mitigation plan in all areas that Nextel operates.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the site plan application subject to Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. provides the mitigation plan that Nextel proposes to use in Henniker to avoid interference with 800 Megahertz in compliance with recent FCC decisions. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

9:15 p.m. Case 2004-12. Minor Subdivision Application for property located on Kast Hill Road in Hopkinton. The application has been submitted by Winnepocket Properties, LLC for the subdivision of 37,836 square feet of land that crosses into Henniker from the subject property in Hopkinton. The proposed subdivision would divide this area between the proposed lot (Hopkinton) 6-4, 16,098 square feet and the remainder parcel (Hopkinton) 6, 21,739 square feet.

Laura Scott reviewed the application and there are no outstanding items. Hopkinton called this morning to review decision made at the Hopkinton Planning Board Meeting, where this application was reviewed.

Bob Carpenter is with TF Bernier and is representing Winnepocket Properties, LLC. He gave an overview of the history of this property.

There was a presumption that the back stonewalls along Highland Drive was the town line by the survey methods available at that time. With today’s techniques, it was determined that although the stonewall was close it was not exact and there is .94 feet of road frontage in Henniker and, at the back end, approximately 20 feet.

The proposed subdivision would divide the Henniker land in two pieces attached to two lots in Hopkinton.

This parcel of land was believed to be in Hopkinton; therefore, there is not a Henniker tax map number.

MOTION made by Judith Englander to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Geoffrey Hirsch and approved unanimously.

The process was discussed.

No public comment.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch to approve the minor subdivision application subject to Hopkinton’s approval. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

Minutes

9:30 p.m. Meeting Minutes from July 28, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Jim McElroy to approve the July 28, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Correspondence:

9:40 p.m. Laura Scott reviewed correspondence with the Board. There were two items of correspondence. The first was a memo from Peter Flynn; Town Administrator on behalf of the Board of Selectman regarding site plan application fees. The Planning Board discussed the memo.

Additionally a schedule arrived regarding the Planning Board Budget Review. The Selectman Review will be Thursday, November 16, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. The Budget Committee Review will be Thursday, January 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Lastly, the Final review, Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Planning Consultant Report:

10:00 p.m. Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be August 25, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted. Laura Scott will not be at the next meeting.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

July 28, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman, James McElroy, Board Member; Geoffrey Hirsch, Board Member; Judith Englander, Board Member; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planner; and Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Ralph Joyce and Daphna Anderson

Meeting called to order by Chairman, Scott Osgood at 7:00 p.m.

Zoning Sub-committee meeting was canceled.

Kristin Claire (Selectman Ex-Officio alternate) will be a voting member in place of Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio for this meeting.

Terry Stamps will be a voting member this meeting.

Minutes

7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes from July 14, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the July 14, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by James McElroy and approved with one abstention from Judith Englander.

Discussion

7:10 p.m. Case 2004-10; Major Subdivision application for Ralph Joyce on behalf of Ronald and Patricia Goodell of Mt. Hunger Road; Final subdivision review waiver request and the scheduling of site walk. The property is located in the Rural Residential District.

Ralph Joyce requested a waiver for the preliminary application process. Ralph Joyce believes the subdivision application has been completed. Ralph Joyce has been working with Laura Scott over the last 3 months. The request for waiver has been made in writing and is located in the file. Laura Scott has reviewed the application and there are no outstanding items for a preliminary or final Major Subdivision application.

Scott Osgood asked to review the waiver. He read the waiver to The Board. Geoffrey Hirsch said he did not feel combining the processes of preliminary and final application processes would hinder The Board in any way.

MOTION made by Judith Englander to grant waiver to waive preliminary application process and proceed to final application process. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.

The Board discussed scheduling the site walk. The site walk was scheduled for Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. Rain date is Saturday August 7, 2004 at 9:00 am. The Board will meet the applicant at the site. Laura Scott will provide Board Members with the plans before they leave this evening.

New Business

7:35 p.m. Daphna Anderson comes before The Board with an approved subdivision from 1987 that had never been signed or recorded.

This property is located in both Henniker and Hillsborough. Access to this lot is on the Hillsborough side of the property. The survey from 1975 was presented to The Board along with new mylars to be signed.

The Board reviewed the file. The file houses the minutes, the approval and the supporting documentation from 1987.

The Board authorized the chairman to sign a subdivision plan of property owned by S. Katherine Neuwirth-Anderson, (Daphna Anderson), previously approved by The Board in 1987. The 1987 approved plans were never signed or recorded.

Old Business

7:55 p.m. Subdivision regulation changes:

The Planning Board discussed and made changes to the draft copy of The Subdivision Regulations. Both conceptual and editorial changes were made to pages 8 and 9 this evening. The Planning Board will continue to work through the draft copy of The Subdivision Regulations at future meetings.

2005 Town Meeting Warrant Article Discussion:

9:15 p.m. Laura Scott reviewed the following items she is working on for the next town meeting:

Special Exception (ZBA)

Lighting Ordinance (Don Armstrong)

Historic District Ordinance (Historic District Com)

Lot Shape (length to width ratio)

Definitions : Open Space Residential Development, Kennel, Story, Lot non-conforming, Wetland Zoning Districts (Zoning sub-committee), Home Business (Definitions and Allowed Uses), Bed and Breakfast (table of uses)

The Board discussed the items. It was determined the most important item was The Zoning language (i.e.: definitions, allowed uses). The list was prioritized in the following order:

Zoning Districts

Lot Shape

Special Exception

Historic District Ordinance

Definition

The Board confirmed these were the most important items and the remaining items would follow as time allows.

Correspondence:

9:30 p.m. Laura Scott reviewed correspondence with The Board. The Board discussed the recent inquiry from The Board of Selectmen. Scott Osgood will write a letter to Peter Flynn in response to a recent inquiry from the Board of Selectmen.

Update from Henniker Selectman Meeting: 9:45 p.m. The Board discussed the PetroFiber operation here in Henniker. Laura Scott will be looking into the complete filed information. She will bring information back to The Planning Board.

Planning Consultant Report:

10:00 p.m. Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be August 11, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted.

MOTION made by Judith Englander to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

July 14, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman, Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; James McElroy, Board Member; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planner; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Terry Bennett, John Martin, and Jackie Martin.

Meeting called to order by Chairman, Scott Osgood at 7:00 pm.

Zoning Sub-committee meeting was cancelled.

Kristin Claire (Selectman Ex-Officio alternate) will be a voting member in place of Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio for this evenings meeting.

Minutes

7:05 pm Meeting minutes from June 23, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the June 23, 2004 Public Meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously.

Public Hearing

7:15 pm Case 2004-09; Lot Line Adjustment submitted by Terry Bennett on behalf of Nelson D. and Rachel C. Maine Irrevocable Trust and John A. and Jacqueline M. Martin for Map 1 Lot 349F and Map 1 Lot 349 (140 Western Ave.). This application is to add 1.48 acres from lot 349 to lot 349F. The property is located in the Rural Residential District. Laura Scott reviewed the application. There are no outstanding items.

Terry Bennett presented the application for lot line adjustment on behalf of John and Jackie Martin. Terry Bennett completely reviewed the submitted application map.

The Board discussed the application.

No public comment was made.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the lot line adjustment application. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Impact Fee Update

7:35 pm Laura Scott called Bruce Mayberry to follow up on the status of the agreement. He will be forwarding the agreement and it should arrive next week.

Historic District Ordinance Update

7:40 pm Laura Scott met with the Historic District committee today. A draft ordinance has been created for the Historic District Overlay Ordinance. This ordinance is still being reviewed and amended. The Historic District Committee wanted to Thank The Planning Board for Laura Scott’s time and assistance.

July 7th Planning Board and Board of Selectmen Meeting Update

8:00 pm Building Permit procedure was clarified. Laura Scott will now review all permits on Wednesdays for zoning concerns. The draft meeting minutes were dispersed to The Planning Board Members. The Planning Board discussed their obligation to report infractions of non-conforming property/business owners. The CIP committee was another topic of discussion at the meeting. The Planning Board discussed the timeframes and what needed to be done for a successful CIP. Scott Osgood will follow up with Peter Flynn on the CIP.

Planning Consultant Report

8:25 pm Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be July 28, 2004 at 7:00 pm unless otherwise noted.

Subdivision Regulation Changes

8:30 pm Laura Scott reviewed the changes made to The Subdivision Regulations draft copy. The Planning Board discussed and made changes to the draft copy of The Subdivision Regulations. Both conceptual and editorial changes were made to pages 1 through 8 this evening. The Planning Board will continue to work through the draft copy of The Subdivision Regulations at future meetings.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 9:30 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

June 23, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman, Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; James McElroy, Board Member; Judith Englander, Secretary; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planner; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Robert French Jr., Robert French Sr., Dean Colburn, Art Siciliano, Donna Callow, Jeff Callow, and Jennifer Hardwire.

Meeting called to order by Chairman, Scott Osgood at 7:05 pm.There was five (5) Planning Board Members present therefore, no alternate was appointed to vote.

Minutes

7:05 pm Meeting minutes from June 9, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the June 9, 2004 Public Meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Voluntary Merger

7:10 pm Map2 Lot 95 and Map 2 Lot 95-4 for Tami Kingsland of 36 Davidson Road of Henniker.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnson to approve the voluntary merger for Tami Kingsland. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

Public Hearings

7:15 pm Case 2004-07: Site Plan Review for Map 1 Lot 318-P (41 Old West Hopkinton Road), submitted by Robert French Jr. This application is to replace the existing comfort station and to construct an addition to the existing pavilion at the Mile-Away Campground. The property is located in the Rural Residential District.Laura Scott noted she has reviewed the application. There are no outstanding items.

Bob French brought an amended plan that included two changes. A 90-degree change in the direction of the roof. Remove the "doghouse" on the back of the comfort station.The level portion of the handicap ramp would now be covered by the roofline.

Existing comfort station is 12 feet by 16 feet with its extension total dimensions are 12 feet by 20 feet. The new comfort station’s dimensions will be 24 feet by 24 feet.

Water and sewage process was discussed. Mr. French represented that the original design of the existing leech field will handle the increased building size. There would be no change in number of sites and no change in patrons using facilities.

The new comfort station will include a men’s room, a woman’s room, and an ADA compliant unisex handicap room.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Each campsite in the campground is owned by Mile-Away, they are not separately owned.

The owners said the property lines on the drawing are accurate. History of the campground was discussed. Property lines have not been changed since the 1993 Site Plan approval.

The location of the comfort station and the addition to the existing pavilion were highlighted on the file copy plan.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnson to approve the Site Plan Application. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

7:40 pm Case 2004-06: Minor Subdivision for Map 2 Lot 386 (12 Patterson Hill Road), submitted by Dean and Jacqueline Colburn. This application is for a three (3)-lot subdivision, which is located in the Rural Residential District Laura Scott noted she has reviewed the application. There are no outstanding items. Arthur Siciliano presented the application for the Minor Subdivision. The area of land is 21.4 acres. This would be divided into 3 lots.

A right-of-way easement will be needed for road purposes. The right-of-way is a strip of land 5 feet wide that is parallel to Patterson Road and abuts the front property line. The right-of-way is for roadway purposes such as construction, repair and/or replacement of pavement, curbing, trees, grass, and other appurtenances usually found in a public roadway.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to accept the Minor Subdivision application as complete. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Wetlands, drainage and soil types on plans were discussed. Soil divisions were identified. Slope lines were identified and clarified to The Planning Board.

7:45 pm Chairman asked if there was any public questions, concerns, and/or comments. There was no public comment.

Laura Scott said there was two items needed to be conditions of approval 1. Driveways for the two new lots need to be shown on plan. 2. Final Right-Of-Way Easement is needed to record at the registry.

The Planning Board members discussed the lot configuration, specifically length to width ratio in the resulting lots.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve this Minor Subdivision application with conditions. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Zoning Sub-Committee Report

7:55 pm The Zoning Sub-Committee met and discussed accessory uses. The Sub-Committee will make a proposal to The Planning Board that will list the accessory uses under special exceptions. This will eliminate the vagueness of the term. Laura Scott suggested it might be easier to define accessory uses by concrete guidelines such as footage and other measurable items. The agricultural definition will be updated to reflect the definition as defined by the State of NH.

The next Zoning Sub-Committee meeting will be July 14, 2004 at 6:00 pm unless otherwise posted.

Planning Consultant Report

8:00 pm Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. She also outlined upcoming applications. The next meeting will be July 14, 2004 at 7:00 pm unless otherwise posted.Laura Scott updated The Planning Board of the status and priorities of her workload. She outlined her upcoming projects.

Other Items

8:15 pm The Planning Board discussed recent outcomes of the state legislative actions. Discussion continued regarding the effects of the legislation on The Henniker Planning Board and specifically zoning regulations.

8:25 pm The Planning Board Members read the draft letter written by Scott Osgood to Peter Flynn, Town Administrator. The scope of Code Enforcement was discussed and defined by The Board. Editorial changes were made.

8:40 pm Kristin Claire asked The Board about a meeting with the Trust for Public Lands.

8:45 pm REACH meeting in Hopkinton was discussed. Some Board members planned to attend to gather information.

8:50 pm The Board discussed the need for Laura Scott to attend the joint meeting, with The Selectmen on July 7, 2004. The Planning Board asked Laura to attend the meeting to provide clarity and information that may be needed.

MOTION made by Judith Englander to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 9:00 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

June 9, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman, Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Geoffrey Hirsch, Board Member; Judith Englander, Secretary; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planner; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Amy Lockwood, Ellen Kambol, Leon Parker, and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Meeting called to order by Vice Chairman, Cordell Johnston at 7:05 pm.

Presentation

Concord Area Trust for Community Housing (CATCH)

Amy Lockwood, Executive Director of CATCH and Ellen Kambol, Deputy Director of the Community Housing Program at the NH Community Loan Fund presented information about creating affordable housing opportunities for Henniker.

The presentation addressed:

Homes in our broader community

· Cost

· Who lives in them

· Affordability and changes over time

Henniker’s housing stock

· Affordability

· Housing trends

Building prospects

· Options

· Multi family housing

· Combining conservation and housing goals

Affordable rental stock

· Form of housing

· Quantity of affordable housing

· Diversity of options (cost)

· Quality of rental stock

Henniker’s role in encouraging and management of affordable housing

· Zoning variances

· Conservation / Affordable development model (cluster housing)

· Sponsorship of grant applications

· Encourage diversity

How CATCH can help

· Permanent affordability

· Quality, long-term management to rentals

· Build new units in conservation subdivision model

· Federal and private resources contacts (multi-family and/or single family)

· Downtown housing /commercial properties models

· Building new units in older buildings

The Board discussed the merits of the presentation and thanked the presenters for their time.

Other Items

8:15 pm The Board discussed code enforcement issues, building permit process, CIP, and current fee schedule. Scott Osgood will be writing a letter to The Board of Selectman outlining the issues and requesting a joint meeting.

Minutes

9:00 pm Non-Public session minutes from May 26, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Scott Osgood to approve the May 26, 2004 Non-Public session minutes as amended. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.

9:10 pm Meeting minutes from May 26, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch to approve the May 26, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Discussion

9:20 pm The Planning Board recommended Kristin Claire to be the alternate Selectman Ex-Officio. Thea Braiterman advised she would bring this recommendation to the Selectman.

9:25 pm Information and handouts from the May Office of Energy and Planning Conference and April Conservation Conference were made available to The Board members.

Planning Consultant Report

9:40 pm Laura Scott updated The Board as to the progress of the draft letter of acceptance for the development of impact fee methodology consultant.

The Board discussed the process for the Consulting Engineer, (HTA) to follow for changes that occur in the field that differ from the Site Plan, as approved by the planning board.

Detailed descriptions of the changes and the recommendations for solutions should be directed to Laura Scott, Planner and Scott Osgood, Chairman of Planning Board.

MOTION made by Scott Osgood to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 10:00 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

May 12, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Scott Osgood, Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Present:Guests

Jennifer McCourt, Leigh Bosse, Richard Wallace, Kathy Wallace, Thomas Johnson, Luke Johnson, Dennis McComish, and Cindy Davenport.

Meeting called to order by Chairman, Scott Osgood at 7:00 pm.

Kristin Claire and Don Armstrong will be voting members this evening.

Minutes

7:00 pm Meeting minutes from April 28, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Scott Osgood to approve the April 28, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.

7:10 pm Meeting minutes from May 5, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Scott Osgood to approve the April 28, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.

7:10 pm Continuation of Site Plan Review for Richard and Kathy Wallace to consider a proposal for an indoor riding arena. The property is located at 24 Hemlock Corner Loop, Map 1, Lot 25X, in the Rural Residential Zone. Case 2004-05.

Attorney Leigh Bosse spoke on behalf of the Wallace’s. Attorney Bosse stated the Wallaces were being unjustly prejudiced against. They are being made to adhere to commercial guidelines unfairly. He said that the indoor riding arena is an ancillary use to an existing agricultural approved use. He named several other local agricultural sites that provide goods and services that have not been held to commercial regulations.

Attorney Leigh Bosse further stated that in addition to the commercial regulations the Wallaces were working hard to fulfill, the financial impact was unjust. He continued by advising if the Wallaces had built the indoor riding arena on their land and never mentioned they may give riding lessons, board horses, or potentially have a show, they would have simply paid the $ 75.00 building permit fee. Due to their forthright nature with this application, The Wallaces have unjustly paid commercial fees in the amount of $ 1,500.00.

The Board stated that the fees are set by another entity and would need to be addressed with the appropriate entity. Kathy Wallace advised that in order for her to make the Site Plan Application, Laura Scott said these fees needed to be paid.

Scott Osgood said the conceptual consultation conversation set the stage for a commercial enterprise within the agricultural approved use. The Board further discussed that an agriculture use and commercial use are not necessarily separate. The uses can stand independently or work together on one site.

Scott Osgood outlined that the Board was here to approve or disapprove the Site Plan Application. The Board advised the Wallaces that the process they should follow to appeal the fees would be to draft a letter to Peter Flynn stating their position.

MOTION made by Scott Osgood to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.

7:30 pm Public hearing was opened.

There was no public concerns, issues, or questions.

7:30 pm Public hearing was closed.

MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve Site Plan Review. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.

7:35 pm Application for Site Plan Review, submitted by 16 Bradford Realty Trust, to amend the existing Site Plan to include U-Haul trucks and to extend the hours of outdoor lighting at present business. The property is located at 16 Bradford Road, Map 2 Lot 263 in the Commercial District. Case 2004 – 01.

Jennifer McCourt from McCourt Engineering stated the scope of this application was to add U-Haul trucks (spaces for trucks and customer parking) and to extend the hours of outdoor lighting. She also provided the board with updated, amended site plan drawing.

The U-Haul trucks will be parked behind the Harvester Market building, along with the required customer parking. Don Armstrong mentioned his understanding was there was a septic system directly behind the building. Further conversation determined that the leech field and/or septic system deemed it necessary to slide the self-storage buildings location east, in order not to build on the septic and leech field. Jen McCourt said that she would look into the exact placement of leech field and/or septic system.

Jennifer McCourt said the proposed lighting increase to twilight hours (non daylight hours) was to provide security and to accommodate customers. Customers of the self-storage units are asking for increased lighting after dark. Typically, providing security lighting in a commercial setting makes sense. Jennifer McCourt also said that the stockade fence does a good job of blocking the light from affecting abutters.

The Board asked many questions regarding the current lighting. It was determined that the parking lot lights and self-storage units’ lights are turned off at 8:00 pm. The lighting on the building is turned off at 11:00 pm. Hours of operation for the market and self-storage units were confirmed to be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. Jennifer McCourt clarified the applicant was asking for the lighting hours on the market, the self-storage units, and parking lot all to be extended to twilight hours (non daylight hours).

The new parking spots will be gravel. Currently the gravel already exists in the proposed parking area.

The Board discussed that currently there are approximately 2 U-Haul vehicles at the site. It was determined that an average of 4 vehicles and a maximum of 8 vehicles would be at the site at any given time. Spaces are oversized 10 feet by 30 feet to accommodate novice truck and trailer drivers.

The Board discussed that the U-Haul enterprise is a complimentary use to the self-storage unit business. This would be an additional use on this site. The site is zoned Commercial Retail, which by definition includes "rentals" as an appropriate use. The applicant agrees this is an additional use at this site, hence one of the reasons they have filed this application to amend the existing Site Plan.

MOTION made by Thea Braiterman to accept the application as complete with conditions that the location of buildings and septic system be confirmed. Seconded by Scott Osgood and approved unanimously.

8:40 pm Public Hearing Opened

Dennis McComish stated that at the original Site Plan Application, Peter Davenport agreed to determined that 8:00 pm would be the hour the lights would be turned off (parking lot lights and self-storage units lights). Dennis McComish said that Peter Davenport placed a stockade fence along his property line. Conversation continued regarding the security differences of fencing, locking the gates, and lighting.

Dennis McComish stated he was not opposed to the U-haul business. He does have a firm opposition to increasing the hours of lighting.

8: 50 pm Public Hearing Closed

Jennifer McCourt asked the Board for a continuance to the next meeting. She would like to prepare an amended plan, that will align with the Board’s concerns.

MOTION made by Kristin Claire to continue site plan application until May 26, 2004. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

8:55 pm The next Planning Board meeting will be May 26, 2004 at 6:00 pm unless otherwise posted.

MOTION made by Scott Osgood to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 9:00 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

April 28, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Geoffrey Hirsch, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Board Member; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Terry Stamps, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Kevin Keyes, Peter Mellen, Peter Flynn, Kathy Wallace, Gary Riley, James Crane, Michelle Bergh, and Margo Russell.

Meeting called to order by Vice Chairman, Cordell Johnston at 7:05 pm.

Kristin Claire will be a voting member for this evening

Summary of Zoning District Subcommittee Meeting

The approach the subcommittee is using to look at each district and review what is allowed within the district. A checklist for each district will include the review of purpose, uses, dimensional criteria, and location in town.

The subcommittee reviewed definitions that pertain to the zones.

Minutes

The review of meeting minutes of April 14, 2004 will happen at the close of new business to allow general public in attendance for agenda items

New Business

7:10 pm Site Plan Review Auto Desk located on 7 Liberty Hill Road, Map 2, Lot 369X-3 in the Village Commercial Zone; Case 2004-02.

Laura Scott stated the site application was complete. The previous occupant was a fairly high intensity user of the site. The Equity II program on average will have 5 staff members and 5-10 students at the site. The students are generally bussed to and from the site via district-supplied transportation. This will decrease parking needs well below capacity.

Equity II is an alternative school for targeted at-risk students they are currently operating at New England College. The college growth has created the need for this program to relocate.

Fire Department will inspect alarm systems, physical classroom size, and egress issues.

The second floor space, if used, will be for staff offices, either staff or other rentals.

There will be renovations made to first floor bathrooms and thresholds to comply with ADA requirements.

The school day is the same as standard school hours. Cooking and use of the kitchen are part of the program.

Students are essentially contained within the building, however there is a small grassy area that may be used for recreation.

No organized recreational sports are planned for this program. Fitness classes are held at Henniker Fitness Club.

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 pm

Peter Flynn reviewed any commercial building permit would be subject to the international building code as a requirement.

Will there be a summer program? It is possible it could be used as summer school.

Parking area and markings were discussed. Signs designating handicapped spaces are currently in place.

Fire lanes due to educational, institutional status? Fire Engine turn radius will you lose parking space. This will be part of Fire Department inspection.

PUBLIC HEARING closed 7:45 pm

MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the application. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

7:45 pm Lot Line Adjustment for Dennis and Alice Roberts’ property Bear Hill Road and Cote Hill Road, Map 1, Lot 566 and Lot 566C in the Rural Residential District; Case 2004-04.

Terry Stamps recused from this discussion as an abutter to the aforementioned property.

Laura Scott said the application is complete.

Peter Mellen gave an overview of the proposed application.

No issue with slope. Topographical map reviewed.

Applicant understands there is a need for a Driveway Permit.

MOTION made by Kristin Claire to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

8:50 pm Public Hearing Opened

8:50 pm Public Hearing Closed

MOTION made by Jim McElroy to approve the application. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

8:00 pm Site Plan Review for Richard and Kathy Wallace to consider a proposal for an indoor riding arena. The property is located at 24 Hemlock Corner Loop, Map 1, Lot 25X, in the Rural Residential Zone. Case 2004-05.

Laura Scott said that her letter dated April 28, 2004, outlines items that were found missing with the exception of bar scale and North arrow.

Kathy Wallace reviewed the application and provided topographical map and aerial photo to the Board. The Board determined that the following items are not applicable to this application.

Location of structure on abutting properties if within 100 feet of property line.

Location of proposed solid waste facilities.

Location of easements and rights-of-way.

The Board determined that the following items are still needed to complete this application.

An updated drawing with abutter lots, names and addresses. Additionally, locations of lighting, manure removal truck, and sign all need to be clearly marked on this drawing, (This will use the current map submitted subject to the preceding updates).

An updated topographical map clearly identifying elevations and boundaries of the site (including abutters identification and location, arena and driveway location).

Location, size, and nature of existing and proposed signs.

Outdoor and security lighting (either end of gable).

The Board determined that the following could be waived for this application.

Bar scale and North arrow.

A Locus map.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch to accept the application as incomplete. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch to waive the bar scale and North arrow and Locus map requirements. Seconded by James McElroy and approved 5 in favor and 1 opposed.

The Board and applicant agreed to meet for a site walk on Wednesday May 5, 2004, at 12:30 pm. This is open to the public, although not a public hearing. Laura Scott will set up meeting with Fire Department to immediately follow the site walk.

9:15 pm Floor opened for public comment.

Gary Riley spoke regarding the application. How much of the area is going to be used for the arena related activities? The beginning of a business is a serious undertaking. With the assumption of success, how much will it grow? Special concerns are traffic and ground water contamination. He would like to see the business grow orderly with an agreement in place to ensure this. Mr. Riley also wanted it known that he wants to be part of the solution and not part of a problem.

Margo Russell spoke in favor of this application. She feels this proposal is an asset to the community. She further pointed out that beauty is in the eye of beholder. From her eyes, a riding arena is a better choice than subdivisions.

Michelle Bergh spoke in favor of this application and discussed her relationship with the abutters. She spoke to many points including the shape of the existing barn, which is odor free, no accumulation of flies, and one of cleanest she has ever seen. She reviewed manure removal and disposal, as she is eager to take as much manure as can be accumulated from this site. Ms. Bergh advised that Richard Wallace currently delivers the manure to her and she never has enough.

Richard Wallace spoke regarding his intentions for this arena. He would prefer the operation stay as quiet as possible as this is his home and he would like privacy. Their choice for a wooden structure was to create an atmosphere nicer than that which a metal arena would create. Giving the lessons and providing the services is to recover cost not to start a huge business venture.

The applicant and Board scheduled a site visit. A public hearing will be held on 05/12/2004.

Minutes

10:00 pm The meeting minutes from April 14, 2004 were reviewed and changes were made.

MOTION made by Gail to approve the April 14, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Old Business

10:00 pm Approval of Rules of Procedure

Cordell Johnston reviewed the document.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch to approve The Rules of Procedure as ammended. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.

Correspondence

10:30 pm Laura Scott summarized the correspondence received.

Planning Consultant Report

10:35 pm Laura Scott will be out on May 12, 2004. Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be May 12, 2004 at 7:00 pm unless otherwise posted.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Geoffrey Hirsch and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 10:45 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

March 24, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Alternate; Gail Abramowicz, Alternate; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Kristen Senz, Stephany Lavallee, Aaron Lavallee, Terry Stamps, Bob Stamps, Martha Sunderland, Angela Robinson, Gary McGrath, Sean McGrath, Carol Rosenbleeth, Paul Manseau, Tad Schrantz, Jay Zax, John Kjellman, Wendy Pearson, Sam Kjellman, Jean Lewis, Caleb Dobbins, Keith Testa, Denise Rico, Eleanor Kjellman, Roni Hardy, Christine Spaulding, and Jack Bopp.

Minutes

Reviewed February 25, 2004 Draft Meeting Minutes.

MOTION made by Judith Englander to approve the February 25, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously.

Conceptual Consultation

7:20 pm 1. Site Plan for Map 2, Lot 187A; Hall Avenue; Cheshire Oil Co.

Judith Englander recused herself from this Conceptual Consultation.

Scott Osgood recused himself from this Conceptual Consultation.

Tad Schrantz reviewed his revised proposed plan. The new plan would include a Convenience Store with gas pumps and a Dunkin Donuts (with drive up window), as well as a Laundromat. Highlighting the site reductions; less pavement, removal of diesel pumps, removal of car wash, increased buffer zone, extension of sidewalk, the dumpster proximity to the Hall Street residents and the shifting of buildings to lessen the impact on Hall Avenue. He further explained that the intensity of the site had been lessened, specifically at the back of the building. Removing the car wash and diesel pumps would lessen internal congestion and stacking at the rear of the building. Additionally, Tad Schrantz noted the hours of operation had been shortened by a half an hour at both opening and closing.

The Board asked if there would be an internal connector between convenience store and Laundromat. There was no internal connecter. There would be an attendant at the Laundromat at all open hours. After hours gas operation had been eliminated from the new plan.

The Board asked if a business analysis had specifically addressed the need for a third Laundromat in Henniker. Tad Schrantz advised the analysis had been completed and determined that Henniker had a need for an additional Laundromat. Discussion continued regarding the parking and peak hours for a Laundromat. Tad Schrantz shared that 6 cars parked would be a full Laundromat and that there are nine parking spaces up front plus handicap. This parking would accommodate both the convenience store and Laundromat. Laundromat peak hours were reviewed to be weekend hours and after 5 pm on weeknights.

The vegetation buffer was discussed; it has increased from 10 feet to 30 feet with this revised proposed plan. The Board asked about the removal of fencing, and it was determined although it is not shown on the revised plan it certainly could be considered.

Discussion ensued to the architecturally adorned canopy. This canopy would have 6 columns for support, pitched roof with shingles, and a design that would be similar to that of the building. The canopy would be standard height with a new look.

Water and sewer departments would receive information with calculations of usage for their review prior or concurrently with a site plan application.

Lighting would be reduced due to the missing diesel canopy and the reduction of number of fixtures. However due to safety concerns the gasoline canopy would still be lit as the original plan.

The Board discussed concerns of increased traffic. Although the removal of diesel pumps could lessen traffic, it would be a minimal reduction. The Laundromat has the potential to provide a steady flow of traffic. Both internal and external traffic is a concern of The Board. Traffic study still recommends Concept B (there has been no changes to Concept B) to determine traffic configuration. Left turns are still are a concern. The shape of the site was discussed. Concern for traffic conflicts is a concern of The Board. It was noted The Highway Department had previously approved Concept B.

The Board voiced concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety. Particular concerns with the crossing of Rout 114, and the increased traffic that would use Hall Avenue. Hall Avenue is narrow with no sidewalks and commonly used by pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Planning Board reviewed their mission was to look at the site and the impact on the direct community, rather than what the town wants or needs for business. A concern of The Board is harmonious development for the residents of this area.

The nature of the site, proximity to residential area, existing traffic, increased traffic, and harmonious development is a concern. The intense uses outlined are problematic for a location that abuts a residential community.

The Conceptual Consultation ended. Judith Englander and Scott Osgood rejoined the board.

New Business

8:30 pm 1. Resignation and Appointment of Board Member

Karen Makocy Philbrick sent a letter of resignation. Laura Scott read the letter. Judith Englander will send a Thank you note and flowers to Karen

Gail Abramowicz was asked by the board to finish the remainder of Karen Makocy Philbrick’s term.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch to nominate Gail Abramowicz to finish the remainder of Karen Makocy Philbrick’s term. Seconded by Scott Osgood Johnston and approved unanimously.

8:40 p.m. 2. Election of officers

Geoffrey Hirsch announced that he would be resigning as Chairman. The Board would like Scott Osgood to fill this role.

MOTION made by Thea Braiterman to nominate Scott Osgood to be Chairman of The Board for the year 2004. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

The Board would like Cordell Johnston to continue as Vice Chairman of the Board for the upcoming year.

MOTION made by Judith Englander nominating Cordell Johnston to continue as Vice Chairman of The Board for the year 2004. Seconded by Thea Braiterman and approved unanimously.

The Board would like Judith Englander to continue as Secretary of The Board for the upcoming year.

MOTION made by Geoffrey Hirsch nominating Judith Englander to continue as Secretary of The Board for the year 2004. Seconded by Thea Braiterman and approved unanimously.

8:50 pm 3. Chapter 203 and Chapter 133

The books are back from the printer and have been mailed to Board Members. The books are also available at The Town Hall for purchase.

8:55 pm 4. Work Session – topics for discussion

The Board reviewed a list of subjects to be prioritized for the upcoming sessions. The Board also reviewed and discussed the areas they would Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant to focus on.

9:40 pm 5. Zoning Sub Committee

The Board discussed the need for a Zoning Sub Committee to look at Henniker’s Zoning. The Board decided that the sub committee would be comprised of Gail Abramowicz, Geoffrey Hirsch, and Kristen Claire.

9:50 pm 6. Alternate position available on The Planning Board

The Board discussed the open position and the candidates. The Board decided to offer the to Don Armstrong.

MOTION was made by Judith Englander to nominate Don Armstrong for the available Alternate position on The Planning Board. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

Old Business

10:00 pm Downtown Parking meeting request

The meeting request to The Selectmen to schedule has been postponed until The Selectmen have obtained data regarding the downtown parking spaces.

Correspondence

10:05 pm Laura Scott summarized the correspondence received.

Planning Board Report

10:20 pm Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be April 14, 2004 at 7:00 pm unless otherwise posted.

MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Gail and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 10:30 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

TOWN OF HENNIKER

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

February 25, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Guests Present:

John Kjellman, Eleanor Kjellman, Michele Perkins, Gary Harper, Kevin Cormier, and Kathy Wallace.

Meeting called to order by Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman at 6:05 p.m.

Kristin Claire will be a voting member of The Board in Place of Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Minutes

Review of December 10, 2003 Draft 2 Meeting Minutes.

A motion was made by Judith Englander to approve the December 10, 2003 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously with one abstention, Thea Braiterman.

Review of January 7, 2004 Draft 2 Meeting Minutes.

A motion was made by Judith Englander to approve the January 7, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously with one abstention, Thea Braiterman.

Review of January 14, 2004 Draft 2 Meeting Minutes.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the January 14, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously with one abstention, Thea Braiterman.

Review of January 28, 2004 Draft 2 Meeting Minutes.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the January 28, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously with one abstention, Thea Braiterman.

Review of February 11, 2004 Draft 2 Meeting Minutes.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the February 11, 2004 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Conceptual Consultation

7:15 pm

1. Site Plan for Map 1, Lot 25; 24 Hemlock Loop; Riding Arena

The Board discussed the definitions of agriculture use and of a home business. The Board decided this use is within the spirit of agriculture use.

The Board further explained the distinction between conceptual consultation and approval of site plans. The process of Site Plan Review was explained.

7:54 pm

2. Site Plan for New England College

Jim McElroy recused.

Kevin Cormier, Vice President for Finance and Operations at New England College overviewed the potential project and the concept of using modular buildings. He reviewed footprint challenges and the need to increasing college housing to meeting the growing enrollment projections.

The Board discussions reviewed landscape buffers, traffic, aesthetic appearance, site locations, noise impact, parking concerns, and water and sewer lines. New England College said they were open to many ideas and looking at all options. They requested this consultation in order to plan for future fall semester challenges in the upcoming year(s).

The Board expressed little or no objection to modular buildings if harmonious with the town. The Board expressed concerns about such buildings facing the town or Western Avenue, and preferred to them on other college land. The concerns included traffic and noise.

Public Hearings

8:58 pm

1. The proposed Planning Board Site Review Regulations revised February 25, 2004 Draft.

The Board discussed the area of Harmonious Development extensively and the challenges this topic presents. Many aspects were discussed and it was determined that Conceptual Consultation was the intended forum to provide the applicant with the intent and spirit of The Site Plan Review Regulations.

John Kjellman stated that he does not feel the Conceptual Consultation provides clear guidance to the applicant. The Board discussed that Conceptual Consultation allows the applicant to discuss their proposed plan with The Planning Board, and the opportunity to make adjustments prior to The Site Plan Review process. The Board further explained there are minimum requirements that an applicant must have on file before an application will be scheduled for Public Hearing.

Eleanor Kjellman spoke about the perception an applicant leave with from a Conceptual Consultation. Additionally, she is concerned that the issues and challenges, of the site plan may not be clearly defined for the applicant. She suggested a polling of The Board to identify each board members’ concerns and/or position. The Board discussed consistency and its prudence. Further discussed the process and reasons for recusal. The Board reviewed that recusal happens when a member of the board has a preconceived notion of bias or professional affiliation to the applicant or a peculiar interest.

The Board reviewed the proposed language and some editorial corrections were made.

John and Eleanor Kjellman both had questions about noise pollution and the objectivity of noise measurement. Cordell Johnston explained that adequate provisions had been established in the section named "Noise," to minimize or control noise.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to adopt The Site Plan Review Regulations as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

New Business

10:18 pm 1. Planning Board Rules of Procedure

The Board decided that Cordell Johnston would rewrite a draft of the by-laws, and present them at the April 14, 2004 Planning Board Work Session.

10:26 pm 2. Public Hearing Notices in newspapers

Laura Scott asked The Board if they would like The Public Hearing Notice to go to another newspaper other than the Concord Monitor, the current paper used for this purpose. The Board discussed that the Concord Monitor was the paper of record and felt if the notice was going to one newspaper it should be the Concord Monitor. Placing The Public Hearing Notice in the Concord Monitor will continue to be the practice and policy. No changes made.

Old Business

10:39 pm 1. Downtown Parking meeting request

Parking issues and concerns will be discussed at a meeting with The Selectmen, using The Master Plan as a base. This meeting will be scheduled in April 2004. Please email all proposed topics to Laura Scott.

Correspondence

10:46 pm - Laura Scott summarized the correspondence received.

Planning Board Report

Laura Scott asked the board if they would like the Site Plan Applications and Fact Sheet to be updated to reflect the approved regulations. The Board agreed this was needed, and asked Laura Scott how this would be accomplished. She advised she would do the formatting and updating of the above forms.

Laura Scott asked if The Board would like a copy of a site plan application cover sheet to be added to the abutters’ notification. The Board agreed they would like the abutters’ to receive a copy of the plan’s cover sheet.

Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be March 24, 2004 at 7:00 pm.

Eleanor Kjellman asked The Board if she could discuss the process of recusal. The Board agreed and there was a discussion of the process.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Geoffrey Hirsch and approved unanimously.

Meeting Adjourned at 11:10 pm.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

February 11, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Board Member; Karen Makocy Philbrick, Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Alternate; Gail Abramowicz, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Ray Bigwood, Angela Robinson, Terry Stamps, Bob Stamps, Matt Cottle, Brian Godfrey, Leon Parker, Jennifer McCourt, Thomas Patenaude, Caleb Dobbins, Tami Corbett, Kirk Abbott, Allen Wilson, John Kjellman, Keith Testa, Barney Starmer, Roni Hardy, Denise Rico, Tad Schrantz, David Quinn, Randy Bragdon, Cathy Mayne, Jack Bopp, Ruth Zax, Karen Yborra, and Jay Zax.

Meeting called to order by Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

The Board decided not to review the meeting minutes from December 10, 2003, January 7, 2004, January 14, 2004, January 27, 2004, and February 11, 2004 at the February 25, 2004 meeting. The Board also decided to meet an hour earlier on February 25, 2004 to review the minutes. The Board was reminded that the March 10, 2004 meeting would be cancelled due to the Town Meeting.

Application for A Minor Subdivision submitted by Ray Bigwood, to consider a proposal of a subdivision of 15.25 acres into a separate lots. The property is located on Morse Road, Map 1 Lot 730-B, in the Rural Residential Zone.

Geoffrey Hirsch stated that James McElroy is a voting member in place of Rachel Lehr and Gail Abramowicz is an alternate member of the Board.

Laura Scott stated the application is complete. Al Wilson was present to speak on behalf of Ray Bigwood. He reviewed the plan to subdivide this 15.25-acre lot into two separate lots. Both lots would have frontage on Hunter Road a town maintained, class five road.

A motion was made by Karen Makocy Philbrick to accept the application as complete. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.

Joan O’Connor mentioned there was rookery (birds) in this general area. Ray Bigwood said there are very few left in this area.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the application. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Application for A Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Subdivision submitted by Keach-Nordstrom Associates, Inc. on behalf of Patenaude Properties to consider a proposed Lot Line Adjustment of 95 and 95A and to create a new house lot on the northern portion of the Open Space Subdivision Parcel. The property is located on Davison Road, Map 2, Lot 95 and 95-A in the Residential Neighborhood Zone.

Scott Osgood recused himself from this Public Hearing and Gail Abramowicz will be a voting member for this hearing.

Laura Scott stated the application fee has been paid and the application is still awaiting the Revised Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. Jennifer McCourt stated the Revised Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions had been submitted when the application fees were paid. It was determined that the application is complete.

Jennifer McCourt stated the settlement documents are enclosed in the packet and she reviewed the lot line adjustment plan.

The easement currently needed on Lot 95 for the well on Lot 95-A will no longer be needed if this application is accepted.

In the near future a voluntary merger will be performed to combine Lot 95 and the Corbett’s Lot.

The Corbett’s Lot will go from two acres to a little over three acres.

After this application is approved and the voluntary merger is completed, the number of lots at Hilltop Estates will be 27. The same number of lots that were on the original approved subdivision plan.

Lot 95-A will have the required 50-foot buffer zone.

The voluntary merger will eliminate Lot 95 from Hilltop Estates and a new lot will be created within the open space development.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

Jennifer McCourt reviewed The Revised Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions.

Kirk Abbott asked where it is mandated that the voluntary merger must happen? It was explained that item 5 of The Revised Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions outlines that if the voluntary merger does not happen within 60 days of the sale then the subdivision would revert back to the original approved subdivision.

Cordell Johnston stated that an approval from the Planning Board could include conditions for the approval of the application; specifically they could outline the time frame.

Caleb Dobbins asked if there was an easier way for the applicant to accomplish this action?

Tammy Corbett stated this plan has been created in good faith, and if they could have found an easier solution they would have proceed with it.

Geoffrey Hirsch stated that he has grave concerns with a developer changing the number of lots and the recovery of a lot, after an approved site plan was in place. He questioned if this is this setting a dangerous precedent by the Planning Board for future and existing site plans. This also appears to be against the spirit of the site plan review process. If a developer can change the number of lots to obtain an additional lot after the selling of a lot, could this be used for monetary gain?

Jennifer McCourt explained this plan was devised, as an equitable way for the Corbett’s to increase their land. They want to be good neighbors of the community.

James McElroy asked the purchase price listed in the settlement is a fair price for this parcel of land.

Chris McAllister stated that the developer is giving this parcel of land and not making any money other than the cost for the engineered drawings and cost associated with making the lot line adjustment and making a minor subdivision happen in an effort to be a good neighbor.

Geoffrey Hirsch advised the Board needs not be privy to monetary exchanges and it should not affect the Board’s decisions.

Gail Abramowicz stated she did not think the Board decisions should hinge on the concern of setting precedence.

John Kjellman asked if the original site plans contained 28 lots rather than 27 lots would the plan still have been approved?

Leon Parker clarified that there is not an additional buildable lot or another house site with this change.

Kirk Abbott stated this plan would allow his neighbor a buffer for peace and quiet, without this adjustment his neighbor’s peace will be impacted. Tami Corbett agreed with Kirk Abbott and expressed concerns of increased lightning impacting the back of their home and way of life.

Caleb Dobbins asked about the buffer for Lot 95-A, and it was determined that buffers would be in place for all lots involved.

Chris McAllister commented the developer is not making any extra money with Lot 95 and there will be no additional lots in the development.

Thea Braiterman asked is if this is an amended application and is there any reason why it shouldn’t be viewed in this manner?

Public Hearing is closed.

Cordell Johnston commented that although he appreciates the concerns raised, the applicant has not looking to increase profit. They are working with a neighbor as a result of a lawsuit and this could be a reasonable solution.

Geoffrey Hirsch stated that an additional lot does not have to be part of the solution.

Karen Makocy Philbrick clarified that there are two distinct changes. The first is a reconfiguration of one lot and the second is the creation of a new lot. Geoffrey Hirsch stated his issue is the additional lot.

Judith Englander commented that this plan has human factors. In this particular situation alleviating an unpleasant impact to the Corbett’s. Judith Englander continued and suggested that in this particular situation the Board should take human factors into consideration.

Karen Makocy Philbrick stated that the open space is being compromised however, in an odd way the open space does become more accessible.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the application for A Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Subdivision as presented. Seconded by Karen Makocy Philbrick and approved, 6 in favor and 1 opposed.

A continued Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review application submitted on behalf of Cheshire Oil Co., proposing to construct and operate a T-Bird Mini Mart at the corner of Hall Avenue and Post Office Place. The property is owned by Albert and Alice Norton and located at Map 2 Lot 187 A in the Medium Commercial(CM) Zoning District.

Judith Englander and Scott Osgood have recused themselves. Gail Abramowicz will be a voting member for this public hearing.

Laura Scott stated that there were revised plans in the packet. Additionally, there are letters from Angela Robinson and Joan O’Connor, Terry and Bob Stamps, Jack Bopp and Caleb Dobbins. Laura Scott reviewed and clarified several issues in the letter submitted by Caleb Dobbins.

Cordell Johnston questioned if the lot size and paving patterns were factors in the discussion of Special Exceptions? Leon Parker stated that the lot size and the paving pattern were not part of the discussion for the special exception. Conversation continued and there was a letter from the applicant that mentions fifty percent would be impervious. Laura Scott stated the letter in question is part of the application and it meets the lot size concerns. This was not relevant to the Special Exemption. Leon Parker reaffirmed that lot size was not a factor in the discussion of the Special Exemption.

Geoffrey Hirsch clarified this agenda item was continued from the January 14, 2004 meeting. The public hearing had previously been closed and the Board was at the deliberation stage.

James McElroy clarified that revised plans replace the previous plans; therefore the application is still completed. This was affirmed.

Geoffrey Hirsch stated that the Board had two options. The first is conditional approval and the second is disapproval if the application does not satisfy the Standards of Review (there are 16 regulations).

It was determined the Board would go through the regulations one at a time to guide their deliberations.

Landscaping – The applicant may remove and replace existing trees as required for aesthetic and safety purposes. Trees that are disturbed by construction may also be replaced. Additionally, there needs to be a note added to the landscape plan that outlines this is the plan.

Buffers – Shiplap fencing and trees are adequate commented Gail Abramowicz. James McElroy stated that page 4 shows the proposed fencing and buffering. Further discussion indicated that the plans from Cheshire Oil and the concerns from the public have been heard by the Board. Several concerns have been raised with respect to noise and lightning and the impact to the community. Thea Braiterman commented that it appears buffers have been addressed as adequately as possible. Cordell Johnston stated he has concerns that include the buffers, but cross over to a number of other regulations. Cordell Johnston continued to explain that his concerns spill over to traffic, noise, and lightning. Further discussion continued. Topics included that the traffic congestion and volume are a special concern, noise, primarily from idling vehicles at the drive through facility in the early morning hours, (5:00 am and 6:00 am) is a concern, and that it is not clear to the Board how fencing and vegetative buffers are going to handle these concerns. Both Karen Makocy Philbrick and Geoffrey Hirsch voiced they had concerns with buffers. Furthermore, they share Cordell Johnston’s statement that concerns with buffers spill over to many other regulations.

Parking, loading, and access- Discussion determined the site plan with respect to the number of spaces and location for off street parking is in line with the zoning. Off street loading and unloading was discussed. Thea Braiterman shared safety concerns of traffic congestion as vehicles travel to the different service areas (fuel, car wash, Dunkin Donuts, and the convenience store). Further discussion determined the area maybe too small for the traffic congestion and queuing within the site. Discussion continued regarding the delivery of diesel fuel and delivery of supplies for the Dunkin Donuts and convenience store and the conflicts that could arise from these necessary deliveries.

Sidewalks- The plan indicates how the sidewalks have been moved to accommodate curb cuts. Laura Scott requested a cross section be added to the sidewalk plan. Discussion continued on how the sidewalks could help or hinder the safety of those who are navigating their way to the post office. Continued conversation pointed out safety concerns for the community.

Lighting and Signs- Laura Scott stated the applicant needs a permit for a sign and a driveway permit. The Board of selectman have given the applicant permission to maintain the town property, however not the "Welcome to Henniker" signs. Discussion clarified the applicant is not responsible for maintaining that sign. Cordell Johnston voiced lighting is a concern, the main canopy has 12 lights and there are an additional 4 on the diesel pumps. Conversation noted that the lighting needs to be decreased to lessen the effects to the community. The canopy is 14 feet high, and the question was raised as to if this is standard or can it be lower? This would diminish the emphasis of the canopy and decrease the impact to the community. Aesthetic concerns of the canopy were outlined. Discussion as to what materials that can be used to help the canopy mesh into the rural setting of the community. Two signs were discussed one for Dunkin Donuts and the other for the T-Bird store in front to advertise all services on Maple Street. Laura Scott stated she would need the sign dimensions, noted on the plans.

Screening- Trash Dumpster needs to be screened, it was determined the plan is adequate.

Traffic – Karen Makocy Philbrick shares concerns about traffic, particularly the exiting traffic from the site to Route 114 and the congestion this will cause. Members of the Board agree and share these concerns. The DOT application has been made. There is an expectation that the plan will be approved. DOT is asking for construction drawings. Cheshire has been awaiting the Board’s approval before the construction drawing is started and submitted. Cordell Johnston noted concerns about the potential for increased conflicts as the result of left turns exiting the drive to Route 114. He continued to share concerns about the increased traffic. Discussion continued regarding existing concerns in this area. Conversation continued about eliminating the drive through. Increase of traffic on Hall Avenue is of particular concern as the road is narrow, has no sidewalk, and is a residential area that will be impacted by the increase of traffic. Gail Abramowicz stated the Board should use the DOT plan as the answer to traffic concerns. Karen Makocy Philbrick stated the Board has a responsibility to review traffic as part of the Standards of Review. Traffic plans have been denied in the past due to the conflicts that could arise on Route 114. Additionally, the concern of a driveway on Route 114 is a grave concerns of the Board especially the left turning traffic. The statement "a reasonable person could conclude that the traffic would cause concerns," was discussed as a historical concern and, as a measure the concern.

Water and sewage – That will be deferred directly to the decision of the water and sewage department.

Pedestrian and bicycle safety- this regulation overlaps the sidewalk regulation, further discussion regarding sidewalks continues. Increased width of the road and increased traffic makes it difficult to cross Route 114. Increase in traffic is a safety concern for Hall Street pedestrians.

Fire safety – Fire Department has reviewed and signed off. Letter on file that this commercial structure will meet all Fire and State Building codes.

Consistency with Master Plan – The plan is an advisory document. The document is intended to reflect the town’s rural character to be intertwined with commercial development reflects the rural culture. Cordell Johnston noted that the Planning Board’s scope was not to decide if Henniker has enough convenience stores, gas stations, and/or donut shops, but to look at the impact of this site plan to the community.

Harmonious development- Thea Braiterman commented that the property values on Hall Avenue would decline due to this project. Gail Abramowicz stated that a gas station is a typical entryway to many towns. Karen Makocy Philbrick stated that a gas station, car wash, convenience store, and donut shop would all be on a small piece of land in a residential environment. This is an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Cordell Johnston stated he had similar concerns about aesthetics, hours of operation; however there could be ways to do this that would be acceptable. Such as smaller store, eliminate the drive up window and a single fueling area on the South side of the store. In an effort to be consistent and harmonious the development of this location needs to be less intense and less ambitious. The intensity of uses (gas station, donut shop, car wash, diesel filling, and convenience store), combination of elements, and proximity to residential area of the site impacts many. This intense use of this particular location is problematic due to the nature of the residential community that abuts this location. Gail Abramowicz encouraged that maybe a reduction of services would make this a more harmonious relationship.

Control of elements of pollution- Karen Makocy Philbrick stated that if there were a spill that needs to be taken care of during the night this would be a huge concern. The plan presented needs an attendant to take action and based on the hours of operation that is not always available. Noise and smoke of idling vehicles will impact the residential community especially in the early morning hours.

On-site and off-site improvements- these improvements have been discussed and/or been addressed with other departments adequately.

Erosion and sedimentation control plan – Plan is on file and the plan was reviewed.

Flood Hazard areas – The location of the site is not in a flood zone.

Discussion continued. Suggestions were made such as a smaller operation, no drive up window, reduced lightning, shrink size of paved area, limit the hours of operation, and/or moving the entire site closer to Route 114 to reduce the impact to the residential population. Conversation continued and Thea Braiterman asked, what would be the method for conclusion? Laura Scott suggested the Board ask the applicant if they are will to make concessions.

Geoffrey Hirsch asked the applicant if they were willing to eliminate Dunkin Donuts, (as the applicant mentioned that they can not build a Dunkin Donuts without a Drive Through)? The applicant advised they would not be willing to eliminate the Dunkin Donuts.

The applicant was asked if they were willing to eliminate the car wash and/or diesel filling area? The applicant advised they would be willing to remove one.

The applicant was asked if they were willing to change the hours of operation? The applicant advised they were willing to remove the 24-hour availability but not change the hours of operation of 5:00 am to 11:00 pm.

The applicant was asked if they were willing to look at changing the canopy with options that flow better within a rural setting? The applicant advised they were willing to research those options and find a canopy that would work better with a rural setting.

The applicant stated that after two years of work on this application that to hear the plan is too intense is frustrating. Cordell Johnston reviewed the process and explained once an application is submitted and determined to be complete, the Board must withhold comment until the deliberative session. Conceptual consultation is an available process to applicants prior to application, to diminish those types of frustrations.

Thea Braiterman stated that it was time to move forward.

A motion was made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the application subject to state and town permit approvals, the removal of diesel, eliminating the 24-hour option, extending the sidewalk around Route 114 and Post Office Place, and redesigning the canopy. Seconded by James McElroy the motion fails 1 in favor and 5 opposed.

Laura Scott clarified the process and explained the procedure the Board needed to follow at this time.

The Board reviewed their reasons for the application failing to meet the Standards of Review.

The following regulations were not met:

203-27 Harmonious Development - The intensity of uses (gas station, donut shop, car wash, diesel filling, and convenience store), combination of elements, and proximity to residential area of the site impacts many. This intense use of this particular location is problematic due to the nature of the residential community that abuts this location.

203-17 Buffers – Inadequate buffers to deal with the many uses (gas station, donut shop, car wash, diesel filling, and convenience store), by the nature of the plan as presented to exist within a residential area.

203-22 Traffic – There are internal traffic concerns with congestion, turning, and queuing at the location. Concern for increased conflicts, as the result of left turns, exiting the driveway onto Route 114 in the North direction. Increased traffic on Hall Avenue is also a concern.

203-24 Pedestrian and bicycle safety - Increased width of the road and increased traffic makes it difficult to cross Route 114. Additionally, increased traffic is a safety concern for Hall Street pedestrians.

203-28 Control of elements of pollution - Noise and smoke of idling vehicles will impact the residential community especially in the early morning hours.

203-20 Lighting and signs – Illumination of the building and canopy impacting the residential area.

A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to deny the application for failure to meet Standards of Review; 203-27 Harmonious Development, 203-17 Buffers, 203-22 Traffic, 203-24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, 203-28 Control of Elements of Pollution, and 203-20 Lighting and Signs. Seconded by James McElroy motion passes 5 in favor 1 opposed.

Correspondence-

Laura Scott summarized the correspondence received.

Planning Board Report-

Laura Scott outlined the proposed agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting will be February 25, 2004 and will begin one hour earlier at 6:00 pm.

A motion was made by Karen Makocy Philbrick to adjourn meeting. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

January 28, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Board Member; Karen Makocy Philbrick, Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Alternate; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Mark Mitch, Tom Watman, Martha Sunderland, Denise Rico, and Cathy Mayne

Meeting called to order by Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

Review of draft minutes from January 7, 2004.

The Board decided to postpone the review of minutes until after the Public Hearings.

The Board stated that the Proposed Warrant Articles for the 2004 March Town Meeting and need to be filed with the Town Clerk by February 3, 2004.

Public Hearings

1. Proposal to amend, add, and/or delete the following definitions in Article II, section 133-3 of the Zoning Ordinance – Cluster Housing, Conventional Development, Mobil Homes, Pre-Site Built Housing, Drive-Through Facility, Elderly Housing, Manufactured Housing, and Student Residence.

Thea Braiterman mentioned there could be a commentary and/or explanation prior to each article for educational purposes. Geoffrey Hirsch and Cordell Johnston both agreed this is correct. The Board agreed that an explanation to inform the public of the purpose of the articles would be written by Cordell Johnston prior to filing with the Town Clerk.

Cordell Johnston clarified that the articles context could not be changed, however editorial changes could be made.

The Board reviewed the proposed language and some editorial corrections were made.

A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to accept the definition additions, changes, and deletions as amended. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously.

2. Proposal to amend section 133-112 and 133-113 of Article XXIII Wetlands Conservation Zoning Ordinance.

The Board reviewed the proposed language and some editorial corrections were made.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the proposal as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

3. Proposal to amend sections 133-34 the Education District Zoning District.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the proposal. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved, 6 in favor with 1 abstention.

The Board discussed adding a quote from New England College to the article for the Henniker Herald. James McElroy will contact New England College to see if they would be interested and obtain a quote. This will need to be completed by the end of this week.

Public Hearing was suspended to discuss the Land Use Change Tax.

The public hearing was suspended to address a point brought by the Conservation Commission to discuss the Land Use Change Tax. The Board asked about the procedure and the timing of adding this to the 2004 March Town Meeting. Laura Scott reviewed the procedure and options available to the Board if they chose to support the Land Use Change Tax. The purpose of the Land Use Change Tax is to preserve and/or conserve the open land of the community. Kristin Claire will verify the time frame available to bring this to the 2004 March Town Meeting. Kristin Claire will work directly with the Conservation Commission to have the warrant ready for next Tuesday. The Board concluded the warrant wording needs to be direct and simple. Discussion continued, the Board encourages that information be solicited from abutting communities that are successful with the land use tax change. The Conservation Commission will create Flyers to support the proposal. The Board discussed the need to be clear to the public that the money generated from this tax is not budgeted, however it does become revenue for the following year. There was further discussion regarding the objections this would raise with the Budget Committee.

There was a brief discussion regarding civil tones at all meetings and respect for other persons, committees, or other boards.

Public Hearing resumed as directed by Geoffrey Hirsch.

4. Proposal to adopt, pursuant to RSA 674:21, an Impact Fee Ordinance that would allow the planning board to develop and impose a fee/assessment upon new development to help pay for capital expenditures.

The Board reviewed the proposed language and some editorial corrections were made.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the proposal as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

5. Proposal to adopt, pursuant to RSA 674:22, a Growth Management Ordinance that would limit the amount of new residential building permits for new lots to an annual limitation of 1.5%.

The Board reviewed the Findings of Fact and some editorial corrections were made.

Documents that pertain to public hearings are available at the Town Hall for the general public to review. It was also deemed important to have a few copies available at the corresponding public hearing.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the proposal as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Public Hearing Closed.

Correspondence

Laura Scott advised there was no new correspondence to present.

Planning Board Report

Laura Scott mentioned that she was still working on a library of information and asked if any board members had borrowed any materials could they please return them.

A motion was made by Scott Osgood to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

January 14, 2004

Town Hall

Members Present:

Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Board Member; Karen Makocy Philbrick, Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Alternate; Gail Abramowicz, Alternate; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.

Guests Present:

Terry Stamps, Bob Stamps, Lloyd Henderson, Todd Clark, Matt Cottle, Brian Godfrey, Pete Clary, David Quinn, Judi Partridge, John Partridge, Mark Fusio, Tad Schrantz, Chris Tattersall, Dan Barnard, Randy Bragdon, John Kjellman, Rick Patenaude, Jennifer McCourt, Steve Pernaw, Barbara Abbott, Eleanor Kjellman, Jay Zax, Ruth Zax, Caleb Dobbins, Gail Kennedy, Tami Corbett, Don Armstrong, Joan O’Connor, Thomas Foster, Jack Bopp. One guest signature illegible.

Meeting called to order by Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman at 7:00 p.m.

Geoffrey Hirsch reminds people that no new business will be taken up after 10:00 pm. Judith Englander clarified the definition of new business.

Tabled the review of minutes from December 10, 2003.

Review of December 22, 2004 Minutes and made changes.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the 12/22/03 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

Public Hearings

1a) Lighting 1b) Traffic

1c) Landscaping 1d) Other Items

Scott Osgood, Judith Englander, and Kristin Claire recused.

Reminder Jim McElroy is a voting member of the board in place of Rachel Lehr. Gail Abramowicz will be a voting member for this hearing.

Landscaping

Randy Bragdon reviewed the revised landscaping plan. He talked about removing shrubs and replacing them with perennial planting beds. He also discussed clustering the trees around the perimeter of the land. Maple Street entrance would be a stone area. He also displayed a list of native trees and perennial that they would use to landscape the property in response to public request. He also reviewed the employee parking area

Laura Scott reported that permission had been granted by the Board of Selectmen to allow Cheshire Oil to landscape the town land and the right of way. Cheshire Oil would then be obligated to maintain the landscaping of town land and the right of way.

Gail Abramowicz asked if the trees along Hall Street with pink tags are going to stay or be removed. She understood originally they were stay however the new plan indicates they are going to be removed and replaced with new landscaping. In response, it was discussed that some trees would be removed and others would stay in order to buffer the property. Karen Macoky Philbrick clarified to understand some trees would be removed and replaced with new healthy trees that provide increased screening coverage.

Geoffrey Hirsch suggested the applicant present all of his information prior to opening the floor for public comment.

Lighting Plan

Laura Scott said that there is a full lighting plan in the Planning Board packet and there is a half lighting plan on file.

Dan Barnard advised that there are 250-watt bulbs in all the fixtures in the canopy. Perimeter lighting has 250-watt bulbs also. Conversation went on to discuss how the light would be distributed and how it would be cut off. Discussion included how many foot-candles at various sites and how the optics would be cut off. It was explained how the when looking straight ahead and the light would cut off and you would not see the fixture. The light was shielded on the West and North side of the property. It was asked if the lighting plan took the fence and trees into consideration and it was advised that it does not. The trees and fence are in addition to the angle cutoff. Light from the inside of the store would spill out onto the gas pumps that the windows face. The only other window is the drive through window. Coming out under the lighting of the canopy the stores lighting would not be noticeable.

Traffic

Steven Pernaw reviewed the traffic plan. There are two plans Concept A and Concept B. Both concepts are developed to mitigating disperse the impact of traffic for this proposed project.

Concept A works fine and Concept B has an island for turning. The Highway Safety Committee advised that Concept B was going to be recommended to the Selectman. The applicant is awaiting the final Planning Board approval before the final drawing of Concept B is completed and submitted to DOT. Cordell Johnston asked about increase in traffic? It was advised the traffic study was prepared with no bias and very conservative. Conversation continued to discuss the change of curve radius according to DOT recommendations. Discussion turned to the sidewalk pattern it was determined there would not be any significant changes to the existing pattern as the ramp lines up with the crosswalk with minor adjustments. Cordell Johnston would like to discuss the projections of traffic volume. Page 21 of the report was reference and reviewed. From an operational stand point the applicant says you will not see a difference. DOT studies were from several days and several hours. This development will not create a significant increase in the traffic flow. However you will see an increase in turns. Heavy southbound traffic into retail shops that are located across from the proposed site makes Concept B desirable. Concept B is above and beyond what is needed based on number however the applicant will do either. The traffic consultant advises Concept B is his recommendation.

Jim McElroy asked the traffic consultant if pedestrian traffic was considered in the study. It was shared that during the study they witnessed one or two pedestrians and the occasional pet owner. Don Barnard pointed out that information and evidence determined that the crosswalks would keep pedestrians safe. Karen Makocy Philbrick asked if other Cheshire Oil sites had an increase in pedestrian traffic, such as Antrim. It was determined that Antrim’s site was a downtown location and not a good comparison.

Cordell Johnston asked if the traffic plan could be amended to exclude the driveway on Route 114, as the concern is the left turn that would interfere with Post Office Place. Thea Braiterman shared that she felt this would create greater problems for the town. Steven Pernaw advised against one drive, as this would require all traffic to enter and exit at one location. Geoffrey Hirsch pointed out if there was a breakdown this could be a potential problem. Steven Pernaw advised against over-regulating traffic and that it is advantageous to give people a choice.

Jim McElroy asked that given the rate of a car every 2 minutes is it likely that cars will stack on a site where the volume is relatively low? Capacity calculation in the study Don Barnard prepared, determines an average level of service that will make this plan work.

Pete Cleary concerned about traffic on Route 114, this location is very close to Post Office Place that struggles with increased traffic. This creates another point of conflict. He asked many questions and wanted to understand the coordination with DOT and the efforts with respect to final plans. And will the subsequent review be extensive? It was understood that the final submitted plan would be cursory.

Don Barnard said that the lateral separations in both Concept A and B meet the guidelines and requirements of DOT. This is another argument to let traffic seek equilibrium.

Cordell Johnston asked if there was a breakdown of trips that are attributed to the store, gas pumps, and Dunkin Donuts. Don Barnard said that the breakdowns could be seen on page 19 and reviewed those numbers.

Public hearing opened.

Laura Scott clarified that the process would be to go through the topics one at a time.

Landscaping

Bob Stamps advised that the trees on Hall Avenue have high branches and this would provide screening. Wanted to know why they just would not add additional trees? It was stated that Cheshire Oil are willing to do whatever the Board wants.

Judith Englander asked if the root system would be disrupted. Caleb Dobbins advised the root system on one side would be disrupted and that the trees could fall over. Jennifer McCourt points out this could cause a safety issue for the town. She also pointed out this could take a year or two before the trees fall advising this makes a good argument for removing the existing trees. Gail Abramowicz concurs that the trees should come down and replaced with new trees.

Ruth Zax said perennials would be a good mix for an aesthetics purpose, however, would not offer a buffer.

Laura Scott reported that a local plant list has been provided by the applicant for the file.

Terry Stamps noted the shift from the shrubs to perennials. Gail Abramowicz suggested annuals would help. Eleanor Kjellman wanted to remind all that the prime motivation for landscaping was to buffer the land Hall Ave. The buffering should take precedence over the look. Gail Abramowicz suggested looking at plants from the New England area. The list created and handed out earlier contains plants native to New England and will grow in this climate.

John Kjellman mentioned at an earlier meeting some type of evergreen tree with height of 10-15 feet high was discussed. New England Cypress was suggested. Thea Braiterman suggested leaving the final decision of landscaping open, as there are so many points of view. Laura Scott advises the landscaping, as part of the Site Plan, needs to be approved but there could be room for accommodations. If there is no plan to be approved then there isn't any recourse. Discussion further suggested that there could be a list of plants, with an approved quantity of plant, and guidelines for placement of said plants. Don Armstrong suggested numbers be included on the plan. Gail Kennedy suggested consulting the Merrimack County Forester or UNH Cooperative Extension and asks the question what are the species best used to fit in the area to accomplish buffering and the aesthetic presence. Further discussion was the organization could assess the health of the existing trees.

Lighting

Bob Stamps mentioned the lighting changes at the Mobil Station and wanted to know how relative this lighting plan is and the hours of operation this site. Gail Abramowicz said the Mobil station has 400-watt bulbs and this location has 250 watt bulbs will be utilized. There is a relative likeness. Readings were taken at the Mobil station and this plan was designed to keep the brightness less than the Mobil station. It was asked if the readings were taken before or after half the lighting was disabled. It was mentioned that lighting is dependent upon weather conditions. However, the light meter was used under the canopy and it was determined that the lighting would be cut in half. Laura Scott advised the canopy lights would be decreased by 50 percent when the store was closed. The hours the store will be closed and the gas pumps still accessible would be from 11:30 pm to 4:30 am.

Jay Zax said that it is well documented that this site drops in elevation. He did not see where the landscaped plan addresses this elevation drop. In respect to lighting, what role does the loss of elevation affect the poles and moving traffic lights? Northwest to Southeast corner slopes down approximately 18 feet. This drop will create an advantageous position for homes positioned above the fixture, therefore above the cutoff level that angles the light path. Influence of lighting will be limited. Laura Scott stated that the lighting plan does not take calculations into account that the landscaping and other buffers provide. Gail Abramowicz clarified with Jay Zax asking if he was asking if the view of the site would be completely unseen or proposing the applicant completely cover the site. Mr. Jay Zax advised he does not expect the Berlin wall. However he does not believe all of the light will be directed away from his home. Ruth Zax advised this would impact the quality of their life. Caleb Dobbins asked that the drawing be clarified to show the path of the light.

Jack Bopp asks that the board simply apply the rules to ensure an adverse situation is not created. He understood the point of site plan regulations were to plan and develop the town properly to be safe and attractive. He does not want this site to become the brightest spot in town.

Gail Abramowicz responded explain that businesses are generally found in town and the board is taking the abutters into consideration.

Jack Bopp asked about the reflection of light off the building and reflection of light off the snow and how that affects the area. Jennifer McCourt asked if the lights on the building will be soffet lights and will they be shielded. Rick Patenaude was disappointed that Pat’s Peak was not the brightest spot in town. Moreover he wanted to point out the applicant is willing to do whatever it takes to minimize the impact. He advised that this applicant was trying to create a plan that makes sense, and is aesthetic for the community.

Jay Zax asked about the automobile lights and how those would be controlled it was advised that the eight-foot stockade fence would buffer those. Mr. Zax advised that the guest were at a disadvantage as not everyone can get to the town hall to review the plans and therefore they need to conceptualize. Geoffrey Hirsch displayed and reviewed the plan with those in attendance.

Traffic

Thea Braiterman asked what the operating hours of Dunkin Donuts and the car wash would be. Geoffrey Hirsch advised 5:00 am to 11:00 pm. Gail Abramowicz asked about the importance of having 24-hour credit card processing at the pump. Gail Abramowicz suggested eliminating the 24-hour credit card sales. Conversation continued regarding large trucks and large pieces of equipment that could stop for diesel. It was further discussed that there could be huge amounts of noise at the high volume diesel pumps. This would certainly be different than a passenger car that stops for gas.

Geoffrey Hirsch advised this is what the applicant has proposed in this application. The board can approve with conditions, but it is not productive to engage in what ifs that could happen.

John Kjellman advised he thought the point of diesel pumps was for SUV type of vehicles. It was pointed out that in past discussions there had been mention of ten wheelers using the pumps. Geoffrey Hirsch asked if the diesel tank size determine the size of the delivery trucks that refill the diesel tanks. It was advised that gasoline is delivered approximately every 2 weeks and diesel would be refilled once a month. Eleanor Kjellman asked if the board would vote on what may or may not stop for fuel in the middle of the night. Eleanor Kjelllman asked what the applicants are hoping for in sales with regards to diesel. It was explained that the applicant wants to satisfy the Henniker trade not necessarily the 18-wheeler trucks. Further pointed out Henniker would not be a place truckers would want to stop. Jack Bopp wanted to point out that when ten wheelers pull off for coffee at other service stations could cause issues in that area. What time frame are the traffic projections derive from. It was explained that it was a ten-year time frame of the surrounding areas and Henniker in general. Jack Bopp asked assuming the store grows will there be highway signage to advise of the store. Further discussion advised that Superior Court Judge Brennan held up the belief that an exit on Route 114 could create a safety concern by a reasonable person. If this plan creates a safety issue this does not meet site plan regulations.

Jennifer McCourt points out that the plans Mr. Pernaw submits do reflect growth. Additionally the DOT knows what makes sense. Ms. McCourt was advocating for Mr. Pernaw and his plan Concept B with expansion for what is coming in respect to further development. Splitting the traffic between two entrances is good because you don’t want to force traffic down Hall Ave. Scott Osgood asks what if traffic increases. Steve Pernaw advises that Concept B accommodates a higher volume and can handle traffic. Jay Zax asked about installing a traffic light and eliminating the exit onto Route 114. Steve Pernaw agrees this intersection is a candidate for a traffic light. However traffic light does not solve all problems and could create other issues. Steve Pernaw does suggest putting conduit underground in preparation for a future traffic light. Further discussion continued describing the pros and cons of installing a light, as well as the level of service that would result. Caleb Dobbins raised issues and had created a listing of engineering issues based on the study the applicant turned into DOT for review. This list was given to the board for review.

Conversation continued regarding the internal traffic pattern and the pattern for fuel delivery trucks. Thea Braiterman asked about the internal traffic queuing while waiting at the drive-thru. Was there ample room for waiting or getting through? Geoffrey Hirsch asked how would people get through and around the stacking. Laura Scott explained this site was assessed for cars moving internally. Traffic site study was done based on cars, not large trucks. The Route 114 access issues are reviewed by DOT. Discussed many options that could be asked by DOT. The engineers from HTA Tod Clark and Pete Cleary suggested the board ask the DOT what information they will look at and how they review this. The board should receive and review state comments on the design of the final plan. Assuming that DOT will not look at anything beyond their jurisdiction.

Jay Zax asked how far out do you go with traffic concerns 10, 25, or 40 years. Through conversation it was determined that the town’s master plan addresses a ten-year period. Therefore ten years would seem most appropriate. Jim McElroy also pointed out the capitol improvement process projects ten years.

John Kjellman notes this project has been in front of the board for a year and a half. Landowners want to sell and business wants to go in.

Caleb Dobbins advises this is not going to improve Route 114 but make it worse.

Water and Sewer approvals were questioned. Laura Scott explained Water and Sewer have a process that they need to go through. Approvals of this site plan would be contingent upon water and sewer application approvals.

Other Issues

John Kjellman asked if this would be the last public hearing. Geoffrey Hirsch said that that would be part of the board’s deliberations.

A motion was made by Thea Braiterman to close public hearing. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.

Public Hearing Closes

Geoffrey Hirsch asked if the board was ready to deliberate or do they need to ask more questions.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to continue this public hearing.

Jim McElroy clarified that the next public hearing would take up the 2 new applicants from tonight’s agenda that were continued and then continue with this hearing for Cheshire Oil Co.

Geoffrey Hirsch asked if the board wanted to go through the 16 regulations. Gail Abramowicz suggested the 16 regulations would be a good place to start at the continuance.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to continue this hearing until Feb 11, 2004. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.

Thea Braiterman excused herself from the meeting at 10:55 pm.

Judith Englander rejoined the board

Scott Osgood rejoined the board.

Application for A Minor Subdivision submitted by Ray Bigwood, to consider a proposal of a subdivision of 15.25 acres into 2 separate lots. The property is located on Morse Road, Map 1 Lot 730-B, in the Rural Residential Zone.

Laura Scott said that the abutters’ notice inadvertently went out in the regular mail. The notice to the abutters was resent return receipt, however, not all return receipts have come back. This application is deemed incomplete due to abutter notification and will be placed back on the agenda for the next public hearing.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to deem this application incomplete due to notification. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Laura Scott advised the notice that abutters receive inadvertently went out regular mail. The notice to the abutters was resent return receipt however not all return receipts have not come back. This application is deemed incomplete due to notification and will be placed back on the agenda for the next public hearing.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to deem this application incomplete due to notification. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

Old Business

Site Plan Review Regulations

Laura Scott asked if the Site Plan Review regulations could go to public hearing. Gail Abramowicz advised she was happy with it. Scott Osgood had some comments and suggestions. This will be reviewed at the February 25, 2004 meeting to reflect this evening’s change.

Downtown Parking Meeting Request

Laura Scott advises she wrote a letter to the Selectman requests a meeting with Board of Selectman on this issue.

Post Office Place Maintenance

Laura Scott advises she wrote letter to Selectman regarding the Post Office property and the town right-of-way to determine the maintenance of this area.

Land Use Change Tax

Laura Scott advises this is on the Selectman’s agenda for next week.

Correspondents

Laura Scott reviewed Correspondence received.

Planning Consultant Report

Laura Scott said that the Planning Board budget is going to the budget committee on Thursday January 22, 2004.

Also reviewed the benefits of the services that HTA can offer the town. They will provide the board with a list of services they can provide.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn this meeting. Seconded by Karen Makocy Philbrick and approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson

PLANNING BOARD

Approved Minutes

January 7, 2004

Members Present:

Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Board Member; Karen Makocy Philbrick, Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Alternate (voting); Kristin Claire, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker

Guests Present:

Rick Patenaude, Janice McElroy, Don Armstrong, Lloyd Henderson, Leon Parker, Jennifer McCourt, Kevin Cormier, Roger Belson, Jean Lewis, Skip Hustis

Meeting called to order by Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman at 7:00 pm.

This is a Special Planning Board Meeting for Public Hearing for Proposed Warrant Articles for the 2004 March Town Meeting. This is done in accordance with RSA 675:3.

Public Hearings

Geoffrey Hirsch explained that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinances were derived from a Master Plan survey that went out two years ago. He said that these six came from a long list of suggested revisions to the current ordinances. The list would be revisited in the future. He also explained that this was an opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide feedback.

Proposal to amend, delete, or add the following definitions in Article II, section 133-3 of the Zoning Ordinance-Cluster Housing, Conventional Development, Mobil Homes, Pre-Site Built Housing, Drive-through Facility, Elderly Housing, Structure, Manufactured Housing, and Student Residence.

Laura Scott explained the four definitions that were to be removed: cluster housing, conventional development, mobile homes and pre-site built housing.

Drive-through Facility

Jennifer McCourt commented that Drive-through wording suggests that the vehicle drives completely through without stopping. Don Armstrong suggested inserting either "drive up to and/or through."

Roger Belson asked if a garage was considered a Drive-through. At the garage, you drive in through the doors and into the building. Jennifer McCourt suggested adding wording that 1 or more of the occupants stay in car.

Leon Parker asked if it is intended to make a car wash a Drive-through. Geoffrey Hirsch responded that yes this is the intent. Cordell Johnston differentiated between self-serve car wash and automatic car wash. Jean Lewis clarified the occupants would stay in the car. Thea Braiterman asked if the Board wanted to exclude self-serve car washes. Cordell Johnston further reviewed that at a self-serve car wash the occupants would need to get out of the car. In an automatic car wash nobody gets out of the car. Cordell Johnston further said the definition should indicate that the driver stays in the car as well as occupants.

Jennifer McCourt asked what the purpose of the definition is? She further asked if the concern was stacking of traffic. Jim McElroy asked if she had a solution to this stacking issue. Jennifer McCourt mentioned that traffic regulations would be covered under the site plan.

Roger Belson asked the purpose of creating this definition. Laura Scott explained that there is no current definition. Cordell Johnston explained that with new business this may happen and that the town needed to be prepared for this possibility.

Don Armstrong agreed the driver must stay in the vehicle. Karen Makocy Philbrick asked about full service gas stations. Laura Scott pointed out the definition says they must drive up to or through a door or windows. Scott Osgood pointed out that service stations provide other services. Scott Osgood suggested the definition should exclude gas stations. Further conversation pointed out that auto service stations could include many services. Don Armstrong suggested excluding mechanical services and refueling.

Laura Scott read the amended definition to reflect the changes discussed. There was some discussion regarding the grammar of the definition. Laura Scott read the definition again with the new changes.

Elderly Housing

Geoffrey Hirsch read the next new definition of Elderly Housing – Housing that qualified as "Housing for Older Persons" pursuant to NH RSA 354-A:15, as it may be amended.

Jennifer McCourt said the definition is lacking detailed specifications such as: is elderly housing allowed in any zone? Special considerations? She pointed out that the definition should determine what elderly housing constitutes, and referred to studies that 2-bedroom units would exclude children.

Laura Scott said this concern would be covered under the Growth Management Ordinance.

Roger Belson suggested eliminating the definition from the ordinance. Jean Lewis responded to this, advising there is a need for over-55 housing that is affordable and dependent upon individual incomes.

James McElroy asked why elderly housing would be in the Growth Management Ordinance. Cordell Johnston explained this. Laura Scott further explained there would be no special provisions for elderly housing at this time. She also mentioned there aren’t any restrictions.

Don Armstrong asked about the RSA and the state’s definition. There was some discussion about "older persons" versus "elderly." Laura Scott pointed out that an older person is a catch phrase that may not be appropriate in the future. Laura Scott said that elderly housing was a term accepted by most and therefore has longevity value.

The Board agreed to propose the amendment as drafted.

Structure

Geoffrey Hirsch read the definition of structure. Jennifer McCord asked if her snowmobile was considered a structure. Laura Scott explained that per the definition the snowmobile requires a location on the ground or attachment to something on the ground. Jennifer McCourt pointed out that although the definition is written to cover this, the general public would perceive this to include snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles.

Geoffrey Hirsch suggested the last sentence be removed to clarify the meaning. Don Armstrong suggested adding wording to the definition such as "lived in" or "used for storage." Discussion turned to a cell tower. This would be a structure; however, it is not lived in or used for storage. Don Armstrong said you could add utility property to the definition to cover structures such as cell towers.

Roger Belson asked what was wrong with the old definition.

Leon Parker said he felt the old definiton of structure is appropriate. Laura Scott also suggested the old definition is fine. The Board agreed not to propose amending this definition.

Manufactured Housing

Kristin Claire read the existing definition

Laura Scott explained that the new definition is the recognized state definition, and the Planning Board chose to use it for consistency purposes.

Student Residence

Geoffrey Hirsch read the new definition and Kristin Claire read the existing definition.

It was explained that the issue was ownership or sanctioning by the educational entity. Judith Englander asked about a privately owned apartment or a house that is inhabited by students only. This would not be considered a student residence. This was affirmed.

Roger Belson asked what the basis for the change is, Laura Scott explained that it was designed to be clear and consistent.

Cordell Johnston asked that the Board move the words "by an educational entity," and place them after "sanctioned."

Thea Braiterman suggested that the warrant include explanation of why the changes were proposed. Cordell Johnston explained there would be brief explanations prior to each article. Roger Belson agreed it is important for the voters to have this information.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the definition additions, changes, and deletions to the definitions as amended. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.

2. Proposal to amend section 133-112 and 133-113 of Article XXIII Wetlands Conservation Zoning Ordinance.

Laura Scott said that Town counsel had concerns with 133-112. ZBA language needed to be added. Board Members were open to this suggestion.

Martha Sunderland explained that all wetlands impacts are brought to the ZBA. If this ordinance amendment is approved, only the major impacts will go to the ZBA.

Geoffrey Hirsch summarized that both of these sections would streamline the application process and consolidate the information. This will keep all information parallel.

Martha Sunderland advised of the importance of town oversight with respect to the larger impacts to the community.

Roger Belson asked about septic systems and how that applies to wetland issues. It was explained that 5 years ago, the ordinance was changed to reflect the state guidelines with respect to setbacks. Martha Sunderland also noted this was done against the wishes of The Conservation Commission, as it meant the town no longer had input. Jennifer McCourt respectfully disagreed, as a copy goes to the Conservation Commission for review and they then have opportunity to send comments to the state.

Leon Parker noted that once the Conservation Commission made the ZBA aware applicants were not getting special exceptions for wetlands impacts the ZBA had been working hard to get this done. The ZBA is looking at material that the Conservation Commission is more adept at looking at. The ZBA feels they should only have to hear the appeals. Trying to follow the regulations, the criteria for a special exception make very little sense to wetland crossing. The regulation includes a lot of redundancy. ZBA feels their appropriate role is to review the decision when there is a grievance. Understands the ZBA needs to keep this process, however wants to get out of the business of making decisions that they are not qualified to make. Timing plays a role in how this is being moved forward. ZBA will keep working on major impact issues and The Conservation Commission will make decisions on minor impact issues.

Jim McElroy noted this does nothing to address the issues of the 11 criteria. Laura Scott said that the ZBA and The Conservation Commission looked to this solution but decided due to timing, not to go forward at this time. Karen Makocy Philbrick asked if this solution makes anything worse or leaves anything undone. Discussion pointed out although this is not a perfect solution, it does move the process forward. Laura Scott agreed.

Martha Sunderland explained that the Special Exceptions were kept in order to keep the town involved with the decision. Jennifer McCourt said there were other methods of the town staying involved. She said the driveway and building permit process keeps the town involved. Martha Sunderland said not every wetlands impact involves a driveway or building permit. Cordell Johnston asked for examples of other wetlands impacts where a permit was not needed. Laura Scott responded by pointing out that a pond was one example. Don Armstrong said utilities.

Don Armstrong suggested that wetland permits be presented to the town prior to obtaining a building permit. Laura Scott explained this was exactly what the new language was saying. Further discussion pointed out a language change to wetland permit instead of wetland application.

Geoffrey Hirsch explained this would need to go back to counsel for comments. All concerns had been heard and raised. Cordell Johnston asked if counsel comments needed to be addressed. Laura Scott offered to read counsel comments. Comments were read and Board agreed this was standard language.

Thea Braiterman would like to see this article prefaced with one sentence to ensure voters are aware of the intent.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to propose the amendments to sections 133-112 and 133-13 of Article XXIII Wetlands Conservation Zoning Ordinance as amended this evening. Seconded by Karen Makocy Philbrick and approved unanimously.

Proposal to amend section 133-34 the Education District Zoning District.

Laura Scott explained that the purpose of these changes was to make the regulations in the educational district clearer for the Planning Board, schools, and landowners within the district.

Don Armstrong asked if this was to include or exclude open space housing. Laura Scott explained this is addressed elsewhere within the ordinance. She also explained this would add the lot size of a single dwelling to be consistent with single dwellings in other areas. Roger Belson asked if there was a reason that the frontage might be different in a college environment. Laura Scott explained this was for a parcel of land and not each building.

Jennifer McCourt referred to article 10 and the table within Article 10. She wanted to know why this is being done differently. If the Board is trying to fix it, why is it being contained within this Article rather than Article 10? Geoffrey Hirsch explained this was to expedite the process. Laura Scott further commented there is a lot more to do in this district and the Board wants to address this in depth.

Kevin Cormier asked about the 30% allowance of land that can to be developed within the parcel. It was commented that New England College is more of a walking college. Laura Scott met Kevin Cormier earlier today to discuss this issue: thirty percent is a small amount to develop on a large parcel. Is there a possibility of increasing the developable percentage to 50%?

Jim McElroy asked if the Planning Board could change that percentage? Karen Makocy Philbrick clarified the other zones have no limit on the percentage that may be developed. Laura Scott agreed this was the case other than setback requirements.

Roger Belson asked if this affects parking? Discussion continued that a paved lot would be a permeable surface, which would be considered development. Additionally, it was said that a gravel parking lot would not be an impermeable surface. Judith Englander noted that the college land at top of Depot Hill Road abuts a very rural area. Laura Scott explained that the college had many more restrictions when it comes to development of their land. Discussion continued about the 30% percentage in relationship to the Science Building and how much of the land is developed.

Geoffrey Hirsch asked as the Board is reviewing the ordinance, if this is an appropriate time to discuss the percentage of development. Laura Scott said because this percentage of development is contained within the ordinance that it could be changed at this time.

Judith Englander said she was not sure that she had enough information to make this decision. She felt any percentage she picked was arbitrary. She then asked for input from Kristin Claire as she lives close to this abutting area. Kristin Clair explained that this is a concern.

Laura Scott and Karen Makocy Philbrick agreed that before any development, a site plan review would need to be done. This percentage of development would be discussed as part of the site plan and harmonious development. If they need to use more than the percentage of development, they would need to go to ZBA for a variance.

Karen Makocy Philbrick said if 50% is agreeable to the college and the Planning Board, they could amend the ordinance with the knowledge the district will be reviewed in the year 2004. Kevin Cormier said 50% is agreeable to the college.

The Board agreed to change the developable area limitations to 50%.

Parking at New England College was discussed. Jennifer McCourt asked the percentage of students with cars? Kevin Cormier responded that a high percentage of students have cars. Cordell Johnston suggested that the parking requirements subject to modifications at the discretion of the Planning Board, if the applicant establishes there is adequate parking with the planned area. Roger Belson acknowledged that a college campus has a very different purpose than any other district. Laura Scott reviewed how the parking requirements could be different depending on time of day or function. Thea Braiterman said that parking is limited and she would like fewer restrictions at the college with their parking. New England College is creating options to encourage students to park in more remote areas.

Further discussion changed the sentence to the following: the parking requirements above may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board, if the applicant establishes that there is adequate parking for the proposed structure and use on land owned by the college.

Thea Braiterman mentioned again that she would like the warrant to include an explanatory sentence on each article. It was discussed that each article would have a sentence explaining the intent for the voters.

A motion was made by Scott Osgood to propose the revisions to section 133-34 the Education District Zoning District as amended this evening. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved with 6 in favor and one abstention by Jim McElroy.

4. Proposal to adopt, pursuant to RSA 674:21, an Impact Fee Ordinance that would all the Planning Board to develop and impose a fee/assessment upon residential development to help pay for capital expenditures.

Proposed changes from counsel were read aloud by Laura Scott. Laura Scott further reminded the Board that this proposal gives the Planning Board authority only to create methodology. Until a methodology is in place, an impact fee will not be assessed. Laura Scott reviewed points from counsel:

1. Appeals procedure would go to ZBA unless written otherwise.

2. Define new development (for example: New development is an activity that results in a new development or a net increase of conversion of existing and commercial conversion with a net increase in floor square footage of non dwelling units).

Jennifer McCourt asked if an office building is changed to a restaurant and the square footage does not increase, would there be an impact fee? Jim McElroy reminded the Board that methodology should not be part of this article. Laura Scott suggested the Board add a reference to "intensity of use" to address the example suggested by Ms. McCourt.

The proposed "Purpose" suggestions from counsel were read. Jim McElroy asked why counsel wanted the purpose change. Laura Scott responded that counsel said that the proposed changes were in line with the Ordinance. More changes were read in respect to the purpose. Jim clarified that "Purpose" area would be changed and the additions would be added. Laura Scott reviewed counsel additions and changes.

The Impact Fee Ordinance would not take effect until the methodology is created and posted for public hearing. After the posting anyone who comes for a building permit would be subject to the impact fee if it applies to the building they are constructing. This proposed article will give authority to the Planning Board to develop impact fee and methodology.

Thea Braiterman clarified if there is no subdivision there is no impact fee. Don Armstrong further clarified that any existing residential lot would not be subject to an impact fee, unless it is subdivided after the methodology will determine how the impact fee is assessed.

A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to approve this proposal as amended this evening. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

5. Proposal to adopt, pursuant to RSA 674:22, a Growth Management Ordinance that would limit the amount of residential growth to an annual limitation of 2%.

Geoffrey Hirsch said a decision needed to be made if an annual limitation of 2% is appropriate.

Cordell Johnston asked if the table 1991-2001 should be 11 years rather than 10 years. Kristin Claire agreed.

Jim McElroy noted that the time frames on the tables of the Findings of Fact were different. Jim McElroy asked if the data were available in an effort to keep the time frame consistent. Kristin Claire shared that the time frames came directly from the Master Plan.

Karen Makocy Philbrick pointed out the growth in each area. Don Armstrong discussed school dollars. It was discussed that school enrollment in town was going down. Karen Makocy Philbrick said that school children would not demonstrate a point of growth. Discussion continued regarding population and the growth of population.

Laura Scott said she would update the tables to reflect the same time frames in order to have consistent time frames for growth.

Jennifer McCourt said the chart does show that 2% is acceptable. Therefore, the public needs this information. Additionally, the general public rumor is that a developer is buying up existing lots to develop them.

Rick Patenaude asked what happens when the town does not grow for several years. With this ordinance will the town roll the unused permits to the next year? It was explained that with a growth ordinance, you may carry the permits over for one year.

Kristin responded that the real estate industry and statistics do not point to a dry spell. She said that a growth ordinance is a proactive solution to prevent spikes and keep the growth proportional.

Rick Patenaude pointed out that, with a growth ordinance, you may get results you did not expect. If you can only build 5 homes a year, this will drive up the prices and then you are regulating the type of people who can live in your town. Laura Scott said there are provisions for affordable housing and elderly housing.

Jennifer McCourt pointed out that a time frame of three years is too long. Most of the town is zoned residential. Don Armstrong advises that you need to put controls in place or growth will run amok. Jim McElroy also said that controls are needed, however, there is a lot of work that needs to be done in order to know how this will work.

Laura Scott asked the Board to look at the finding of fact draft 1/6/04. Jennifer McCourt mentioned that the years need to be consistent from table to table. Laura Scott is going to redo the tables and the numbers.

Town Counsel had comments on verbiage to add to the Growth Management Ordinance. Laura Scott read the counsel suggestions and the Board wanted further clarification on the date of October 1, 2003. All other recommendations were accepted, with the expectation of changing the word "scheduling" with "phasing."

Laura Scott clarified that this ordinance is for new lots only and not existing lots-approved lots and lot of records. Laura Scott asked if the 2% was the number the Board wanted for new lots. The Board said it agreed. It was also noted there are 240 existing lots in town that are not developed.

Kristin Claire said that 2% is high; she pointed out that 2% is the highest spike the community has experienced. Thea Braiterman asked Kristin Claire what she thought about 1%. Kristin Claire responded that she thought that was two low. Discussion continued and the Board felt that 1.5% was a reasonable place start.

A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve The Growth Ordinance that would limit the amount of residential growth as amended this evening. Seconded by Judith Englander and approved unanimously.

6. Proposal to adopt the 2000 International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings.

A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to withdraw the proposal to adopt the 2000 International Residential Code for One and Two family dwellings. Seconded by Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Thea Braiterman pointed out there currently is a voluntary inspection when a building permit is obtained in town. Roger Belson said he has concerns that the second sentence may not be legal. Laura Scott explained the proposal is legal, as the Board has done all the necessary parts piecemeal. Additionally, counsel looked at this proposal to adopt the 2000 International Residential Code.

Skip Hustis asked Thea Braiterman what does "voluntary" means? Thea Braiterman explained that the person who is building a residential structure goes to the building inspector and asks him to inspect the residential building although it is not required. Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, further explained that although this is voluntary, the town has found that the building permits frequently come in and request the inspections. The community is using the building inspector as a resource. For commercial building, if the town did not adhere to the State Building Code then the State Fire Marshal would have to inspect all the commercial properties.

Roger Belson commented that it needs to be put to a town vote for this to work. Peter Flynn said all buildings need a fire inspection completed. Scott Osgood said the proposal is not restrictive and underlines good building practice. Most reputable builders appreciate and follow these guidelines. If building continues to increase, and builders come from other areas, it would be guidelines for them to follow. If there is a practical reason the code can‘t be met based on common sense, the building inspector works with the builder. The code book (2000 International Residential Code) is a resource for anyone who wants to build in the area.

Kristin Claire pointed out that the lenders have put checks and balances in place to address codes. The banks will also make sure this is enforced.

Don Armstrong pointed out that, in North Virginia, the builders met all the codes. However when the HUD and VA inspectors came out, they advised changes would need to be made prior to the lending of the money.

A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to withdraw the proposal to adopt the 2000 International Residential Code for One and Two family dwellings. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and motion passed with 4 in favor and 3 opposed.

Correspondence

No new correspondence

Planning Consultant Report

The Planning Board discussed the expiration and terms of Planning Board members.

Articles for The Henniker Herald and The Town Report were discussed.

A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to adjourn the meeting. Judith Englander seconded, and this motion was approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

Respectfully,

Susan Thompson