.jpg)
|
Meeting Minutes |
|
| Planning Board | |
| 2006 |
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Work Session
November 29, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Vice-Chair Kristin Claire
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Leon Parker; Bob Stamps; Martha Sunderland; Jennifer McCourt; Ron Taylor; Holly Green; Eleanor Kjellman; Rik Humboldt
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. He noted that Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, was absent due to illness.
The minutes of the November 8, 2006 Regular Business Meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the corrected minutes; Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The minutes were approved, 5-0.
Projects and Action
2. Final Zoning Ordinance Amendment Review
a. Conservation Commission:
Skyline View Ordinance: Martha Sunderland presented the revised edition of the proposed Skyline View Ordinance. She distributed a map showing 20 hilltops in town which would be within this conservation overlay district. She stated that one of the hilltops is actually within another hilltop on the map. It was noted that five of the hilltops are not named on the USGS map, and it was decided that they must be identified by specific latitude and longitude points. Ms. Sunderland stated that Denise Rico of the Conservation Commission has taken extensive photographs of the specified hilltops from public sites which demonstrate their importance to the Henniker skyline. Several points were discussed regarding agriculture, forestry and building aspects of the ordinance. ACTION: 1) Clarify that any building is to be below the ridgeline; 2) Demarcate the five unnamed hilltops by latitude/longitude; 3) number the diagrams within the document for ease of reference.
Watershed Overlay District: Mark Mitch reported on the progress of the Watershed Protection Ordinance. He distributed a revised document to the Board. He stated that the Conservation Commission has revised the document to separate buffer zone requirements of existing sites from those of proposed or new construction. Mr. Mitch noted that a significant change was to clarify specific “best management practices” in each section. He stated that the ordinance would not cause much impact to existing local farms. Enforcement of such an ordinance was discussed. Mr. Mitch stated that the codes enforcement officer would need to be educated; subsequently, complaints or claims would be investigated. It was noted that the ordinance must specifically state that it applies to great bodies of water larger than 10 acres (ponds). ACTION: The Board suggested that town residents should be educated through the use of newspaper articles, etc. describing the background and motivating factors causing the need for such an ordinance.
Jennifer McCourt made a recommendation to the Conservation Commission regarding their proposed ordinances that they have a technical review performed by the State so that defining information used to demarcate boundaries is consistent with the State documents. Mr. Mitch responded that State agencies have been involved throughout the process and that the document has been written to ensure its validity and will need to be updated as State documents are amended.
b. Route 114 Subcommittee
Eleanor Kjellman presented the rationale for adjusting zoning along Rte. 114 in order to proactively manage Town growth, balance development and allow for better control of the Town plan. She stated that the committee recommends to continue study of the area along Rte. 114 northbound towards Bradford in conjunction with the Conservation Commission. She reported that the area south of Town center towards Weare is a good area for controlled commercial growth. Ms. Kjellman stated that an informal survey has been conducted with the abutting landowners in that area. She also stated that the tax rate will not change.
Jennifer McCourt discussed more specifics of the warrant article changing the RR District to CR District. She reported that nothing too large would be developed in the area as town water and sewer is not available out that far. The committee envisions an area suitable for multi-family housing units and tradespeople (such as an electrician) working out of their homes. Considering the reduction of lot size from five acres to two acres, the Board noted that the chanes may draw more residential use. After much discussion about the intended use for the area, Leon Parker suggested creating a “subset zone” called CR-1 that provides for five-acre commercial zoning. Further allowance of excavation pits in the district was discussed. It was noted that this type of business creates revenue for the State but not as much as other commercial entities do for the Town. Ms. McCourt suggested that excavation pits could apply under “special exception.” The Board suggested that a well-communicated plan to educate the public about the positive aspect of commercial growth in Henniker would be beneficial. Kristin Claire suggested that New London is a good example of the type of development that would be positive for Henniker.
ACTION: Modify and expand the current CR zone further down Rte. 114 to Weare. Lots 742 and 743 will be included in the zone. The proposed CR-1 District will be reviewed by the Town attorney.
c. Planning Board
Chairman Scott Osgood stated that the revisions to the building permit ordinance have not come back from the attorney yet.
GMO: Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire distributed the revised ordinance as the current one expires at the time of Town Meeting. They reported that the most significant change relates to the method of determining the growth rate based on the growth of neighboring towns. Ms. Claire stated that this is the legally accepted method of managing growth. If accepted, it would expire in 2010.
Other Proposed Zoning Amendments:
Open Space Minimum Lot Size: The Board decided not to pursue this.
Terry Stamps will e-mail Don Armstrong about the Board’s decision to eliminate this from the list of proposed zoning amendments since he was not present at the meeting tonight.
The Board reviewed the list of the final nine items. The list includes: 1) Maximum square footage for Commercial Retail; 2) Frontage; 3) Wireless Communication Towers; 4) 10-Acre Minimum on currently nonconforming roads; 5) GMO; 6) Route 114 Commercial Zone; 7) Skyline View; 8) Building Permits; 9) Watershed
Kristin Claire moved for the Planning Board to accept this list to go forward to public hearing. Jim McElroy seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0.
3. Town Meeting Communication and Education Strategy
The Board decided that effective communication to the public is key to understanding the vision of each warrant article. Some of the articles simply reference changes in definitions and will not need explanation; however, the Watershed, Skyline View, GMO, Building Permits, Route 114 Commercial Development, Commercial Retail and Frontage ordinances require more understanding. Chairman Osgood will contact The Villager and will write an article to submit to The Contender. Kristin Claire suggested that information be posted on the town website. Jim McElroy will contact the Rotary and Lions Clubs; Chairman Osgood will contact the Henniker Business Association. Terry Stamps volunteered to develop the format for conducting in-home informational forums to discuss the issues. This is a community outreach action to reach other residents who are not already involved in the other clubs or associations.
Terry Stamps is coordinating the writing of the actual warrant articles. She will contact the original authors with specific format information and dates of when documents need to be submitted, proofed and sent to Stephanie Alexander. Any e-mails relative to content will be appended to the minutes to be made available for public review.
Discussion Items
4. Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander was not present at the meeting to give her report.
5. Correspondence: Chairman Osgood relayed a question that had been raised about conflict of interest. The response from the attorney stated that there is, in fact, no conflict of interest in this matter.
A letter was received about timber rights in the deed of the Flanders Road development. Kristin Claire will call Peter Flynn about the deed.
Reports
6. Other Business: Chairman Osgood reported that the budget was reduced for the recording secretary position. The total operating budget was reduced by about $500.00. There is money to purchase the GIS system; however, the $40,000 for a consultant was not put into the 2007 budget.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 pm. Chairman Osgood seconded the motion; motion carried, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Work Session
October 25, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy; Kellie Dyjak.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Martha Sunderland; Denise Rico; Holly Green; Mark Mitch and Bob Stamps (all representing the Conservation Commission); Jennifer McCourt.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm.
1. The minutes of the Regular Business Meeting of October 11, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The minutes were approved,
4-0.
Projects and Action
2. Zoning Amendments
a) Conservation Commission
Ridgetop Protection: Martha Sunderland, representing the Conservation Commission, presented information to the Board concerning the Ridgetop Protection amendment. Ms. Sunderland stated that the Commission has been working on this amendment for the past two years. The purpose is to identify specific ridgetops and give them extra protection in order to keep the value of the views they offer. The intent is to avoid clear-cutting the ridgetop and protect the visual impact. The Commission identified the major hilltops in town and the elevation criteria (top 15%) to be protected. The proposed ordinance allows for buildings, roads, selective-cut logging, small areas of clear cutting and various uses for farming and nursery uses. The Conservation Commission was asked to talk to Cordell Johnston and Cynthia Marsland to verify current use definitions for agriculture. After discussion of various items, it was noted that photographs would be helpful to illustrate the need for this amendment. Also, the name of the ordinance was changed to “Viewshed Skyline Ordinance” to clarify the meaning so it is not confused with any existing development.
(Note: Kristin Claire arrived at 6:39 pm.)
Chairman Osgood stated that changes will have to appear in the Subdivision Regulations to identify when properties are in this overlay district.
Jim McElroy empahasized that the pertinent information will have to be clearly explained in brief form on the ballot.
Kristin Claire stated that it needs to be clear that property owners still have rights to develop, but the ordinance will limit tree cutting.
Action: The Conservation Commission is to write the article; rename the ordinance; produce a sketch and photographs to illustrate the identified hilltops.
Steep Slopes: Denise Rico presented the proposed amendment on behalf of the Conservation Commission. She stated that this ordinance would prohibit development on slopes greater than 25-percent. She stated that there are 27 other towns with this ordinance in New Hampshire. Ms. Rico stated that a lot of the lower, flatter lands in Henniker are already used, so the Town can expect more impact to the hillsides. She reported that elevation, drainage and runoff are major concerns with hillside development. She stated that it is common on the East Coast to have steep slope protection at 20-25% grades.
Chairman Osgood stated that it would be helpful to have scientific data (hydro-study, soil degradation, etc.) showing the impact to the land.
(Note: Gary Guzouskas and Don Armstrong arrived at 7:01 pm.)
Jennifer McCourt, (McCourt Engineering) audience member, asked to speak to this. She stated that there is typically a 4:1 ratio (25% slope), but how much of the slope the developer is using must be considered. If they only need two feet or 50 feet makes a difference. She also stated that this will not keep people from re-grading the area before coming to the Planning Board. She stated that there is scientific date supporting development of 33-percent slopes depending on soil types, etc. She stated that she does not like the idea of picking an arbitrary slope number as development should be site specific with proper engineering.
Kristin Claire stated that she would feel better if the town had a building code enforcement officer to oversee this, but the town has not voted yet to adopt these codes.
Action: Conservation Commission will determine what percentage of the town is affected by the proposed ordinance; they will also try to find more scientific data to be included. Commission will report findings at the next work session meeting.
Watershed/shoreline protection: Mark Mitch presented the need for this ordinance. He gave history of French and Keyser Ponds, noting their decreased use and lack of swimming availability due to the cyanobacteria bloom contaminating the ponds. He stated that the Conservation Commission has been involved in studying this problem for about seven years, and it appears that one of the contributing factors is phosphorous released from land use. He stated that there is $300,000 available from DES to help pursue protection, but the State would not contribute without the Town having a watershed protection ordinance in place. He stated that four towns have adopted this type of ordinance and five other towns are in the process this year. He stated that this is a long-term problem, and the ordinance would be tailored to the specific needs of Henniker relative to drainage, river, stream and pond needs.
Discussion of agriculture and landscaping roles contributing to the cyano-bloom problem continued.
Chairman Osgood stated that they may want to write in specific exemptions where necessary.
Jim McElroy stated that having a list of things not to be within the buffer zones would be helpful. He also stated that he is struggling with the enforcement issue. He asked who would regulate this ordinance as the Planning Board is not an enforcing body.
Don Armstrong stated that it should be clear that the ordinance concerns all “great water bodies (greater than 10 acres) so people don’t panic over requirements.
Mark Mitch stated that the real problem comes from phosphates released by manure, chemicals and disturbance.
Jen McCourt stated that a similar issue came up in Derry. The State identified farms that were contributing to the problem and gave them grants to help keep the farm in business.
Action: More work will be done on writing the ordinance and will be discussed at the next work session.
Aquifer Protection: Holly Green recommended the water resource management plan on behalf of the Conservation Commission. She stated that DES has resource protection grants to go towards developing plans, inventories and ordinances, but the major criteria is that it be directly related to well-head protection ordinances. There is a November deadline for this application.
Chairman Osgood stated the Planning Board, the Town Selectmen and Cogswell Springs have roles in this and an integrated plan for aquifer protection needs to be developed.
Holly Green stated that it is premature to get a grant or put in an ordinance at this time. They will continue to do research during the next year.
Action: Chairman Osgood asked that representatives from Cogswell Springs and the Town Selectmen be invited to a future business meeting to discuss this matter. The grant application could be used as the guiding document.
b) Route 114 Zoning Committee
Jennifer McCourt stated that the subcommittee has spoken to many property owners in the targeted areas along Rte. 114. She stated that they do not have a problem rezoning the area; only one property owner did not want any changes. She presented the plan of a Commerce Park District, limiting businesses to 20 employees and manufacturing. She stated that it is easier to regulate commercial entities than single-family households which aids in protecting the environment. For example, bonuses could be given if they save existing trees to offer more attractive development. The committee is looking for low-impact type businesses, multifamily unit “affordable housing”. It has been determined that no auto body shops, etc, be allowed.
Terry Stamps stated that permitted uses should not include excavation sites. She also stated her concern that some of the area of Route 114 north has been identified by the Conservation Commission as a high priority area to be protected.
Jen McCourt stated that extending the CR zone along Route 114 South would be a great place for cottage industry.
Action: Jen McCourt asked for help from the Conservation Commission as the CZ could be more regulated than a residential zone along Route 114 north. Ms. McCourt stated that the committee would write two separate articles for the areas of Rte. 114 north and south to be presented at the 11/29/06 meeting.
c) Planning Board
Building Permits: Chairman Osgood is working with the Selectmen on this. There will be more discussion on this at the next meeting.
(Note: Kellie Dyjak left at 9:21 pm as she was not feeling well.)
GMO Re-Adoption: Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire are working on this. They stated that the population continues to grow at a rate greater than the state and county average. Ms. Claire reviewed several other factors involved. She stated that the tax rate is high because taxable property is so low. They will show the algorithm used instead of a specific number.
Action: Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire will look at the algorithm, put the tax table in and find the number of lots created in 2004 to complete the document.
Open space minimum lot size: Don Armstrong stated that DES takes precedence over Town standards. He recommended going with the DES requirements.
Action: Revise section to include the DES requirements. Stephanie Alexander recommended that it be titled appropriately.
Class V, A & B Roads: Terry Stamps passed out draft versions (Section 133-40; in the new book, Section 133-39) for Class A, B & C roads. She recommended that previous references to Class A & B roads be removed.
Class V roads state that changing the road changes the zoning. Class V gravel roads in the RR District have 250-feet minimum (changed from 125 feet).
Maximum square footage for Commercial Retail was discussed. Jen McCourt suggested that a 100-percent retail business may have 35,000 square feet maximum and a business that is 50-percent retail and 50-percent wholesale may be 50,000 square feet.
Discussion Items
3. Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander decided to hold her report until the next meeting.
Agenda for 11/8/06: The Transportation Planner from CNHRPC will be invited to offer a 30-minute question/answer session regarding the Roads Exactions Policy.
There is one new application and two matters of old business on the agenda. One conceptual consultation for minor subdivision by Ed Ulmer is planned. The Board noted that the Harvester Market has put arborvitae in its landscaping, so that item may be taken off of the agenda. GMO updates will be put on the agenda, and there may be information concerning building permits.
4. Correspondence: Books on “Lecture I of Planning Board Basics” are now available.
Other Business
5. Budget Season: Jim McElroy reported that the preliminary CIP budget contains $40,000 for a GIS consultant. There is a question whether it belongs in the capital or expense budget.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn at 10:16 pm. Kristin Claire seconded; it was approved, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Business Meeting
October 11, 2006
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Gary Guzouskas; Jim McElroy; Don Armstrong
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary. Members of the audience included Art Siciliano; Tom Wagner; Robert and Jan Aucoin; Jennifer McCourt; Tim Pigsley; Sean Curran; Joe Morette; Janine Bates.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. Chairman Osgood asked board member Jim McElroy to preside over the review of the minutes since he was not in attendance at the last meeting.
1. Minutes from the Work Session of September 27, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Don Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Old Business:
2. Case #2003-023: Ridgetop Estates, Map 2, Lot 95. No representative was present to discuss the performance bond release. This will be put on the agenda for the November business meeting.
New Business:
3. Case #2006-012: A site plan review application for a summer day camp at Pat’s Peak has been submitted by Kris Blomback, General Manager, on behalf of owner Wayne Patenaude, on Map 1, Lots 588A and 589B at 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, gave a status report of the application process. She reported that the proper letter of authorization was received; waivers will be submitted tonight and all fees have been paid by the applicant. She stated that a complete legend has been placed on the plan, and there are various items to be discussed at this meeting.
Chairman Osgood asked the applicant, Kris Blomback, to present a brief explanation of the proposed plans relating to the Adventure Day Camp to be conducted at Pat’s Peak during the summer months when school is not in session. Mr. Blomback stated that the day camp will support approximately 75 children, ages 6-14 and offer activities such as swimming, mountain biking, canoeing and kayaking lessons, ball fields and a multi-use court. He also stated that they envision a counselor-in-training program geared for 14 to 18-year olds. Jennifer McCourt, assisting Mr. Blomback, showed revised plans to the board. Ms. McCourt stated that they would be requesting several waivers as this plan is derived from an existing plan and an existing use. The applicant is only trying to amend the use of the facility for the summer months.
Discussion ensued about the picnic pavilion, parking spaces, landscaping, lighting and security (especially of the swimming pool). The applicant stated that all areas that will not be covered with another surface (such as the ball field, tennis court, pool, etc.) will be loamed and seeded. Hours of operation for the day camp were also discussed, stressing that the day camp will not conduct overnight sessions and will conform to the town noise ordinance.
Proper security measures concerning the pool including fencing, motion detecting lights, strong covers, etc. were discussed. The Board agreed that the fence needs to be higher than four feet and is not to be chain-link. Kris Blomback stated that he has researched several facilities in Concord as well as other recreational sites to see what security measures have been taken. He stated that all reasonable measures will be instituted to ensure public safety.
Chairman Osgood stated that seven waivers have been requested. The Board reviewed all of them. The waivers were deemed to be applicable and relevant. Jim McElroy moved to accept the waivers; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
Kristin Claire, Vice-Chairman, moved to accept the plan as complete; Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Osgood asked for public comment. Janine Bates, an abutter on Craney Hill Road, stated that she is concerned about noise in the area as the PA system is very loud. She also raised the need for a larger stop sign exiting the recreational area on to Flanders Road in order to increase safety. Ms. Bates stated that she would like reassurance that this will be utilized specifically for a day camp and will not progress into further development.
Kris Blomback stated that they may occasionally page someone over the PA system, music will not be broadcast during the summer camp, and the staff will rely mainly on two-way radio communication to reduce noise. Jennifer McCourt also stated that there is much more vegetation in the summer than during the winter months which will help to absorb noise generated during the camp. Also, as kids will be in a camp setting with counselors, the tone of the camp will be much different than the winter activities during ski season. Mr. Blomback stated that the facility has been approached for many other types of business expansion including summer concert series, alpine slide operations, water parks, etc. He stated that the owners recognize the need to diversify; these other activities have been rejected because they do not fit with their vision of what Henniker desires.
Tom Wagner, resident on Flanders Road, questioned the tree line survey around the reservoir area. Mr. Blomback stated that no trees would be cleared except what was necessary for the canoe launch area.
As there was no further comment, the public hearing was closed at 8:10 pm.
It was determined that a site walk of this property is not necessary.
Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the plan with the following conditions
1. The following note shall be added to the plan: The summer Adventure Day Camp will operate only during daylight hours.
2. New fencing details for the pool will be provided, including a 6 ft high fence, rod-style fencing, or other detail acceptable to the board, and incorporated into the plan.
3. The applicant will install a larger stop sign on the granite post at the exit to the facility.
Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion to approve the plan passed, 7-0.
The Board took a five-minute recess and resumed business at 8:27 pm.
4. Case 2006-015: A minor subdivision application for a 2-lot subdivision has been submitted by Aucoin Farms, on behalf of owner Lorraine Aucoin, on Map 1, Lot 642 at 17 Huntington Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Stephanie Alexander reported that the application had been reviewed by another CNHRPC consultant. She stated that the applicant did meet briefly with her to present the application.
Art Siciliano, representing the applicant, presented the plan of subdividing the 76.73-acre property with frontage on Huntington Road into a two-lot subdivision with the second lot being 6.34 acres on Quaker Street. He addressed all of the details required for plat details and noted that the wetlands scientist has delineated a small area of wetlands on the map.
Stephanie Alexander conducted further discussion of the waiver applications. It is noted that the applicant will provide a copy of the driveway application to the Board. It is also noted that letters from the Conservation Commission and the Fire Department were received tonight.
The Board discussed the requested waivers. Jim McElroy moved to accept the waivers; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion to accept waivers passed 7-0.
Chairman Osgood requested that more detail of the area around Quaker Street be provided.
Jim McElroy suggested that a letter from the partnership granting the authority for Mr. Siciliano to represent them would be in order as the person listed on the application was not present at the meeting. It is noted that three of the four partners are in attendance at this meeting and all four signatures are on the application; therefore, it is recorded that proper authorization is granted.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the application as complete with several conditions; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. They realized the procedural error of including specific conditions in that motion and called to have the motion amended. Kristin Claire moved to accept the application as complete; Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion to accept the application as complete was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood asked for any public comment regarding this case; there was none. The Board decided that no site walk was necessary. The public hearing was closed at 9:56 pm.
Chairman Osgood asked for the Board’s comment before considering approval. Several conditions were discussed.
Chairman Osgood moved to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. More survey detail on Lot 640-A’s lot configuration at the location of the Old Road right of way and Quaker Road shall be provided.
2. The following note shall be added to the plan: Residential sprinkler systems or other acceptable measures shall be installed in accordance with Henniker Fire Department specifications.
3. The driveway permit application for Lot 642-D shall be submitted.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set. As the applicant has stated that a single family detached home will be built on the lot, school impact fees have been assessed by the Planning Board at $5,518 for Lot 642-D. Active and substantial development is defined for this subdivision as adopted at the May 10, 2006 public hearing.
Conceptual Consultation
The Board agreed to skip the next item on the agenda in order to keep
Mr. Morette from waiting.
5. Case #2006-016: Conceptual materials for a multi-family residential site plan and lot merger have been submitted by Joseph and Jin Morette at 19 Newton Road on Map 2, Lots 369C and 369D in the Commercial Village (CV) District.
Stephanie Alexander gave a synopsis of what has transpired thus far. She stated that Mr. Morette had gone before ZBA for special exception for a multi-family unit in a commercial district. The ZBA denied the application as it was not complete. She explained his request to come before the Planning Board to get a better idea of how to move forward.
Mr. Joseph Morette presented his plan for creating reasonably-priced housing on these two lots. He included his ideas for how to create some revenue for the town without causing a great deal of impact on services.
Many factors were discussed including the viability of town water, town sewer and paving the road. Also, the merits of modular housing versus manufactured housing were clarified, and it was noted that modular housing is allowed.
Calculations for deriving the number of units that would be allowed were debated. Jennifer McCourt, representing Mr. Morette, stated that the ratio of 1:6 applies to living area and driveway area pavement times six for land area is the correct density calculation. She stated that it would probably calculate to 30-40 units. She also stated that the real problem with zoning is that it states that only one principal building per lot is allowed. This is detrimental to avoiding the “big box” complex.
The Board collectively stated that if the numbers could work for the land, they like the concept and would like to see affordable housing within walking distance of the downtown area.
Kristin Claire stated that the biggest issue is how to comply with zoning while providing what is best for the town. She stated that it would be better to get this particular zoning language changed to allow this type of development for the benefit of Henniker.
The merits of creating an overlay district or amending zoning ordinances were discussed. It was generally felt that trying to craft changes to the zoning ordinances this late in the year would be premature. Tom Watman, board member, stated that there are yet too many questions and not enough time to properly answer them. It was the consensus of the Board that while it is a good idea and is necessary for the area, it would be better to research possible zoning changes over the next year.
Sean Curran, real estate attorney for Mr. Morette, recapped the discussion and stated that, in his opinion, Henniker would not want what the current zoning ordinances require.
Mr. Morette stated that he will continue to develop his plans and will continue communication with the fire department and departments of water, sewer, road management, etc.
Tom Watman asked Stephanie Alexander to get information as to how other communities (in and out of New Hampshire) have handled this situation. He suggested looking at Arizona and Oregon to see how they have progressed with “workforce housing.” Chairman Osgood stated that if anyone thinks of any other resources for this type of development, send them to him or to Stephanie.
Chairman Osgood moved to investigate ideas for “workforce housing” in the CV District. Tom Watman seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
6. Planning Board 2007 Meeting Schedule
Stephanie Alexander presented the Planning Board’s meeting schedule for the coming year. Jim McElroy moved to accept the schedule; Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The schedule was approved, 6-0.
Discussion Items
7. Zoning: Terry Stamps presented the list of 2007 Proposed Zoning Amendments. The GMO readoption was discussed at length. Jim McElroy agreed to help Kristin Claire with the GMO since he has information and experience from other committees. It was also noted that the Conservation Commission will make proposals and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will adopt them and make them Planning Board amendments.
8. Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander stated that there is no log to review. The agenda for the October 25, 2006 Work Session meeting was discussed. The meeting will begin at 6:00 pm and will consist of reviewing the Zoning Ordinances. It was decided to invite the Transportation Planner to the November 8 meeting to discuss exactions policies.
Ms. Alexander stated that the zoning ordinance books are at the printer and should be available next week.
9. Correspondence: The minutes of the Board of Selectmen’s meeting was made available.
10. Other Business: Gary Guzouskas was appointed to the Roads Management Committee.
Don Armstrong moved to adjourn at 10:53 pm. Kristin Claire seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Town of Henniker
Planning Board
Work Session
September 27, 2006
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman pro tem; Kellie Dyjak; Don Armstrong; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman; Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Jennifer McCourt; Joe Morette
Jim McElroy, Chairman Pro tem, called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
The minutes of the regular business meeting conducted on September 13, 2006, were reviewed and corrected. Don Armstrong moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded; the motion passed, 6-0.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, relayed information that Kristin Claire is having some difficulty with the GMO project. She stated that Kristin is hoping to have the other board members volunteer to help with specific tasks that will be sent via e-mail.
Stephanie Alexander stated that no guests had made any request to be put on the agenda for the evening, but the Board may entertain hearing anyone from the audience if they chose to. Joe Morette, audience member, approached the board for information relative to a conceptual consultation. Mr. McElroy instructed Mr. Morette to work with Ms. Alexander during a break or at the end of the meeting in order to follow proper procedures in presenting a conceptual consultation.
Projects and Action:
Review Revised Road Classification List: The board reviewed the various classifications. The board had asked for examples of which roads were what type; this information was distributed into tables. A section was added to the table noting whether the road meets town standards or not. Every road is tied to the status map, although not all of the roads are on the map. Gary Guzouskas stated that the table is based on the road status map dated 12/02. The board will check with Cindy as she can verify exactly which map was used.
Discussion about the road classifications included how a road is actually used. Don Armstrong, board member, stated that some of the roads are used as collector roads, thereby costing three times the amount to maintain, even though classified as a local road. Also, Old Hillsboro road is a paved town road. The board will ask the town engineer if it should be a local road or a collector road.
The term “meets town specifications” was discussed. Definitions of geometry and site distance may be included. No traffic data was utilized for the roads on the table.
After discussion, it was decided that the information presented would be considered an ancillary document and would not officially be placed in the subdivision regulations. This information is useful to the planning board for guidance of general traffic flow analysis and delineates portions of roads that carry more traffic than the rest of the road.
Route 114 Zoning Subcommittee: Jennifer McCourt, chairman, asked the planning board to officially confirm the members of this subcommittee to include: Leon Parker, David Currier, Ron Taylor and Eleanor Kjellman. Gary Guzouskas moved to confirm the committee appointments; Kellie Dyjak seconded; the motion passed, 6-0.
Ms. McCourt stated that the committee has had two meetings to date and are reviewing the areas both north and south on Rte. 114. The members are talking to town residents and lot owners to discuss the goals of the town. She stated that they are gathering information from other towns with similar terrains, wetlands, etc. Ms. McCourt stated that the committee is generating good ideas for the area. She stated that commerce could offer more protection for the town than if the area is left to single family homeowners. She explained that cottage industries help the overall tax rate without much increase of traffic or impact to the land. The next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2006.
Ms. McCourt asked for copies of the new maps created by the Conservation Commission. Ms. Alexander loaned her the CD of the maps so that Ms. McCourt can print her own copies.
Ms. McCourt asked the board to review Section 133-18 of the zoning ordinances concerning one building per lot. She stated that it may behoove the town to review this ordinance as there may be times when more than one smaller building on a lot would be helpful in maintaining the desirable “small-town feel” of Henniker.
Zoning Amendments: Terry Stamps stated that a representative of the Conservation Commission is planning to come to the meeting on 10/25/06 to review steep slopes, Ridgetop ordinance and the watershed overlay district.
Other zoning concerns:
*Change in the general paragraph about wireless communication towers;
*Proposed minimum frontage changes;
*Maximum square footage of commercial retail businesses;
*Aquifer protection ordinances (may be worthwhile to reference the DES Water Source regulations)
*GMO
*Building permits (Scott Osgood working on this)
*10-acre standards
Ms. Stamps stated that she will have draft copies at the 10/25/06 meeting.
Reviewed business for the next meeting: Presentation from the Rte 114 Subcommittee; Conservation Commission presentation; Planning Board’s list (Board will have to prioritize the list).
Discussion Items:
Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander passed around her log from the last couple of weeks. She reviewed the agenda for the next meeting on 10/11/06 where the board will consider:
1) Recommendation to release bond;
2) Pat’s Peak Summer Day Camp;
3) Aucoin Farms application for two-lot subdivision. (Note: Has not had a Conceptual Consultation with Stephanie Alexander.)
4) Review PB meeting schedule for 2007;
5) Zoning Amendments;
6) Exactions Policy
7) Invite CNHRPC Transportation Planner
Tom Watman, board member, asked if the Selectmen could go forward with the Roads Management Plan. Ms. Alexander stated that they need to be in communication with the chairman of the Planning Board but sees nothing to preclude them from moving on it. Long discussion continued about how they should proceed, and it was thought that it would be very helpful if the Planning Commission could provide criteria to include in a plan.
Letter received from Town Counsel Re: Bacon Road:
Stephanie Alexander asked for permission to send either the entire response letter or just relative excerpts to an applicant. As this is legal advice and is privileged and confidential information, it was decided that only the applicable excerpts would be sent and the entire letter would be kept in a separate, confidential file. Ms. McCourt suggested that the applicant should know that other issues were discussed in the letter and that it was recorded as such in these minutes.
Ms. Alexander stated that a question arose about fees for a site plan application regarding new nonresidential construction. It was decided that because of the intense meeting schedule over the next few meetings, this issue will be discussed in the future.
Correspondence: OEP Planning and Zoning Conference—There has been some difficulty registering online. Members discussed possible carpooling to the event.
The board briefly discussed the Selectmen’s meeting of 9/26/06 concerning the possible re-numbering of addresses.
Jim McElroy discussed regional impact issue of a new cell tower going up in Newport.
Other Business: None
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn at 9:20 pm. Don Armstrong seconded; motion passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Approved
August 9, 2006
Members present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Tom Watman, selectman ex-officio; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak; Kristin Claire
Others present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Barry Hobbins, representing Cingular; Randy Howse; Jennifer Lougee; Dorothy and Anthony Riccio.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Jim McElroy presided over the review of the minutes of the July 12, 2006 meeting. Corrections were made. Terry Stamps moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Jim McElroy seconded the motion; the minutes were approved 5-0. Chairman Osgood abstained from the vote as he did not attend that meeting.
Old Business:
Chairman Osgood requested Jim McElroy to preside over this portion of the meeting as he had more familiarity with this case from the previous meeting.
Case #2006-008: Continuation of a Telecommunications Site Plan Review application submitted by Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Crown Castle International. The plan is to add up to 6 panel antennas to the existing cellular tower, add an 11’ x 20’ equipment shelter, and add a LP Gas system to the compound to the property location of Map 1 Lot 588A on 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Barry Hobbins, representing Cingular, addressed the concerns that were raised by the board at the initial presentation of July 12, 2006 and in a subsequent memo dated August 4, 2006, from Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant. He distributed new plans to the board members. Mr. Hobbins stated that some of the supplemental documentation had been mailed overnight to the Henniker Town Clerk and had been received in the town office on August 8, 2006.
Mr. Hobbins first showed the board several photographs taken from the tower at a height of 118 feet. He addressed each view in the packet and noted that each one was labeled applicable to the viewshed analysis.
Supplemental information was presented as requested and labeled as Exhibits 12 through 22.
Gary Guzouskas, board member, began discussion of how many propane tanks would be contained as there is concern about the protection of that amount of propane. Mr. Hobbins stated that he could not specify exactly how many tanks would be housed; however, he believes that there are currently eight tanks for other carriers there now. It was noted that the plans indicate the need for three tanks.
Relative to Exhibit #14, noise study-- Mr. Hobbins stated that there would be a 4-ton capacity wall-mounted air conditioning unit that at its highest output would be equivalent to a 10-foot surf. He also stated that the data tables of various outputs and sound produced is available.
Exhibit #15, revised antenna specifications—52 inches high; 6 inches wide; broadband.
Exhibit #16, radio frequency interference study—Letter dated July 21, 2006, addressed to the Planning Board and signed by engineer Randy Howse states that Cingular will provide an emergency phone contact 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The number will be available at the site and in the Town Offices. Mr. Hobbins stated that this contact can control all sites and radios can be turned off in an emergency if necessary.
Exhibit #17, underground feasibility—A letter has been provided stating that this area is not suitable for underground placement due to 1)logistical construction obstacles; 2) safety factors; 3)impeded maintenance.
Exhibit #18, generator specifications have been provided giving the type of alternator, etc, which would be helpful to an electrical inspector.
Exhibit #19, site photos have been provided in accordance with the viewshed analysis. There is negligible impact from the sites chosen which included Pat’s Peak parking lot, Flanders Road and Depot Hill Road.
Exhibit #20-- Mr. Hobbins stated that Article 14 outlines liability coverage, worker’s compensation insurance, aggregate and subrogation rights, waivers, etc., that are similar throughout the industry.
Exhibit #21, Mr. Hobbins stated that a statement regarding future technology was difficult to put together, but the statement conforms to the town ordinance.
The list of administrative requirements supplied by Stephanie Alexander was reviewed. There was discussion as to the repositioning of the gate and whether the site would have to be built up and filled in to keep it level. Mr. Hobbins stated that the site is level and as they are presenting the construction, it will not have to be built up.
The board asked for a statement of “best erosion control practices during construction” to be put on the plans.
After thorough review of the documentation, Tom Watman, board member, moved to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 7-0.
The board moved into public hearing on this application. No public comment was made, and the public hearing was closed at 8:04 pm.
The board discussed whether to accept this application. Terry Stamps, board member, stated two conditions for approval: 1) Town of Henniker is to be updated in writing if the emergency contact phone number is changed; 2) notation of “best management practices for erosion control per the accepted current State standards” is to be added to the plans.
Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the application with the two conditions so stated. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0, granting this application.
You are hereby notified that the application to add up to 6 panel antennas to the existing cellular tower, add an 11’ by 20’ equipment shelter, and add an LP Gas system to the compound to the property located on Map 1 Lot 588A on 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational District (CR) District, submitted by Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Crown Castle International was APPROVED at the August 9, 2006 meeting with the following conditions:
1. A note that the Contractor will comply with current State Standards for Best Management Practices will be added to the plan
2. The applicant agrees to notify the Town if the emergency contact number displayed at the site changes.
Other old business on the agenda was postponed to later in the meeting in order to serve community members in attendance awaiting conceptual consultation.
Conceptual Consultation
(8:10 pm--Chairman Osgood presided over the remainder of this meeting.)
Case #2006-009: Materials for conceptual site plan review have been submitted by Dorothy and Anthony Riccio, owners of Village Greenhouse, on Map2, Lot 166 at 3 Gould Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Dorothy Riccio stated that she would like to add a small-scale, prepackaged health food line to her current retail store. She stated that she hopes that this will generate more customer flow, however, does not anticipate any increased traffic or parking issues. She stated that the store currently has 7 parking spaces with one handicap spot. She stated that the flower business currently generates deliveries three times per week and she anticipates another one time per week delivery of the food items.
Chairman Osgood stated that in reviewing the definition for change of use and of the current and proposed uses, a site plan review does not appear to be necessary in this case. The board encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Riccio to contact the town Health Officer, Jill Fournier, to further pursue any action needed to comply with the State food regulation laws.
Old Business:
Case #2004-001/Case #2004-16: Harvester Market Self Storage. Discussion of fulfillment of plan approval regarding fencing and landscaping.
The board reviewed the particular language of what was approved on the notice of decision. It was decided to take pictures of the site and discuss the issue further at the next meeting.
New Business:
Case #2006-010: A waiver from site plan review has been submitted by ANK Import Export Wholesalers on Map 2, Lot 396 at 88 Western Avenue in the Village Commerce (CV) District. The applicants were not present at the meeting.
Kristin Claire read from Stephanie Alexander’s, Planning Consultant, status log report. It was noted that there are several inconsistencies in the application and the case is not coherent.
Chairman Osgood stated that he will write a letter to Kevin Steinbach, property owner, indicating that a site plan review is necessary for this property, and there was not sufficient information to decide on this case. He stated that the Salih’s and the Code Enforcement Officer will also receive copies of the letter.
It was also noted that there is some type of dog biscuit manufacturing/packaging business being run out of the same building. This will be investigated further.
Kristin Claire moved to not grant a waiver for site plan review. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0, to NOT grant a waiver.
You are hereby notified that the application for a waiver from site plan review submitted by ANK Import Export Wholesalers on Map 2, Lot 396 located at 88 Western Ave in the Village Commercial District was NOT APPROVED at the Planning Board Meeting of August 9, 2006..
Discussion Items
Gravel Excavation: The board discussed options of studying the documentation necessary for monitoring active gravel pits. Kellie Dyjak suggested taking pictures of every gravel pit being excavated in town. The board decided that doing that right away could cause misunderstanding. Jim McElroy suggested using dated aerial photographs of town that would show the excavation sites and where excavation has increased over time. Tom Watman clarified that the Planning Board is the town regulator and authority of this industry. He suggested talking to Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, about putting a paid person on staff in the town office to monitor this business. Kellie Dyjak stated she will write a job description of the tasks involved, discuss putting the position into the town budget with Peter Flynn, and she will also continue research to find the current state of all the gravel pits in Henniker.
Correspondence: None
Other Business:
Kristin Claire read Stephanie Alexander’s consultant’s log in her absence. She noted a phone call by Art Siciliano asking for information whereby Stephanie referred him to Deb.
Planning Board subcommittees were discussed. Tom Watman stated that he had recruited three members for the Route 114 subcommittee: Ron Taylor, Leon Parker and Dave Currier. Chairman Osgood stated that he had talked to Kris Blomback about that committee also.
Terry Stamps relayed that she had heard comments expressing concern about Jennifer McCourt being the chair of the Route 114 zoning subcommittee as it might be a conflict of interest for her.
Kristin Claire moved to establish a subcommittee to study the development potential for Route 114 north and south. Terry Stamps seconded, and the motion passed, 7-0.
Terry Stamps submitted the following for the Charter of the Route 114 Subcommittee: “The Planning Board charges this subcommittee to reevaluate the current zoning for Route 114 north and south in Henniker. The Planning Board’s focus is to ensure there are growth opportunities for future commercial and other development along Route 114. “
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the charter as written. Tom Watman seconded the motion. It was accepted, 7-0.
GIS Software was discussed as being helpful in forming a buildout analysis of the town. Chairman Osgood stated that he will create a job description relative to the GIS system for future town budget considerations.
At 9:25 pm, Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, joined the meeting. He asked for clarification of how town roads are added to the official maps. The board confirmed that roads are selected at town meeting.
The Zoning Subcommittee to prepare for Town Meeting 2007 was discussed.
Kristin Claire moved to form a subcommittee for zoning changes for 2007 Town Meeting. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire will work on creating a charter for this subcommittee. Terry Stamps stated that the conservation commission will work on verbiage regarding the slopes issues to be brought before the board.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Work Session
Members present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy;
Kellie Dyjak; and Tom Watman (selectman, ex-officio).
Others present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC;
Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Denise Rico, Conservation Commission respresentative; Ging Blanchard.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Minutes of the last regular business meeting on August 9, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. They were approved, 5-0.
Conservation Land Priorities:
At 7:16 pm, guest speaker Denise Rico, representing the Conservation Commission, presented information relative to Conservation Land Priorities.
She explained to the board that the Conservation Commission has created a scoring system and mapped each parcel of land in town in accordance with this rating. Total scores that lots earn are based on analysis of the resources relative to each lot, thus creating an objective view of the lots. Ms. Rico then explained the factors involved in evaluating the lots with this point system.
Jim McElroy, board member, questioned how neighboring properties in the general area of Pleasant Pond could rate scores varying from 3 to 5 points.
Ms. Rico stated that several factors are involved such as whether wetlands are present, if a lot is within 300-feet of a shore or stream or whether it is lakeside property. Each factor earns different point values.
Mr. McElroy observed that lots deemed to be most important to conservation concerns seem to be in the least populated regions. Ms. Rico pointed out where town and state forests are marked on the map as part of the permanently protected land areas; however, not all of the small town-owned properties are shown on this map.
The areas that score quite low are typically subdivisions. Some area on the Hillsborough border has been identified as not having much conservation potential and could be used for some possible development.
Ms. Rico stated that these maps were done some time ago, utilizing the most recent tax maps she had as of March 24, 2005, and there are already revisions to be made. She noted that one of the highest scoring lots in town has been divided into six parcels on Mr. Hunger Road.
.
The Board asked how the Conservation Commission envisioned using the information on the maps. Ms. Rico stated that the Conservation Commission used this information in a targeted mailing and conducted a workshop; unfortunately, it was not well attended by Henniker residents. Chairman Osgood also asked if this would assist the Conservation Commission in commenting on various parcels that are of particular interest to conservation needs. Ms. Rico stated that the maps have just come out of the draft stage, and there has been no formal discussion as to how they should be used yet. She envisions the information to be useful to landowners in order to educate them about easements, potential conservation measures, etc.
The Board discussed how the newly formed Route114 zoning subcommittee could make use of these maps. Ms. Rico stated that the northwest corner of town is part of a statewide unfragmented forest network and that there are some very interesting conservation leads along Route 114 that need to be investigated. This kind of information could be helpful to developing a buildout plan and could be used as a resource tool for subdivision regulations.
Ms. Rico stated that she intends to make necessary revisions to the maps over the winter.
Suggestions for revisions include: 1) key the maps with different visual cues besides color for easier reading; 2) terms and definitions need to be clarified if the maps are posted for public use; 3) maps should be numbered and labeled for easy reference.
Other map layers that would be useful to the town are: 1) new road classifications; 2) wildlife habitats and migratory routes. (This could possibly be a project for a student at the college or high school.)
Recreational values were not part of the scoring, and it was determined that they should be included. ATV and snowmobile trails, recreational value of the river, etc. could be mapped.
One criteria applied to the scoring system involves slopes greater than 15-percent. The Planning Board has used a 20-percent grade in reviewing site plans. A map showing 20-percent grades would be helpful. Ms. Rico said that the maps need to be proofed to make sure each lot is site specific.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to have the maps enlarged and posted in the Town office.
This set of maps show that there is a lot of land in town that has high elevations, high slopes and unfragmented forests. The discussion tonight shows the flexibility of the use of these maps.
Stephanie Alexander stated that she will put a set of maps in a binder to be kept in the Planning office for use by the Route 114 zoning subcommittee and the public.
Ms. Rico asked for someone to assist her in reviewing lot line adjustments and subdivisions that have taken place since creating the maps. Chairman Osgood volunteered to help her update the subdivision lot lines. Kellie Dyjak stated that she would also be available to help during the winter.
The board thanked Ms. Rico for all of the work that she and the Conservation Commission have put toward creating this very useful tool.
This discussion ended at 8:04 pm.
Official Map:
Ging Blanchard was in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions regarding the official town map.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, stated that according to her research, it is up to the Planning Board to approve or not approve a road for a new subdivision. The Town approves the name of the road then it goes to the Board of Selectmen before it can be placed on the official map.
Mr. McElroy stated that he called Cordell Johnston about the RSA referring to an “Official Town Road Map.” That information has to do with surveys, contours, proposed roads, etc. He was told that few towns have an “Official Town Map.”
It was clarified amongst the Board that the Town Meeting represents the legislative body while the Board of Selectmen is the governing body. The current map has been approved by the Selectmen and shows the official roads to date.
There is some question as to the status of Ridgetop Lane. Ms. Blanchard stated that she heard that the road is in the process of final inspections and were expecting acceptance soon. Chairman Osgood stated that they have not yet applied for acceptance.
There was discussion about the addition of private roads to the map. Chairman Osgood stated that once the subdivision road has occupied houses on it, the private road should be on the map until the town accepts it.
Procedure for how the fire, police and other types of emergency calls are handled on new roads was discussed. Currently, a letter of a new subdivision is sent to departments so that they are aware of any new subdivisions. The Fire Chief performs inspections of all new buildings and is aware of new roads in town.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that if the Board of Selectmen has final input on map decisions, they should be the last department to see it.
Kellie Dyjak suggested that a new map be presented to the Planning Board first for input prior to being sent to the Selectmen.
Ging Blanchard clarified that she will submit a proposed map to the Planning Board asking for any input. Chairman Osgood stated that all existing information should be on the map.
Ms. Blanchard stated that the lot lines maps are usually updated every month, except during the winter when she is away for an extended time.
The Board thanked her for the work she does in updating the town maps.
This discussion ended at 8:30 pm.
Kellie Dyjak left the meeting at 8:30 pm.
Review Draft Subdivision Regulations Revisions:
Chairman Osgood and Jim McElroy stated that they had provided Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, with a copy of their comments relative to this document prior to this meeting. Chairman Osgood asked Ms. Alexander to summarize the changes made to the document before it was discussed.
Ms. Alexander stated that there have been hundreds of changes to the entire document. She reviewed the content changes, Article by Article. She noted that the Roads Classification table appears in the Appendix. She stated that she would like the Town Engineer and Town counsel to review some areas.
The issues of “steep slopes” and “two-acre buildable area” were discussed. It was decided to put the language back in to the subdivision regulations document.
The board discussed the use of hardship waivers on page 14, C. A statement indicating the applicant’s reason for hardship needs to be submitted in writing.
The wording of several other sections of the document was discussed to ensure the greatest clarity. Wetlands, buildable area, placement of buildings, phasing plans, landscaping, timber harvesting and water and sewer issues were discussed and clarified.
The most substantial changes in the document concern “Design Review,” “conceptual consultation,” and roads. These sections will be sent to Town counsel for review. Ms. Alexander stated that the earliest she would anticipate the document to be ready for public hearing is probably November.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn at 10:00 pm; Tom Watman seconded the motion.
Chairman Osgood noted that they did not complete the items on the agenda. Stephanie Alexander stated that there is not as much business expected at the next meeting. She stated that the discussion of the Harvester Market issue and three possible conceptual consultations are all that are scheduled on the agenda for the next meeting.
There was brief discussion concerning which issues are the most important to consider for Town Meeting.
Mr. McElroy stated that the reclassification of roads and how zoning changes due to paving a road (10-acre zoning) are important issues and must be reviewed.
The motion to adjourn was passed, 3-1 (Scott Osgood dissenting).
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Planning Board
Approved
July 12, 2006
Members Present: Kellie Dyjak; Tom Watman (selectman, ex-officio);
Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chairman.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Barry Hobbins (representing Hobbins & Gardner, LLC, for Cingular); Randy Howse; Jen Lougee; Kris Blomback; Edward Bowser; Art Siciliano.
Jim McElroy, board member, called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Minutes from the work session meeting of June 28, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, noted that she had provided changes to Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary, prior to the meeting. Stephanie stated that she had Nicholas Alexander review the portion of the minutes pertaining to the roads committee to assure clarity. Kristin Claire moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded the motion; the minutes were approved 5-0.
Vice-Chairman Kristin Claire presided over the meeting.
New Business
Case #2006-008: A Telecommunications Site Plan Review application has been submitted by Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Crown Castle International. The plan is to add up to 6 panel antennas to the existing cellular tower, add an 11’ x 20’ equipment shelter, and add a LP Gas system to the compound to the property location of Map 1 Lot 588A on 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Barry Hobbins (Hobbins & Gardner, LLC) presented the application on behalf of Cingular. Mr. Hobbins stated that Cingular is proposing to add 6 panel antennas to the existing tower near the top of Pat’s Peak in order to increase coverage to the surrounding area. He stated that co-location of the wireless technology in a single area is a positive advancement in the industry. He stated that the company does have a letter of authorization signed by Kris Blomback, the general manager of Pat’s Peak.
Mr. Hobbins directed the board to review exhibit #2 which describes a 160-foot tower, with six panel XPOL antennas measuring 48 inches high, 12 inches wide and 7 inches deep coated with a nonreflective material to be placed at the 118’ level. He stated that two would be positioned in a triangular fashion with the possibility of adding six more (total 12 antennas) in the future. He stated that the company is currently seeking approval for the first six antennas, and they would have to come back to the board for another site plan review to add the additional six antennas.
Mr. Hobbins also outlined the 11’6” x 20’ x 9’ equipment shelter described in exhibit #4. He stated that 1-1/2 inch to 2-inch thick coaxial cables would be inside the pole. A backup propane system would also be used in case of loss of power. The actual plans were reviewed and discussed. Mr. Hobbins referred to exhibit #7 for the summary of weight loads and stress factors and stated that the plans are in accordance with the industry standards. He stated that the specifics are detailed in the report.
Cingular’s licensing, which expires June 23, 2015, was discussed. It was noted that they are in compliance with the FCC regulations.
Mr. Hobbins stated that this is a co-location of wireless technology, not a new structure being erected. He agreed to notice the abutters and neighboring communities within a 20-mile radius of the proposed structure if the planning board desires them to do so. Jim McElroy, board member, stated that it is a matter of courtesy that Henniker notify its neighboring towns, and he expects the same courtesy from them.
Mr. Hobbins stated that the consulting firm that was retained apparently inadvertently listed an incorrect abutter, and a notice was not delivered. He stated that this will be resubmitted properly to notify that one abutter.
Mr. Hobbins stated that the tower is 160 feet high, and the company is proposing its highest point to be 118 feet. He stated that the ordinance states 150 feet for the maximum height, and he is questioning as to whether this would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. The overall intention of the wireless telecommunication ordinance overrides everything else in the ordinance, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 effectively says that you cannot discriminate one carrier versus another carrier. A lower rate at a lower height than what is proposed would effectively minimize their capacity and put Cingular in a non-competitive situation. He stated that based on case law there is discretion in not enforcing that particular portion of the ordinance and having to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, agreed with this position.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that a zoning ordinance is on the books, but there is a policy that co-location is of great importance to the town. He stated that it is his opinion to give the co-location plan approval.
At some point, the discrepancy in the ordinance may have to be reviewed for its application to co-location.
Terry Stamps, board member, asked other questions about the technology used.
Mr. Hobbins explained that the company has a contractual arrangement through Crown Castle and Pat’s Peak to avoid interference of other systems. He also stated that there are two types of backup (gel-pack batteries and propane) to cover when there is a loss of power.
Jim McElroy asked for more information regarding the propane backup system and generator as it is not mentioned in the plans. Mr. Hobbins stated that the generator sits on a 4 x 8 foot pad.
Mr. Hobbins stated that they have requested waivers from some portions of the ordinance as many of the provisions relate to a new structure being built. This is an existing site and requires different considerations.
Jim McElroy expressed concern over the use of a generic document as some of the specifics are different for this site. He requested that the record be completed and that specifics of the buildings, moving the fence back, etc., be added to the plans.
Other issues, such as view shed analysis, landscaping and diagram of the tree canopy were discussed. Some of these may require the input of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. The necessity of these items was discussed since these concerns are relative to new sites, and this application is for co-location on an existing site.
Mr. Hobbins stated that he is only interested in being held to the same State standards that were in place when Nextel was installed in 2003. He expressed his concern that they not get caught between two boards.
It was noted that with the changing site plan review regulations in place over the last few years, some internal inconsistencies may need to be addressed in the ordinances.
Jim McElroy stated that some of the other items are simply not applicable to a co-location scenario and may not require waivers.
Maintenance of the equipment was discussed. It was noted that agreements are arranged between the company and the landowner as to whether a helicopter, four-wheel drive vehicle or snowmobiles are best used to reach the equipment. Mr. Hobbins stated that US Cellular is a service provider that uses propane at that location; arrangements are some times made with the same vendors to simplify deliveries, etc.
Jim McElroy asked about the non-interference law. He asked for the company to provide the board with a statement of their interference mitigation procedures. He stated his main concern is interference with the rescue squad emergency system, and asked for written company protocol should this occur.
Mr. Hobbins and Randy Howse stated that emergency contact numbers will be available at the site and in the town offices. They stated that the police and fire departments have keys to all of the equipment to help in emergencies, and local technicians will be dispatched if problems arise.
Mr. Hobbins stated that they will provide the same type of information that other carriers have been asked to provide.
Cingular maps detailing present coverage and the proposed increased coverage were presented to the board. The greatest increase of coverage included Rte. 202/9 and 114 in Henniker as well as New England College. Mr. Hobbins explained that if NEC wanted to go to a wireless system, Cingular could not currently provide that technology. He stated that the company currently provides wireless technology to UNH and the University of S. Maine. He stated one use is to provide phones to students when alone on campus for safety reasons.
Mr. Howse stated that it is now mandated that wireless technology include the e-911 service to locate the position of a wireless phone.
The “fall area” terminology was discussed. The term refers to things falling from the tower, i.e. during construction or a massive ice storm. The propane tank would be in compliance to the safety standards of the fire marshal.
Stephanie Alexander reviewed the necessary components of the application.
Page 2: administrative requirements
Page 2: #1, #4, #5: OK; were supplied tonight
#2, #3: will be done
#6, #7: will be submitted at the next meeting
Page 3: require a number of things in order to call application complete.
Item 2b: require to see all of the abutters’ names
Provide replacement for exhibit #10
Page 3: #8-11: Administrative type items, such as Map and Lot numbers.
Page 3: #9: Project description could be more specific. Items put on the plans themselves and on T1 page.
Page 3: #10: Give brief summary
Zoning was omitted from table (CR) zone.
Mr. Hobbins stated that Bay State Design can update to current standards.
Page 3 variances needed to be obtained from the ZBA were discussed.
Mr. Hobbins stated that these are not intended for co-locations. He asked for the board to make its approval conditional on the approval of the ZBA in order to expedite the process.
Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair, explained that the planning board does not usually even hear a case if there are elements to be brought to the zoning board first. She agreed that a new section on co-location of wireless technology is apparently necessary in the town ordinance. She assured Mr. Hobbins that no one wants to make Cingular do anything that is not necessary.
Clarification of the variances were again reviewed and include 1) view shed analysis; 2) landscaping; 3) buildings within 500 feet to be provided on the map; 4) diagram of average tree canopy.
Stephanie Alexander stated that until these requirements are met, the application cannot be voted on as complete.
Relative to #5 on their list, Mr. Hobbins stated that there is no impact to the competitor’s facility. (This item does not require a waiver, just a statement to answer the question.)
#4: Company will provide a statement explaining co-location, not the construction of a new tower.
Jim McElroy suggested, and it was decided on, that pictures of the tower may be taken from vantage points such as Depot Hill Road and Dodge Hill Road, and wording such as, “antennas and cables are invisible at x-number of feet,” may make that requirement easier to fulfill.
A statement of agreement as to how all of the equipment would be removed is necessary.
A written document stating that the area is not suitable for underground equipment is required.
Bay State will provide something to comply with the topography requirements, including where the change of the fence will be.
Equipment shelter has a small fan that produces noise similar to a small air conditioning unit. The specific details of the noise output will be provided.
There is one motion light above the exterior of the shelter that needs to be noted on the drawing.
The fire department had no comments on the plans. Other departments have not yet responded.
It is formally noted in these minutes that the applicant withdraws the waivers as were submitted in the document.
Stephanie Alexander gave a summary of recommendations:
A: Total area of improvement is less than 500 feet, so they do not need to follow the provisions of that law;
B: Best practice clause on the plans concerning propane tanks;
C: Verify type of engineer (seal by Architectural Engineer);
D: Specifications to address noise production;
E: Fire and police
F: Height issue: OK
G: N/A
H: There is an accessible road for a few months of the year. Maintenance will probably be 1-2 times per year. Arrangements to be made with Pat’s Peak.
I: Lighting
J: N/A
K: N/A
Bonding for removal of abandoned equipment is necessary.
Provide information as to how interference occurrences will be handled.
Abutters’ notices and fees must be submitted by July 19, 2006.
Case is continued to the next meeting on August 9, 2006.
The board took a short break and reconvened at 9:37 pm. Kellie Dyjak left at 9:25 pm.
Other Business:
Art Siciliano and Edward Bowser presented a conceptual consultation concerning Lot 568-C and 568-C1 in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Mr. Bowser showed the board maps of the existing property. He is considering subdividing his 31-acre parcel, utilizing road frontage on Cote Hill Road. He stated that acreage for the split meets requirements but has not been calculated yet. He is trying to give each lot 10 acres plus the house lots. There is a total of 38 acres on which to alter the lot lines (as he had given seven acres to his parents in 2000).
Mr. Bowser stated that last year Stephanie Alexander had encouraged him to wait for the town warrant article to be voted on to see if road frontage changed before continuing with his plans. He is now ready to pursue subdividing the land.
There was discussion about where driveways could be placed and that a wetlands permit would need to be applied for. The board stated that the concept looked like it could work.
Discussion Items:
Having a planning board member present on each of these committees was discussed:
1) Roads committee: They will find out if Don Armstrong still planning to attend.
2) Annual Zoning Subcommittee: Terry Stamps; Kristin Claire stated that she will still probably attend.
3) Route 114 Zoning Subcommittee: They will call Kellie Dyjak to find out if she is planning to continue on this committee.
Kristin Claire stated that she will call Chairman Scott Osgood about membership for the roads subcommittee meetings. She asked that members generate an email list of potential members to contact for the two zoning subcommittee meetings.
Terry Stamps, board member, asked for a debriefing session to be placed on the August work session to review the last two years of zoning issues covered by the planning board.
Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander stated that there have been some inquiries over the last four weeks. She stated that the board may see a site plan review in the future concerning the property at 88 Western Avenue.
The only business on the next public meeting agenda is the continuation of the Cingular case.
A representative of the Department of Revenue will be at the Selectman’s meeting on July 18, 2006 to discuss the repercussions of the $5,000 building permit exemption.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the Lincoln Institute is offering a free citizen’s planner tool kit on growth management. Kristin Claire will request this for the board.
The expenditure statement shows 46% of the money is available.
Other Business
Terry Stamps stated that the Harvester Self-Storage landscaping has not yet been done. She stated that was part of their approval. Stephanie Alexander will put it on the August 9, 2006 agenda for the board’s discussion.
Kristin Claire asked Stephanie Alexander to put discussion of RSA 155-E on the agenda for the August 9, 2006 meeting. She stated that she will talk to Chairman Osgood about this.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 pm. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
June 28, 2006
Corrected Minutes
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Kellie Dyjak and Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary.
Exactions Progress Report: Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC, gave a report on the exactions progress. Mr. Alexander stated that he met with the roads committee and the table of street specifications was finalized. He stated that he met with the town road agent today to review the information. He stated that he will give information to Stephanie Alexander to present to the board at the next work session meeting regarding: 1) list of road classifications; 2) examples of dead-end or cul-de-sac limits. Mr. Alexander said that all of the town roads would be reviewed, and the list should be reviewed periodically if an area is developed over time.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that Craney Hill Road will soon have twice the number of houses on it and questioned when it may need to be reclassified.
Mr. Alexander stated that it would be reclassified if the true character of the road changes. Just because more houses are there, the purpose is not necessarily changed. If construction includes road improvements, the classification may change. He stated that the new standards are plenty generous and should not require reclassifying roads very often.
There was discussion over who has jurisdiction to change the road classifications. It was stated that the selectmen’s duty is to protect the roads, Town Code also impacts road classification, and the planning board is involved. Mr. Alexander stated that it depends on whether a new road or an existing road is being discussed.
Jim McElroy stated that the planning board has jurisdiction over roads in subdivisions. The standards have to match town standards in that regard.
Mr. Alexander stated that no further meetings have been set with the roads committee. He stated that the needs are now changing and questioned how that group will be at working with the exactions policy. He stated that the committee has had very good technical insight but will now need more planning insight. Mr. McElroy pointed out that more economic factors are now involved such as costs, how to assess the developers, etc.
Mr. Alexander also stated that Henniker has another designation for roads:
Class A) paved roads; Class B) gravel roads that meet town standards; Other) gravel roads that do not meet town standards. He stated that there are lots of Class A and “Others’; there really are no Class B roads. He stated that the only place that these are defined is on the map. He stated that the two criteria for gravel roads failing to meet town standards are lane width and shoulders.
Mr. Alexander stated that these classes are tied into zoning ordinance 133-40, Item C. While he stated these classes are not used in any other towns, they do have an impact in Henniker such as the zoning issue of whether lots with less than 10 acres on a gravel road can be subdivided. He stated that the rule probably came as a result of two intents: 1) the intent to limit the amount of traffic because it is substandard, such as a safety issue; and 2) the intent to preserve the gravel corridor. He stated that the two intents can conflict with the new standards.
There was discussion about the old standards making one unable to build a new gravel road in town no matter how well it is built.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that the roads rebuilding plan can change zoning. He stated that there is a 5-year plan for rebuilding and replacing roads, along with a summer plan, which is done in accordance with current roads standards. Mr. Watman stated that he is not aware of a process that includes all of the input to determine if reconstruction impacts zoning.
Mr. Alexander stated that zoning is not specific to a road, but to the condition of the road which is subject to change.
The board discussed the positive and negative impact of doing away with the designation of Class A and Class B roads. Mr. Alexander stated that zoning needs to be reviewed before making any decisions.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the public hearing to accept the road classifications table will be done at the same time as the changes to the subdivision regulations.
The question as to the accepted length of dead-end streets was posed to Mr. Alexander. It was noted to find out what the town engineer says about the issue.
Mr. Alexander stated that the next phase of the committee’s work will be much less standard-oriented and will include creating the framework for how the board can impose exactions, getting information from the developers and developing policy. He asked if any of the board members would like to be involved. He anticipates two committee meetings and then a report to the board.
Review Draft Subdivision Regulations Revisions: Stephanie Alexander presented the changes to the document.
Concerning page 6, Item C, Chairman Osgood asked why a board member would be excluded from the list of those attending the informational conference.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that it is unlikely that a board member would have any other information, and his/her presence may appear political.
Terry Stamps, board member, stated, in her opinion, the risk would outdo any possible gain of the board member’s presence.
Chairman Osgood stated that since things change, and Stephanie may not always be the one there, it may be helpful to have a board member there. He stated that there could be issues with a board member attending the informational conference.
Regarding page 7, 202-5E: There was question as to public comment being made at that stage of the meeting. It was noted that the public must wait until a public hearing to express their views.
Page 9, B3, brought forth discussion as to what the minimum standards of a conceptual plan should include. Chairman Osgood stated that they are most concerned with slopes, wetland areas, proposed location of structures, driveways, roads, septic, utilities, sewers and buffers. This is of particular concern when considering open space.
Page 10, D, calls for public hearing. Jim McElroy asked if this is the best time to do it. Is public hearing suggested or required? It was noted that State Statutes do not require a public hearing.
Tom Watman said he was concerned about asking people to supply too much information at this stage.
Terry Stamps asked the board to consider when the public comment is most useful to the board.
Jim McElroy stated that asking for public comment too early can often times open it up to a complaint session. He stated that it seems questionable to have public input during conceptual consultation.
Chairman Osgood stated that he likes to have public information sooner in regards to major subdivisions. He stated that he supports public input at this stage, as long as the board keeps control of the meeting.
Tom Watman stated that there would be another public hearing at the next stage. The board can postpone their decision until after that next stage.
Gary Guzouskas, board member, suggested allowing comment strictly from abutting landowners during this phase in order to get information from those who are most affected.
Jim McElroy stated that limiting which people can speak may be perceived as political. After further discussion, Mr. McElroy suggested that this will not be a formal duly noticed public hearing, but as part of the design review process the board will accept public comment at the conclusion of the design review.
Gary Guzouskas suggested the specific wording in IV-5 of the NH OEP Planning Board Handbook.
There was discussion about relocating sections of the document (specifically Article IV) to make for easier reading and continuity. It was decided that content only would be discussed at this meeting and the arrangement would be considered later.
Terry Stamps stated that Item B on page 15 needs to reflect more of the criteria used in granting waivers concerning steep slopes.
Discussion over the term “Best Management Practices” concluded with the actual referencing of an actual document for specific information.
Other changes were noted throughout the document up to page 27. Stephanie Alexander will write a new draft indicating the changes and present it at the next scheduled work session meeting.
Correspondence
Stephanie Alexander related an email that she received today at her office. The email stated that a GIS pilot program is being developed and is seeking three communities to participate in the program. Chairman Osgood stated that the author of the email works in the same building as he; he would find him and talk to him about it as soon as possible.
A letter was received from residents of Shore Drive about fixing the beach at Long Pond.
Other Business
Chairman Osgood moved to not hold the July work session. Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. (Terry Stamps did not vote.)
Stephanie Alexander stated that she will not hold office hour on July 26 or be present at the August 9, 2006 meeting. She stated that she will reschedule Denise Rico for the August work session.
Stephanie Alexander stated that 2006 traffic counts can be done on nine town streets. The board proposed the following streets: 1) Davison Rd.; 2) Flanders Rd.;
3) Rte. 114; 4) Rte. 202/9; 5) Craney Hill; 6) Western Ave.; 7) Old Concord Rd.; 8) Rush Rd.; 9) Old Hillsboro Rd. The chair will return the form to the CNHRPC.
Chairman Osgood stated that no one came to the zoning subcommittee meeting to review zoning on Rte. 114. He suggested that the board make a list of people to call for a meeting in the early fall. He asked that the board members bring their ideas to the next meeting on July 12.
The Map Update research was postponed until the August 2006 work session so that members can read the material presented by Kellie Dyjak, board member.
Chairman Osgood reported on a meeting that he attended of the Transportation Advisory Committee. He stated that he would like for the board to get together with representatives from the towns of Hillsboro and Bradford to discuss bus service to Concord.
Earth Excavations: Kellie Dyjak, board member, has assembled a packet of information regarding RSA 155-E; “The Law Governing Earth Extractions.” In it, she has assembled State laws, Town laws, permits required, phone numbers to call for assistance, etc. She has also included the Town warrants and the affirmative votes concerning who has been grand-fathered. She stated that she has accumulated information for a basic starting point to tackle the potential project concerning this matter.
Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander stated that for the July 12, 2006, meeting there is no old business to discuss. She stated that there is a potential public hearing regarding a new application from Cingular. Ms. Alexander distributed notebooks to board members outlining the application. She also stated that she would like to continue the discussion of the three subcommittees: 1) the Rte. 114 Zoning Subcommittee; 2) Zoning (preparing for 2007 Town Meeting) Committee; 3) Roads Exactions Committee.
The minutes from the June 14, 2006 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion, and it passed, 6-0.
Chairman Osgood moved to adjourn at 10:36 pm. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion, and it passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Public Meeting
June 14, 2006
APPROVED
Members present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Tom Watman, selectman (ex-officio); Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy; Kellie Dyjak; Kristin Claire.
Others present: Stephanie Alexander, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Paul Apple, Esq.; Spencer Bennett; Linda McGuire; Stephen Bennett; Scott and Diana Tilton; Cathy & Scott Dias; Michele Bergh; Dale Clement; Jennifer McCourt.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, requested that the review of minutes from the last meeting be postponed until the end of the agenda. The board decided that there were some items relevant to the cases being discussed tonight and would, therefore, be reviewed first.
The minutes from the May 24, 2006 Work Session Meeting were reviewed and corrected. Kristin Claire moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Old Business
Case #2004-018. A modification of the Major Subdivision application approved on August 10, 2005 has been submitted by Spencer Bennett, on behalf of Stephen E. Bennett, et al. The modification is to the driveways on the approved subdivision of Lots 723 and 723A on Mt. Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman Osgood stated that another site walk had been performed to review the proposed placement of the driveway. Comments from the town’s engineer had been received.
Paul Apple, Esq., stated that the site distance issue is resolved as a result of the redesigned driveway plan.
In reference to the comments from Hoyle, Tanner, Chairman Osgood raised a question as to the actual speed limit on the road versus the site distance being adequate for a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.
After board discussion, it appears that the speed limit for that area is 15 miles per hour; therefore, the site distance is in compliance with the town-accepted design speed.
Kristin Claire, board member, asked Mr. Bennett about the stone wall right at the driveway location. Mr. Bennett stated that when the engineer did the calculations, he assumes that the builder will move that section of the stone wall out of the way. No more of the wall will be removed than what is necessary for the driveway.
Chairman Osgood stated that the line of site is now a straight line between the peak of the hill and the new driveway.
Mr. Apple stated that he and his clients feel that appropriate signage warning drivers of a dangerous curve on that road would be a wise course of action and would be a condition that the board may want to consider. He stated that the site distance was of particular concern to the board and the town engineer has answered that particular question.
In reference to the second comment by Hoyle, Tanner, stating that the driveway is too steep and what grade would correct that issue, Mr. Apple stated that the applicant has no objection to that opinion. Also, as for the drainage issue, Mr. Apple stated that the driveway will have a downward cross slope which can be addressed. Mr. Apple stated that they have reviewed a couple of drafts of the right-of-way easement, and there are a few comments from the town council that remain to be addressed and will be easily resolved. Mr. Apple stated that there are no objectionable comments on the town council’s observations, and none of the engineering review materials are a problem for the applicant at this point.
Mr. Apple proposed that their request for modified application be approved with the conditions that are set forth as well as the conditions to address obstructions to the line of site such as the stone wall, plowed snow and terrain features. He also stated that the shared driveway be conformed to the restrictions listed in item #2; the driveway plan have a downward cross slope in sections where it will run parallel to the contour; the easement language be agreed upon; and the signage.
Stephanie Alexander clarified that the shared driveway language has been reviewed by town counsel.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that all of these things from town counsel dealt with the quitclaim deed.
Paul Apple stated that there are seven points on the quitclaim deed and four points on the declaration of easement; all eleven comments are relatively minor and do not raise an issue for the applicants and should not raise an issue for the planning board.
Stephanie Alexander stated that there are a few minor issues to consider as they approach conditions of approval: numerous typographical errors; the wetlands scientist stamp to be submitted; submit copies of driveway applications; add a note to the plan stating best management practices for erosion control.
Chairman Osgood stated that there are no other comments from other town departments.
Chairman Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Jennifer McCourt asked if the suggested signage would have to be approved by the selectmen since it is a town road. Communicating about signage with the police chief and selectmen was discussed to ensure routing through proper channels.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the components to be corrected before accepting as approved. It was noted that it is the same as what had been approved prior, except for the placement of the driveway which has been modified to a shared driveway plan.
Mr. Bennett stated that the wetlands stamp was submitted in December 2005 but is just missing from this version.
Jim McElroy moved to accept this application as complete. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Chairman Osgood moved to grant conditional approval with the following:
1. Construction and maintenance activities of the shared driveway shall not obstruct the line of sight on Mount Hunger Road in conjunction with Hoyle, Tanner and Associates’ Comment #1 from 06/13/06.
2. The shared driveway plan shall be modified as directed by Hoyle, Tanner, and Associates in conjunction with their Comment #2 from 06/13/06.
3. The shared driveway shall be constructed with a downward cross-slope as directed by Hoyle, Tanner, and Associates in conjunction with their Comment #3 from 06/13/06.
4. The Mount Hunger Road right of way Quit Claim Deed shall be amended as directed by Town Counsel to their satisfaction.
5. The shared driveway easement between Lots 723 and 723A shall be amended as directed by Town Counsel to their satisfaction.
6. The following note shall be added to the plan: Best management practices for erosion control during construction shall be utilized to prevent site disturbance from impacting the wetlands.
7. Typographical errors on the Plan shall be corrected, including “buried”, “are” in Note 6, and easement detail on Sheet 2 should refer to Note “6”.
8. The wetlands scientist’s signature and seal shall be affixed to all final plans.
9. Copies of the driveway application shall be submitted.
10. Signage shall be erected warning drivers of the curve.
Jim McElroy seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Stephanie Alexander notified the applicants that they are assessed $5,518.00 per single family dwelling unit in impact fees.
This discussion concluded at 7:54 pm.
New Business
Case 2006-005: A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Catherine A. Dias for a two-lot subdivision on 13.64 acres at Craney Hill Road located on Map1, Lot 651 in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman Osgood referred to a letter from Jacques E. Belanger and the Consultant’s review.
Jennifer McCourt with McCourt Engineering Associates presented new drawings of the property. She stated that Lot 651 located on Craney Hill road has been selectively cut. The two driveways for each of the lots have been approved by the highway department and are in place. The total area of the lot is 13.64 acres with 1390.33 linear feet of frontage. This property is in the rural residential zone which requires five acre lots with two acres buildable and 125 feet of frontage.
Referencing the consultant’s report, page 3, “Plat Details Required for all Subdivisions,” Ms. McCourt spoke to the list of needed items.
Ms. McCourt stated that the applicant has submitted request for a waiver relative to the contiguous two-acre buildable land. The width of the road has been added. The plans are stamped and signed by the wetland scientist.
She stated that the entire lot is covered in soil type 380D and a note was added to the plans stating this. She showed where a benchmark was denoted on the plans. Ms. McCourt showed where a monument was marked by a tree at the bend in the fence line which corresponds to the other physical data.
Ms. McCourt stated that there is a purchaser in place for one of the proposed lots and building plans have been designed by a local architect. This building is represented in the actual building site. She stated that the other drawing represents a potential building site, and they are not looking at building on that area right away.
Ms. McCourt presented ideas for creating the required two-acre contiguous buildable lots. She stated that one plan could be to cut trees down and re-grade the area, adding a couple five-foot strips to connect the buildable area to create the two contiguous acres. She stated that this would require cutting and filling 10- to 20-feet elevations. She stated that the second idea is less costly and involves creating a couple five foot strips to connect the buildable areas with less than 20% slopes but creates an irregular lot line. The 50 foot buffer to the wetlands is added to this plan.
Ms. McCourt stated the intention of the two acre buildable land requirement is to create a lot that can be built on and to make sure that owners are not continually requesting variances and to protect the land with erosion control. She stated that prior to the recent storms, Mr. Dias had selectively cut the region. She stated that after the storms, she reviewed the property and there was very minimal erosion to the areas at this point. She showed how the location of the proposed house works with the natural environment and provides views which increase the tax base. She stated that there are erosion control measures which can be put in place during construction to make sure that there are no problems.
Ms. McCourt stated that the planning board has requested that notes of “best management practices,” be added; however, she stated that specific information should be included. She stated that a letter had been received from the fire chief concerning the addition of a cistern or sprinklers.
She stated that in response to the memo from the conservation commission addressing the environmental issue of the slopes, once finish grade is established there will be a deadline as to when the area will be loamed and seeded to begin the stabilization process. The applicant has requested that they be allowed to begin as soon as possible in order to remain in the best window of opportunity for the growing season.
Terry Stamps, board member, stated that the conservation commission has raised two concerns: 1) erosion control; 2) as more steep slopes are developed there are more risks and continued erosion.
Ms. McCourt stated that once the area is established and growing and a healthy stand is in place, there is little risk of future erosion problems.
Terry Stamps asked for the current contiguous acres with less than 20% slope per lot. Ms. McCourt stated that the actual amount has not been calculated yet.
Scott Dias, applicant, stated that the home was designed by a local architect for the site. He worked with Jacques Belanger so that the house could be worked harmoniously into the neighborhood rather than sticking out on a perch. There are fairly significant views and the driveways are already in. He stated that this property is in line of site of his own residence which is the main reason why they purchased the property. He stated that the conservation commission’s concerns are to ensure that development is done in a way to best protect the environment. He stated that this plan works with the land rather than bulldozing the area to make two contiguous acres to meet a regulation. He stated that this plan provides sensible development in a reasonable approach.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that the house spans a dropoff of roughly 20 feet.
Ms. McCourt stated that there is a walkout, and the house is designed to fit into the landscape.
Jennifer McCourt stated that adding the three conditions to the plans for development that when the future lot is constructed, those conditions would still be in place. She stated that she would rather put a note on the plans stating the approximate directions for the silt fence to be placed, leaving the exact placement to Mr. Dias during the actual construction. Notes could be added indicating the need for inspection once per week or so that the proper measures are in place. Another condition would be for the area to be loamed and seeded within four to five days. She stated that these are powerful notes which help to maintain an environmentally friendly land.
Jim McElroy asked that once construction and landscaping is done, what impact will changes have on drainage.
Chairman Osgood stated his opinion on the request for waiver. He stated that based on Ms. McCourt’s presentation, he is confident that they have formed a nice lot, there is a nice future owner who will put the lot to good use, and it appears to be a good rational plan. The fact that the plan has been developed with the environment in mind makes him willing to grant the variance based on their design.
Terry Stamps, board member, stated that her objection is not with this application but rather why have the 20% slope regulation if we can assume that we will see proposals by responsible people.
Kristin Claire, board member, stated that the regulation is in place for the typical applications that come before the board by people who are not as concerned for the environment.
Ms. Stamps stated that her concern is not with this application, but the way that the planning board will be granting or denying waivers based on the integrity of the presenters.
Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire, board members, both shared their opinions that the plans are being evaluated, not the people presenting. Ms. Claire stated that looking at a proposed plan where the house has been designed, buyers are in place, the driveways are already in place and very specific erosion control measures are presented helps to make an educated decision on granting a waiver. There have been other circumstances where none of this information has been available which makes the board unable to address waivers for land with slopes over 20%.
Ms. McCourt stated that is the reason that they are requesting a waiver instead of a variance, which asks for something that is not allowed. The waiver is for a unique situation and the parties are willing to go the extra mile to address the concerns in the regulation.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, stated that since the contractor has designed the house specifically to fit into the site, she is willing to grant the waiver as requested.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that this appears to be wise use of the land and is willing to grant the waiver. The waiver does permit the board to be flexible and review the land on a case by case basis. He stated that since he is not an expert on erosion control matters, he defers to others as to whether the measures presented are adequate. He stated that may be something that the conservation commission may want to consider being involved in if they are knowledgeable enough about a piece of land to make recommendations about what they would see as reasonable steps for control.
Ms. Stamps stated that because the conservation commission is looking at the requirements from a different point of view, they are not yet in a position to look at exceptions to the regulation.
Mr. Watman stated that the commission might want to consider what steps would be appropriate as a sample of soil control when it comes up for discussion.
Chairman Osgood stated that the board may want to look into developing protocols for erosion control.
Scott Dias stated that the steep slope requirement offers the opportunity for would-be land owners and developers to bring in bigger equipment to level the existing land. He stated that the best scenario is to utilize the land as it is and work with smart environmental practices. He stated that the conservation commission’s requirement for two-acre contiguous land is not reasonable, nor is he sure if it is even legal.
Kellie Dyjak asked if the conservation commission saw the plans for the land and the design of the house. Ms. Stamps stated that they only saw the plans for the land.
Kristin Claire stated that she partially disagrees with Scott as she thinks that 20% slope is reasonable when you do not have a good builder in charge. Ms. Claire stated that when conscientious people are involved, she has much less concern.
Chairman Osgood stated that the regulation is important as there are some areas in town that have no land with less than 20% slope on them, and it keeps those areas from ever being developed. He noted that there are times when there is gray area, and it can be reasonably discussed to be achievable.
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the waiver; Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion was passed, 5-1 (Terry Stamps dissenting.)
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the plan as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0.
Stephanie Alexander asked if the board will be requiring a letter from the power company stating that electrical service will be available.
Ms. McCourt stated that the electric company hates issuing those letters. Some towns also request letters from phone and cable providers also. She stated that if a line is in the area, by the Public Utilities Commission, service then has to be provided. Jim McElroy stated that there are times when a development can be made far enough away from an existing power line that the question should be made, however, he does not feel that this is such a case.
Chairman Osgood moved approve this plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Typographical errors on the Plan shall be corrected, including those in the text of Lots 648A (name spelling), and the truncated text of Lots 647 and 652.
2. The following note shall be added to the plan: Residential sprinkler systems shall be installed in accordance with Henniker Fire Department specifications.
3. A narrative shall be submitted stating the types of best management practices, including weekly inspection, for erosion and sedimentation control which will be employed on the site and an accompanying note shall be added to the plan. The measures will include silt fencing, haybaling, loaming and seeding, and hydroseeding. Weekly inspection of the site shall be undertaken by the Code Enforcement Officer or designee to ensure the functionality of the measures.
Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0.
Scott Dias stated that he would like to hydroseed the slopes with a conservation mixture within four to five days and leave the area directly around the house ready for landscaping.
The impact fee was assessed at $5,518.00 per single family dwelling unit.
Conceptual Consultation
Tilton Minor Subdivision at 21 Liberty Hill Road on Map 1, Lot 134-F on 5.46 acres in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District:
Scott and Diana Tilton presented their request for subdividing their property and building a smaller home on the newly created lot. They stated that they enjoy living in town and neighborhood and are exploring the opportunity of lessening their property taxes and building a more affordable home. Mr. Tilton explained that by doing this, they would be able to continue to reside in Henniker.
Description of the property, any wetlands and special features were discussed.
Jennifer McCourt noted that the property is on a gravel road.
The board explained the regulations of requiring ten acres to subdivide on a nonconforming road. The applicants have the option to take a request to the town for approval to bring the gravel road to a Class V road in order to pursue subdivision. Because of this condition of the road regulations, this conceptual design was not supported.
Discussion Items
The letter dated May 31, 2006 from Diane M. Gorrow of the law office of Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward and Loughman regarding the School Impact Fees was discussed.
Stephanie Alexander stated that she has tried to summarize the content of the letter. In response to the question of what lots can be charged impact fees, the letter states all lots except for those that were approved under the four-year exemption that were developed by the planning board between July 27, 2001 and July 2005.
Chairman Osgood stated that a spreadsheet listing all parent lots and the subdivided lots during that time is available.
Ms. Alexander stated that those lots are subject to the impact fees if they have not taken undertaken active and substantial development within a year of their approval.
Chairman Osgood stated that if the building has already been done, then no impact fees can be assessed.
Ms. Alexander stated that these fees will be collected at the time when building permits are issued. The flow chart will be consulted to determine whether there is the need for assessing this impact fee. The second consideration is to determine whether there is any old fee structure that would apply to those lots.
Chairman Osgood stated that impact fees were adopted on July 27, 2001. Everyone who was approved after that date is automatically assessed the impact fee. He stated, “For example, if you have a lot and in four years you developed it before the impact fees were in place, but you didn’t pull the permit until after the fees were instituted, then the fees would be assessed. If the fees are changed, then they are grand-fathered for four years from the date of approval.” He also noted that the fees have to be changed as it is currently a static number; they should be time-sensitive and include an inflation factor.
Ms. Alexander stated that the process is almost complete and the structure will be explained to those who will be responsible at the building permit level.
Discussion took place of item (2.a.) on page 4 of the letter regarding “parent lots.”
Chairman Osgood stated that as soon as a permit is pulled for any lot, an impact fee may be assessed and collected.
Ms. Alexander stated that a checklist be reviewed during subdivision approval to catch any necessary items. She stated that the board has been doing that.
Discussion of the Elm Street subdivision took place. Chairman Osgood stated that work began after the impact fee was approved. It was in effect, but the fee was not assessed.
Ms. Alexander stated that you cannot go back to collect the fees retroactively as they are to be collected at the building permit stage or before the certificate of occupancy is granted.
Regarding the Elm Street phased development, the first phase of building has already been completed, and the board neglected to impose the newly adopted impact fee structure at the time of subdivision approval. Now the question stands that when they come back to build the second and third phases, should an impact fee be imposed? The board is in agreement that future building will require assessing impact fees. While there are legal grounds to go back to assess fees on the first phase, the board agrees that should not be done.
Ms. Alexander stated that she still has some questions, especially relating to the four-year exemption.
Discussion continued specific to the Elm Street subdivision, indicating that because it was approved and work started, there may be no legal basis for the phasing determination. The question remains as to assessment made at the approval of phasing or when permits are issued.
Jim McElroy stated that the document states that the board has the right to get the money if we want to; however, someone could make that argument in a court that the board is overstepping its bounds as the subdivision was approved and nothing was assessed at the time.
Terry Stamps stated the necessity to be very clear in the active and substantial requirements especially in a phasing plan.
Scott Osgood, Stephanie Alexander and Peter Flynn are to meet to clarify all of the details, especially with regard to the four-year exemption.
Jim McElroy stated that there should be a column on the spreadsheet titled, “Approved But No Building Permit Issued.”
Ms. Alexander showed the board an example of a spreadsheet.
Jim McElroy stated that the attorney concurs that the money generated by these impact fees may be used to pay off the school bonds.
Mr. McElroy expressed concern of growth management plan, impact fees and road exactions. He stated that it will not take too much more growth before an impact is felt in the fire and rescue department. He asked to consider revisiting the decision of fire and rescue impact fees.
Consultant’s Report
Ms. Alexander stated that she is working on the agenda for the June 28, 2006 Work Session Meeting. She stated that someone from the Regional Planning Commission will come and speak to the developments on the street regulations and the determination of road classifications.
The subdivision regulations document will continue to be reviewed. Kellie Dyjak will have research results of the official town maps.
Other Business
Chairman Osgood asked for alternates to the planning board.
Discussion ensued about the availability of getting flood insurance if you are in a flood plain. The town has had flood ordinances in effect since 1973. Ms. Alexander stated that according to the national flood insurance programs, anyone can get flood insurance if the town has the proper ordinances (which Henniker has).
Tom Watman asked about the proper establishment of the zoning subcommittee that is to meet on June 15, 2006. The purpose is to consider ideas specifically for Rte. 114. Advertising was in the newspapers and several people were called to recruit members.
Kellie Dyjak stated that Jennifer McCourt plans to return at the next planning board business meeting to formally approve this subcommittee and its charter.
Terry Stamps will write the advertisement recruiting members for the other zoning subcommittee that prepares for the town meeting.
Chairman Osgood asked that discussion of this zoning subcommittee be placed on the agenda for the next work session meeting.
Kristin Claire asked if there is a specified maximum length of cul-de-sac roads and dead-end streets. It should be in the subdivision street regulations. This will be addressed in the work session meeting.
Kellie Dyjak moved to close the meeting at 9:40 pm; Kristin Claire seconded and the motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Work Session
Draft Minutes
May 24, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Jim McElroy; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Kellie Dyjak, Gary Guzouskas; Kristin Claire
Non-members and guests: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Mary Pinkham-Langer; Joan O’Connor; Ging Blanchard; Dennis McComish; Jennifer McCourt; Cynthia Marsland; Caleb Robbins; Mark Mitch
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Joan O’Connor, resident of Hemlock Corner Loop, asked permission to address the board. She stated that the Tanner property that has been discussed for subdivision now has three signs advertising its sale. She has made a formal request for the town to look into purchasing the property. She stated that in addition to the original 4-H’s motto, she would like to submit these “4-H’s” when considering this piece of land: “Habitat, Headwaters, Historic schoolhouse and it’s a Hell of a location.”
Chairman Osgood stated that the conservation commission has a list of properties to review.
Kristin Claire stated that there is about $30,000 in town funds, but that the town needs to bond for money.
The board encouraged Ms. O’Connor to participate in the process and come to the conservation commission meeting.
1. The minutes of the 5/10/06 planning board meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy motioned to approve the minutes as corrected; Kristin Claire seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
2. The minutes of the 5/10/06 Site Walk of the Bennett-Mt. Hunger property were reviewed. Chairman Osgood moved to approve the minutes; Jim McElroy seconded, and the motion carried.
3. An Official Street Map Update was presented by Ging Blanchard. She showed where the maps were marked. They are not defined as to public vs. private roads. This map is for nomenclature to state the names of the streets. Updated road names include Diamond Drive, Pine Hill, Ridgetop Lane and Quarry Hill Court. Ms. Blanchard stated that the last update was done in June 2003.
The board discussed whether there had to be a posted public hearing to accept the maps. Previous maps were accepted in 1970, 1991, 1997 and 2003. Kellie Dyjak, Kristin Claire and Cynthia Marsland will research whether the planning board can accept the maps or whether it needs a public hearing before they are able to be accepted. Stephanie Alexander will put it on the agenda if necessary.
Cynthia Marsland took possession of the maps and will care for them in Ms. Blanchard’s absence.
4. Mary Pinkham-Langer, State of NH Gravel Assessor, presented “Planning Board Gravel Pit Responsibilities.”
7:30 pm: Cynthia Marsland introduced the program by stated that the last time the board looked at this topic was several years ago. This program is to educate the board about the excavation processes and the responsibilities involved. Mary Pinkham-Langer stated that she is not an attorney and cannot provide legal answers. The main focus of her discussion concerned RSA 155-E, site specific permitting, EPA regulations and the RSA 72-B Excavation Tax. She encouraged questions from the board and those present in the audience during her presentation. Ms. Pinkham-Langer provided the board with written information to refer to specifically.
Jennifer McCourt stated that during her term on the planning board, the excavation records were reviewed and a summary of all permits and those who were grandfathered in is available.
Mary Pinkham-Langer stated that excavation tax came about in 1998, and it is the planning board’s responsibility to ensure compliance. She stated that there are minimum standards which must be maintained. She stated that the town cannot go below the statutory requirements.
The planning board is to do inventory of all excavation sites of stationary manufacturing plants, abandoned pits, reclaimed pits and active excavations. Kristin Claire asked if the planning board can get state help in reviewing all of the excavation records, and Ms. Pinkham-Langer stated that her office can assist the town in reviewing permits.
The board discussed the planning board’s role in the enforcement functions and that town meeting stated the planning board as the regulator. Chairman Osgood stated that he believes that this process is a town administration function.
Jim McElroy expressed the need for a checklist of the sites, environmental services, applications made, granted and updated, etc.
Chairman Osgood stated that this evening’s presentation had gone a long way towards learning what is required of the planning board. There are state rules and the board is trying to stay ahead of any problems that may occur.
Mary Pinkham-Langer stated that there is a handbook of NH Land Use Planning and Zoning to refer to for help and that the DES website is helpful. She also stated that she is willing to help as the board goes through the process.
This discussion ended at 8:34 pm.
5. Chairman Osgood introduced guest speaker, Mark Mitch from the conservation commission.
Mr. Mitch stated that questions have arisen over the issues of erosion and drainage and the basis for the board’s recent deviation under hardship. He stated that the commission’s concern is with the hill slopes stability. He stated that part of these concerns stem from the Bennett property. He questioned the meaning of the hardship rule.
Jim McElroy stated that when the board approves clearing a lot, they require that there be area on the lot which can be built. The board is saying is that there is the potential for building but does not require specifics such as foundations to be staked as the board does not issue building permits.
Chairman Osgood stated that the Bennett property had two acres available but they were not contiguous.
Jim McElory asked for his concept of a contiguous building area.
Mr. Mitch stated an area connected together with land in that area less than 20% slope so that any digging would not have any major impact on the area. He stated that these are common standards used by other towns.
Jennifer McCourt stated that there is so much new erosion control technology available. It is necessary to consider that a house can sometimes be built better at a higher grade with the new erosion controls than on a lesser grade without those controls.
Mr. Mitch asked if this decision sets a precedent.
Jim McElroy stated that this is a land use board. We determine if it looks like a house and driveway could be built there. Land can be bought and sold many times before house is actually built.
The board further discussed that the board can make denials based on two acres of continuous acreage and the criteria for granting waivers.
Mr. Mitch questioned the need to use slopes as a criteria for identifying conservation parcels. Mr. McElroy stated that 20% is a reasonable slope for Henniker.
6. Subdivision Regulation Changes
Stephanie Alexander explained that this document includes technical changes identified at other meetings. New sections are included. She stated that this is a work in progress and needs to be discussed. Formatting clearly and consistently makes is more readable. Some things have been deleted and additions are italicized and bolded. Others have remained the same in other language. She began a page by page review and discussion
The board changed Article III to “Pre-Application Review” with three sections for information conference, conceptual consultation and design review.
Jennifer McCourt stated that pre-application is nonbonding and no applicant will want to spend money on design review unless it is binding. Pre-application procedure is for applicant and their engineer to come in to discuss before it’s put down on paper.
Jim McElroy stated design review should be done later.
Jennifer McCourt stated that preliminary action to work out specific issues should be done.
Stephanie Alexander stated design review includes notes to abutters.
Kristin Claire stated design review is sill pretty loose.
Jennifer McCourt asked if it the process had to be done in three phases. Can an applicant skip “conceptual” phase and go right to design review? Discussion by the board continued and it was decided that one has to go through design review but the conceptual review is optional for major subdivisions. Nothing is required for minor subdivisions.
Informational conference shall be scheduled for all subdivisions.
Meeting with planning consultant for informational conference shall be placed on the schedule and flow chart.
Jennifer McCourt began discussion of page 11, B.2.a.vii as it could be perceived as taking of land. She stated that she would like to see the town vote this in.
Stephanie Alexander stated that this is typically found in zoning under general provisions or wetlands conservation.
Jennifer McCourt stated wetlands under a certain size should not have a buffer to them and a lot of towns have conditional approval.
Chairman Osgood stated that RSA 133-114 (D) has special zoning provisions.
After review and discussion, the board decided that they would like more time to read the document and discuss it more fully at the next work session. Chairman Osgood asked everyone to bring the document to the next meeting.
Jim McElroy expressed concern over how involved the planning board is to be in the gravel assessment process.
Scott Osgood stated that he does not think that it is the planning board’s job. He will talk to the town administrator to clarify their place. He stated that he does not wish to spend any more time working on this issue tonight.
7. At 9:52 pm, Chairman Osgood asked Jennifer McCourt to speak about the zoning commission.
Jennifer McCourt stated that the area of Rte. 114 towards Weare is underutilized. She proposed the idea of some sort of “55 and older district” as a phenomenal asset to the tax base. She stated that newer communities are selling quickly. Fire and rescue are a little more in those areas.
Discussion by the board re-emphasized the need to look at rezoning of Rte. 114 S and its potential uses.
Tom Watman suggested looking at rezoning Rte. 114 in the Bradford direction also.
The board discussed staking areas along the major routes before it all becomes residential. Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to review the whole town.
Jim McElroy supports investigating rezoning of Rte.114 as the identifiable focus.
Jennifer McCourt stated that continuous development calls are coming in to her office. She suggested reviewing the rezoning in smaller sections.
Tom Watman stated the need for a written charge with a broader statement for the purpose of this committee.
Chairman Osgood suggested that the rezoning deal solely with commercial and light industry. Discussion continued about the board’s reputation for being against commercial and industry. He stated that others in the community should be invited to a zoning subcommittee meeting.
Jennifer McCourt stated that involvement in the rezoning subcommittee would include site walks, mailers, informational meetings and public hearings, etc.
Chairman Osgood stated that the charter should include finding viable commercial properties on major routes of Rtes. 114 and 202.
Jim McElroy asked if there was any money in the budget to help this committee do studies, etc. Have to focus on what we want it to look like in 20 years.
The first meeting of the rezoning subcommittee is set for Thursday, June 15, 2006 at
6:30 pm. Kellie Dyjak will talk to Peter about where meeting will be held.
Gary Guzouskas suggested having some of the more vocal people in town on the committee at the beginning. People to invite include Chris Blomback from the Henniker Business Association, the Patenaudes, Arthur Kendrick and Spencer Bennett. Chairman Osgood will ask Peter Flynn for people from the Rotary.
Public notice of the meeting will be put in the three local newspapers.
8. Correspondence: A letter form the American Planning Association was mentioned.
At 10:26 pm, Jim McElroy motioned not to entertain any new business; Gary Guzouskas seconded, and all approved.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the other item to inform the planning board of are the Mt. Hunger modification to approval.
Gary Guzouskas stated that he will not be attending the next meeting on June 14, and Kristin Claire stated that she will not be at any meetings in August.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 pm.
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
May 16, 2006
Bennet -Mt Hunger
Conceptual Discussion Relocated Driveway
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chair
Guests Present:
Spencer Bennet, owner and applicant
Stephen Forster, Ted Parkins, Marty Davis
The meeting began at 6:00.
The purpose of the meeting was to view a proposed double driveway location at the westerly lots for the subdivision.
The new drive is located about 10 ft from the property line of the two most western lots.
The applicant has flagged the area of the new driveway. The flagging shows the entry at the road as well as the drives into the new lots.
Spencer noted he will leave the flagging up until the hearing for the application is held.
Spencer produced plan showing a vertical profile of the existing roadway. The plan shows the elevation of the roadway, and includes a line of site, taken from a point at the crest of the hill, at a height approximately 3-1/2 ft above the road. This plan shows a site distance of 226 ft. This distance was measured and walked by those in attendance. Scott noted the representation seemed to be reflected in the field observation. The applicant will present the plan with the application. The board will forward it to the Town Consultant for comment.
Discussion was held as to other possible options for gaining access to the lots. A drive though the middle of the lot was mentioned. The applicant noted a new road would become a Town expense.
The site walk ended at 6: 25
Respectfully submitted
D Scott Osgood
PLANNING BOARD
Approved Minutes
May 10, 2006
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; James McElroy; Terry Stamps; Thomas Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Joan O’Connor; Stephen Bennett; Bradford and Sally Tanner; Dan Philbrick; Art Siciliano; Paul Apple, Esq.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:59 pm.
1) Minutes from the 4/26/06 work session were read and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
2) Case #2006-06: A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Bradford and Sally Tanner for a two-lot subdivision on 62.54 acres at Hemlock Corner Loop on Map 1, Lot 54C in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the status of this application and noted that it is in the completion phase of the process. A site walk had been performed on April 18, 2006, and a revised plan has been submitted. The conservation committee did a site walk and found no issues. It was noted that an improvement of the septic design had been made on Lot 54D but was not really required by the board. Chairman Osgood what the changes in the revised plan are.
Art Siciliano stated that there were minor changes, such as adding a revised brook on the map based on the board’s recommendations. There was discussion as to the flow of the stream now added to the map.
Jim McElroy asked for an update on what components are still missing.
Art Siciliano stated that the whole property has been surveyed. She stated that they are expecting to receive the NH Natural Heritage Inventory letter next week. No permits have been applied for yet. Mr. Tanner asked the planning board to show where it is necessary to have a driveway permit.
Chairman Osgood stated that the natural driveway locations are fine, and it should not be a problem to get the permit. The board agreed that this would not be an issue to approval.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the Tanner’s application as complete contingent upon receiving the NH Natural Heritage Inventory letter. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 5-0.
Moving to the acceptance phase, Chairman Osgood commenced the public hearing and invited the public to speak to this subdivision plan.
Joan O’Connor, in attendance and resident of Hemlock Corner Loop, stated a case for the protection and conservation of above-mentioned property. She stated that she is familiar with the land as she had permission from the previous owner to walk into that land. She has personally seen beaver, otter, birds, great heron nesting sites; other people have spotted bear and moose. She explained that this parcel of land is an important source of water as the headwaters for Upper Pond, Middle Pond and Long Pond. It is also part of the Minks, one of largest, continuous protected pieces of land in New Hampshire. She stated that Warner is making efforts to protect the Minks, and she asked what Henniker is doing towards that end.
She stated that she would like this application denied and would like for the town of Henniker to buy the land. She stated that she would be willing to help secure money for this purpose. She stated that it “breaks her heart to see this land chopped up;” and even though this subdivision comprises only two houses, people tend to landscape, sending fertilizer and other contaminants into the wetlands. She also noted the relatively dry spring this year and how wet the land still is there. Ms. O’Connor noted a newsletter from the UNH Cooperative Extension center citing the necessity of communities fighting for the protection of trees, wetlands, watersheds and water quality, thereby improving the quality of life.
Chairman Osgood stated that it may be important for the conservation commission to be present at a meeting to share the efforts they have been making. There is now a town budget as the real estate transfer taxes are in a fund to purchase such areas. He stated that because land is subdivided does not mean that it cannot be conserved; people that buy the land can be sensitive to the area’s issues. He noted that as a planning board, there is nothing that can be done as it is zoned as a residential area.
Terry Stamps stated the conservation commission does now have money available.
She stated that the conservation commission has constructed an inventory of land within Henniker and prioritized them on several different criteria. She explained that now when land becomes available there is a process for determining protection by the town.
She stated that she would take the information to the conservation commission and see whether that area is on their inventory of properties.
Chairman Osgood stated that the town is always trying to generate interest in protecting the land and invited suggestions for improving the process.
Jim McElroy stated that the existing process asks the conservation commission to do a site walk and no concerns were found with this proposed site.
Tom Watman asked why the planning board would even consider going beyond the scope of their authority. This application has met the town’s standards for this type of property. He stated that it is the responsibility of the conservation commission to consider the protection issues, but the planning board should not risk alienation by going outside the regulations as they currently stand.
Chairman Osgood stated that the whole approval process includes the ability to influence the decision for certain size of a subdivision; the applicant is required to present a conceptual. At that point is when everyone gives their opinions as to how it could be made better. He stated that discussion with the applicant is desired by everyone and helps to make the best ideas work.
Tom Watman stated his concern that the planning board stay within the scope of their own regulations. He noted that discussions are helpful to all parties, but the various groups, such as the conservation commission, the historical society, and the historical district commission, have their place in commenting on particular pieces of land that they have studied.
Jim McElroy stated that it is true that there is no framework in town for neither nature conservation nor historical distinctions; there are no regulations or ordinances specifically for these issues. These can be discussed and brought forward if enough people in the town want them. He stated that other towns have heritage commissions which have a far broader scope than the conservation commission.
Chairman Osgood invited Ms. O’Connor to come to the subcommittee meetings.
Chairman Osgood closed the public session at 7:38 pm. He then asked for any board deliberation.
Chairman Osgood moved to approve this plan with the one condition to include:
1. Submit a letter from the NH Natural Heritage Inventory identifying rare plants, animals, and communities in and near the subdivision.
Tom Watman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
It was noted that active and substantial development was defined and will be stated on the NOD. The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set. As the applicant has stated that single family detached homes will be built on the lots, school impact fees have been assessed by the Planning Board at $5,518 per housing unit on Lot 54-D.
3) Subdivision Regulations Amendment—Active and Substantial Development definition.
Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 pm for the Henniker, NH Definition for “Active and Substantial Development.” Stephanie Alexander introduced revised language for the document.
Discussion between the board members noted the information in items (i) and (ii) being put at the bottom of the page with denoted single and double asterisks for easier reading.
Gary Guzouskas explained that there is slightly more extensive language for clarity in the paragraph stating, “Plans approved in phases shall be subject to this definition for the phase currently being developed.”
At 7:49 pm, Chairman Osgood asked for public comment and further board discussion. There was none and the public hearing was closed.
Stephanie Alexander suggested that the word “should” be changed to “shall” in the third paragraph from the bottom reading, “Plans approved with phasing plans in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article XXIX, Growth Management, shall have this definition applied to the first phase of the project.”
Further discussion stated that this language will go into the subdivision regulations and will include a bracket indicating that this was added May 10, 2006.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the revised language of “Active and Substantial Development”. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was accepted 5-0.
Chairman Osgood and the board thanked Gary Guzouskas for his work on making the document clearer and easier to read.
4) Case #2004-018: A conceptual consultation for a modification of approval. The modification is to the driveways on the approved subdivision of Lots 723 and 723A on Mt. Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Paul Apple, Esq., reviewed the reasons for requesting a modification of the driveways at this property. He stated that there were concerns regarding safety, and one of the conditions of approval was improvements to the road. He stated that there has been some hesitancy by the board of selectmen to approve those changes to the road. It was noted in a preliminary discussion that if changes were made to the driveways, then the changes in the road would not be necessary. Other changes, Mr. Apple noted, have been fulfilled. He stated that they are here for conceptual consultation to allay safety concerns and asking to modify the conditions of approval.
Jim McElroy stated that shared driveways have been done before, and it appears that the contours of the road easily accommodate a shared driveway. He asked if this has been passed by the town engineer.
Paul Apple, Esq., stated that has not yet been done. He stated that their surveyor submitted the plans, but because this board raised the safety concerns, they are requesting if the shared driveway plan meets their expectations.
Jim McElroy asked the board if this proposed plan should go to Hoyle, Tanner to see if this approach satisfies the safety situation.
Discussion about the placement of the entrance of the shared driveway was held between the board members, Paul Apple, Esq., and Art Siciliano. It was stated that the proposed shared driveway would be placed where the previously accepted driveway plan was already established on Lot 723, thereby adding 80 feet to the site distance.
Chairman Osgood stated that there is now different information to consider, and should be considered in a new light. This plan moves the driveway 80 feet from the peak of the hill. He restated the applicant’s request for a “modification of approval” regarding the driveway placement in order to move forward in a timely manner.
Jim McElroy stated that since other shared driveway plans have been approved for traffic control, he recommends that Hoyle, Tanner be asked for their review of this plan as it relates to the site distance. He stated that this should be done quickly for the applicant, and Terry Stamps voiced her agreement with this scenario.
Chairman Osgood asked for the proposed driveway to be staked, the planning board perform a new site walk and have it announced for public hearing at the June meeting.
The site walk is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 6:00 pm. Board members will meet at the site of the proposed driveway. A notice of meeting will be sent to all planning board members and the members of the conservation commission.
Chairman Osgood stated that he will call Hoyle, Tanner to explain the latest developments in reviewing the driveway alteration as this may be the simplest way to resolve the matter.
5) Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander distributed her consultant’s log to show what she has done and who has come in to see her on a monthly basis. Discussion was generated about the lack of the public’s awareness of this record being kept, its purpose and the fact that it could be subpoenaed in court.
Ms. Alexander noted that two guests are on the agenda for the May 24, 2006 work session. Ging Blanchard will be at the meeting to discuss the updated street maps and reclassification of the streets in Henniker. Ging has also been invited to the next roads policy meeting. She is only scheduled for 15 minutes.
Mary Pinkham Langer, the state gravel inspector, will be at the meeting to give a one-hour presentation on gravel maintenance.
Chairman Osgood stated that the excavation presentation could make the board and the town aware of responsibilities. As there are large excavations in town, it may be helpful to make sure that all parties that may be affected by these laws are aware of this presentation. He stated that even though the public will be notified, it may be wise to personally invite the Michie, Patenaude, McComish and Aucoin businesses, as well as the highway department, so that they may sure to be involved at the beginning of this process. He stated that there are no concerns at the present time, but the town and the excavators may need to be updated on the requirements.
Ms. Alexander stated that also on the May 24, 2006 agenda is discussion of the subdivision site plan regulations.
Stephanie Alexander stated that a new circuit rider contract was provided to Peter Flynn. She stated that this year’s budget will end December 31, 2006, and then will be budgeted annually beginning in January 2007. Ms. Alexander stated that the $27,000 budgeted at $45.00 per hour represents 46 hours per month for normal planning board business. Staff reports and staff reviews are paid out of escrow accounts.
Ms. Alexander stated that she had been asked to write an article for the Outlook and to be posted on the Town of Henniker website to inform the public of her services and availability. The board reviewed the article. She will make the recommended changes and submit the article
6) Correspondence
It was noted that another letter was received from Terra Map.
7) Other Business
The board discussed GIS and Arcsoft which is used by the state planning commission. Chairman Osgood stated that adequate software can be purchased for under $2,000. He stated that it is important to build a staff that has the expertise to manage the software.
Coordinating the information for town growth as a planning board tool, looking at conservation issues, where the roads are, etc, to develop a true master plan is what needs to be addressed.
Jim McElroy stated that the color-coded maps showing conservation, roads, tax maps, property lines and other features such as animal migration trails could be put on the maps, layer by layer. Those features would help the board judge impacts and create a build-out exercise to see where things would be as Henniker grows.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to have communication with DOT to get their plans as there will be transitions with the zoning and major highways in Henniker.
Chairman Osgood stated that he holds the seat on the DOT planning function. He suggested planning a meeting once or twice per year with neighboring towns such as Weare, Hillsboro and Bradford to discuss issues facing each town.
Jim McElroy stated that if the board is going to be able declare a development of regional impact, the board has to have the permission of the town. A warrant article may have to be in place to grant authority.
7) New Business
Terry Stamps stated that conservation commission reviewed the ordinance lists and had a similar discussion to the planning board’s discussion about how many items to pursue. She stated that they believe that going forward with fewer things is a good strategy with these items at the top: 1) Ridgetop ordinance; 2) groundwater protection; 3) shoreline protection. The conservation commission would like to go forward with the Ridgetop ordinance first.
Ms. Stamps stated that in answer to the planning board’s question of the conservation commission owning the verbiage and pursuing the Ridgetop ordinance, they reported that they would do so.
Ms. Stamps also stated that Martha Sunderland expressed interest in becoming a member of the road subcommittee. Stephanie Alexander will let the planning commission staff know about her request and they will contact her with the meeting schedule.
Ms. Stamps stated that she confirmed the Outlook schedule as having a deadline of
June 13, 2006 for the July issue.
Other new business
Stephanie Alexander stated that the town council should be questioned about what would be subject to impact fees? Chairman Osgood stated that every building permit that is pulled is assessed impact fees. Discussion took place about determining the board’s involvement in assessing fees if every permit is assessed.
Terry Stamps questioned reviewing the potential lists and inviting the conservation commission to the June 28 meeting. She stated that she will ask if Martha, or someone else, can come and share information.
Chairman Osgood moved to adjourn at 8:58 pm; Terry Stamps seconded; it was approved 4-0 with one absent from the vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer A. Astholz
April 26, 2006
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
WORK SESSION
Approved Minutes
April 26, 2006
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Board Members: Kellie Dyjak, Jim McElroy, Terry Stamps, Cheryl Morse (Selectman-exofficio), Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC; Lucy St. John, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Leon Parker; Cordell Johnston, Selectman; Bob Stamps, Conservation Committee; Ron Taylor, ZBA; Holly Green, Conservation Committee.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
1. Meeting minutes of April12, 2006, were reviewed and corrected. Kellie Dyjak commented on the alteration of the written format of the minutes between a narrative style and the bulleted-type of style. Discussion followed, and Chairman Osgood mentioned that readability is the most important thing. It is noted that the narrative style will prevail, but there may be times when the bullet format would assist in clarity. Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the minutes as amended; Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0.
Chairman Osgood asked if everyone had received the e-mailed minutes of the site walk that had been done. Corrections were noted, and Chairman Osgood stated that he would make the corrections on these minutes since they are on his computer. Gary Guzouskas MOVED to accept the site walk minutes as corrected; Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Nicholas Alexander explained that they had been asked to look for an exactions policy for the Roads Standards for the town of Henniker. Chairman Osgood called attention to the spreadsheet that had been prepared by the Road Committee.
Mr. Alexander stated that they first reviewed road standards for the town regarding code and town regulations. Road policy will have a large impact to be on par with what the town wanted. A subcommittee was formed with members from the planning board, fire department, highway maintenance and citizens keen on keeping the scenic roads in town. They met three times with good attendance each time. He explained to the committee how other towns reached their standards and followed the approach that Bow and Loudon did by breaking roads down into tiers by their function. Classification of the roads is essential. Each one of the categories was for a designed volume.
He referred to the spreadsheet for the committee’s findings. Essentially, one residential unit equals 10 trips per day. Local roads are for subdivisions; arterials would be routes 202 and 114. Speed changes must be designed in to the roads; 25 MPH is the lowest speed limit allowed per State statute.. A road is designed to the speed limit and other criteria depending on the standards for the type of road. The bulk of standards meet what Henniker has previously planned.
Mr. Alexander noted that the largest discussion from the committee concerned gravel roads. Their point of view, based on the discussions and master plan, is that the town likes gravel roads. He noted that John from the highway department doesn’t like the gravel roads from a standpoint that they require more regular maintenance such as grading, drainage, etc. Minor local roads are for small subdivisions. The requirements of requiring the construction of gravel or paved roads was discussed.
Chairman Osgood asked the cost of paving a road versus the cost of maintaining a gravel road.
Lucy St. John stated that it is not always possible to simply pave over an existing paved road. She did not have the actual numbers but was willing to investigate. She stated that there was much healthy discussion amongst the committee about conserving rural scenic roads, costs, etc.
Nicholas Alexander stated that gravel tends to be a little cheaper if constructed well. Usually, the existing roads don’t end up having been constructed that well so it depends on what is necessary.
Discussion between the Board and the representatives continued on matters of lane widths, shoulders, drainage and pavement. The fire department likes 10-foot lanes and 3-foot shoulders. Lucy St. John stated that there are some communities that will not take certain fire equipment on gravel roads. She suggested that the board make sure any planned roads can handle any equipment that may be necessary. If they are constructed well to DOT specifications for their designed use, there are no issues.
Gary Guzouskas stated that he is familiar with areas where school buses will not run because dirt roads cannot carry the weight. He also mentioned the safety factor involved with icing on gravel and dirt roads as the traction control is not there. He explained that different surfaces act differently, even at the same temperature, creating a safety issue to the general public who is not aware of turning off of a paved road onto a gravel road.
The board discussed that setting aside money from capital funds would be necessary for these projects. Drainage standards need to be clarified, and there are issues with the existing roads. Are they all subject to same drainage requirements?
Lucy St. John stated that drainage needs have to be considered individually due to all of the variables such as grading. Engineers need to design those aspects.
Nicholas Alexander reiterated that curves, slopes, wetlands, etc. make drainage site- specific.
Kellie Dyjak stated that the maximum gradation is 10%.
Discussion followed as to whether the road policies would be placed in town codes, subdivision regulations or zoning regulations?
Lucy St. John stated that it could be in town code.
Nicholas Alexander stated that he was hoping to incorporate it into subdivision language. Clarification of classification of existing roads needs to be done, and they will look at the transportation improvement plan from the town. “Local” is a highway term used all over the country. “Minor local” tries to bring that character through Henniker’s master plan into something more tangible. He explained that “collector roads” are like Western Avenue. It is a functional class.
Jim McElroy commended them on spending time on the importance of the minor local roads as this is important to the people who live on these roads and achieves the local flavor.
Chairman Osgood stated that he hears that people like the gravel roads in town and that the local sentiment is to keep the roads not paved. He asked if there is an option for residents to petition selectmen to keep the gravel roads instead of paving.
Nicholas Alexander stated that fire department doesn’t really have an issue with the gravel road. Only one policeman and the highway maintenance representative had more of an issue with the gravel roads.
Lucy St. John stated that the planning board needs to make clear the policy for standards. She stated that with more development coming to the area, it will be easier for everyone to clarify the standards for existing roads and new subdivisions and to make sure that money is available for maintenance. She commented that neighborhoods petition for paved roads on a regular basis.
Chairman Osgood thanked the representatives for their work. He stated that it is necessary to identify action and create policy.
Nicholas Alexander stated that the next road committee meeting had not yet been scheduled, as they were waiting until after this meeting. He anticipates meeting within the next three weeks.
Nicholas Alexander and Lucy St. John departed at the conclusion of the discussion.
3. At 8:00 pm, Cordell Johnston, Selectman and Government Affairs Attorney for the Local Government Center, presented an abridged lecture titled “Ethics for Land Use Board Members”. This seminar was originally presented last fall for the New Hampshire Municipal Association. He explained that while there have been no serious problems with the land use Board in Henniker, Stephanie Alexander (CNHRPC) thought it would be a good idea to review procedures. Mr. Johnston invited participation and questions from both the board and the audience during his talk. Mr. Johnston asked members why they should care about ethical standards. Answers from the Board included legality and avoiding litigation. Mr. Johnston stated that when we do something that is not consistent with ethical standards, we create problems for towns, boards, etc. When a board makes a decision and someone participated in a vote that should not have been involved due to bias, the decision will be reversed and remanded even if that member’s vote did not affect the outcome, so reviewing where problems can occur is helpful in avoiding them. A 23-page handout was presented to the Planning Board members explaining the “Procedural Safeguards Against Ethical Problems” which covered most of the topics in the presentation.
Cordell Johnston stated that land use boards serve both legislative and judicial functions. He explained that zoning boards almost always act in a judicial capacity; a planning board acts as both. When a person or business goes before a board to have their personal rights adjudicated, they can assume that they will be heard as unbiased as possible
Mr. Johnston presented the four stages involved when a board is acting in a judicial capacity: 1) presentation and acceptance of the application; 2) public hearing; 3) board deliberation; 4) decision. When sitting on the judicial capacity, it is not only conflict of interest but the issue of bias or prejudging a case that is concerned. Follow the process of disqualification as early in the stages as it becomes clear that there is an issue. The decision for a board member to be disqualified from participating in a case can only be decided by the member him/herself. The board cannot force you to step down from the matter. If questions are raised about a member’s involvement, the board can vote if they think a member should disqualify him/herself.
Chairman Osgood stated that there was recently a similar issue that came up at meeting when a member of the public voiced that one of the selectmen should be disqualified from a proceeding. Mr. Osgood clarified that it is up to the selectman as to whether he thought he should do so or not. The question was raised as to whether other official roles in a town can disqualify a member. It was felt that solely holding another official role is not grounds for conflict of interest.
Kellie Dyjak asked when would be the time to disqualify one’s self.
Cordell Johnston said that you should remove yourself as soon as you realize that there is a problem. It is not fair to participate in all of the activities leading up to a vote, including discussion, then to abstain from the vote.
In response to a question, it was clarified that when a conflicted application is presented, one should just remove themselves to the audience.
Leon Parker, ZBA and audience member, stated that you should disqualify yourself at the beginning of the process so that the application gets full participation of the board. You do not have to disqualify yourself from the entire meeting, only that specific application.
Ron Taylor, zoning board member, commented on the set number of planning board members needed for the hearing presented so that there is a quorum.
Mr. Johnston continued the discussion with several hypothetical examples that described breaches of ethical standards in all of the four stages of the judicial capacity. The use of Non-Public Sessions was also addressed. Mr. Johnston stated that land use board meetings are public with very few exceptions. Mr. Parker clarified the “non-public session” terminology in that “non-public session” means that the public has to leave a meeting. Sometimes incorrect nomenclature has been used to state that it is a time when the public cannot speak during a meeting. Mr. Johnston confirmed that The Right-to-Know Law never means that the public has the right to speak. Only a public hearing means that they can talk during the meeting.
Other topics covered during the hypothetical scenario included discussions with other board members, chance social encounters with the general public or other board members, email protocol and site reviews. Mr. Johnston stated that discussions on issues before the board outside of the board meetings are a bad idea and you should try to avoid them. Specific guidelines for ethical behavior in these conditions are included in Mr. Johnston’s handout.
Holly Green, Conservation Committee and audience member, stated that it is always a good idea to disclose any private discussions that may have been had at the next official meeting.
Chairman Osgood stated that procedural information could be passed on via email as long as there was no discussion about it. If emails were sent, a copy should be brought to the next meeting so that it could be put into the records. He also mentioned that emails are treated as written documentation in a court setting.
Cheryl Morse discussed the need for written procedures to be generated so that new board members would be familiar with policy; i.e. if they ran into the landowner during a site walk and had a discussion. Board members discussed that all information of discussions should be brought up at the next meeting and would be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.
Gary Guzouskas asked if the Local Government Center had an executive summary document to give to the board members who were not here to hear this presentation.
Mr. Johnston stated that it is in the presentation packet but not in a summarized format.
Leon Parker said that he is a proponent of people on boards going to OEP meetings offered twice a year.
Jim McElroy stated that it has been good to hear from those practicing this every day to hear what is happening.
Mr. Johnston stated that his organization has a lecture series in the fall on land use issues. They have covered ethics, variances, offsite improvements, exactions and impact fees.
He also noted that the town can call the Local Government Center with any questions as part of their membership.
Chairman Osgood asked if the planning board, selectmen or town administrator should contact the LGC office. Mr. Johnston stated that if it specifically affects the planning board, one of their representatives can call. He also stated that a legislative update is sent or emailed each week and can be obtained from the town administrator.
This presentation ended at 9:25 pm.
The board took a short break. Kellie Dyjak left at 9:29 pm.
4. Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulation Changes List
Chairman Osgood noted there are three new items on the list: 1) Ridgetop ordinance; 2) Sourcewater protection ordinance; 3) Local shoreland protection ordinance
Terry Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission was creating a list to work on. They began work on the Ridgetop ordinance last year and did some research, but not much was done with it. The sourcewater protection and local shoreland protection ordinances will need to be addressed by the Conservation Committee.
Chairman Osgood asked if the Conservation Committee should come to a meeting and talk about these issues.
Terry Stamps asked for clarification of approach on all of these items.
Chairman Osgood stated that his understanding was that most of these are technical corrections; however, the three items already mentioned items are not technical corrections. He stated that Stephanie needs to work on the verbiage of the technical corrections while the others will require more meetings and public comment.
The board discussed having another zoning subcommittee and its functions. It was decided to include the conservation committee.
Chairman Osgood would like to invite Cogswell Springs Waterworks to give their input.
They will be put on the agenda for a future meeting and have either a public hearing at regular meeting or officially establish a subcommittee to do this work.
Jim McElroy agreed that it is of the scope that a subcommittee could do work before goes before the public as a public hearing is necessary anyway.
Gary Guzouskas stated that these are large enough issues that deserve their own action.
Terry Stamps stated the need for the board to discuss what happened with last year’s proposals from the zoning subcommittee.
Jim McElroy stated that a zoning subcommittee, per se, would be appropriate as there are still things that need to be fixed. The Ridgetop issue is a regional impact issue. He brought up open space ordinances which allow innovative land use ideas and bonuses; however, clarification is necessary as to what the board already has permission to do and what requires permission from the town.
Chairman Osgood noted that the 133-110, Wetlands buffer doesn’t need any special attention and would be non-controversial. There is currently no buffer.
Gary Guzouskas suggested asking Stephanie to go through the legislation and clarify what things require town approval and then to determine if we have town approval.
Chairman Osgood noted that it was known that any changes concerning zoning had to be approved by town meeting. He also stated to be cautious of Stephanie’s time and to look for other sources within the Local Government Center for this type of information.
Terry Stamps stated that public hearings are required for subdivision regulations but they do not have to go to town meeting. She also clarified Mr. McElroy’s proposal that there could be things at town meeting that needs to be voted on that is really an authority granting vote, not a specific ordinance.
Chairman Osgood reminded the board that Jennifer (McCourt) was at the last meeting and wanted to give her input to the zoning subcommittee. He inquired about any other action needed tonight other than the need to establish a zoning subcommittee and a schedule for the rest of the list.
Jim McElroy stated that the procedure of publicly notifying the decision to establish the zoning subcommittee and asking for volunteers is still a good way of advertising.
He stated that while not knowing how effective it is, it should be noted in the Town Hall and town newspapers that a committee is being formed.
Gary Guzouskas commented on the perceptual issue of notifying the public.
Chairman Osgood stated that on the next agenda item it should be stated that the board will be soliciting membership for the 2006-07 zoning subcommittee in the May Outlook.
Cheryl Morse initiated discussion as to the Selectmen-level need for committee members and sharing what committees have shortages.
Terry Stamps stated that she would contact Peter Flynn about advertising the solicitation of volunteer members to the zoning subcommittee in the May Outlook.
Discussion ensued about notice for a conservation-related zoning subcommittee or whether it should fall under the conservation committee. Ms. Stamps will check with the conservation committee to see if they are willing to tackle these items.
Terry Stamps raised the question as to the timing of the master plan being updated. She stated that timing could be important in using the master plan as the foundation for future plans. Discussion as to the shortage of volunteers, internal inconsistencies and the process related to specific action items were addressed. She also stated that it was Don who had initially raised the question of the master plan as it related to the road committee.
Cheryl Morse asked if there is protocol for reviewing the master plan.
Jim McElroy stated that there is a recommended practice.
Terry Stamps noted that revisions to the master plan are recommended every 5-10 years.
Gary Guzouskas stated that there is a recommended 8-step process for reviewing the master plan in the handbook. It also states that there is a master plan handbook developed by the Southern Regional Planning Commission in 2004 which could be referenced.
Jim McElroy noted that it is not too early to be thinking of zoning actions for the next town meeting.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to review the list and take care of things in the right way.
Cheryl Morse stated that her daughter (and others) commented that voting on so many warrant articles is overwhelming and the recommendation is to have the planning board work on fewer issues which are better explained to the public in order to have a better chance of succeeding.
Chairman Osgood stated that budget and efficient use of time are always key issues, and he would like to focus on items on which the board can be successful.
Terry Stamps suggested that this not be considered as a final list; however, revisiting last year’s list may cause too many items to deal with.
Chairman Osgood asked for discussion on the topic of failure. He raised the question of fairness to the community to take what wasn’t approved last year and repackage it in the next year. He stated that it may be wise not to push some of the same issues again this year.
Discussion ensued about gathering information as to why many of the items failed.
Community members don’t like key elements, but have not been satisfied with the solutions offered. Because many of the land use issues are complex, people don’t know what they like until they are presented with options. Ms. Stamps stated that the community has made it clear that altering the acreage and frontage didn’t work, but maybe there are other possibilities.
Jim McElroy related two comments from the public: 1) …”if it were 300 feet rather than 400 feet, I would have voted for it”; 2) the other said …”if not 25,000 square feet but 50,000 square feet, I would have gone for it.” He stated that people read and understood the basic concepts but didn’t like the details.
Terry Stamps and Gary Guzouskas discussed the options of looking at those items where the votes were very close, noting the 40 votes separating the retail commercial space. Perhaps hold some public hearings to give the community a time to be heard.
Chairman Osgood stated that the board should look forward to the new issues that have come up and not look back at the issues that have already been discussed and voted.
He noted that issues concerning frontages and lot sizes are dramatically different than they were before these studies, explaining that these open space subdivisions with tiny lots and lots of open space show that the town is already reaping the benefit of it, even without succeeding. He noted that people are accepting the ideas, and developers see what works in this town
Cheryl Morse stated that she agrees that the acreage issue will not succeed as the community views it as an elitist image. She noted that, for some people, that was a carry over to the road frontage issue; however, now people are beginning to understand this open space concept, avoiding the “bowling alley lot.” She stated that there may be a better chance the next time around to succeed on some of the previous issues.
Jim McElroy stated that it can take three years for some of the ideas to succeed.
Terry Stamps stated that urging attendance at public hearings would be helpful to the community’s understanding of many of the issues.
Chairman Osgood noted that the planning board needs to do two things better: 1) get people to the meetings for discussion; 2) do something to be present on Election Day.
He would like to see coordination of a plan for next year
Jim McElroy and Gary Guzouskas asked for clarification of legal status of elected officials campaigning for a particular vote at town meeting. If board members are visibly present at election time, how does it fit to be out with signs, mailing fact sheets and spending tax-payer money for advocacy so as not to appear to be lobbying?
Chairman Osgood stated that the action items to be addressed are: 1) Stephanie is addressing the subdivision and site plan changes. 2) Terry Stamps will contact Mr. Flynn about putting notice in the May Outlook for volunteers for a zoning subcommittee or conservation-related subcommittee. She will also check with the conservation committee for their input.
Correspondence: OEP has Technical Land Use #17 (and 15 other items here which may be very handy). Stephanie has left a note to keep this here in the office for the file. Also, GIS, Company from Lebanon, NH, sent a letter to Chairman Osgood and to Cynthia about software that the state uses. They seem to think that we have $7,500 to use on mapping; Peter stated that it was more like $5,000.
Other Business: Clarification was discussed about the “Active and Substantial Development” material in tonight’s packet. This had been taken care of at the last meeting. Mr. Guzouskas stated that it was difficult to read because of all of the parenthetical phrases throughout the document. He had suggestions for clarifying the format to make easier reading. He will make some changes and email them to Stephanie for her opinion.
Jim McElroy MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 pm; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and all APPROVED.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer A. Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Site walk
Subdivision for Bradford and Sally Tanner
Ray Road
Application # 2006-006 Map 1 Lot 054
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chair; Kristin Claire, Vice Chair, Terry Stamps, Board member, Gary Guazouskas, Board member, Bob Stamps, member conservation commission,
Guests Present:
Brad and Sally Tanner, owners and applicant
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:10 pm.
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a walk to view the site of the proposed 2 lot Subdivision application on Ray Road.
The attendees met at the intersection of the east end of Hemlock Corner Loop and Ray Road.
The weather was overcast and mild, with no snow cover.
The attendees discussed the aspects of the two lots from the road. Locations for driveways had not been established.
The group walked on to the easterly lot; along a path created by the equipment used to dig the test pits for Lot 54D. The test pit locations were visible. The area noted for the new house lot was seen as well as the limits for the wetlands.
The group walked to the wetland boundary.
The owners report the wetland contains beaver dams, and were most likely once a farm field. Beaver activity in the Brook may possibly have most likely created the wet condition.
The group then walked back to the road and along the road to proposed Lot 54-C.
Remnants of stone walls are visible. Buried telephone cable for power lines was noted.
The Group walked on to Lot 54C, along an existing logging road. Areas of less than 20% slope were viewed.
The group walked to the border of the wetland. The applicant pointed out the stand of pines beyond the wetland which contains substantial dry land.
Potential locations for house lots were viewed.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55.
Respectfully submitted
D Scott Osgood
PLANNING BOARD
Approved
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Vice Chairman Kristin Claire, Board Members: Gary Guzouskas, Terry Stamps, Jim McElroy, Kellie Dyjak, Don Armstrong (alternate nonvoting member) (arrived 7:08), Tom Watman (ex officio) (arrived 7:05).
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Christine Anderson, Recording Secretary; Spencer Bennett, Dan Higginson, Jennifer McCourt, Earl Kalil, Leon Parker, Brad and Sally Tanner, Peter Flynn, Marshall Connor, Linda McGrier, Mike Martin, Joan O’Connor, Brenda Connor and Jim Connor, Tony Caplan.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
1. Meeting minutes of March 22, 2006, were reviewed and amended. Jim McElroy MOVED to approve minutes as amended; Chairman Osgood seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood commented that the meeting was being taped to assist in recording the minutes; and that after the minutes are prepared, the tape will be destroyed. It will not be kept for record purposes.
2. 7:04 p.m. Case #2005-032: a minor subdivision application submitted by Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown for a three-lot subdivision on Map 1, Lot 540-X9 on Route 114 and Flanders Road.
This is a revised application that has previously come before the board. A site walk has been done, and a waiver has been requested and approved previously. Spencer Bennett, representing the applicants, presented the revised plan to the board.
Dan Higginson, representing Art Siciliano’s firm, noted that the boundary was supposed to be on the back line, and there was a need for a monument there.
The board discussed the Hoyle, Tanner memo received 4/12/06.
Chairman Osgood noted in the Hoyle memo that the –2% slope of the driveway grades of Section 1 do not exceed the NH DOT’s recommended maximums for slope and platform grades from the travel way. He was concerned that the Flanders Road has a 26’ unobstructed sight distance; the recommended range is 171’ to 281’, which is far below an AASHTO standards.
Mr. Bennett offered to cut some trees and reduce the grade as the driveway enters the road to improve sight distance. He renewed the driveway permit and renewed the permits on the state highway. He will respond to Hoyle, Tanner’s drainage recommendations.
Terry Stamp asked if any of the lot lines had been changed.
Mr. Bennett responded that some details were added by the surveyor at the board’s request, but the location of the structures and the wells did not change from the original.
Stephanie Alexander noted that the lot line did change to accommodate the waiver that was granted at the last meeting.
Dan Higginson stated that it moved slightly to the west.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the planning consultant’s review, New Submissions Since 3/8/06.
Stephanie Alexander noted under Missing Components all requirements have been received except the one plat detail of the monument on the northwestern lot line of 540-X9.
Mr. Bennett noted the lot line is totally defined by the stonewall. He said the board is asking that a nail point be established within the stonewall, which is easy to do.
Terry Stamps asked the planning consultant if the driveway deed has been reviewed by town counsel.
Stephanie Alexander stated it has not been reviewed by town counsel.
Chairman Osgood asked how Mr. Bennett would address the fire chief’s concerns.
Mr. Bennett said they would install sprinkler systems for the individual homes there. Across the road they are putting in a cistern. They’ve met with and have approval from the fire chief and police chief. They are working with the fire chief on all those issues. They are still waiting to contact the road agent.
Chairman Osgood wanted a note added to the plan about the sprinkler systems. He noted the driveway application has been approved and signed off by the road agent.
There was discussion with Mr. Bennett about the deed of the proposed shared driveway.
There was a discussion about the two acres of buildable land with the proper regulated slopes, that the board waived the contiguous requirement, as long as the arithmetic was shown.
The board agreed after review that the new plan is complete and the applicant has addressed the issues of the board. The application moved into the acceptance phase.
Chairman Osgood noted that the comments from the consulting engineer are pretty dramatic with respect to the impact of the driveway on Rt. 114.
There was a discussion about the driveway entering Rte. 114 and the sight distance.
Mr. Bennett said his family has placed restricted covenants on this land.
Chairman Osgood noted that the commercial uses would be subject to site plan review as well.
Kristin Claire said if it were going to have commercial use, she’d rather see the driveway come off of 114.
Don Armstrong said because it’s such a steep drop-off there, the state probably wouldn’t let him fill it in. The other thing to remember is just on the other side of the rock wall is the driveway for the apartments. There’s already a driveway that’s real close there.
Chairman Osgood voiced his concern for the slope of the driveway at 15%, but there’s actually a negative slope coming to the highway.
Mr. Bennett responded he can’t control how the driveway is actually constructed on a piece of land when it’s developed for a single family home. We just wanted to show the board that a driveway can easily be placed on that property.
Chairman Osgood: This driveway plan is part of the approved plan, it is a land use plan. If what you’re saying is true, then they could just basically make a beeline heading right up the hill, and we don’t want to see that. We don’t want someone to slide right down the hill onto the highway. That’s why having the proper drainage, with the proper grading, curves, and plus be at the proper slopes was important, and that’s why we asked for this plan. We want to make sure this is not creating a dangerous condition.
Kristin Claire: If we approve the driveways going in, in a certain location, then that’s where they have to go.
Chairman Osgood: There are some culvert and drainage issues addressed too.
Mr. Bennett: We agree with putting in the culverts at Todd Clark’s direction.
7: 35 p.m. Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing.
Chairman Osgood: My concern is the driveway at Flanders Road. It is an existing access that’s been there for a long time. There are existing driveways around it. Even though there’s a lot of traffic at certain times of the year, it’s not related to this lot. I think it’s dramatically less than any proposed highway engineering would ever have, so I would think a low impact use would not have an adverse affect.
Jim McElroy: As long as there could be some mitigation that could be done within reason to try to approach what Hoyle, Tanner has mentioned regarding the sight distance.
Don Armstrong stated, “But you can’t see up Flanders Road; there’s a rock wall there.
Mr. Bennett offered he would be willing to do tree work there and put up a sign with the proper town approval.
There was discussion about the shared driveway and limiting the language that -X9A and -X9B are for single family residential units, and the third lot is in a commercial zone. It was decided that a 6th condition would be added, requiring the existing restricted covenants be re- recorded on each lot.
Chairman Osgood made a MOTION to approve the plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. Address the drainage issues identified by Hoyle, Tanner and Associates (HTA) to the satisfaction of HTA;
2. Erect a cautionary driveway sign on Flanders Road for Lot 540-X9;
3. Set and display on the plan a monument on the northwestern lot line of Lot 540-X9;
4. The proposed common driveway deed will be subject to satisfactory review by Town Counsel;
5. Add a note to the plan stating that residential sprinkler systems as approved by the Town Fire Chief will be installed; and
6. Add a note to the plan stating that existing restrictive covenants currently pertaining to Lot 540-X9 will be extended to the new lots of 540-X9A and 540-X9B.
3. 7:45 p.m. Case # 2005-019: The representative for Chase Brook Settlement, which was previously approved for 20 open space residential development lots, plus one open space lot, on Map 1, Lot 583 at Flanders and Craney Hill Roads, has requested a discussion regarding Active and Substantial Development.
Mr. Kalil, representing Chase Brook, showed the approved plan and explained their phasing plan to develop the lots (shown on map) before developing the roadway lots. He asked the board to clarify the definition “active and substantial” and whether or not it requires putting in all of the erosion control and the drainage for the proposed 1100’ road or just for one house lot.
Mr. Kalil was concerned about the potential impact on their development of future changes in zoning and growth ordinances, if they did not meet the “active and substantial” definition.
Mr. Kalil stated he didn’t know the meaning of the last sentence, “plans approved in phases shall be subject to this definition for the phase currently being developed.”
Kristin Claire stated her understanding of the last sentence as it applies to Mr. Kahlil’s plan, to mean that they would have to put in drainage and roadways only for the first five lots, the first section of the phase.
Mr. Kalil stated that there is a distinction between their plan under the GMO, and a truly phased subdivision, which is what the language in the last sentence refers to.
Jim McElroy suggested that the last sentence be made more precise.
Ms. McCourt (in attendance): It does say “in accordance with the approved plans.” But I want to make sure it was clear that if his first phase of five lots is frontage lots and if he does one of those in accordance with this, then we’re all set. And if that’s on the record and future planning boards see that, then we’ll be all set. The way the phases are defined, the approved plan would still be the five lots, it would not be the entire subdivision.
Chairman Osgood: Let the minutes reflect that the “active and substantial” element of the definition can stand, but with the understanding that the phasing as driven by the GMO is referred to in here.
Discussion continued about the definition “active and substantial” requirements.
Mr. Kalil asked the board if he put in one foundation and built one house in the first 12 months, if he would then meet the “active and substantial” requirement.
Terry Stamps: With the erosion control and everything that’s on here (the plan) for those five lots.
A discussion followed about whether all the driveways for the first five lots had to be built to meet the requirement.
Jim McElroy: If you have a construction site and you’re going to work on a building, I don’t see anything in here that says if the GMO phasing plan says five lots, you have to do it for all five lots. It just says you have to start on one.
There was a discussion about the definitions of roadway and access way, and the fact that drainage work has to be done to receive driveway approval.
A discussion then followed on changing the problematic language to give Mr. Kalil a clear indication to fulfill the requirements of the definition.
Chairman Osgood was concerned that if changes were made, then essentially the board would be throwing out the whole definition and giving Mr. Kalil the same definition they would give a minor subdivision; and this is a major subdivision.
Tom Watman stated his view that Sections 1 and 2 of the definition refer to a certain number of things being done, and they refer to the development as approved in the plans. The plan included phasing it in with five lots the first time, so he reads that as meaning the builder would have to take care of the drainage, improvements, and so forth for that part of the development, the five lots.
Ms. McCourt (in attendance) responded that unless they were building something on that lot (indicating on plan) there is no drainage to put in on a frontage lot. As in any other subdivision, the planning board would not require that the driveway be put in until there was a buyer for the lot. And this is different than most subdivisions because it’s a combination of frontage lots and a shared roadway, so that’s why clarification is needed.
Chairman Osgood stated that if because of this definition the developers build that road and let it sit for five years, that would be a very bad thing. But he is not in favor of changing the wording because it isn’t meant to be an impediment or a driver for the developer, but only a protection against some unknown future issue.
Ms. McCourt (in attendance) responded that she is not asking the board to change the definition; she is asking for clarification, if the definition, as it applies to this subdivision, means that if they construct one lot the definition has been met.
There were further discussions about the phasing issue under the GMO as it relates to the definition of “active and substantial” development, and Chairman Osgood commented that this definition gives the board the ability to see what the developer’s obligations are going to be.
Mr. Kalil: Is my obligation to build a road in the first 12 months?
The board stated no.
Chairman Osgood: We’ve talked about the reasons for the phasing and what you want to do and why it makes sense. Why build and disturb an area that is not going to be finished for four or five years. It doesn’t make sense for any reason, whatsoever. You’ve got the definition. You’re going to use the definition in accordance with your phasing plan. It’s something to protect us against issues that might come up that haven’t come up with this subdivision at all.
The board agreed that the definition does not at all imply that Mr. Kalil needs to build roads to fulfill the “active and substantial” requirement.
The board discussed the necessity of the document requiring a signature.
Mr. Kalil described his view of the subdivision and his sense of the board’s treatment of the developers in this last issue and suggested the board look at the language they are using to see if it really applies.
Chairman Osgood thanked Mr. Kalil.
The discussion ended.
4. 8:20 p.m. Case # 2006-002: modification of the minor subdivision application approved on 3/8/06, by Leon Parker to adjust the lot lines between Lots 138 and 138-B on Map 1 on Liberty Hill Road.
Mr. Parker presented the modified plan to the board. He did not have the wetlands scientist’s signature. He noted that Jennifer McCourt, one of the abutters, raised the issue of erroneous placement of Emery Hill Road and Colby Hill Road and the omission of Ezekiel Smith Town Road on the vicinity plan and each of the locus plans. The boundary line (between Lot 138 and 138B), will be moved to the stonewall, adding two acres to Lot 138B. He noted the out building that is currently on that two-acre parcel will be razed.
Terry Stamps noted the fire and highway departments had reviewed the proposed modification without comment; the conservation commission had looked at the plans earlier and had commented on driveway placements to minimize the impact on wetlands.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the commission provided the memo 4/12/06, and they have no concerns in the file.
Mr. Parker asked if, since the plan is a modification of a recent approval, the process simply consists of changing a plan, and all of the other conditions that have been met previously pertain.
The board agreed.
Chairman Osgood referred to the planning consultant’s review and application updates, noting that the two conditions for approval, the well easement language and the letter from the NH Natural Heritage inventory had both been received.
Mr. Parker asked the board if the modifications made to the plan required a new application or if the plan was complete.
Stephanie Alexander stated that technically it is a modification of an approved plan, and the abutters were noticed, so the plan is complete because it has already been approved, but the public hearing still needed to be held.
The board agreed.
8:30 p.m. Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing.
Stephanie Alexander noted that Mr. Parker also needed to fulfill the condition regarding the water easement deed.
Chairman Osgood outlined the outstanding conditions: 1. The original condition No. 1,
2. Correct the locus plan, and 3. To affix soils scientist stamp.
A MOTION to approve the modification to the Application 2006-002 was made by Jim McElroy, subject to the conditions of approval:
1. Modify the well easement language as directed by Town Counsel;
2. Provide the original engineer’s, surveyor’s, and wetland scientist’s seals and signatures on the plans; and
3. Modify the road labels on the index sheet for Ezekiel Smith Road, Emery Hill Road, and Colby Hill Road.
The motion was seconded by Kristin Claire and was approved, 7-0.
5. 8:33 p.m. Case #2006-006: a minor subdivision application submitted by Bradford and Sally Tanner for a two-lot subdivision on 62.54 acres at Hemlock Corner Loop on Map 1, Lot 54C.
Brad Tanner and Dan Higginson, representing Art Siciliano’s firm, presented the subdivision plan. Mr. Tanner noted that the two subdivided lots meet the ten acre, 125’ frontage requirements. He stated he had an approved septic design for Lot 54-C.
Chairman Osgood noted the board had received the following: the subdivision application, the subdivision plan, the summary of recommendations, the response from the fire department with no comments, the response from the highway department with no comments, the narrative, and comments from the conservation commission.
Stephanie Alexander noted the conservation commission recommended a site visit due to steep slope and extensive wetlands.
Terry Stamps noted Lot 54-C is 2.18 acres and Lot 54-D, 2.53 acres with under 20%, and this meets the two-acre contiguous buildable area subdivision regulations.
The board reviewed the planning consultant’s report.
Chairman Osgood noted the septic system is shown to be 50’ from the wetlands and should be a minimum of 75’ from wetlands.
Mr. Tanner stated those wetlands are poorly drained soils, as opposed to very poorly drained soils, so the minimum distance can be 50’. He stated the septic system could be moved uphill to meet the 75’ minimum requirement. He stated the driveways for 54-C and 54-D are staked out at the existing breaks in the wall. He discussed the brook flow and its drainage.
The board agreed that the following items were needed before the application can be considered for completeness:
1. Missing details on the plan
2. Best practices on erosion control
3. Driveway permit
4. Application copies
5. A letter from the NH Natural History Heritage inventory.
Chairman Osgood noted that the road agent has looked at the driveways but has not been asked to approve the driveway locations. He noted that the brook was located for only 100’on the plan.
Mr. Tanner said the brook is a distinct channel for 100’, then branches off and becomes part of the wetland.
A site walk was scheduled with the applicant for Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 6:10 p.m. Stephanie Alexander will notify the conservation commission of the scheduled site walk.
There was a discussion about a public notice error of an incorrect address for the lots named.
The board agreed to re-notice the application and re-notice the abutters.
The board agreed not to vote on completeness.
6. 9:03 p.m. Case #2005-022: a minor subdivision application submitted by the Town of Henniker for a two-lot subdivision on 0.64 acres on 9 Crescent Street on Map 2, Lot 240.
Peter Flynn, representing the applicant, reviewed the application. He addressed the comments of the planning consultant:
· Errors under General Plat Requirements
· Selectmen’s intent is for the property to be sold as a single-family residence.
· The variance from the zoning board should have been requested and granted for a lot size of less than 20,000’ sq.
· Presently no water or sewer on the lot.
· Purchaser will be responsible for tying into town water/sewer, to be so noted on the purchase and sale.
· School impact fees of $5,518 will be assessed.
· Request for waivers for Item 202-9, items J, O and Y.
· Zoning board approval of a two-car place for cars to park. The driveway is behind the building, coming off the town owned parking lot, the right of way.
Mr. Flynn said the conditions on the deed will stipulate that the buyer has rights of access.
Chairman Osgood noted there was no requirement in the deed that the building would remain after being sold.
Mr. Flynn agreed, stating the selectmen want to sell the property; the buyer can do what he wants with it.
Mr. Flynn reviewed the summary of recommendations and discussion followed:
· Issues to Consider (pg. 5, b) the question as to who will maintain the small amount of pavement remaining on Crescent Street. The town is doing it now.
· Issue of easements.
· Dan Higginson addressed Missing Components--items are easily completed.
· Town driveway permit--Jim McElroy noted that the town does not grant driveway permits also for parking lots.
There was a discussion of the following topics:
· The historical and architectural value of the building
· Requirements for the footprint on an undersized lot
· Setback requirements if the buyer were to raze the building and rebuild.
Chairman Osgood asked why the application is asking approval for only a single family home use when zoning allows by special exceptions commercial and professional use also.
Mr. Flynn stated that is the intention of the selectmen in selling the property, but is not a condition of sale.
There was a discussion about the use of the property under zoning by special exceptions.
There was a discussion about the sewer/water lines on Crescent Street.
Chairman Osgood voiced his concern that the buyer be duly informed of the water/sewer line issues of the property.
Mr. Flynn stated the buyers will be made aware of it by disclaimers on the purchase and sale; the realtor is aware of it.
Jim McElroy stated that the water/sewer lines on Crescent Street should be shown on the plans.
Chairman Osgood suggested that a note be added that the water/sewer lines are substandard size.
Chairman Osgood made a MOTION to accept the requests for waivers of Plat Detail Item 202-9, Sections J and M, Kristin Claire seconded; the waivers were granted, 7-0.
The issue of the historical importance of the building was tabled.
Kristin Claire made a MOTION to approve the plan as complete, with conditions to include:
1. The easement for the parking access; and
2. To show sewer and utilities on the plan; and
3. To show the general plat requirements per the consultant’s report, pg. 2; and
4. To show the setbacks;
Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Gary Guzouskas noted the town warrant article for this particular piece indicates that “the municipal lot parcel under such terms and conditions as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the town,” was voted on and approved by the whole town at town meeting. He asked what influence that has on the planning board making a different decision.
Mr. Flynn said it’s the selectmen’s call. He would argue against it.
There was a discussion about the following topics:
· The historical importance and structural integrity of the building
· Developing uniform standards to determine historical importance for property, buildings, etc.
· No town debate or requests from citizens for selectmen to save the building for its historical importance
Chairman Osgood opened the discussion to the public
Jennifer McCourt: According to state law, if the municipal sewer is within 300’ of a property, they do have to connect into it; the water, they don’t.
Chairman Osgood: What if the sewer line is substandard?
Jennifer McCourt: Then they have to upgrade it and put in a sewer main. If that main is going to service more than the single-family house, then it has to be brought up to current standards. That’s state law. It has to be an eight-inch main. Mr. Flynn responded that was for public utilities, but this is not a public utility.
Jennifer McCourt: But what I’m saying is if that line is now going to carry both the duplex and this property then it is a public main because it’s two separate properties.
Mr. Flynn: If it chokes up that line they are going to have to predetermine whatever is going in there. I think the sewer commission, the selectmen, and the superintendent would have to make a decision. That’s a separate issue.
Jennifer McCourt: One other issue is about that piece of pavement, as little as that piece of pavement is, to make it cleaner to be able to sell it, either get rid of it or put an easement on it. Either have it on that property or not on that property. It’s a bone of contention that could come up not now but in the future.
Public comments closed.
Jim McElroy asked how impact fees would be managed on this piece of property, given how zoning works in our town; it could be a residence, a two-family residence, a multi-family residence, a business. Impact fees don’t quite map onto that flexibility.
Chairman Osgood commented that impact fees are assessed based on what the board thinks the use is for. When they apply for a building permit if that permit doesn’t match what the board approved it for, then the impact fee doesn’t apply and it has to be changed.
The board assessed the school impact fees of $5,518 for a single-family dwelling, to be collected upon the issuance of building permits.
Gary Guzouskas made a MOTION to approve the application with the conditions to include:
1. Provide easement language regarding the rights of access to Lot 240-A by the Town which is satisfactory to Town Counsel review;
2. Display the existing water and sewer lines in the Crescent Street area on the plan, and add a note to the plan stating that they may be substandard and may require upgrading at the expense of the property owner;
3. Display the setbacks on the plan; and
4. Correct plat details such as “hazard” and “class” and “subdivision” misspellings, and adding New England College land displaying the geographic relationship to the driveway access.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
7. 9:58 p.m. Approval of the Building Permit Annual Limitation per Article XXIX, Section 133-146.
Chairman Osgood stated the board has a memo based on the public hearing of 4/12/06 which
Kristin Claire asked if the board had determined how long the board was holding those seven permits aside, the 25% for the single lots. 25% of 27 available permits will be reserved for owners of single lots that were required for two-lot subdivisions.
The board agreed that the 25% were set aside until Dec. 1st.
There was a discussion about surplus permits.
Jim McElroy made a MOTION to approve the Building Permit Limitation for 2006 as 37; Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood outlined the issues:
Stephanie Alexander outlined her duties, functions, and special projects. She stated that she had worked 65 hours in March alone and needs to reduce her number of hours. Various options to reduce her work hours were considered.
Town administrative staff’s planning board duties were discussed.
Jim McElroy suggested that her participation in the planning board meetings should not be cut from her duties.
There was a discussion by the board.
It was decided that she will cut back 1 ½ hours a week on Weds.- 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Appointment blocks would be set in twenty-minute blocks between 9:00 and 11:40.
It was suggested that notice of Stephanie’s new hours should be noted in the Outlook and on the town website.
Stephanie Alexander reported that there have been no zoning board applications so far this year. She reviewed the agenda for the April 19 work session.
Chairman Osgood reported on a Central NH Planning Regional Commission Transportation Advisory Committee meeting he attended. Jim McElroy reported he is a volunteer on the executive committee of the CNHRPC and that there was an additional position available for Henniker representation.
There was a discussion about other hearings on roads and regional planning, future yearly meetings with Bradford, Warner groups, Hillsboro and Weare.
Zoning ordinances will be discussed in future.
There was a MOTION to adjourn by Jim McElroy at 10:58 p.m.; Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and all APPROVED.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Anderson
Henniker Planning Board
Henniker Town Hall
March 22, 2006, 7:00p.m.
Approved
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Vice Chairman Kristin Claire, Jim McElroy, Don Armstrong and Kellie Dyjak
Others Present: Planning Consultant Stephanie Alexander, Julie Morris (recording secretary)
Chairman Osgood called the work session to order at 7:03 p.m.
Minutes from the March 8th meeting were reviewed and changes were moved to be accepted as amended. Jim McElroy made the motion and Kristin Claire seconded, it was approved 5-0.
Review of GMO’s Annual Building Permit Limitation and Rationale:
There was a discussion regarding the Growth Management Ordinances and how many building permits will be allowed for this year. The total number will be 37 with 10 of those being left over from last year and rolled into the 27 approved for this year.
Draft Active and Substantial Development Definition for Subdivisions Approved 7/27/01 to 7/27/05:
The members discussed the definition as it reads and decided not to make any changes to it.
List of Potential Subdivision Regulation Changes:
The list of potential changes are as follows:
- Stonewall protection in section 202 7D
- Condo definition to match zoning and site plan
- State what is a completed application in section 202-8
- Road Standards (from Roads Policy Committee)
- Require that final paper 11x17’s be provided (now it is just 22x34 and mylars)
- Revise conceptual consultation to match application
- Active and substantial development (using our new definition)
- Add new definition to page 15 of Subdivision Rights
- Add design review as Article 4
- Add 50 foot wetland buffer to checklist and build-able area in section 202 7B2
List of Potential Site Plan Regulation Changes:
- Revise conceptual consultation to match application
- Active and substantial development-add same language as 202-7D
- Add stonewall protection, same as 202-7D
List of Potential Zoning Changes for 2007:
- Add 50 foot wetlands buffer under wetlands conservation
Develop Job Advertisement for Minute-Taking Secretary:
This item was tabled by Chairman Osgood.
Correspondence:
Of the correspondence received was:
1. The current budget and it looks like the Planning Board is right on target with expenses.
2. Selectmen’s Meeting Information
3. Government Center Workshop information for local officials to attend basic and advanced workshops.
Digital Tax Mapping Report on Findings:
Chairman Osgood stated that he received information from three different companies and the Board will research further those services. It was mentioned that possibly New England College could assist in the set-up and training of this program. Kellie will present it to NEC once more information is gathered by the Board.
Consultant’s Report:
Stephanie mentioned that the April 12 meeting is filling up. Items on the agenda are:
1. Chase-Brook active and substantial development question
2. Leon Parker is coming back for an appeal for modification
Also mentioned:
Bennett Brown is returning and will be revising his plans for next Weds.
St. Theresa’s Church has a minor subdivision.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Chairman Osgood seconded the motion and all approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Morris
Approved
Minutes of a Regular Meeting held
March 8, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Vice Chairman Kristin Claire, Gail Abramowicz, Jim McElroy, Terry Stamps, Cordell Johnston (selectman ex officio), Don Armstrong (alternate) (arrived 7:03).
Others Present: Planning Consultant Stephanie Alexander, Kellie Dyjak, Art Siciliano, Leon Parker, Tony Lamarine, Tom True, William Goss, Don and Margaret Glover, Dennis McComish, Scott Dias, Jacques Belanger, Lawrence White, Don Goss.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He MOVED to table discussion of the minutes of February 22, 2006. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0.
Alternate member Don Armstrong arrived at 7:03 p.m. In the absence of a regular member, he was designated a voting member of the board.
Case # 2005-031: minor subdivision application submitted by Donald and Margaret Glover for a three-lot subdivision on Map 2, Lot 399 on Western Avenue.
This was a continuation of an application previously presented to the board, but not yet accepted as complete. Art Siciliano, representing the applicants, presented a revised plan to the board.
There was a discussion of the locations of proposed utility lines, which were not shown on the plan. Mr. Siciliano stated that all utilities would run up the driveways. The board discussed the possibility of requiring that utility lines be buried. It was agreed that this would be left to the applicant. Mr. Siciliano stated that the plan showed the locations for proposed driveways, but that driveway permits had not yet been applied for.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 7-0.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing.
Chairman Osgood stated that the development would be subject to school impact fees of $5,518 per residential unit, to be assessed upon approval and collected upon the issuance of building permits.
Stephanie Alexander mentioned that the fire chief had no comments on the plan.
There was a discussion of the definition of “active and substantial development” for purposes of this plan and RSA 674:39. The board agreed that “active and substantial development” would be defined for the project as:
1. Construction of and/or installation of at least one building foundation wall/footing; and
2. All erosion control measures (as specified on the approved plans) must be in place and maintained on the site; and
3. Items 1 and 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Department or designated agent.
Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant would add a note to the plan stating that best management practices for erosion control during construction will be utilized; and
2. The applicant would add the missing plat details of: address, seal, and signature of the wetlands scientist per 202-9C and three certifications per 202-9U.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 7-0.
Case # 2005-032: minor subdivision application submitted by Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown for a three-lot subdivision on Map 1, Lot 540-X9 on Route 114 and Flanders Road.
Art Siciliano presented a subdivision plan on behalf of the applicant. He noted the requirement in the subdivision regulations that new lots have at least two contiguous acres of buildable land with a slope of less than 20%, and stated that the lots in this plan could not satisfy that requirement. He therefore requested a waiver of the 20% limitation. He stated that the State of New Hampshire allows slopes up to 33% for septic approval, and that many towns define slopes up to 25% as buildable.
Chairman Osgood noted that the Conservation Commission had recommended that the board not approve the application.
Kristin Claire said she was concerned about granting the waiver, because the lot was buildable without being subdivided. Therefore, there was no undue hardship, and granting a waiver would be contrary to the intent of the regulations.
Chairman Osgood said he was concerned about other issues in addition to the slopes—in particular, the proximity of the northernmost lot to the intersection of Flanders Road and Route 114.
Cordell Johnston noted that Mr. Siciliano had not presented any reason for granting a waiver other than the belief that the 20% slope limitation is too strict. Thus, if the board granted the waiver for this application, it would be acknowledging that the rule is too strict, and probably would be compelled to grant a similar waiver for other applications.
Jim McElroy MOVED to deny the request for a waiver of the 20% slope limitation. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0, with Gail Abramowicz abstaining.
Art Siciliano requested a waiver of the two-acre contiguous buildable area requirement.
Jim McElroy then MOVED to waive the requirement that the two acres of buildable land be contiguous. Gail Abramowicz seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-3, with Jim McElroy, Gail Abramowicz, Cordell Johnston, and Don Armstrong voting in favor and Chairman Osgood, Kristin Claire, and Terry Stamps voting against.
Mr. Siciliano said he would change the lot lines to allow two buildable acres on each lot.
Chairman Osgood said he would like to get input from the town engineers regarding the impact of a driveway for Lot 540-X9 so close to the Flanders Road-Rout 114 intersection.
The board discussed the need for a high-intensity soils report from a certified soil scientist, and concluded such a report was not necessary.
It was agreed that the following items were needed before the application can be accepted:
--notarized authorization for Mr. Siciliano to represent the applicants;
--driveway plan;
--delineation of 25-foot setbacks around smaller wetlands and 50-foot setbacks around large wetland;
--response to issues raised by fire chief;
--address, seal, and signature of wetlands scientist;
--depiction of stream at boundary of lots 540-X9 and 540-X9A;
--three missing certifications.
Mr. Siciliano said he would prepare a revised plan including the items indicated. It was agreed that the application would be continued until the board’s regular meeting on April 12.
Case #2006-001: site plan application submitted by Donald Goss, Jr., on behalf of Goss Lumber Company for the construction of a 7,000-square foot sawmill building at 45 Flanders Road.
Donald Goss presented the application. He explained that the sawmill operation is currently on Bennett Road, and sawed lumber is trucked from the sawmill to the lumber company site. With the change, they will be trucking logs directly to the site and sawing them there.
He stated that there will be no exterior lighting. The board concluded that no additional parking or designation of parking spaces was required.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to accept the application as complete. Don Armstrong seconded the motion. After further discussion about the existing facility and the site plan, the motion was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood noted that the fire chief had stated he had no comments on the application.
Kristin Claire asked about noise from the sawmill. Mr. Goss said he did not think the sawmill would be any louder than the existing planer on the site, and having it inside should minimize the noise. He noted that HHP and Patenaude Lumber both have outside sawmills.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing.
Dennis McComish spoke in favor of the application.
Chairman Osgood read a letter from abutter Mary Schumm, supporting the application.
There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Osgood MOVED to approve the application, subject to the addition of a note to the plan that the building would be insulated to inhibit noise. Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Case #2006-002: minor subdivision application submitted by Leon Parker for a three-lot subdivision at 49 Liberty Hill Road on Map 1, Lot 138.
The applicant, with Tom True from True Engineering, presented the application. The board discussed issues previously identified by the planning consultant. It was agreed that all issues had been addressed.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to accept the application as complete. Don Armstrong seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Osgood stated that there was a letter from the fire chief indicating inadequate water supply for water protection. Mr. Parker pointed out that there was a note on the plan indicating that all proposed homes will have residential sprinkler systems.
The board noted that school impact fees in the amount of $5,518 per unit will be assessed at the time of approval, to be collected upon the issuance of building permits.
Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. Language for the well easement will be submitted, and will be subject to review and approval by the town’s legal counsel.
2. A letter from the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory will be submitted, identifying rare plants, animals, and communities in and near the subdivision.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0. The board agreed that “active and substantial development” for purposes of this plan and RSA 674:39 would mean:
1. Construction of and/or installation of at least one building foundation wall/footing; and
2. All erosion control measures (as specified on the approved plans) must be in place and maintained on the site; and
3. Items 1 and 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Department or designated agent.
Case #2006-003: site plan application submitted by D&J Storage for the construction of a 6,000-square foot metal boat storage building at Bradford Road/Route 114 on Map 1, Lot 102-A1.
Tony Lamarine presented the application on behalf of D&J Storage. He explained that there is an existing 4,000-square foot storage building on the site, and approval for an additional 4,000-square foot building had been granted in 1999, but the second building was never built.
Mr. Lamarine addressed the comments that had been raised by the planning consultant. He presented a building façade plan and a photograph of a similar building. He stated that the building would not have individual bays—just one large storage area.
Mr. Lamarine further explained that the plan allows for 12 parking spaces, as required under the zoning ordinance, even though the nature of the business renders parking requirements meaningless. He stated that there would be no solid waste receptacles. Exterior lights will be placed only on the north and west walls, and will be activated automatically at dark. They will be “tip-down” lights. He stated that best management practices will be used for erosion control during construction.
Jim McElroy MOVED to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing.
Dennis McComish stated that he would like the applicant to take steps to minimize the lighting impact, and he was satisfied from the presentation that this was being done.
There was no further public comment.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to approve the application. Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Case #2006-004: voluntary merger application submitted by Julia Khorana on behalf of the Esther E. Khorana Trust and the H. Gobind Family Realty Trust on 2 Tower Road for the merger of Map 1, Lots 654-MM and 654-Y.
Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the voluntary merger application. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Case #2006-005: conceptual consultation for possible 2-lot subdivision by Cathy Dias on Map 1, Lot 651 on Craney Hill Road.
Scott Dias and Jacques Belanger presented a conceptual design for a 2-lot subdivision on behalf of Cathy Dias. The existing lot is 13.64 acres; the subdivided lots would be approximately 7.10 and 6.54 acres. They stated that there may be an issue of buildable area on one of the lots as currently proposed, but this could be accommodated by moving the proposed lot line if necessary.
No other significant issues were identified.
Other Business.
The planning consultant reviewed the agenda for the March 22 work session.
The board discussed a pending lawsuit.
Jim McElroy MOVED to adjourn. Gail Abramowicz seconded the motion; the motion was approved, 7-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cordell Johnston
Acting recording secretary
Henniker Planning Board
February 22, 2006
Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Kristin Claire – Vice Chair, Don Armstrong, Gail Abramowicz, James McElroy, Cordell Johnston – Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant, Lisa Demers – Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: Dennis Hamel
Scott Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
Dennis Hamel - expressed his concerns regarding a proposed amendment that will be on the ballot.
7:23 p.m. Item 1 – Review of the planning board meeting minutes of February 8, 2006.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to approve the minutes of February 8, 2006 as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
9:00 p.m. Item 2 – Review of the site walk minutes of February 10, 2006.
Motion: Cordell Johnston moved to approve the minutes of the Bennett walk through as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Motion: Jim McElroy moved to approve the minutes of the Glover walk through as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
9:05 p.m. Item 3 – Define active and substantial development.
a. Case #2005-019, Chase Brook Settlement
Motion: Cordell Johnston moved to propose the definition of active and substantial development for Chase Brook. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
b. Case #2005-031, Glover Subdivision
c. Case #2005-032, Bennett/Bennett-Brown Subdivision
Motion: Cordell Johnston moved to propose the changes as discussed and edited to the active and substantial development definition. Approved by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
9:20 p.m. Item 4 – Gravel Excavation
a. Potential application forthcoming.
b. Review of process, regulations, and fees.
There was a general discuss with no action taken.
9: 45 p.m. Item 5 – NH DOT Dredge and Fill Permit
For information purposes only.
9:46 p.m. Item 6 – January 18, 2006 Zoning Board Agenda – Stephanie Alexander
Discussed and reviewed.
9:48 p.m. Item 8 – Digital Tax Mapping Report on Findings.
Nothing new to report.
9:50 p.m. Item 9 – Consultant’s Report – Stephanie Alexander
Discussed the agenda for the March 8, 2006 planning board meeting.
Scott Osgood adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Site walk
Subdivision for Stephen E. Bennett & Judy Bennett Brown
West Side of Route 114 and South Side of Flanders Road
Application # 2005-032 Tax Lot 540-X9
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps, Board member, Don Armstrong, alternate Board member, Bob Stamps, member conservation commission, Denise Rico, member conservation commission, Art Siciliano, Registered Land Surveyor and owner’s agent
Guests Present:
None
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 11:45
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a walk to view the site of the proposed 3 lot Subdivision application along Route 114
The attendees parked and met at the Pancake House parking lot across Flanders road from the northern tip of the lot.
The weather was clear and cold, with a frozen 6 “snow cover.
The group walked on to the property along the existing pathway. The lot is narrow at the beginning, bordered by a stone wall and open field to the west and Route 114 to the east. It was noted this is a relatively long lot, with some severe slopes and gullys within it.
The vegetation was fairly densely wooded, mostly hardwood.
The group walked south to the beginning of the slope to the indicated northerly wetland.
The group then decided to access the site from 114 at the location of the proposed new property line. All members retuned to their cars, Bob and Terry Stamps left the site walk.
Remaining attendees and Mr. Siciliano drove to the pathway which is located at the proposed property line. The group walked into the site, following the path into the southern most lot.
This area is heavily vegetated, with large trees, a mix of soft and hardwood. Slopes exceeding 25% were prevalent. The land along the upper, westerly property line shows a flatter slope.
The location of the 2 acre buildable was noted for the south lot
Discussion was held as to the requested variance from the 20 % slope requirement. Mr. Siciliano has prepared a plan showing the locations of the various slope conditions of the land. This plan was viewed and discussed.
The wetland and steep slope on the site were viewed and discussed.
Wetland buffers were discussed. It was noted Henniker regulations do not require Wetland buffers.
The group walked back to Route 144. The meeting adjourned at 12:30.
Respectfully submitted
Scott Osgood
TOWN OF HENNIKER
February 10, 2006
Site walk
Subdivision for Donald and Margaret Glover
North side of Western Ave and West side of the Oaks
Application # 2005-031 Map 2 Lot 399
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps, Board member, Don Armstrong, alternate Board member, Bob Stamps, member conservation commission, Denise Rico, member conservation commission, Art Siciliano, Registered Land Surveyor and owners agent
Guests Present:
None
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 11:00 am.
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a walk to view the site of the proposed 3 lot Subdivision application along Western Ave.
The attendees parked and met at the Southwest corner of the lot. The plan was reviewed and relative locations of the west property line viewed.
The weather was clear and cold, with a frozen 6 “snow cover.
The location of the wetlands was viewed from the parking area.
The group then walked the property line along Western Ave, heading east to the location of the easterly proposed property line. The relative location of the new middle property line was noted and viewed.
The South property line was seen to be bounded by a sidewalk and granite curb. An actual curb cut and sidewalk modification will be necessary for a new driveway on to this lot.
The group then entered the property along the easterly property line. This line follows an existing stone wall. Art stated this wall would stay with the easterly most lot, the one containing the house.
The lot line then makes an angle, to the north east, passing through an opening in the stone wall, and ending at the property at the Colby Hill Inn.
The wall portion left on the idle lot, is composed of large granite stone, and looks to be a part of an old foundation. Discussion was held regarding this wall. Hope was expressed that the new owners would not remove this wall. It was noted this land has some Historical significance, in that the first barn in Henniker is said to have been built on it.
The rest of the middle lot was seen to be dry, gently sloping to the east, with some tall trees and light brush cover along the North.
The easterly lot contained all the existing buildings. The lot line location looked to supply the required setbacks.
The walk continued into the easterly lot. A large portion of this lot is open. with good south western exposure, and an open, sunny view. It was noted that when foliage is present, the Police Station would not be visible. Noise from 202/9 was evident.
The wetlands were seen along the east side. The vegetation was mostly open, with tall, but thin cover on the north, and some briars scattered throughout.
The walk continued south, back to the road.
The site walk ended at 11:40.
Respectfully submitted
D Scott Osgood
Town of Henniker
February 8, 2006
Town Hall
Town of Henniker
Planning Board
February 8, 2006
Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Terry Stamps, Don Armstrong, Gail Abramowicz – Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant.
Guests Present: Paul Apple – Upton & Hatfield, Spencer Bennett
Linda McGuire, Donald & Margaret Glover, Jennifer McCourt, Paul McInnis, Earl Kalil, Doug Dimes, Arthur Siciliano, Jim Berger, Kellie Dyjak, John & Bette Sargent, Sally & Brad Tanner, Cathy Mann, Nancy Foley, Richard St. George, Robert Reynolds.
Scott Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Scott Osgood stated the meeting would be taped solely for the purpose of having the minutes recorded since there was no secretary available to take notes. He also stated that once the tapes were transcribed they would be destroyed.
7:12 p.m. Scott Osgood moved, seconded by Terry Stamps, to go into a non-public meeting.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to seal the meeting minutes of the non-public session. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
7:20 p.m. Returned to public session.
Item 1 – Review of the minutes from the February 1, 2006 Zoning Amendment Meeting.
This item has been tabled till the end of the meeting.
Item 2 – Case #2004-018 Applicant update on the approved major subdivision on Mount Hunger Road on Map 1, Lot 723 in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Paul Apple, from Upton & Hatfield, introduced himself to the board on behalf of Spencer Bennett. Mr. Apple stated the development had been approved with conditions and he was here this evening to submit that the following conditions that have been met;
Soil Scientist Stamp, Incorporate Hoyle-Tanner Road specifications, Input from the Road Agent, and Road easement deeds. Mr. Apple stated all these conditions have been met and the Mylar is now before you for signature. He requested that the Mylar be signed by the board, so that it can be recorded so that the improvements of the road can be undertaken and the subdivision plan become effective.
Scott Osgood – How do you see the process of this going through? You did mention you would undertake rebuilding of the road. As you are probably aware, the planning board does not have the authority to let you go out and rebuild the road, so I would ask what your expectation of future steps would be under that set of conditions.
Paul Apple – I understand the planning board is without jurisdiction to mandate both the timing and the undertaking of these improvements. We have a permit from the selectmen’s office that was issued. It was signed and approved by all the administrative agencies; the police and what not. I’m not unaware of the board of selectmen’s most recent meeting about these improvements and understand that’s an issue, but believe that’s a selectmen’s issue. At this point, the selectmen have issued a trench permit. I understand that there are a number of issues raised by that, but again, I don’t believe they are planning board issues. I think the conditions that were imposed on the applicant have been met and as a result, the process should begin with your signature of the Mylar so that it can be recorded.
Gail Abramowicz – The trench permit has been issued, but it’s for the driveway, I understand that’s the safe site you needed that’s why you plan to straighten out the road. If the selectmen prohibit the straightening of the road, what is your recourse for that lot?
Paul Apple – The driveway permit has been issued for that lot.
Gail Abramowicz – It’s issued, but not approved.
Paul Apple – No, it’s my understanding that it has been approved and it’s not an issue at this point.
Scott Osgood – Without the road being undertaken, it fails the basis of approval from the planning board.
Paul Apple – One, that assumes the road work would not be undertaken. I think that is not a correct assumption. Two, the conditions that you have imposed on the applicant were quit specific and I think I read them fairly accurately and each of those conditions have been met. Again, I think this is a function of the selectmen. If the selectmen prohibit it then we have a more interesting case, but as far as signing the Mylar, I think that’s something you should do because the conditions you imposed on this applicant as a requirement for an approval, which you granted that approval, those have been met. So, there would be no proper reason for withholding your signature at this point. If an issue comes up about the driveways, why then, we’ll have to take that as it comes.
Scott Osgood – I feel that is one step in the process that is incomplete. That this process is out of our control and that we don’t have the authority to approve the road re-alignment plan. The condition of the approval was to incorporate the plan and all the rights and approvals you need to do that. It’s not complete in that regard.
Paul Apple – It would be our position that in fact because we have the trench permit; that in fact it is complete and that we are now prepared to go forward and that there is no legal impediment for us to go forward with those road improvements.
Scott Osgood – I don’t think it’s our understanding that the road and the plans have been approved by the selectmen.
Paul Apple – Well, that was not a condition imposed on the applicant by this board.
Scott Osgood – We don’t have to impose it.
Gail Abramowicz – One of our regulations state for the plan being it’s a proposed driveway permit, I think that’s all we need to stand by is the proposed driveway and because it was a proposal location for the driveway that’s hinging on the straightening of the road to make it safe, I think the next step is for them to make it safe, but they’ve met our requirements to show a proposed driveway. I think our job is done and the problem is then on the selectmen. The applicant has sufficiently shown what he needs on the plan.
Scott Osgood – My concern is that it’s already a bit of a mess and we don’t want to make it an even bigger mess. Maybe our approval was premature knowing that we don’t have the authority to approve roadwork and we thought by getting the requirements would cover that. I guess it didn’t cover it.
Paul Apple – I would suggest the argument of prematurely of the approval is a bit like the horse is out of the barn. The approval vested my client with certain rights and we are beyond the point were that issue is necessarily before us. If it’s a political process, we should leave that to the selectmen. At this point, the planning process should go forward in its usual course. Once the conditions have been met, your signatures should be forth coming on the Mylar so it can be recorded.
Don Armstrong – The trench permit states you want to do test pits and that’s the end of it.
Paul Apple – The next page is more specific. It goes over Phase I and Phase II. That’s what they signed off on.
Don Armstrong – But, it states here in preparation of work needed. It doesn’t say to do the work.
Paul Apple – I think at this point we have done everything you’ve asked us to do.
Scott Osgood – This trench permit is a very weak document. It mentions the town engineer; it doesn’t even mention the specific Hoyle-Tanner plans anywhere. It also doesn’t have any selectmen’s signatures on it. If this document is what you say it is, it would have that information on it. It would have the selectmen’s signature on it and it would have the plans in question on it too. If that was on this we would have a much different situation, but it doesn’t have it.
Gail Abramowicz – If this is a standard form that is issued from the selectmen’s office and never has the selectmen’s signatures on it, and then I don’t think we can require this applicant to have that.
Paul Apple – If the form has the town administrator’s signature on it and as agent for the selectmen, he can bind the selectmen and bind the town.
Scott Osgood – I don’t think so.
Paul Apple – It has all the necessary signatures. You are not going to find a selectmen’s signature on the average permit for something like this.
Terry Stamps – I understand what you’re saying, but if you look at what this trench permit means, I would be hard-pressed that the selectmen felt this constituted approval of the road; given the fact that at their December 2005 meeting they didn’t act on it.
Paul Apple – If I accept your argument as true; I’m not sure it gets us over the hump in terms of what needs to happen. The first point is your position places my client in a catch-22. He can’t get you to sign his subdivision plan, though he has an approved plan, and he can’t get the selectmen to approve his road improvements which are a condition, so that cannot be the intent of this board given it’s obligation to assist citizens as they move forward with the development of his land. More importantly, what the selectmen meant was, again, something a bit broader than what you are here in charge to do. Unfortunately, there might be some ambiguity from their office, but what’s before you are the specific conditions that you imposed upon my client as a condition. As a matter of law, the confusion is really the burden of the selectmen at this point. I think you should sign the plan. If the selectmen have a problem with the plan you could do one of three things. They could withdraw the permit, which they have not seemed fit to do. They could vote affirmatively to prohibit the action. They could vote affirmatively to permit the action. If the improvements begin they could certainly, by their police authority, say stop. This would be an administrative decision.
Gail Abramowicz – We need to act on what’s in front of us and what we have and then have the selectmen act on what they can do or what they need to do.
Scott Osgood – I think the board needs to decide whether it’s prudent to sign it or not. I don’t understand what you gain by having a Mylar approved and then work that’s not approved. I don’t know what you gain by having our signature except that you now have a plan that you can’t build, but you can register and you can get it recorded, but you can’t build it. To me, that’s going to create bigger problems down the road. If the document is specific to these plans and with the approval by the people who have the authority then there is nothing more to talk about, in my opinion.
Paul Apple – Very rarely does a developer undertake substantial improvements without the consummation of planning board approval. Without that no developer would take the risk of undertaking work without an approved and signed plan. We have satisfied the conditions and request your signatures so we can move forward.
Motion: Gail Abramowicz moved to accept that the applicant has met the conditions and the planning board should sign the plans, but with the understanding that the trench permit does not entitle the applicant to alter the road without clear board of selectmen approval. Seconded by Scott Osgood. Gail Abramowicz agreed with the remaining board members opposed.
Motion failed.
Item 3 – Case #2005-019 A major subdivision application has been submitted by Chase Brook Realty Trust for 20 open space residential development lots, plus one open space lot, on Map 1, Lot 583 at Flanders and Craney Hill Roads in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Jennifer McCourt – McCourt Engineering Associates, introduced herself as representing Chase Brook Settlement. The gifting of the 61 acres will be put on the town warrant in March. In that warrant article it will state there will be a conservation easement put on the land that would be managed by an outside entity. Ms. McCourt read #1 under Roadway/Geometry on page two of the general review comments. She stated since this was going to be a privately roadway, they did not change any aspect of the curves. She felt this would keep people who do not live in the community from driving up there and keep the members of the community from speeding through the development.
#2. There would be no speed limit signs posted within the development. Since it’s a private road there is no need to.
Scott Osgood – Don’t you think it would be a good idea to post the speed limit?
Jennifer McCourt – No. If a neighbor has an issue with someone speed through the development they are apt to approach that person with their concerns.
Scott Osgood – So, does that mean there is no enforceable speed limit on that road since its private?
Jennifer McCourt – Correct.
Scott Osgood – Just for the sake of enforceability, I think it’s worth thinking about. The neighbors don’t want to be responsible for patrolling their neighbors or anyone else that might drive through there.
Gail Abramowicz – Because it’s not enforceable, I don’t know if they’re bound to put a speed limit sign up, but they could put a go slow sign up.
Jennifer McCourt - #3 Ms. McCourt stated since Hoyle-Tanner (HTA) recommends increasing the turning radii, we obliged by increasing it to 40’.
#4. Ms. McCourt stated HTA recommended using a darker line-type to show each culvert.
#5. Ms. McCourt, pointing to her plans, showed the board where the sight distances at the proposed driveways have been determined.
#6. Ms. McCourt, pointing to her plans, shows the board how she went out an additional 5’ from Flanders Road then went up a 3% divide. It does two things. It gives you a place to stop and it also makes it so any water coming down from this road will be able to go into the ditch line instead of coming out onto Flanders Road.
#7. Ms. McCourt, pointing to her plans, showed the board where the culverts are suppose to be.
#8 & #9 Ms. McCourt stated they have decided to go above ground with the utilities instead of below ground because of the cost factor.
#10 Ms. McCourt stated HTA recommended rewording the first sentence of Construction Sequence Note #7 is amended to read: “Commence construction of roadway as specified in the most RECENT edition of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”. I did not put it in that way. I put in instead “it has to be in conformance with a 2005 Henniker Subdivision Regulation”. The reason being is town subdivision regulations aren’t strictly DOT standards and there are some variations from it, but also your subdivision regulations does reference those specifications plus a whole bunch of other ones.
#11 Ms. McCourt stated the 20’ wide driveway has been changed to a 16’ wide common driveway.
#12 Ms. McCourt stated she added Sta. 4-50 – right to the cross-sections.
#13 Ms. McCourt explained why she would not use the jute mat and instead would use riprap.
#14 Ms. McCourt stated the size and condition was verified and there was no change required.
#15 Ms. McCourt stated she did not foresee having to install under drains.
#16 Ms. McCourt stated they are not 4,000 SF septic areas. They are 4,000 SF reseeding areas.
#17 Ms. McCourt stated they are not using any of those, so they are not putting them on the plan.
#18 Ms. McCourt stated she handed the traffic study to Stephanie Alexander earlier in the meeting.
#19 No further comment was regarded for lot sizes.
Terry Stamps – Above ground versus below ground utilities…About how many poles would you guess there would be?
Jennifer McCourt – They go approximately every 200’. Four or five poles, I guess.
Don Armstrong – Regarding the septic systems…All the wells that protect the radius is going to stay within the boundaries of the property. They are not going to overlap, right?
Jennifer McCourt – Correct.
Terry Stamps – Could you walk us through the buffer and the distance from the buffer?
Jennifer McCourt – Pointing to her plans – Basically along Flanders Road and Craney Hill Road in the exterior line there will be a 50’ buffer no cut zone except for the private road and the common driveways. We’ve moved all the driveways to be common driveways instead of having individual ones off the existing roads. All of them have the 50’ buffer, the 50’ no cut zone.
Don Armstrong – Will this be restricted within the deed stating you cannot cut the first 50’.
Jennifer McCourt – Yes, I believe that’s what Earl Kalil submitted.
Jennifer McCourt – Pointed out the letter she handed to the board from the Fire Department stating they are all set with the 20’ private road and using sprinkler systems in each home.
Scott Osgood – Where do you make that a condition of the sale of the property?
Earl Kalil – We’ll put it where ever you want.
Scott Osgood – Put it on the plans.
Jennifer McCourt – We’ll put it on one of the plans that’s getting recorded.
Scott Osgood opened the floor to the public for general discussion.
Cathy Mann – My property is across one of the properties that has a shared driveway. I have to say, overall, I am for this plan. I like the open space concept. I walk the land all the time and I’m glad it’s not going to be all divided up. I do have a concern regarding traffic. It’s very narrow and has a very sharp curve. Also, the speed limit of 35 mph, in my opinion, is very high for that road and you may want to look into it especially since there are more houses going in there. Lighting….What are your plans for lights?
Nancy Foley – I live on Craney Hill Road. I have a concern about the increased traffic on Craney Hill Road; logging trucks, increased traffic for Pat’s Peak, apple picking, school buses. I do approve the open space idea.
Jennifer McCourt – There are other houses across the street now from them. (Referring to the school bus stopping) If the bus is stopping there now, it’s going to stop there when the new development is in.
John Sargent – I live across the middle driveway on Craney Hill Road. I guess it’s inevitable that someone is going to build over there. I don’t see five acres on this. So, I don’t understand why we are even entertaining this idea. If they want to exit into a private development down there, I don’t think that’s wrong if they want to run their driveways down the private road, but if you’re going to go onto to Craney Hill Road they should have 5 acres. Why should we approve this?
Scott Osgood – We could answer that by saying the zoning regulations do allow alternative forms of development. One of the major components of it is if the land owner or developer is offering something to the town; which the town feels is invaluable in return.
John Sargent – One the private end that’s called bribery.
Scott Osgood – It’s in our regulations for us to consider. We don’t have to accept it. There are limits to how much they can do. Established by how much land they have and how much they could develop.
John Sargent – There looks like there is enough land behind here (pointing) to make it 5 acres.
Scott Osgood – This is an alternative. It allows the developer to put the homes on smaller lots in return for some benefit. This developer came to us with something very close to this plan and it was looked at by the Conservation Commission and some of the abutters, who did attend a site walk and conceptual consultation. With that and the boards open space regulations, the board hasn’t seen any reason to deny this. The application has come to us as complete and now we are looking at it and are now in the acceptance phase. We are in the public session and need to hear and need to know if it’s a bad idea and need to know if it’s something we shouldn’t accept. There are benefits there (the land/trails.)
Don Armstrong – Just so you understand, at the beginning they give us two sets of plans as a requirement. In their conventional plans, they were going to put in 17 duplexes, each one of them 125’ apart.
Scott Osgood – We are trying to encourage some type of creative land use that protects things that we find valuable. (We the town, not the board.)
Bette Sargent – We don’t even know if the town is going to accept this land the developer is willing to give us. So, if we issue this before the town gets to vote on it would seem against what we plan. Plus, the town would be liable for this land unless this will be run by outsiders. Who’s guaranteeing that? If someone gets hurt up there who’s going to be liable?
Scott Osgood – That was a question that went before the selectmen. They did talk about it and did decide that those liabilities could be covered properly. There is no guarantee that the town would vote to accept this land. There are other options for the owners to provide deeded easements for conservation. It doesn’t have to be the town. It can be
other entities. Even if that fails, there are other options.
Bette Sargent – I know we came before the board before with one of our neighbors. He wanted to subdivide his land and they wouldn’t let him subdivide and he had several acres. It could have been done, but they wouldn’t let him because of the 5 acre limit. I still feel strong about this. They have minimal acres of land, not the 5 acres.
Scott Osgood – There is a requirement for a minimal parcel requirement. It’s 20 or 30 acres that would be in this open space category.
Jennifer McCourt – We came here with a plan with a 125’ frontage and spaghetti lots back through here (pointing to her plans). To be able to get areas to were you wanted to get a house you wouldn’t have them all up here (pointing to her plans), you’d have them back across here (pointing to her plans). You wouldn’t have an ATV trail, you wouldn’t have a hiking trail, and you wouldn’t be maintaining any of that. Basically we’d be doing spaghetti lots through this whole thing and basically chop up the whole land. There wouldn’t be 50’ buffers to maintain. What we wanted to do was to preserve the best part of this land in perpetuity so that it would be preserved. The school has looked at this as far as being able to service these lots and they were concerned about the intersection at Craney Hill Road also. We have put these driveways is to get them away from these steep areas (pointing to her plans). We can minimize the cuts we have and keep them away from the steep areas. Yes, we could have 5 acre lots, but we were trying to preserve the area. The Conservation Commission walked through the area and thought it was a phenomenal area to try and preserve.
Bette Sargent – What if the town doesn’t accept that land?
Jennifer McCourt – Five Rivers and Piscataqua, to name a few, which we would approach to take the land.
Scott Osgood – It doesn’t make any difference if they own 1 acre or 5 acres, it’s like the land is in current use. The public is allowed to use. It’s a non issue for the users of the land.
Bette Sargent – What’s the difference on our side of the street then? We have 5 acres.
Jennifer McCourt – You can go and clear cut that. You can post it. You have rights and these people won’t have rights to do on that land.
Terry Stamps – What would happen if one of those agencies didn’t take the land?
Jennifer McCourt – The individual land owners would get a 20th interest in that and then there would be a covenant on top of it that can’t be developed.
Bette Sargent – That’s a liability. Who’s responsible for the liability? Is it a liability on the land owners?
Jennifer McCourt – Yes.
Bette Sargent – So if someone goes on their property and gets hurt; it’s the land owners responsibility?
Cathy Mann – I would like to see one less house. Then it wouldn’t seem to be so cluttered. It’s a percentage growth per year, right?
Scott Osgood – There will be a phasing plan. We will know what parts are going to be developed first.
Kelly Dyjak – So based on the phase plan, it will take about four years for it to be completed?
Earl Kalil – No. That’s not true. Each subdivision can only get 5 building permits per year.
Jim Eilenberger – I think the open concept idea is probably the best idea. If you look at the plan and how they did their five acres you would just have everyone own 125’ of that stream. Try and put roads back there and cross the stream, it would just ruin the area. They have done about as good a job to preserve that area as they could. This is the best alternative. I’d rather not see any houses there, but that’s reality.
Robert Reynolds – I would recommend the speed limit be reduced and have it more frequently patrolled. There’s no enforcement on Flanders Road. Posted or not posted, with the increase in traffic we’ll be running around in circles.
Jennifer McCourt – If you want to change the speed limit out there, you’d have to go to the selectmen and make a request to the Safety Committee because they are the ones that control the speed limits in the town.
Scott Osgood – Given that, I don’t think they have the authority to let it go below 30 MPH.
Jennifer McCourt – There are actually a couple roads in town that are 25 MPH. They have to do a speed safety study before they do.
Scott Osgood – We have now closed the public hearing session at this time. Given there is no further public comments to the board.
Scott Osgood – The highway engineering has not seen this report yet. There’s also a question of the phasing plan and accessing the impact fees. Are these going to be single family detached homes?
Earl Kalil – Yes.
Scott Osgood – So, the impact fee is $5,518.00 for each single family dwelling unit. The other issue is the phasing plan. We would ask for the phasing plan. Send a letter when the bounds are set before the town registers the plans. Has that been set yet?
Jennifer McCourt – No. We need to construct the private road before the bounds are set.
Earl Kalil – What we would like to do is go to the State and get our State subdivision permit. We haven’t done that yet. We’ve been waiting for some type of conditional approval. What we were hoping tonight was we could get a conditional approval based upon certain conditions.
Scott Osgood – We can talk about a conditional approval. Conditions: 1. Show the sprinkler requirement on the plans. 2. Provide a phasing plan. 3. Supply the definition for active and substantial development. 4. Final review by the town engineer. 5. Submission of the DES application. 6. Have town counsel make sure the wording is correct.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to conditionally approve this subdivision. Conditions being:
1. Add a note on the recorded plan stating that residential sprinklers will be installed in the new homes.
2. Provide a phasing plan on the recorded plan.
3. The planning board will define “active and substantial development” for this project as agreed upon by both the board and the applicant.
4. Approval is subject to a satisfactory review of the final plans and storm water report by the Town Engineer.
5. Submit a copy of the State Subdivision Application for the appropriate lot(s).
6. Approval is subject to a satisfactory review of the covenant and two deeds by Town Counsel.
Arthur Siciliano representing Donald and Margaret Glover – Requesting a three lot subdivision, 2.91 acres on Western Avenue. There is an existing house which is 24,000 sq.ft.; the second house would be 30,000 sq.ft. on lot 399A, the third house would be 71,000 sq.ft. on lot 399B (“SIC”). All three lots will be serviced by town water/sewer.
Gail Abramowicz – What is the distance from the boundary line to the Police Station?
Arthur Siciliano – 19’
Scott Osgood – What about the driveway on 399B?
Arthur Siciliano – We left enough room to get by.
Scott Osgood – When wet lands are involved, it’s a good idea for the planning board to see the site. We will do a site walk on Friday, February 17, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.
Scott Osgood – Another concern is impact fees. Are these going to be single family homes?
Arthur Siciliano – Yes.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to continue the application until the March 8, 2006 planning board meeting. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Item 5 – Case 3005-032 A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown for a three-lot subdivision on Map 1, Lot 540-X9 on Route 114 and Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreation (CR) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts.
Art Siciliano representing Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown – To subdivide tax lot 540-X9 into three lots. The lots will be serviced by on-site septic systems and on-site wells. They are requesting a waiver of the required 20% slopes and allow up to 25%. The requirement of 20% will not allow subdivision of this 22.77 acre lot, but using the 25% slope allows for a subdivision as presented.
Scott Osgood – What will the use of the lots be once they are subdivided?
Art Siciliano – We’ve place restricted covenants on the lands so they can be used for residences with the exception of this land (pointing to his plans) at the intersection of Flanders Road and 114. This can be used for limited commercial use with the approval of brother and sister.
Gail Abramowicz – I feel we should act on the waiver.
Scott Osgood – We need to schedule a site walk. We will schedule a site walk for Friday, February 17, 2006 at 11:30 a.m.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to continue the application until the planning board does their site walk-through. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Scott Osgood – Has asked the guests present if they objected to moving the public hearing of subdivision application form and site plan application form until after the conceptual consultation. No objections heard.
Conceptual form consultation
Item 8 – Goss Lumber 6,740 sq.ft. new construction, 25 Flanders Road, Map 1, Lot 589D
Donald Goss – Requesting to build a 50’ x 140’ single story building, a 50’ x 120’ heated, 50’ x 20’ open shed. There will be an 8’ concrete foundation, 4’ above grade, wooded frame with metal siding and roof. No septic. There will be electricity.
Gail Abramowicz – What part of this is an existing building?
Donald Goss – None of it.
Scott Osgood – Will this be for storage?
Donald Goss – For my mill. The end of it will be chipping/saw-dust storage.
Scott Osgood – Do you foresee this being loud?
Donald Goss – Hopefully not to loud since it’s going to be inside. It’s going to have 6” studded walls and insulation. The biggest noise would be the blowers. There’s a 30’ sandbank there, so I’m hoping it will buffer into that.
Don Armstrong – What about drainage issues?
Donald Goss – We’re planning on tipping the whole plateau back towards the bank and let it go off this way (pointing to his plans).
Scott Osgood – Has decided to go over the site plan review application so as to give Mr. Goss a better understanding of how the process works and what is required of him.
Scott Osgood – Has suggested Mr. Goss write a narrative description of the proposed project, touch up the noise issue (how he’s identified it and how he is going to take care of it). I don’t foresee you having to obtain any additional wetlands and soil scientists, or land surveyors stamps. You need to show where you’re going to have the utilities. Make a note of any outdoor lights. Supply a topographic plan and any buffers on the property. Lastly, show where the drainage will be and contact the abutters.
Item 6 – New Subdivision Application forms Public Hearing – Stephanie Alexander
Item 7 – New Site Plan Review Application forms Public Hearing – Stephanie Alexander
Motion: Terry Stamps moved to approve the subdivision and site plan review applications. Seconded by Don Armstrong and unanimously approved.
Item 9 – Tax Mapping Project, with $5,000.00 Warrant Article for 2006.
Scott Osgood – I have a meeting with Stephanie Alexander and Denise Rico about the software. I’m expecting some information from them. We’ll meet again, if I have the information, on pricing and the scope of what’s available.
Item 10 – Consultant’s Report – Stephanie Alexander
Stephanie Alexander – Read over her report.
Item 1 – Review of the Minutes from the February 1, 2006 Zoning Amendment Meeting (tabled earlier in the meeting until now.)
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to approve the February 1, 2006 planning board minutes as revised and edited. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and unanimously approved.
Item 11 – Correspondence – Scott Osgood
Scott Osgood – A letter from PSNH regarding transmission line easements.
Motion: Gail Abramowicz moved to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. Seconded by Scott Osgood and unanimously approved.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
Town of Henniker
February 1, 2006
Community Center
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Kristin Claire – Vice Chair, James McElroy, Cordell Johnston, Terry Stamps, Don Armstrong, Gail Abramowicz – Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant, and Lisa Demers – Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: Rik Humboldt, Jennifer McCourt, DB Patenaude, Joan O’Connor, Aureus Humboldt.
Meeting called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Scott Osgood.
Items 1 & 2 (minutes of the December 14, 2005 & January 18, 2006 meeting minutes) have been tabled until later in the meeting.
Amendment No. 5 – Amend Sections 133-116, 133-117, 133-119 under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development to clarify the ordinance.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Jennifer McCourt – (Regarding Amendment 133-116) suggests you add an addendum to the end of the phrase stating you will use the most current soils survey interpretation.
Terry Stamps – Suggested taking out all the dates and add “most current.”
Jennifer McCourt - Who determined that 20% slopes are un-buildable? It seems extremely limiting.
Kristin Claire - We passed the 20% slope last year.
Jennifer McCourt - State law is up to 33%. How is it that Henniker is 20%?
Don Armstrong – The difference has never been brought up before. If someone wants to argue it they can. It’s something we passed.
Cordell Johnston - We have two options. We can leave it or nix the amendment.
Kristin Claire - If we change it we should change it consistently everywhere.
Don Armstrong - We can always do that next year.
Cordell Johnston - Lets go with this and change it next year.
Scott Osgood - It does help create more buildable lots. I suggest we meet in the coming year to see what’s out there for the pros and cons. We are trying to streamline it so it’s an easier understandable document.
Amendment No. 5 133-116 has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
Amend Section 133-116 as follows under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development: Change name of the definition “developable land area” to “buildable land area” and replace the definition to read as follows: That portion of the tract remaining after deducting areas in wetlands conservation as defined in Article XXIII, flood plains, areas of slope equal to or greater than 20% and soils with severe limitation as defined by the current US Department of Agriculture Soils Survey Interpretation Sheets. (the dates 1973, 1975, or 1976 were omitted.)
Mr. Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Sections 133-117
Terry Stamps – It’s not as clear as I would have liked it.
Cordell Johnston - It would be obvious that the determination of the land be by the planning board.
Rik Humboldt - What would constitute your criteria for approving or disallowing a bonus?
Terry Stamps - It may come out in a conceptual consultation.
Kristin Claire - We don’t have the process right now. I still think we need to spell it out.
Scott Osgood - The problem we have is its site specific. It can’t be specific.
Rik Humboldt - As a member of the public I’d like it to be more defined.
Terry Stamps - More defined or more examples?
Rik Humboldt - More defined.
Kristin Claire - If we defined it we would be limiting the developer and us.
Jennifer McCourt - I don’t see were you can use mitigation. I think you need to have specifics of what you’re looking for. It’s very well defined. It leaves a huge hole for legal suits.
Kristin Claire - We wanted to tackle this, this year, but we just didn’t have enough time. We should spell it out more next year.
Scott Osgood - We’re stuck with this no matter what we do.
Gail Abramowicz - As it stands now its open for negotiation and interpretation.
Amendment No. 5 133-117 has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
Amend Section 133-117 “density change” as follows under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development:
Replace the title “Density Change” to “Lot size and Quantity” and add the following to the end of paragraph A:
The maximum number of dwelling unit permitted in an open space subdivision shall be determined by the conventional subdivision plan, unless the planning board determines that the increased quantity of proposed lots provides some additional overall benefit to the town such as public recreation or affordable housing and will not impair the integrity or character of the area.
Mr. Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
133-119
Rik Humboldt – What’s the purpose of having both.
Kristin Claire – It’s spelled out.
Jennifer McCourt - It doesn’t define what you need to submit for a conventional subdivision. It’s not clear what you’re looking for. Isn’t it really a two step process?
Kristin Claire - We can define the two step process next year.
Jennifer McCourt - Can you take out the word design?
Joan O’Connor - Will you accept a conceptual plan from a lay-person?
Jim McElroy - We would like to see stamps in the file.
Rik Humboldt - Why would the planning board need to look at one and not the other? Does the planning board feel they have the authority to determine which option they will choose? (open space or subdivision)
Gail Abramowicz - Should we take out the word “designed” from number 2?
Scott Osgood - Yes. Take out the word design.
Paragraph C
Mr. Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Jennifer McCourt - I don’t the like wording of “buildable” anything I see in open space regarding that is confusing. Keep it simple. I feel you should take out the word buildable.
Joan O’Connor - Why can’t we go by what the rest of the world is going by?
Scott Osgood - Each town is different.
Joan O’Connor – You’re taking advice from an outsider (Jennifer McCourt) who works for an engineer, it sends up flags.
Cordell Johnston – We’re not following it blindly.
Jennifer McCourt - I am a member of this community.
Jim McElroy – It’s very helpful to have someone who sits on the other side of the fence to help us make things clearer.
Joan O’Connor - If you think open space is important then why doesn’t the planning board hire a professional to write these?
Kristin Claire – It’s not in our budget. It cost $15,000.00 to come up with the impact fees.
Amendment No. 5 133-119 Paragraph C has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
Replace Paragraph C with the following:
Minimum Tract Area. The minimum tract area for an open space residential development shall be on a single or adjacent tracts of contiguous land, under one ownership, or to be brought under one ownership, which have a net tract area of no less than 20 (take out “buildable”) acres in the RV and RN Zones, and 30 (take out “buildable”) acres in the RR Zone.
Paragraph I 1
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Rik Humboldt - Since you have so many other definitions and restrictions you seem to already dictate what an open space development consists of, what is the necessity of having a percentage?
Kristin Claire - We have to say what needs to be kept open.
Jennifer McCourt - It would be nice if the word “contiguous” was included in the definition. Shouldn’t you also define easements as “utility”?
Amendment No. 5 133-119 Paragraph I (1) has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
The (take out “amount of”) land designated as permanent common open space exclusive of road rights-of-way, utility easements and common parking areas shall be a contiguous area equal to at least 40% of the total area of the tract.
Paragraph I (2)
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Scott Osgood – Stated this paragraph will be eliminated from the amendment since it was redundant.
Cordell Johnston - I don’t think we should have eliminated it.
Kristin Claire - Concurs. I think we should add something to this next year that has to do with our buildable definition.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the modifications of the amendment as written. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Cordell Johnston - Suggests the zoning board subcommittee write how these amendments will be on the ballot and in the Henniker Herald; giving a brief explanation of each.
One, two, and four are already summarized. Bob Stamps has been volunteered to write number three, and Cordell Johnston will take care of number 5.
9:15 p.m. Approve the minutes of December 14, 2005.
Cordell Johnston moved to approve the minutes of December 24, 2005 as edited. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Approve the minutes of January 18, 2006.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the Minutes of January 18, 2006 as edited. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
9:55 p.m. Consultants Report - Stephanie Alexander
Jim McElroy and Cordell Johnston stated they will not be here for next weeks meeting (February 8, 2006.)
10:00 p.m. Other Business - Scott Osgood
Scott Osgood – Stated the town was looking further into GIS.
Rik Humboldt – Formally requested there be an exact tape of all public meetings.
Scott Osgood – By law, we don’t have to do that. You can bring in your own device but you must tell everyone that you are recording it.
Rik Humboldt - Disputes the “potential for abuse is huge” in the January 18, 2006 minutes which was stated by Scott Osgood. Mr. Humboldt doesn’t feel the potential for abuse is there. The benefit for the town as a whole is huge. More taxes are coming in, more business for the local businesses. More health care business, pharmacy, landscape, plowing, home decorating, etc. The elderly of Henniker could downsize their homes and move into this community to be able to stay in Henniker.
Scott Osgood - Rik, if you want to put together a plan that’s complete we’d be happy to review it.
Don Armstrong – Suggested Mr. Humboldt put that information in the local paper to the editor.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Seconded by Scott Osgood and unanimously approved.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
Town of Henniker
Planning board
Zoning Amendment Public Hearing
Community Center
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Kristin Claire – Vice Chairman, Terry Stamps, Gail Abramowicz, Don Armstrong, Jim McElroy - Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant, Lisa Demers – Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: Judith Englander, Bob Stamps, Tom Kuck, Rik Humboldt, Joan O’Connor, Gene Brown, Joe & Terri Trier, Ted Parkins, Marty Davis, Roni Hardy, Sarah Hirsch, Don Goss, Peter & Gail Beckett.
Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Scott Osgood.
Zoning Amendment Public Hearings
7: 05 p.m. Amendment No. 1 – Add definition of condominium under Article II – Definitions.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud. There was no discussion from the board or the guests present.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to accept the warrant article as written. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 2 – Add commercial/retail building size restrictions as Paragraph H in Section 133-29 under Article VII – Commercial District Regulations.
Scott Osgood read the amendment/definition aloud.
Discussion of the board – Mr. Osgood stated this amendment gives the town the ability to decide what type of commercial/retail buildings they want in their town.
Don Armstrong stated these are all stand alone buildings. They preclude strip malls.
Scott Osgood stated the town wants to keep its small town appearance and country setting. If a retailer should open up a box store such as Wal-mart (as an example) the town would like the parking lot put in the back and sides of the building for aesthetic purposes.
Terry Stamps stated this amendment will not limit a current business owner from expanding. They would be able to do that under the proposed ordinances but could not exceed the new 25,000 sq. ft. limit.
Scott Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Roni Hardy – I would like to see the building footprint at 20,000 square feet, but I do like this idea. This is good for the town and it limits its growth. If we want to go to the big stores we can go to Hillsboro or Concord.
Bob Stamps – Large commercial retail tends to run the local companies out of business. It hurts tax wise. They often incur higher cost in services than the taxes they generate. It tends to lower real estate values. With the loss of local businesses to the larger businesses we end up with empty buildings that deteriorate the main street and in the end, wind up with dilapidated buildings. Local jobs are lost. There is a reduction of support for the local community. It also ruins the aesthetics of the town. It isn’t the way Henniker should be.
Motion: Gail Abramowicz moved to accept the warrant article as written. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 3 – Amend lot frontages for RR and RN zones in Section 133-41 under Article X – Lot Size Regulations.
Scott Osgood read the definition aloud.
Scott Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Marty Davis – If these frontages are adopted will we still have the minimum acreage zoning?
Terry Stamps – The configuration change means that a lot would be wider and less deep.
Gene Brown - Any developer will maximize the use of the land and will try to divide any property they have. People would like to see the town of Henniker stay as a country village and part of that description envisions an area that is rural.
Motion: Kristin Claire moved to accept the warrant article as written. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Judi Englander – Wanted to thank the subcommittee for all their efforts.
Amendment No. 4 – Repeal amendment #3 of the March 2002 Town Meeting relating to building permit exemptions and revise fee and permit qualifications in Section 133-56 under Article XIII – Administration.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud.
Gail Abramowicz – Suggests since a permit is required, but there is no fee, this should be made bold in the amendment so it stands out.
Scott Osgood - This does not address the building code. Residents have a right to have their building inspected, it is not required. This amendment just relates to the permit. We want to make sure the town and the people in charge know what’s going on. We want to make sure everyone is following the same rules. There is an exemption for smaller projects so you don’t have to pay a permit fee.
Gail Abramowicz - The mistake the board made a couple years ago was that we never got the word out to the public about how this worked. A permit is not required for jobs up to $5000.00 worth of materials. The problem with that was people would do the job in increments and would not get a permit. The petition gave it a big brother watching attitude, but it’s not for that reason. It’s about someone changing their property value and not paying their taxes on the new building/addition.
Gail Abramowicz - If you put a shed on your property (as an example), there are setbacks that need to be followed. If a person does not go through the proper channels, there could be recourse. Everyone is required to apply for a building permit so everyone knows what’s going on.
Jim McElroy – There are recent changes in State Law for fire safety. We are covering a hole that’s in our fire safety rules to have this change done.
Judi Englander - Currently it would be the cost of materials? It would limit everything to $5,000.00 and under? That’s a substantial change.
Gene Brown - You are not just requiring a permit, but lowering the amount that permit would require for some people?
Scott Osgood – At the selectmen’s meeting last night (January 17, 2006) the Planning board’s fee schedule was discussed. We have to pay for special advice and it’s valuable to do that. In light of the budget and the taxes, they agreed to approve the rate increase. If someone has the need of a service then they should pay for that service.
Marty Davis – The building inspector oversees this?
Scott Osgood – Yes.
Marty Davis – Who makes the determination if it goes over $5000.00?
Gail Abramowicz - It’s based on the information the applicant supplies when they apply for the building permit.
Scott Osgood – It’s possible that no one is going to ask to see the bills. The building inspector can tell what the job costs.
Joe Trier –The way the amendment is worded, if the material is $5000.00 or less you still need a permit.
Don Armstrong – But, you don’t have to pay for it.
Tom Kuck – Shouldn’t the payment of the building inspection come out of the impact fees?
Scott Osgood - The impact fees go into the general fund and are solely for school business.
Tom Kuck – Each time an inspector comes out he comes out for the series of inspections. How can one person be held accountable and another not for a code that doesn’t exist in this town.
Kristin Claire – The code has been revised and the only thing I can say is residents have the right to check off to request an inspection as a service, but the only thing I can tell you about their neighbors is hopefully they’re going through a bank that’s making sure they are having these inspections done.
Don Armstrong – Every person has to meet the state electrical and plumbing codes. The Fire Department comes in and looks at those things. Regarding building codes, the state is looking at that. They want to set up one set of codes for the entire state. There is a commercial code but not residential code.
Terri Trier – What happens if the inspector finds something out of code such as a variance on a step, for example, is he going to enforce it?
Kristin Claire – No. He’s there as a courtesy.
Scott Osgood – But, he won’t sign off on your permit if you do not meet code.
Marty Davis – What happens if people are too slow in getting the project done? Does it matter?
Don Armstrong – Permits are good for three years.
Joan O’Connor – Will you post an article in the local paper explaining people are required to obtain a building permit?
Scott Osgood – No.
Joan O’Connor - It’s very vague. I’ve seen people add car ports and such and there is no enforcement.
Judi Englander – We had an enforcer about four years ago. The town doesn’t allow much time in the budget for enforcement.
Scott Osgood - There is a process you can go through to report a complaint. (Directed to Ms. O’Connor’s concern.)
Motion: Jim McElroy moved to accept the amendment. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 5 – Amend Sections 133-116, 133-117, 133-119 under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development to clarify the ordinance.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud.
Jim McElroy and Ms. Stamps voiced their concern about the wording of “density” and “number of lots.”
Kristin Claire – State most of these changes are “clean up changes.” They’re to spell out the process and to help clarify the language.
Scott. Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Gene Brown – Giving the opportunity to increase the number of residents on a property, do you have specified formulas determining what these conditions would be?
Scott Osgood – No.
Gene Brown - Did the lawyer have any problem with you taking on this burden yourself?
Kristin. Claire – No.
Bob Stamps – Why don’t you put a limit on it?
Scott Osgood - The land itself is self-limiting.
Bob Stamps – You need to set expectations upfront so the developer knows what can be done.
Gene Brown – I still have a concern about the board making a subjective decision.
Bob Stamps - We need to put a limit on bonuses.
Rik Humboldt – This can always get changed next year.
Kristin Claire - This is just a proposed change. The town’s people have to approve it.
Judi Englander – It should be defined.
Don Armstrong – If we set a percentile it doesn’t mean they can’t go to the zoning board and ask for something greater.
Bob Stamps – It can’t hurt to put a limit on it.
Rik Humboldt – Are we taking into account the states restrictions?
Kristin Claire – We could do a percentage, but how do we prove this in a court of law.
Terry Stamps – You could address it as a set percentage as approved by the planning board.
Judi Englander – Do you have to run this change by counsel?
Kristin Claire – Yes, but we never discussed “percentiles.”
Jim McElroy - I’m hesitant to put a percentage or upper limit on the bonus. If this is approved, then this will make it clear about what we have the right to do.
Scott Osgood - If a percentage is put in, we will be a target for all developers. With nothing there it would be easier for us to say no.
Marty Davis – Once these open space criteria are put in place, who’s in charge of the open space?
Kristin Claire – It depends. It’s up to the person who owns it. They can donate it to a local land trust or a homeowner’s association.
Marty Davis – It starts out as a good idea, but if you’re talking about trails you’re in trouble. Who takes care of them?
Rik Humboldt – What is the general consensus? What is the real intention of the open space residential development?
Kristin Claire - The intention of open space development is to encourage flexibility, land usage, and more creative land use and better development down the road.
Amend Section 133-117 “density change” as follows under article XXIV – open space residential development: replace the title “density” with lot size and quality in the title and add the following to paragraph A (indicated in bold/italic):
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in an open space subdivision shall be determined by the conventional subdivision plan, unless the increased quantity of proposed lots provide some additional overall benefit to the town such as public recreation or affordable housing and will not impair the integrity or character of the area.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to approve the changes. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 6 – Submitted by citizen petition. Amend the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and Article XIV – Open Space Residential Development to include provisions for an Active Mature Adult Community.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and allowed Rik Humboldt to respond, since it was he who submitted the petition.
Rik Humboldt - Since there is no ordinance for an over 55 community I proposed this because the planning board, under the current zoning regulations, are constrained to not approve it.
Marty Davis – What is the definition of “active”?
Rik Humboldt - It’s not an assisted living facility.
Marty Davis – Is it exclusive?
Kristin Claire – Yes.
Bob Stamps – I am opposed to the amendment. The density is too high.
Marty Davis – Will all these units be built identically?
Kristin – That would be up to the developer.
Rik Humboldt – I would like to address Mr. Stamps’ comment regarding his concern about the increase in density. There isn’t any increase in density except in one certain circumstance.
Gene Brown – I think cluster housing is a good thing. I think mature housing is a good thing. The density is not excessive however, I would vote against the proposal since someone else might come in and do it differently. This amendment is based on Mr. Humboldt’s current needs. On what basis would you not approve it?
Scott Osgood - It doesn’t fit into the zoning as it’s presented. This amendment is tailored towards a specific proposal. The potential for abuse is huge.
Motion: Jim McElroy moved not to support this amendment. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 7 – Submitted by citizen petition. Amend the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and Article XXIX – Growth Management to allow up to 14 building permits per year for Active Mature Adult Communities.
Kristin Claire read the amendment aloud.
After a short discussion and since this item pertains to the previous amendment, the board moved to make a motion. Prior to doing so, Joan O’Connor wanted to state that we need to open our minds up to this type of community.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved the Planning board not to support this amendment. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
10:20 p.m. – Planning board Elections 2006
10:30 p.m. – Planning board Annual Town Report – Scott Osgood
10:35 p.m. - #2005-018 NH DES Dredge and Fill Permit and Abutter Testimony – Stephanie Alexander
10:45 p.m. – Consultants Report – Stephanie Alexander
10:50 p.m. – Correspondences – Scott Osgood
11:00 p.m. – Minutes of the December 14, 2005 Regular Business Meeting
Motion: Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Submitted respectively by Lisa Demers
Town of Henniker
Approved
November 30, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman, Terry Stamps, Cordell Johnston, Jim McElroy, Board Members, Don Armstrong, Alternative Board Member, Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, and Lisa Demers, Recording Secretary.
Members Excused: Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman, Gail Abramowicz, Board Member.
Guests Present: Gene Brown, Stephany Lavallee, Bob Stamps, Mike Tardiff - CNHRPC, Nick Alexander - CNHRPC, Bob & Lisa Nevins, Chief Gilbert Keith Gilbert, Roland Soucey – Building Inspector
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Kristin Claire.
Discussion Items:
7:02 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting minutes from November 9, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
Motion: made by Mr. McElroy to approve the November 9, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
Projects & Presentations:
7:15 p.m. Road Exactions – CNHRPC
Mike Tardiff addressed the board. He stated the initial agreement indicated a completion date, but additional steps are involved to develop the road standards and road policy. A letter of extension will be submitted by December 31, 2005.
Nick Alexander – stated he would have a draft outline for an approach that seems to fit a reasonable time frame and will address some concerns. He recommends the Planning Board establish a subcommittee. The road standards might need to be reviewed. The road standards need to be the town to build subdivisions in ways you want them to be built, up to current standards, and agree with Fire Safety and DOT. The road management plan would allow the town to understand what roads need to be improved and when and what the costs would be.
Terry Stamps – Are these months cumulative?
Nick Alexander – No. They are concurrent (6 month total)
Scott Osgood – My understanding is the way the laws are written, the only way you can assess an exaction is if it impacts a town’s infrastructure; ie: lighting, sewer, etc.
Mike Tardiff – We are able to quantify the impact of the road. The developer will not pay for the entire project however; the town needs to go through their process of funding their portion. This is what we are leading to right now.
Nick Alexander – If your road standards change then your calculations would change.
Mike Tardiff – You need to set up an even-handed approach.
Scott Osgood – Does the board feel they are in a position to do this now?
Cordell Johnston – We need to set up a subcommittee. Planning Board, Road Safety Highway Superintendent, and Fire Department issues need to be incorporated.
Don Armstrong – Stated he would be willing to work on the subcommittee.
Scott Osgood – Stephanie can coordinate members and help finalize the committee. Scott has instructed Stephanie to include Marty Davis on this as well.
7:30 p.m. Buildout Analysis – CNHRPC
Mike Tardiff – Addressed the board regarding digital parcel mapping.
Scott Osgood – Asked if the payback was better if they did it this way?
Mike Tardiff – It’s an interesting product to have/quantify what your zoning means to your ultimate population to the town. (he then handed out a build-out analysis from the town of Bow CNHRPC had done.)
Terry Stamps – How long was the Bow process?
Mike Tardiff – Six to eight months.
Don Armstrong – Is the older stuff impossible to process?
Mike Tardiff – It all depends. This is something that would need to be discussed as to what the board wants.
Scott Osgood – Find out what we do have. The Conservation Commission has some parcel mapping completed.
7:45 p.m. Presentation on Fire Safety – Fire Department
Keith Gilbert, Fire Chief Gilbert, presented a slide show regarding the following:
Presented a video on Fire Safety
Expressed interest in a close working relationship with the board.
Jim McElroy – Are you looking to be at the absolute front end of the planning process?
Chief Gilbert – Yes. He stated all submittals should be given to him first or concurrent with the Planning Board. Since your requirements for roadways are very different than mine, we need to get on the same page.
Stephanie Alexander – Since these issues have come to her attention, she has given a standard form to the fire/police departments and the Conservation Commission to make sure other departments are aware of what’s required. (Stephanie comprised a packet for subdivision applications and gave Chief Gilbert a copy to go over for comments and suggestions.)
After a lengthy discussion regarding cisterns, in home sprinkler systems, required 24’ roadways, change of use from residential to other, and Chief Gilbert’s ability to do trade-offs, the Chief Gilbert stated he would go over the subdivision packet and get back with Stephanie on his input.
Discussion Items:
8:50 p.m. Planning Board Response to Hopkinton’s College Hill Road Subdivion – Development of Regional Impact.
Stephanie Alexander – Addressed the forum – we’ve looked at the traffic impact assessment from Hopkinton. Ms. Alexander stated we are representing the town as abutters in this matter.
Cordell Johnston – Stated he wrote a letter to the Town of Hopkinton as a concerned citizen that expressed concerns with speed problems and the impact of a new development. He stated it is unrealistic for the police to patrol that road regularly.
Jim McElroy – Asked Stephanie if we have the status to make comments to the Hopkinton Planning Board. Stephanie replied “yes.”
Scott Osgood – Asked Stephanie what the Town of Hopkinton had to say about the traffic study. Stephanie replied “we have not received any further correspondence from Hopkinton as of yet.”
Don Armstrong – Asked “as an abutter should we state the study is inaccurate since a portion of the road does get closed?”
Jim McElroy – Stated we should send a letter stating we are looking forward to the new traffic study.
Cordell Johnston – My concern is that they may get it and have their meeting. We don’t have a right to reject their study, but we can review it. They may say you can look at it and come to the meeting, but we’re not going to give you another month to review it.
Scott Osgood – We need to submit something to the Town of Hopkinton before December 13, 2005.
Bob & Lisa Nevins – How do you relate abutting zoning from one town to the other?
Cordell Johnston – We have a 5 acre rule, they have a 2 acre rule. We could make a comment, but not on a legal standpoint.
Scott Osgood – Since the road has been upgraded, and with the potential new development, it will make things worse especially with police enforcement issues. The subdivision could be detrimental to the Town of Henniker.
Jim McElroy – Stated his concern at the fact that the subdivision will be more on the Henniker line than the Hopkinton line.
Lisa Nevins – Is concerned about the illegal use of ATV’s and the dilemma of who she should call? The Henniker Police? The Hopkinton Police? The Army Corps? No one is going to take responsibility.
Scott Osgood – Asked Stephanie Alexander if this was considered a regional impact. Ms. Alexander stated “yes.” Mr. Osgood stated that Mr. Johnston will draft a letter to the Town of Hopkinton. The Planning Board will meet Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 5:15 p.m. at the Town Hall prior to the Henniker’s Selectman meeting to discuss the draft letter.
9:15 p.m. Zoning Ordinance and Definition Changes
Stephanie Alexander – Needs final changes to the zoning ordinance by December 5, 2005 for Town Council review.
Cordell Johnston – Suggests Terry Stamps write the amendments with Mr. Johnston assisting, for the amendment to the Henniker Zoning Ordinance, changes on Road Frontage, the Retail Square Footage, and the definition for condominium.
Bob Stamps – Presented his report on the Zoning Subcommittee.
Motion: Scott Osgood – moved to propose the amendments to minimum frontage requirements as recommended by the Zoning Committee. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Motion: After a lengthy discussion on retail zoning, Cordell Johnston moved to propose the building size limitation as recommended by the Zoning Subcommittee. Seconded by Don Armstrong and unanimously approved.
10:40 p.m. Building Codes
Stephany Lavallee – Stated Roland Soucey should be the person to go to for questions regarding codes. Complaints should only be handled by one person. There are too many people trying to handle things and they tend to make matters worse.
Roland – Stated he would speak with Peter Flynn to make sure this gets rectified.
Roland – The Town has me doing building inspections, but I don’t have a code to go by and nothing to reference.
After a lengthy discussion regarding Building Codes, it was stated that the Board needs to let the Town’s people know why it’s important to have a building permit.
The Planning Board will ask the Board of Selectmen to grant the building inspector the authority to use the current residential building code.
11:20 p.m. Zoning Definitions – Submitted by Stephanie Alexander
After a lengthy discussion on the definition on manufactured home vs. mobile homes, condex vs. condo, and condex vs. duplex, the Board agreed to add a condominium definition and modify the impact fee guidelines to alleviate confusion.
Jim McElroy – Suggested we make this document part of the application packet.
11:40 p.m. Scott Osgood moved to adjourn at 11:40 p.m. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Revised: November 30, 2005
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Lisa Demers, Recording Secretary. Gail Abramowicz arrives late.
Guests Present:
Diane Knaefler, Richard Ladd, Leigh Bosse, Paul Mcinnis, D.R. Dimes, Elaine Forst, John Sargent, Bette Sargent, Don Blanchard, Jennifer McCourt, Peter Holden, David Plunkett, Janine Bates, Jed Bubreuil, Cathy Maynse, Rick Humboldt, Joan O’Connor, Bob Nevins, Lisa Nevins.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio.
Discussion Items:
7:01 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from October 26, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve the October 26, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
7:15 p.m. Case #2003-024
Diamond Drive Subdivision developed by Lance Moulton. Determination of fulfillment of Planning Board conditions for release of performance bond.
Applicant was not present. No action has been taken at this time. Awaiting request from the Bond Agent for February 2004.
New Business:
7:25 p.m. Case #2005-027
A Voluntary Merger application has been submitted by Jacqueline Martin on behalf of Nelson D. and Rachel C. Maine Irrevocable Trust for Map 1, Lot 561 and Map 1, Lot 561A on Western Avenue in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Applicant was not present. This item has been tabled till later in the meeting.
7:30 p.m. Case #2005-025
A Subdivision application has been submitted by Mark and Linda Davison and Marilyn Davison for a lot line adjustment between Map 1, Lot 96C and 96D at 6 & 8 Davison Road in the Medium Commercial (CM) District.
Don Blanchard spoke on behalf of Mark and Linda Davison and Marilyn Davison requesting a boundary line adjustment.
Completeness phase has been fulfilled.
MOTION Kristin Claire moved to adopt the completeness phase. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
MOTION Jim McElroy moved to accept the application as complete; with waivers for the following three items:
1. 10’ setback.
2. USGS Benchmark.
3. Contours on all of lot 96D. No contours for 96C.
Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.
7:50 p.m. Case #2005-026
A Subdivision application has been submitted by David and Linda Plunkett and Jeffrey Morse for a lot line adjustment between Map 2, Lot 369A and Map 1, Lot 359H at 11 Deer Run/21 Newton Road in the Village Commerce (CV) and the Residential Neighborhood (RN) Districts.
David Plunkett present with Don Blanchard representing Jeffrey Morse requesting a boundary line adjustment.
Completeness phase has been fulfilled.
MOTION Kristin Claire moved to approve the completeness phase. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
MOTION Gail Abramowicz moved to approve the application request. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
8:00 p.m. Case #2005-019
A major Subdivision application has been submitted by Chase Brook Realty Trust for 20 open space residential development lots, plus one open space lot, on Map 1, Lot 583 at Flanders and Craney Hill Roads in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Richard Ladd from Chase Brook Settlement representing Chase Brook Realty Trust and Jennifer McCourt.
Richard Ladd conducted his briefing of the Open SpaceSubdivision plans. Although each lot varied in size, Mr. Ladd stated they were within the guidelines of the town’s requirements. Each lot would have it’s own water and septic facilities, the cul-de-sac area of the Subdivision would have it’s own roadway with the road plan being large enough for an eighteen wheeler to turn the corners with no apparent trouble. This giving the fire department ample room and access.
Kristin Claire asked to keep a buffer of trees along side Flanders & Craney Hill Road. Ms. McCourt and Mr. Ladd agreed that could be done.
Scott Osgood expressed his concerns of the 1 acre lot assessment with having the house, septic, and well all on the property. There was some talk of having a common well for the Subdivision, but Mr. Ladd assured the board that they planned appropriately so there would not be an issue having all three items on each plot.
Scott Osgood was also concerned that there were two properties that would have the septic and well systems located in the “open space” area. Mr. Ladd stated these systems could be adjusted and moved onto the plot.
Gail Abramowicz asked to limit the number of driveway accesses on Flanders Road.
Richard Ladd requested a bonus of three (3) extra lot sites, bringing the total Subdivision to twenty (20).
Scott Osgood asked why should the Board approve their application? What benefit is in it for the Town?
Jennifer McCourt stated the benefits for the town are as follow:
· The Trust would grant the remaining land to the town without any cost.
· There would be public access to the ATV/snowmobile trails, hiking trails, wildlife corridor, to name a few.
·
Jennifer McCourt also stated that the Conservation Committee was in favor of this plan.
After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that the applicant should reply to the following requests:
· Respond to every point in the check list letter.
· Submit original yield plan for buildable area.
· Follow-up on the fire department letter.
· Submit a drainage and erosion plan.
· Site walk scheduled for Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.
· Address community well issue.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to continue discussion on December 14, 2005. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
9:00 p.m. Case #2005-028
Henniker Farm and Country Store addition Site Plan, Map 2, Lot 264 at 18 Bradford Road, Medium Commercial (CM).
Kevin Mock from Henniker Farm and Country Store present.
Kevin is requesting a 20 x 40 addition for storage to be built on the rear of the grain room area of the store.
Mr. Mock stated that he is well within his boundary lines. There will be no heat put in the new storage area nor will there be windows, or lighting on the outside of the building. The exterior will match the current exterior of the store. There will be a door in the back for emergency access with ability to use during loading/unloading of items.
Since there would be no significant changes to the building, Mr. Mock requested a waiver from having a site plan review.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve waiver. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
New Business:
9:15 p.m. Case #2005-015
Rick Humboldt OSRD Subdivision, Map 1, Lot 752 on Route 114, Rural Residential (RR).
Rick Humboldt present with Peter Holden from Holden Engineering representing him.
Mr. Holden has briefed the board on a 55 and older housing development.
There will be 48 units in 24 duplex buildings. This development will have it’s own private utilities, roads, and private rubbish removal. Mr. Holden adding this will be a plus for the town since it won’t have to worry about taking care of the roadways and incurring additional cost on the town.
Mr. Holden also stated this property would consists of a “zero lot-line.”
Rick Humboldt asked if he could change the land from a (RR) to a commercial property.
Kristin Claire stated it would be a warrant article request and suggested Mr. Humboldt start the process.
Scott Osgood suggested Mr. Holden apply to submit a formal subdivision application.
9:50 p.m. Hopkinton’s College Hill Road Subdivision Development of Regional Impact: Traffic Impact Assessment.
Robert and Lisa Nevins were present to discuss their concerns regarding the traffic impact to College Hill Road should the Hopkinton Subdivision get approved.
Mr. Nevins stated since College Hill Road has been paved there has been a number of speeding vehicles on this road. With the proposed Subdivision and the increase of traffic flow he is very concerned about the road conditions, the lack of police patrol on both the Henniker and Hopkinton side along with the quality of life.
Scott Osgood stated the board needed to obtain input from another Board member, whom was not present. After speaking with this Board member, he would draft a letter to the Town of Hopkinton to relay their concerns.
Since this is a zoning issue, Mr. Osgood stated they needed to get their input as well.
No motion was taken.
10:20 p.m. Case #2003-027
A Voluntary Merger application has been submitted by Jacqueline Martin on behalf of Nelson D. and Rachel C. Maine Irrevocable Trust for Map 1, Lot 561 and Map 1, Lot 561A on Western Avenue in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
This item was discussed and tabled earlier in the night.
MOTION Jim McElroy moved that we approve the merger of Map 1, Lot 561 and Map 1, Lot 561A. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved with Scott Osgood voting no.
10:30 p.m. Planning Board Budget for 2006
Discussed the 2006 budget and GIS system build-out plan.
10:40 p.m. Consultant’s Report
Discussed Consultant’s Report.
MOTION moved by Kristin Claire to adjourn at 10:55 p.m.
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Stephany Marchut-Lavallee, Leon Parker, Ted Parkins, Michael Tardiff, Lucy St. John, Gene Brown, Dennis McCommish, Ted Parkins, Marty Davis, Bob Stamps, Rob Smith, Jennifer McCourt, Rudy Fuchs, Thomas Bell, Jean Lewis, Katherine Patenaude, Jack Krantz, and Lauren Mulligan.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio.
Action Item:
7:05 p.m. Case #2005-018
A Site Plan application has been submitted by Jean Buckley - Smith, Bucksmith LLC, for a lot line adjustment between Map 2 Lot 398-E1 and Lot 398-E2 on The Oaks Road in the Village Proper (RV) District.
The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between Map 2 Lot 398-E1 and Lot 398-E2, to create proper frontage for Lot 398-E1. The applicant has discovered that the frontage for Lot 398-E1 on the previous 1990 approved Subdivision plan is owned by the abutter across the road.
Scott Osgood reviewed the agenda item.
Terry Stamps summarized the site walk the Planning Board completed on Tuesday October 18, 2005. There were no items of concern or outstanding issues.
The Board reviewed and discussed the application.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve the application #2005-018 revised August 2005 for a lot line adjustment. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
Projects:
7:20 p.m. Road Exactions
Michael Tardiff, Executive Director from CNHRPC, reviewed the process of research. Mr. Tardiff asked if there had been any progress from the CIP Committee. The Planning Board CIP representative James McElroy was unavailable to report.
Mr. Tardiff introduced Lucy St. John. Ms. St. John reviewed research regarding road standards completed at this time.
Mr. Tardiff and Ms. St. John recommended that the next step could be to meet with the CIP Committee. Stephanie Alexander will coordinate with Peter Flynn to schedule Mr. Tardiff and Ms. St. John on the CIP Committee Agenda.
Jennifer McCourt suggested that Keith Gilbert, Henniker Fire Chief be included in road standard discussions. Mr. Tardiff and Ms. St. John agreed that including the Fire Chief would be a great idea.
Discussion Items:
8:05 p.m. Zoning Ordinance Changes
Bob Stamps, reviewed the scope of the Zoning Subcommittee. Mr. Stamps reviewed
the Charter and the process the Subcommittee followed.
Scott Osgood reviewed the process that this discussion will follow.
Mr. Stamps reviewed the topics to be discussed:
Ø Road Frontage Requirements
Ø Backland Lots in Rural Residential Districts
Ø Scenic Roads Protection
Ø Open Space Zoning
Ø Large Retail Restrictions
Ø Zoning Enforcement
8:10 p.m. Ted Parkins said both himself and Gene Brown worked on road frontage requirement recommendations. Mr. Parkins reviewed both the rationale and proposed changes.
Scott Osgood commented the backend lot was currently a Variance request to the ZBA and this proposed change would formalize the process.
Don Armstrong asked about the number of times a Backland Lot Subdivision could be done. There was an interactive discussion that determined this could be done as many times as the land would allow and meet all requirements. Discussion continued regarding distance between corridors. Other options discussed were open space development and traditional subdivision development.
Lauren Mulligan suggested a cluster type development to meet the concerns of distance between corridors. Ms. Mulligan asked about why this Backland lots proposed change is only for the Rural Residential. There was a conversation regarding other Zones and their needs. Don Armstrong voiced his concerns.
Lauren Mulligan said she would rather see one entrance out to the main road.
Jennifer McCourt said that if minimum distance requirements were added to this proposed change that a cluster development would be the logical outcome.
Lauren Mulligan said that when a backland lot is created right away areas should be part of the deed. Deed restrictions were discussed.
Lauren Mulligan said she felt that 5 acres with frontage of 200 feet within the Residential Neighborhood Districts is excessive. Conversation determined that the subcommittee did not intend to change the acreage only the frontage. This concern was determined to be a typographical error.
Jennifer McCourt said that if the road frontage is increased this will increase road maintenance.
Kristin Claire discussed the benefits of open space development with respect to roads.
Dennis McCommish said he was disappointed with the road frontage proposed change.
The Board discussed other options to address Mr. McCommish concerns such as open space or backland lots.
Marty Davis asked if this would cause the construction of additional roads in town.
Jennifer McCourt said she felt the frontage should be reassessed.
Lauren Mulligan made recommendations for road frontage.
Bob Stamps summarized the editorial changes for these proposed changes.
8:35 p.m. Marty Davis reviewed the recommendations for Henniker Scenic Roads Ordinance. Ms. Davis reviewed the intent, rationale, and RSA 231:157 & 158. Ms. Davis discussed the research completed to create this proposed change. The goal is to preserve scenic roads in Henniker. Preserving the scenic roads include concern for trees, stonewalls, maintenance, intersections, and speed limits.
Marty Davis said this is really a two-part process. The first piece is to have a process to designate a scenic road within Henniker. The second piece is to set the standards a scenic road within Henniker would be required to adhere to.
Jennifer McCourt said she had safety concerns. Ms. McCourt discussed East/West roads during winter.
Kristin Claire suggested the ordinance be more specific.
Lauren Mulligan said she could see both sides of this concern. Ms. Mulligan spoke to the enforcement issue.
Scott Osgood said that for developers subdivision regulations could be strengthened.
Katherine Patenaude spoke to the size of the tree as outlined in the proposed change.
Lauren Mulligan said she would like to broaden this ordinance to apply road standards in an effort to reflect the integrity of rural character.
Jennifer McCourt suggested a public hearing for road upgrades.
Bob Stamps summarized the editorial changes for these proposed changes.
The Planning Board agreed that this proposal becomes part of these road standards. Marty Davis agreed to participate in this process.
9:15 p.m. Stephany Marchut-Lavallee reviewed information regarding Henniker Zoning Enforcement. Ms. Marchut-Lavallee reviewed the research completed. There was an interactive conversation regarding enforcement.
Lauren Mulligan said she thought it would be appropriate to have a code enforcement officer.
9:35 p.m. Scott Osgood reviewed Open Space Zoning. Mr. Osgood reviewed the rationale and the flexibility of open space development. Kristin Claire presented the researched information.
There was an interactive conversation regarding open space development. The options of a density bonus were discussed.
10:10 p.m. Bob Stamps reviewed the rationale for proposed change for “Large Retail Store Limitation.” Mr. Stamps reviewed the proposed ordinance.
Bob Stamps summarized he will have the revised proposed changes to Stephanie Alexander by November 21, 2005.
10:30 p.m. The Board reviewed Zoning Definitions for Town Meeting 2006. The Board discussed the definitions and made editorial changes.
10:35 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from September 28, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve the September 28, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Scott Osgood and approved unanimously.
10:45 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from October 12, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Terry Stamps to approve the October 12, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
11:00 p.m. October 21, 2005 Zoning Board Agenda
The Board members reviewed this agenda item.
11:05 p.m. Correspondence
The Board reviewed correspondence received.
There was correspondence from the Town of Hopkinton regarding a recent application Hopkinton Case # 2005-21 Kenneth M. Desjardins Builders, deemed by Hopkinton as a regional impact. The traffic assessment was received from the Town of Hopkinton as requested by the Planning Board. Stephanie Alexander will make copies for each Board member and add this study to the next agenda as an action item.
Reports:
11:10 p.m. Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant updated the Board on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Alexander reviewed the draft agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. Stephanie Alexander provided a copy of her log for Board members to review.
11:20 p.m. Other Business
Scott Osgood, Chairman had a discussion regarding Roadway Improvement plans and the process they should follow.
MOTION made by Don Armstrong to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chariman; Kristin Claire (arrived 7:10 p.m.), Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston (left at 8:30 p.m.), Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Angela Rook, Maurice Gagne, Matt Monahan, Dague Clark, Gail Woodward, Jean Lewis, Peter Flynn, Pam Smith, Peter St. Lawrence, Jennifer McCourt, LS White, Carl Martin, Jill Martin, Rob Smith, Earl Kalil, Rik Humboldt, and Daren Tinkham.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from September 28, 2005 were unavailable and therefore would need to be postponed until the next scheduled packet.
Gail Abramowicz will call Deb in the Selectman’s Office to review a process for including the minutes in each Planning Board mailing packet.
New Business:
7:20 p.m. Case #2005-018
A Site Plan application has been submitted by Jean Buckley - Smith, Bucksmith LLC, for a lot line adjustment between Map 2 Lot 398-E1 and Lot 398-E2 on The Oaks Road in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Scott Osgood, Chairman recused himself from this Public Hearing Case #2005-018. Mr. Osgood asked James McElroy to facilitate this Public Hearing Case #2005-018.
James McElroy read the agenda item.
Mr. Robert Smith, Manager, The Oaks, reviewed the application for the Planning Board.
The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between Map 2 Lot 398-E1 and Lot 398-E2, to create proper frontage for Lot 398-E1. The applicant has discovered that the frontage for Lot 398-E1 on the previous 1990 approved Subdivision plan is owned by the abutter across the road.
Robert Smith reviewed the change for Board members to view on a large proposed plan submitted on September 21, 2005.
This lot line adjust plan will not create any new lots, nor are the proposed building sites changing in any way.
The Board reviewed the waivers requested and the pre-application review prepared by Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC.
Kristin Claire voiced concerns about wetlands.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept application #2005-018 as complete. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Public comment opened 7:15 p.m.
Pam Smith, abutter voiced concerns of wetlands. Ms. Smith said this was a soggy piece of peat moss land that runs most of the length The Oaks Road. Ms. Smith voiced concerns regarding the waiver of soil testing and wetlands delineation.
Public comment closed 7:25 p.m.
Kristin Claire voiced concerns about approving a lot line adjustment not knowing if the applicant is going to have future concerns DES.
Cordell Johnston, suggested a site walk be scheduled.
Robert Smith said he wanted to point out this was a previously approved sub-division and all they are requesting is a lot adjustment to correct the mistaken road frontage concern.
James McElroy summarized that a site walk be scheduled to view the area to see the feasibility of access to the town road.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to continue this application #2005-018 to the next Planning Board meeting on October 26, 2005, in order to schedule a site walk. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
The site walk is scheduled Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. and the Board members will meet at the hammerhead.
Gail Abramowicz suggested a copy of the 1987 approved Subdivision might be helpful to the Board.
James McElroy asked Colleen Lynch to leave a memo for Stephanie Alexander to obtain the approved 1987 Subdivision.
Scott Osgood rejoined the Board.
7:40 p.m. Case #2005-020
A Site Plan application has been submitted by Angela Rook, of Angela Rae’s Boutique, on behalf of property owner Maurice Gagne, for a change of use from a commercial/services hair dressing shop to a commercial/retail boutique shop for Map 2, Lot 478 at 36 Main Street in the Village Commerce (CV) District.
Scott Osgood read the agenda item.
Angela Rook reviewed the application. Ms. Rook wants to open an upper scale boutique, located on 36 Main Street, Suite B, in Henniker, NH. The boutique is approximately 800 square feet and will consist of upper end consignment clothing, new clothing and gifts, such as candles, books, and antiques. Ms. Rook described the layout of the building.
Maurice Gagne, owner of the building reviewed the history of the building and described the types of tenants that have previously occupied the space.
James McElroy asked about parking. Ms. Rook reviewed there is parking available behind the building.
James McElroy asked about deliveries to the shop from UPS and Federal Express. Mr. McElroy asked if they would deliver to front or back of the shop and how frequent deliveries would be. Ms. Rook reviewed deliveries would come to the front, as there is no back access. She did not have an estimate of how many deliveries a week but could assume one weekly.
James McElroy asked about hours of operation. The applicant said 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., however this could fluctuate seasonally. Mr. McElroy asked if the boutique would be open on Saturdays. Ms. Rook said they would keep Saturday hours.
James McElroy asked about lighting after hours. The applicant said she would like to leave interior lights on after hours.
There was interactive discussion between the Board and the applicant regarding signage. The applicant was directed to the Board of Selectmen for sign regulations.
Cordell Johnston asked about physical changes to the interior of the building. The applicant said there would new paint and new carpeting.
Scott Osgood asked the Board to consider the site plan regulations and the requirements needed for completeness. He also reminded the Board that the applicant had met with Stephanie Alexander, the Planning Consultant and had been informed of the requirements.
Cordell Johnston said that due to the history of the building and no changes will be made to the building, he could waive pieces of the application.
James McElroy said the minimum he would like see is the building elevations.
Gail Abramowicz said that a digital picture would fulfill the need to see the building and location.
Terry Stamps said that due to the fact there have been previously approved commercial operations in the same location site plan requirements may be waived.
Angela Rook explained that she had no idea she needed to go before the Town until the day all information was due to be placed on this evening’s agenda.
Scott Osgood said he would ask if the applicant, to ask the Board for the waiver.
The applicant Angela Rook asked the Board for a waiver for the site plan requirements. The Board received and approved this request.
The lighting was discussed.
There will be no exterior lighting or lighted signs.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept application #2005-020 as complete. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Maurice Gagne offered to bring photos of the building for the file.
Gail Abramowicz asked Mr. Gagne to include a copy of the letter that Mr. Gagne advised he received from the Henniker Fire Department.
Scott Osgood said although the letter would be an asset to the file, he wanted the record to reflect the Board was not exercising any authority on fire inspections.
Public comment opened 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Peter Flynn, abutter spoke in support of Angela Rae’s Boutique and the improvements that owner Maurice Gagne has made over the years. Mr. Flynn attested there were no physical changes happening at this location.
Public comment closed 8:10 p.m.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve application #2005-020 as submitted. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
9:15 p.m. Case #2005-021
A Site Plan application has been submitted by Daren Tinkham, of Cyclesmith, for a bicycle repair shop (home business retail/service) with a 20’X24’ addition for Map 2 Lot 242 at 19 Main Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Scott Osgood read the agenda item.
Daren Tinkham reviewed his application. Mr. Tinkham wishes to add a small bicycle repair shop on the North side of his residence at the rear of the lot. The shop would operate Tuesday to Friday 10:00 am to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 10:00 am to 3:00 pm during the months of April through October.
James McElroy asked about solvents, grease, and/or chemicals. Mr. Tinkham said he uses very little grease and chemicals. He uses a small amount of lubricant and cleaning solvents, which are biodegradable. Mr. McElroy asked how a chemical spill would be handled. The applicant said he would use Simple Green.
Kristin Claire asked about total square footage. The applicant said there would be 480 square feet.
Scott Osgood asked about plumbing in the addition. The applicant said if a customer needed a restroom they could access his own (applicant’s) home facilities would be offered.
Kristin Claire asked about lighting. The applicant said there would be no new lighting, however there was one motion light currently at the location.
Scott Osgood asked about parking. The applicant said he has parking for four cars and Zoning would require one parking spot.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept application #2005-021 as complete. Seconded by James McElroy Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Public comment opened 8:25 p.m.
Peter Flynn, an abutter spoke in favor of Mr. Tinkham’s application. Mr. Flynn cited the improvements he has made at this locations and voiced support.
Public comment closed 8:05 p.m.
Gail Abramowicz reviewed items that needed to be added and/or updated on the proposed plan. Abutter Linda Martin is listed with two different lot #’s on the plat and the locus map of the proposed plan.
Gail Abramowicz said mailing addresses still needed to be added for Lots 240 and 243 on the proposed plan.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve application #2005-021 contingent upon updating the proposed plan with mailing addresses of Lot 240 and 243; and the correction of Linda Martin’s Lot number. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
Conceptual Consultations:
8:30p.m. Case 2005-022. Peter Flynn for Town of Henniker – St. Theresa’s Church Subdivision, Map 2, Lot 240 at 9 Crescent Street, Village Proper (RV)
Mr. Peter Flynn, Henniker Town Administrator, reviewed that the voters of the Town of Henniker approved Warrant Article #32 in 2004. This Warrant Article gives the Town the authority to subdivide and sell off a portion of Map 2, Lot 240. The Henniker Selectmen have authorized Peter Flynn, Henniker Town Administrator, to act on their behalf with regard to this application.
There was an interactive discussion. Topics discussed were:
§ Water
§ Sewerage
§ Parking
§ History
§ Variance
§ Acreage
Peter Flynn, Henniker Town Administrator thanked the Board for their time.
8:45 p.m. Case 2005-023. Carl and Jill Martin Subdivision, Map 1, Lot 349 on Western Avenue, Rural Residential (RR)
Mr. Carl Martin reviewed his proposed plan to subdivide Map 1, Lot 349 of 13.56 acres into two separate lots each containing 5 acres or more.
There was an interactive discussion. Topics discussed were:
§ Road Frontage
§ Acreage
§ Easement
§ Contour of the lot
§ Buildable acreage
§ Wetlands
§ Shared Driveway
The Board advised the applicant if he had any other questions or concerns to follow up with the Planning Consultant, Stephanie Alexander.
9:00 p.m. Case 2005-015. Rick Humboldt OSRD Subdivision, Map1, Lot 752 on Route 114, Rural Residential (RR)
Matt Monahan, Holden Engineering and Surveying reviewed the proposed plan.
Kristin Claire asked if a traditional yield plan had been submitted. The applicant said a traditional plan had not been done.
There was an interactive discussion. Topics discussed were:
§ Septic
§ Well radii
§ Letter from Town Counsel
§ Density – 500% increase
§ Benefits of 55 and older housing
§ Buffers
§ Traditional yield plan
§ Available housing
§ Use of land
§ Open Space
§ Substantial benefits
§ Integrity and Character of the District
§ Deed Restrictions
§ Home Owners Association
Reports:
9:55 p.m. Zoning Sub-Committee
Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant reported that Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant needs any Zoning changes by Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at noon.
10:00 p.m. Consultant’s Report
Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant updated the Board on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Lynch reviewed the draft agenda for the next scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 2005.
10:10 p.m. Other Business
Scott Osgood reviewed Planning Board correspondence.
Scott Osgood reported on information obtained at an Exactions seminar.
Jennifer McCourt brought information to the Board regarding public perception of the Zoning Sub-Committee meetings. The Board had an interactive discussion.
Scott Osgood reviewed the information received regarding the Ralph Joyce Subdivision Case # 2004-008. Chairman Osgood signed the mylars.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; James McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Leon Parker, Ted Parkins, Michael Tardiff, and Lucy St. John.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from September 14, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by James McElroy to approve the September 14, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.
Projects:
7:20 p.m. Road Exactions
Michael Tardiff, Executive Director from CNHRPC, introduced Lucy St John to present to the Board. The scope of tonight’s presentation was to review the research completed at this time, ask the Board to answer a few questions, and to determine what entity CNHRPC will work with for the remainder of the project. Amanda Arnold, from CNHRPC did the research thus far on the project.
Lucy St. John provided each Board member with a copy of RSA 674:21. This RSA pertains to Exaction language.
Mr. Tardiff explained that this RSA is a result of a Supreme Court decision from 2004.
James McElroy asked if this would change based on other court cases. Mr. Tardiff explained this RSA 674:21 was designed to resolve the concern. It is not expected to change, however there is always that possibility.
Lucy St. John asked questions regarding road improvements in Henniker NH.
Michael Tardiff said their job is to make the Board’s job easier by an Exactions Policy.
Leon Parker said that the current approaches to a road plan are to fix up specific roads. The money is allocated on priority process.
Scott Osgood said a Road Standard is an independent process that needs to be directed by the Board of Selectmen and then the Planning Board.
James McElroy explained the CIP contains monies for Road Improvements, rather than maintenance. All of state and federal funded projects are included in the CIP.
Michael Tardiff and Lucy St.John discussed the need for a six-year plan and a long- range plan. Discussion continued regarding using the Master Plan as a basis for road upgrades. They discussed a need for a clear threshold based upon location and standards of roads to apply Exactions. Mr. Tardiff and Ms. St.John explained that incorporating roads into the CIP leads to a successful Exactions policy.
Michael Tardiff said he would be happy to go to a Selectmen meeting, and/or a subcommittee, as a next step in an effort to provide a multidisciplinary approach.
James McElroy said in his opinion CNHRPC should start looking at the policy assuming the CIP is going include and identify these road standards. While a mechanism gets put in place to identify process, this would happen concurrently while the CIP is updated. Pieces of an Exactions policy could get put into place, as this is an incremental process.
Scott Osgood said a sub-committee is premature.
Michael Tardiff said the framework of an Exaction’s policy should enable the Planning Board to apply Exactions in a fair and consistent manner.
The discussions determined the need for:
¨ Process;
¨ Long range road plan;
¨ Road standards.
Scott Osgood asked that at this time the Exaction policy continued to be worked on at the Planning Board level. Jim McElroy will speak to the CIP committee and Michael Tardiff will be placed on the next work session agenda regarding an Exactions Policy.
Discussion Items:
8:05 p.m. Planning Board’s Role in Fire Safety for Subdivisions
Stephanie Alexander reviewed a letter from the Henniker Fire Chief to Spencer Bennett.
Kristin Claire said she thought the Fire Chief recommendations should deem a
conditional approval.
James McElroy said this is a code issue not a land use issue.
Kristin Claire asked how to separate road safety and fire safety.
James McElroy said road safety affects the public at large.
Stephanie Alexander suggested for long term concerns fire protection could be added to
Site Plan and Sub-division regulations.
Scott Osgood said the review (fire, police, and highway) is part of the regulations.
Scott Osgood asked Stephanie Alexander to ask Keith Gilbert, Henniker Fire Chief
for input on what should be put in Site Plan and Subdivision regulations.
Stephanie Alexander said she would write a memo to Keith Gilbert, Henniker Fire Chief, asking for his input for the Site Plan and Subdivision regulations. She will forward examples of what other Town’s do.
8:25 p.m. Develop List for Subdivision Standard Conditions of Approval
Stephanie Alexander provided the Board with a draft copy. The Board approved the list.
8:30 p.m. Utilizing 202-10 Special Requirements for Large Scale Developments
Kristin Claire placed this item on the agenda to review the Article 202-101 from the Henniker Sub-division regulations. The Board discussed this Article to ensure all Board members were consistent in the understanding. The Board asked Stephanie Alexander to ask the Zoning Sub-committee to define the differences between duplexes and 2-family dwellings. Once defined than the regulations need to be updated to include duplexes.
8:50 p.m. Review Impact Fee Article for “Henniker Outlook”
The Board reviewed and edited the draft article prepared by Stephanie Alexander.
9:00 p.m. September 21, 2005 Zoning Board Agenda
The Board reviewed the ZBA agenda.
9:10 p.m. Correspondence
The Board reviewed correspondence received.
There was correspondence from the Town of Hopkinton regarding a recent application Hopkinton Case # 2005-21 Kenneth M. Desjardins Builders, deemed by Hopkinton as a regional impact.
The Board asked Stephanie Alexander to forward the minutes received from Hopkinton to Town of Henniker Fire, Police, and Highway departments. The Board asked that she include a cover letter advising those departments to forward any and all comments directly to the Hopkinton Planning Board. Additionally, the Board asked Stephanie Alexander to write a letter to the Town of Hopkinton requesting a copy of the executive summary of the traffic report that the town of Hopkinton has requested from the applicant.
The Board reviewed correspondence regarding the 30th Annual Municipal Law Lecture Series held around the state at various sites and various dates. Scott Osgood, Chairman encouraged all members to attend.
The Board reviewed correspondence the 2005 NH Office of Energy and Planning and Zoning Conference. Scott Osgood, Chairman encouraged all members to attend.
Reports:
9:40 p.m. Zoning Sub-Committee
Kristin Claire brought forth proposed language changes for Henniker Zoning Ordinance Article XXIV 133-115,133-117, and 133-119.
The Board had an interactive discussion and decided that a draft version would be needed. Kristin Claire will provide the Board with an updated draft for the next work session.
10:35 p.m. Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant updated the Board on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Alexander reviewed the draft agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 2005. Stephanie Alexander provided a copy of her log for Board members to review.
10:45 p.m. Other Business
Scott Osgood, Chairman had a discussion regarding Roadway Improvement plans and the process they should follow.
MOTION made by Don Armstrong to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present:
Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio (left at 9:00 p.m.); James McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Marshall Connor, Ruth Lugar, Sandy Heino, Rick Rideout, Jon Rokeh, Richie Ladd, Earl Kalil, Jr., Rick Humboldt, Jim Bruss, and Judy Rice.
Vice Chairman Claire called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Scott Osgood.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from August 24, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the August 24, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
Non Public Session draft minutes from August 24, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the Non Public Session draft minutes from August 24, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously
New Business:
7:20 p.m. Case #2005-016
A Site Plan application has been submitted by Richard Rideout, Three Season Landscaping, on behalf of Michael Baker, property owner, for a change of use from an auto repair shop to a landscaping business for Map 2 Lot 439 at 9 Depot Hill Road in the Commercial Recreational District.
Kristin Claire read the application summary.
Richard Rideout, Owner of Three Season Landscaping introduced Ruth Lugar, Office Manager; Sandy Heino, of Sandy Heino Real Estate; Judy Rice, Designer; and Jim Bruss, of Bruss Construction Inc.
Richard Rideout reviewed the scope of the proposed plan.
Mr. Rideout provided the Board with an updated proposed plan including items noted on the site plan application review that were missing on the previous plan.
Judy Rice, Designer from Three Season Landscaping pointed out each of those items on the large display updated proposed plan.
James McElroy asked the applicant about elevations. Ms. Rice reviewed these with the Board.
James McElroy asked about the plantings depicted on the proposed plan. Richard Rideout reviewed the property and discussed their objective of softening and enhancing the property.
James McElroy asked about screening for the dumpster area. Mr. Rideout said they would be using plantings to screen the dumpster area.
Richard Rideout provided large copies of the proposed plan for all Board members to view.
James McElroy asked about drainage and grade of the property. Mr. Rideout reviewed the grading and the retaining wall. It was discussed the slope was less than 5% at the site.
James McElroy asked about the drainage of the area where the storage bins will be. Mr. Rideout explained the bins were made of concrete and the materials stored within were of a porous nature.
Richard Rideout discussed the three storm drains located on the property. Mr. Rideout reviewed the current path of drainage and explained the benefits of the current storm drains.
James McElroy asked about chemicals that would be stored at this location. Richard Rideout said he does not use chemicals. Mr. Rideout explained that his planting materials are all organic.
Kristin Claire asked about office space. Richard Rideout said the depot would be the office.
James McElroy asked about lighting. Jim Bruss, builder for this proposed project reviewed lighting plan.
Mr. Bruss said there would be 7 shielded lights on the building. He also said there would be 3 freestanding shielded incandescent lamps that in appearance mirror downtown town lamps. All lighting will run on a timer and extinguish at 10 p.m. The lamps will then be on motion from 10 p.m. to dawn.
James McElroy asked about native plantings. Mr. Rideout said his designer Ms. Rice does use native plants regularly in her design plans.
Kristin Claire asked about right-of-way. The applicant reviewed it was a deeded right-of-way for abutter Marshall Conor to obtain access to the shed. There are no clear dimensions noted on the deed.
Richard Rideout provided a schematic of the storage bins for Board members to review.
Kristin Claire asked for the square footage of the building. The applicant said it is 1,660 square feet.
Richard Rideout provided a letter of reference from Susan and Bob Pennock.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept application #2005-016 as complete. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Public hearing opened 8:00 p.m.
Kristin Claire read the letter of reference from Susan and Bob Pennock.
Marshall Connor spoke in favor and voiced support for this application
Public hearing closed 8:05 p.m.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve application #2005-016 as submitted. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously.
Conceptual Consultations:
8:10p.m. Chase Brook Realty Trust Subdivision for Map 1, Lot 538, Flanders Road/Craney Hill Road In RR District
Richard Ladd, surveyor from RSL reviewed the plan.
Chase Brook Realty Trust, owner of Lot 583 on Flanders and Craney Hill Roads, to
sub-divide the parcel into seventeen 5-plus acres lots for residential (duplex)
development.
Kristin Claire asked the applicant if any thought had been given to an open space
development.
Richard Ladd presented a second plan to the Board that was 20 single homes, rather
than the 17 duplexes.
Kristin Claire asked the applicant about the increase to 20 units as per the Zoning
Ordinance only 17 lots are yielded.
Earl Kalil Jr., an attorney for the trust said in his opinion the Henniker Zoning 133-119 D
permitted density allows for the Planning Board to increase the density of the overall
tract.
There was a discussion regarding the ordinance.
The Board and the applicant had an interactive discussion regarding this proposed plan.
The topics discussed were:
Ø Open Space Development
Ø Lot Configuration
Ø Density
Ø Driveways
Ø Frontage
Ø Conservation Commission Involvement
Ø Land Trust
Ø The Existing House
The applicant summarized that under the second plan with 20 single family home 25.15 acres would be developed and approximately 61.9 acres would not be developed.
The applicant also said they would be willing to work with the Conservation Commission to find a land option for the undeveloped land that would be most suitable for Henniker.
The Board advised the applicant that however appealing the second plan is to the Board; Zoning does not allow an increase to the permitted density of the overall tract.
Earl Kalil asked that the Board request town counsel to review for an opinion, as in his opinion the Ordinance read to allow the Board to increase the permitted density.
The Board asked Stephanie Alexander to write a letter to Peter Flynn to request to Town Counsel to review the permitted density and/or if there was another area of the Ordinance that enables the Board to provide a density bonus.
8:40 p.m. Further Discussion on Humboldt OSRD Sub-division for Map1, Lot 752, Route 114 in RR District
The proposed Humboldt Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) would be located on Route 114 in Henniker, NH. This proposal is to subdivide a lot for the existing 2-family home and create 24 duplex units of 55 and older housing on the remaining parcel.
Rick Humboldt asked the Board if he could record this portion of the meeting. The Board advised he could as this was a Public Meeting.
Jon Rokeh reviewed the scope of the plan. He also said they had come back to the Board to engage in a discussion regarding the permitted density. He also said that in his opinion the Ordinance does allow for increased density to the overall tract.
The applicant summarized that under their proposed plan 20 acres would be developed and 35 acres of would not be developed. The Zoning allows for 10 lots and that under this proposed plan they were asking for 25 lots. The applicant further explained that 24 of the 25 lots requested would be for duplexes.
The Board shared they were going to write a letter to Town Counsel for clarification and asked that Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant would provide the response information to this applicant as well.
Reports:
9:00 p.m. Zoning Sub-Committee
There was a brief discussion regarding the mailing list for interested parties. The Board asked Kristin Claire to follow up on the mailing list and letter for interested parties.
9:05 p.m. Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant updated the Board on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Alexander reviewed the draft agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 28, 2005.
9:20 p.m. Other Business
Gail Abramowicz asked about residential building sprinkler systems and the Planning Board role.
Kristin Claire read correspondence regarding Hopkinton Map 212 Lot 4, 40 Old Concord Road and the town of Henniker is an abutter.
MOTION made by James McElroy to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Ted Parkins, S. Forster, and T. Bruen.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from August 10, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by James McElroy to approve the August 10, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.
Discussion Items:
7:20 p.m. Conservation Commission Response to Case #2004-010 Forestry Information Submission
The Board reviewed the Conservation Commission’s Memo regarding the forestry information submitted on behalf of the Joyce sub-division on Mount Hunger Road.
The Board accepted the Conservation Commission’s findings.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to go into Non Public Session per RSA 91A: 3 to discuss pending litigation. Seconded by Jim McElroy approved unanimously.
7:30 p.m. The Board went into Non Public Session.
7:55 p.m. The Board returned to Public Session.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to go back to Public Session. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
Scott Osgood reviewed the Judge’s findings as outlined in the Judge’s decision of March 31, 2005.
Ted Parkins asked what the consequences would be for the construction of the second building without obtaining the necessary permits.
The Board responded to Mr. Parkins by reviewing the actions the Town of Henniker has taken. The Board further explained this was not a Planning Board issue, but rather an issue to be directed to the Board of Selectman.
Stephen Forster expressed concerns regarding the Bennett Sub-division on Mount Hunger Road Case #2004-018 and voiced objections. Mr. Forster also asked how to review the road improvement plan.
The Board reviewed that the appropriate process had been followed. The Board further explained as an affected abutter he could request to view the plans at the Selectman’s meeting. If Mr. Forster had comments or concerns regarding the roadway improvement plan those could be expressed to the Board of Selectman.
The Board returned to discussing the Joyce Sub-division Case # 2004-010 and discussed the process a conditional approval follows.
The Board discussed the drainage issues, the forestry report, and the original submitted plan.
The Board further discussed the drainage impacts that result from driveways to a road that currently exists with soft shoulders. The Board discussed the need for an appropriate drainage plan.
The Board discussed the existing buildings at the site.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the Ralph Joyce Major Subdivision Application located on Mount Hunger Road Case # 2004-010 as received September 7, 2004, contingent upon the following condition as stated in Judge McGuire’s order of March 31, 2005:
“to address concerns about the impact on Mount Hunger Road from constructing driveways for the subdivision, the petitioner must still submit a drainage plan to be reviewed by the town’s engineering consultants and approved by the town before any building permits can be issued.”
Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously.
9:10 p.m. Road Exactions
Stephanie Alexander said that Amanda Arnold would be the CNRPC staff person working on Henniker’s Road Exactions Policy. Ms. Alexander expressed Amanda Arnold’s desire to meet with the Planning Board to discuss their expectations.
The Board said they would like the opportunity to meet with Amanda Arnold to review the research. Amanda Arnold will be invited to attend the September 28, 2005 work session agenda to discuss the initial research.
9:15 p.m. Topic for Article for “Henniker Outlook” – Impact Fees?
The Board discussed and approved Impact Fees as a topic for an article to be placed in the “Henniker Outlook”.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant will write a draft article for the Board to review at a future meeting.
9:30 p.m. Open Space Residential Development
The Board discussed density of this type of development. The Board asked Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant to write a letter to Rick Humboldt. Mr. Humboldt was a recent guest who brought a conceptual consultation to the previous Planning Board meeting, regarding the above mentioned discussion.
9:45 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Schedule Review
The Board reviewed the schedule for the rest of the year. The Board rescheduled the November 23, 2005 meeting to be held on November 30, 2005. The Board also cancelled the meeting on December 7, 2005 and December 14, 2005 will be a business meeting.
9:55 p.m. Selection of Alternate Members
Terry Stamps asked for this item to be placed on the agenda. Ms. Stamps expressed a concern to fill the various positions. The Board said they would like a letter to be placed in the “Henniker Outlook”. Scott Osgood will ask Peter Flynn to post this notice to the public.
10:00 p.m. Planning Board’s Communication with Boards and Departments
The Planning Board requested that the ZBA agenda be included in the Planning Board work session packets.
The Board discussed the need to put all requests in writing to other boards and departments.
Reports
10:05 p.m. Zoning Sub-Committee
Scott Osgood reported that there was a informative meeting on August 18, 2005. Gene Brown gave a report on recommendations regarding various Zoning items including but not limited to acreage, frontage, and setbacks. Other attendees included Ted Parkins, Marty Davis, Stephany Marchut-Lavallee, Dennis McCommish, and Ed Ulmer.
10:15 p.m. Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant updated the Board on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Alexander reviewed the draft agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 14, 2005.
10:20 p.m. Other Business
Scott Osgood reviewed received correspondence. The Board decided that correspondence items such as letters from individuals should be copied and added to each packet.
MOTION made by James McElroy to adjourn the meeting. Cordell Johnston seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; James McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Thea Valvanis, Sumner Kalman, Lloyd Henderson, Linda McGuire, Spencer Bennett, Steve Bennett, Jennifer Dennis, Stephen Dennis, Don Blanchard, Ralph Joyce, Richard Rideout, Sandy Heino, Ruth Lugae, Ted Parkins, Michael Lepon, Theresa Maier, Gay Laberge, Jon Roken, Marty Davis, Rick Humbolt, Ted Kupper, and Marshall Connor.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Mr. Cordell Johnston
7:10 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from July 27, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by James McElroy to approve the July 27, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
Old Business
7:10 p.m. Case 2004-018 continuation
A Major Subdivision application has been submitted by Spencer Bennett, on behalf of Stephen E. Bennett, Jan Bennett, Christina Bennett, Judy Bennett-Brown, Dale Brown, Jeffrey Nesmith, and Stephanie Brown. The application is to create a 7-lot subdivision on Mt. Hunger Road, Map1, Lot 723 in the Rural Residential District.
Spencer Bennett advised the Board that Val Ingersol an abutter to Lot 723 wrote a letter to the Planning Board.
Scott Osgood read the letter from Val Ingersol.
Spencer Bennett reviewed the list of outstanding items.
Mr. Bennett advised the Soil Scientist has finished his work. The Soil Scientist stamp will be on final Mylars.
Scott Osgood clarified that HTA creates the plan on behalf the town. HTA will be paid from the applicant’s escrow. The plan would then need to be approved by Road Agent and Planning Board.
Stephen Bennett asked for a conditional approval. Spencer Bennett explained that the have committed to plans and financing for roadway improvements.
The Board asked the applicant to explain the road improvement plan. Mr. Spencer Bennett reviewed the roadway and the engineer design plan to improve the road. Increasing sight distance and diminishing the road rise and move the center of the road by about 12 feet helping to straightened the road.
Mr. Jim McElroy asked about the existing stonewall. The applicant advised that the stonewall will be moved while work is being done but will be returned when work is completed.
Mr. Don Armstrong asked about the width of the road. Mr. Spencer Bennett explained the road will be wider in areas but not will not change the road classification.
Public Hearing opened 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Ted Parkins asked about the timeframe of this project. Mr. Spencer Bennett said they wanted to start within the month and finish prior to the Christmas season.
Public Hearing closed 7:45 p.m.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the application contingent upon:
1. Final engineering plan for roadway improvements.
2. Roadway improvement construction.
3. Certified Soil Scientist Stamp on final plan.
4. Road easement language submitted and registered.
5. Road Agent approval of the roadway improvement design.
Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
7:50 p.m. Case 2004-010 continuation
A Major Subdivision Application has been submitted by Ralph R. Joyce for Map1, Lot 645-X on Mount Hunger Road in the Rural Residential Residential District for five lots.
Scott Osgood asked the applicant if anything new had been submitted.
Attorney Kalman advised no new materials had been submitted to the Board.
Attorney Kalman advised that his client had submitted a forestry report and that was the only outstanding issue.
The applicant at the last Planning Board meeting July 27, 2005 submitted the forestry report. This report has been forwarded to the Conservation Commission and the Board is awaiting the outcome
Attorney Kalman requested the Board act on the tree cutting issue. Attorney Kalman said if the tree cutting impacts the subdivision further review might be needed; however if the Conservation Commission finds no impact to the subdivision there would be no need for any further review.
Gail Abramowicz asked if the report was forwarded to the Conservation Commission. The Board members advised the report had been forwarded.
Scott Osgood reviewed the outstanding items.
1. Forestry report outcomes
2. Up to date set of plans be submitted
3. Drainage plans that address those concerns
Scott Osgood clarified items that needed to be added to the plans are driveway locations, slopes, and drainage as these all have impact to the safety of the road.
James McElroy asked that the construction that has happened at this time be added to the plans.
Scott Osgood said complete set of plans needs to be submitted.
Gail Abramowicz asked if letter was drafted to the Conservation Commission regarding the Forestry report submitted for their review. Colleen Lynch advised it was a verbal request.
Attorney Kalman read an excerpt regarding drainage from page 11 of the Judge’s report.
There was an interactive conversation between Attorney Kalman and Mr. Scott Osgood. They both reviewed the chronological events of this case and both summarized the interpretation of the information contained within the Judge’s report.
Scott Osgood outlined the review process the Board follows when reviewing an application for a Major Subdivision.
Attorney Kalman requested the Board approves and signs the plan.
James McElroy said the Conservation Commission had not yet responded regarding the Forestry Report.
Gail Abramowicz asked if a lack of response implies there are no concerns from the Conservation Commission. Other Board members responded that they did not think they could draw those conclusions based on the absence of a response from the Conservation Commission. Ms. Abramowicz asked that the Planning Consultant write a memo to the Conservation Commission outlining the time frame a response is needed by and that no response would be considered a response of no concerns.
Attorney Kalman asked if the Board would consider a conditional approval.
Mr. Joyce expressed his desire to obtain a conditional approval as the Forestry Report had been submitted previously.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the application contingent upon:
1. Conservation Commission findings of no concerns
2. Drainage Plan
3. Up to date plans submitted
There was no second and motion fails.
The Board asked the applicant if he would be submitting additional materials.
Attorney Kalman asked if the Board was acting under the advice of Legal Counsel.
Mr. Scott Osgood said the Board was acting as a Planning Board.
Attorney Kalman asked if the Board met with their Legal Counsel.
Mr. Scott Osgood indicated there had been conversation with Legal Counsel and the Board was acting in a manner of responsibility and dedication.
Attorney Kalman gave his opinion at this time. He outlined a time frame of facts and said that in his opinion the Board was acting in bad faith and dragging their feet in an attempt to prevent the applicant from moving ahead.
Scott Osgood asked the applicant if and when they would be submitting new information.
Attorney Kalman said it would appear the Board is not acting in a manner of good faith when the Motion could not raise a second.
Gail Abramowicz said the Board should put this case on the agenda for the meeting of August 24, 2005.
Scott Osgood asked the applicant if they would be submitting up to date plans.
Attorney Kalman said that the Judge did not indicate the applicant would need to provide a new plan.
Scott Osgood asked if that was Attorney Kalman’s opinion and Attorney Kalman responded in the affirmative.
James McElroy asked if the applicant would place the new construction on the plan as he requested.
Attorney Kalman said if the Board was acting in good faith, then the applicant would have considered adding the construction to the plans.
Mr. Scott Osgood tried to confirm if the applicant would be submitting any further plans or information, however this was not confirmed nor denied.
Gail Abramowicz suggested that the Board place this on the agenda for the August 24, 2005 work session meeting agenda. She further said if the applicant submits additional information they can notice it as a public hearing to expedite the applicant’s case. If the applicant does not submit any further information the Board can use the opportunity to review the Conservation Commission’s findings. Ms. Abramowicz also suggested the Board use the original plans submitted for a conditional approval.
Scott Osgood asked the Planning Consultant to place this item on the agenda for the next meeting.
Marty Davis asked if you are acting on good faith why did you start construction prior to obtaining all necessary approvals.
The applicant declined to answer.
8:30 p.m. Case 2005-012 continuation
A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Donald G. Blanchard, LLS, on behalf of Marianne Lafazan, property owner, and Jennifer L. and Stephen N. Dennis, applicant. The application is to create two lots from Map 1, Lot 355A7 at 15 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood District.
Scott Osgood reviewed the site plan.
Mr. Donald Blanchard summarized this Minor Subdivision application. The site walk focus was to view the reduce frontage. Mr. Blanchard reviewed a Variance had been granted for this site for reduced frontage. The lot sizes do conform to the Zoning regulations.
Gail Abramowicz asked about the Plan reflecting both titles of Minor Subdivision and a Boundary Line Adjustment. This application is a Minor Subdivision not a Boundary Line Adjustment.
James miserly asked about driveway placement. Mr. Blanchard addressed the issue.
Scott Osgood asked the Board about completeness of this application.
MOTION made by James McElroy to accept this application as complete. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.
Scott Osgood reviewed the site walk minutes for members of the Board who were unable to make the site walk.
Gail Abramowicz asked if the letter from the ZBA had answered all concerns.
Public Hearing opened 8:45 p.m.
Theresa Maier asked if the letter received from ZBA was from the chairperson or the entire the Board? Does this Variance set precedence?
The Board responded that the Variance made sense after walking the site. The Board reviewed processes.
Public Hearing closed 8:50 p.m.
MOTION made by Don Armstrong to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
New Business
Conceptual Consultations
9:00 p.m.
Humboldt OSRD Major Subdivision, Map 1, Lot 752 (RR), Route 114
John Roche, from Holden Engineering & Surveying, inc. reviewed this proposed plan. The proposed Humboldt Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) would be located on Route 114 in Henniker, NH. This proposal is to subdivide a lot for the existing 2-family home and create 24 duplex units of 55 and older housing on the remaining parcel. The site is currently approximately 50 acres (+/-) with frontage along Route 114. The buildings will be two-family dwellings as permitted under the RR Zoning District, and will be served by an internal road off Route 114.
The Board and the applicant had an interactive discussion regarding this proposed plan. The topics discussed were:
o Septic design
o Water supply
o Wetlands
o Household demographics
o Homeowners’ Association
o Steep slopes and topography of land
o Density changes
o Internal road
o Traffic flow
o Utilities
o Lighting
o Fire protection system (water source)
o Common Open Space
o Lack of lot lines
o Recreational facilities
o Parking
o Architectural elevations
o Noise
Scott Osgood expressed concerns about the sheer number of units.
Scott Osgood asked about phasing and Growth Management Ordinance.
Terry Stamps said this could be a good use of the land.
Scott Osgood said there is a need for housing in the area.
Scott Osgood suggested the applicant speak with Fire Chief prior to applying.
Don Armstrong encouraged the applicant to speak with the Police Chief also.
9:45 p.m.
Three Seasons Landscaping Site Plan, Map2, Lot 439 (CR), Depot Hill Road
Richard Rideout, Owner of Three Seasons Landscaping introduced Ruth Lagarr, Office Manager; Sandy Heino, of Sandy Heino Real Estate; and Ted Cuper a topography specialist from Provan and Lorber.
Currently, Three Seasons Landscaping, Inc. (TSL, Inc), is a landscape design/build firm currently located in Hopkinton, NH. TSL, Inc. wishes to continue its existing operation in a location with the same purpose of providing design and landscaping services to residential properties.
TSL, Inc. recognizes the property at 9 Depot Hill Road to be historical and will take pleasure in restoring the property keeping its history in mind. The improvements will allow for required office space. TSL, Inc. does not initiate business on site, but would like the opportunity of prospective customers coming to the location to review their designs and scheduled projects. There is a plan to construct a storage area with bins beside the existing building.
The Board and the applicant had an interactive discussion regarding this proposed plan. The topics discussed were:
o Storage facility
o Equipment
o Employee
o Display gardens
o Material storage
o Parking
o Traffic
o Lighting
o Fencing
o Noise
o Signage
o Security
o Zoning
o Deliveries
o Business hours
o Site layout
Discussion Items
10:15 p.m. Zoning Committee Meeting Update
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Thursday, August 18, 2005.
10:25 p.m. Planning Consultant’s Report
Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant reviewed the draft agenda for the next work session.
10:35 p.m. Road Exactions Proposal
Scott Osgood reviewed Road Exactions Proposal with the Board.
MOTION made by James McElroy to accept the proposal from The Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (CNHRPC). Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
MOTION made by James McElroy to adjourn the meeting. Terry Stamps seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
July 13, 2005
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Angela Martin, Board Member; (left at 8:20 p.m.), Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Peter Flynn, Michael Tardiff, and Lucy St. John.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Ms. Terry Stamps.
7:10 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from June 22, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the June 22, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
Reports
7:10 p.m. CNHRPC Contract and Fee Structure
Mr. Peter Flynn asked the Board to postpone this discussion to a future time to be determined. The Board agreed.
7:15 p.m. Road Impact Fees, Michael Tardiff, CNHRPC
Mr. Michael Tardiff, Executive Interim Director, CNHRPC introduced Lucy St. John from CNHRPC. Mr. Tardiff explained he wanted to speak to the Board regarding the scope and direction the Board wanted to pursue with regards to Road Impact Fees and Exactations.
Don Armstrong said he would like to see policy in place for the Board to utilize Exactations. He would like methodology, definitions, and clear policy in place to follow.
James McElroy said he would like to explore which option is a better option for maintenance and mitigating increased development on the roads.
Scott Osgood said he would like to expand on Mr. McElroy’s concern. Does the town want one road standard or have different road standards for different applications.
Mr. Michael Tardiff responded that there would be difficulty in one-size fits all approach that is reached with impact fees. The exactations would allow the Board with a process that affords the Board flexibility.
Lucy St. John talked to the Board about key questions to answer when reviewing applications. Those questions are:
1) What type of road is it?
2) Does the road do what is needed?
3) What will it take to make the road do what is needed?
4) Who will do the road plan?
An interactive discussion followed. Road standards and parameters for the town of Henniker are a unique challenge due to the varying geography and topography of the town. Cumulative impact of sub-divisions and the need to enlist professional input were discussed.
A checklist style process policy was discussed. Mr. Tardiff said the process to create policy should include:
¨ Find a model (examples).
¨ Create a subcommittee to determine key concerns (discussions).
¨ Identify key questions.
¨ Create broad parameters.
¨ Review parameters ensuring an evenhanded approach.
Don Armstrong and James McElroy spoke in favor of exactions. Other Board members voiced support.
James McElroy said that impact fees create an administrative process that could be a concern to carry out and manage.
Scott Osgood asked Mike Tardiff to provide a process to:
1) Determine parameters for road exactions.
2) Revise road standards for Henniker.
3) Determine funding mechanism for consultation services.
Mr. Tardiff said he could provide the Board with a proposal outlining the above mentioned by mid August 2005.
Discussion Items
8:00 p.m. Growth Management Ordinance Philosophies
Mr. Michael Tardiff said he had concerns with a specific number for Growth Management Ordinances with respect to the defensibility. Mr. Tardiff discussed a process of periodic review that takes many changing factors such as current growth rate, abutting towns, and any other factors that determine growth trend.
There was an interactive philosophical discussion between the Board and Michael Tardiff regarding Growth Management Ordinance Philosophy.
8:15 p.m. School Impact Fee Guidelines Review
Cordell Johnston reviewed the research he completed. He provided the Board with a handout reviewing the applicability of Henniker Impact Fees. He referenced relevant statutes RSA 674:21 and 674:39
8:30 p.m. Zoning Committee Meeting Update
Kristin Claire reported on the Zoning Committee Meeting. A letter was generated and will be mailed out to members of the public who attended meetings for 2005 Warrant Articles. The Committee created a list of concerns to be prioritized into an action list.
8:40 p.m. Planning Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant updated the Board on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Alexander reviewed the draft agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, July 27, 2005. Stephanie Alexander will be on Vacation July 27, 2005 and August 10, 2005. Colleen Lynch will be here in Ms. Alexander’s absence.
9:00 p.m. Correspondence
Scott Osgood reviewed received correspondence.
MOTION made by James McElroy to adjourn the meeting. Cordell Johnston seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
June 22, 2005
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Cordell Johnston (left at 8:05 p.m.), Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; (arrived at 7:00 p.m.), Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Stephen Forester, Ted Parkins, Marty Davis and John Kjellman
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
6:05 p.m. Planning Board Informal Discussion of Impact Fees
Bruce Mayberry, Consultant and Author of Public School Impact Fees: Basis of Assessment – 2005, Henniker NH, Final Report made minor changes to the charts on page 2 of the letter submitted with the Final Report – School Impact Fees. There was an interactive discussion between Bruce Mayberry and the Planning Board Members reviewing the methodology and basis of the Final Report – School Impact Fees.
7:00 p.m.
Mr. Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of Ms. Angela Martin.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from June 8, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the June 8, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
School Impact Fees
7:10 p.m. Introduction to Impact Fees by the Planning Board
Scott Osgood introduced Mr. Bruce Mayberry to the Public. Scott Osgood reviewed the process and scope of School Impact Fees. Mr. Osgood reviewed the steps and accomplishments of the process completed at this time, as it relates to School Impact Fees in Henniker. He also shared the intent of the Planning Board, as it relates to School Impact Fees in Henniker, to accomplish during this meeting.
7:15 p.m. Presentation by Bruce Mayberrry, Consultant and Author of Public School Impact Fees: Basis of Assessment – 2005, Henniker NH, Final Report
Mr. Bruce Mayberry, Consultant and Author of Public School Impact Fees: Basis of
Assessment– 2005, Henniker NH, Final Report, spoke to the guests present. Mr. Mayberry,
explained that this report provides a detailed methodology for the calculation of proportionate
impact fees to offset the school capital cost impacts of new residential development in Henniker.
He reviewed the research details and the basis of the methodology used in this report. The school
impact fee schedule supported by this study is based on average enrollment characteristics of
housing in Henniker.
7:25 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of School Impact Fees
Stephen Forester asked about the process of updating the fee schedule to compensate for inflation. Mr. Bruce Mayberry answered that the fee schedule would need to be reviewed periodically.
Marty Davis asked about existing homes in Henniker that change owners, and the impact it could have on enrollment. Mr. Mayberry explained that due to natural changing demographics that the report takes an average of all types enrollment characteristics of the household sizes and thus the impacts.
John Kjellman voiced concerns about changes of enrollment due to changes in the size of families. Mr. Mayberry answered his question.
Cordell Johnston asked if the impact fee assessment applies to all new sub-divisions or to new construction. Mr. Mayberry reviewed NH RSA 674:21. The Board had some discussion and determined further research must be done.
Marty Davis asked if Henniker does not issue Certificates of Occupancy’s how will the town assess and collect fees as outlined. The Board answered that they will need to draft policy once the above mentioned research is completed.
John Kjellman asked about the six-year rule and where will that money go. Mr. Bruce Mayberry answered that moneys collected usually goes to a town maintained account and ultimately goes to the school district. He further explained that at this time Henniker is repaying debt there is no reason to assume there would be any refunds. In the future by re-evaluating the formula periodically that is how the town would refrain from needing to provide refunds.
Ted Parkins asked why Henniker would want to refund any impact fees. Mr. Osgood said the town does not want to, however it the impact fees were not spent on capital improvements it would need to be returned as the impact fees are collected for that purpose.
Marty Davis asked Mr. Mayberry that if in his experiences has he witnessed Towns over improving because the money is bonus money. Mr. Mayberry said no, usually the monies are used to fund planned expenditures or used to pay back debt.
Don Armstrong said he thought the Board should have a clear definition when the assessment will happen.
John Kjellman asked about the implementation of the school impact fees and will it be effective tomorrow. Scott Osgood and Cordell Johnston said yes if during this meeting a motion to adopt this fee is passed.
Ted Parkins asked how do you apply an impact fee to a building that is under construction with no building permit or no lots recorded at the registry. The Board said that would be an unusual circumstances and other processes would be looked into by the appropriate town personnel.
Cordell Johnston said the NH RSA 674:21 is complicated and needs to be researched. Mr. Johnston will write draft guidelines for the Board to review.
Public Hearing Closed 8:05 p.m.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to continue the discussion to consider adoption of school impact fees to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board work session on July 13, 2005. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
Discussion Items
8:05 p.m. Zoning Committee Meeting Update
Ted Parkins reported he spoke to Leo Aucoin and he was going to contact all people on the list of interested public and invite them to upcoming meeting. Scott Osgood reported that Bob Stamps was elected as chairman and a broad agenda was set.
8:10 p.m. Planning Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander updated the Board of the status of Case 2004 – 018 Bennett’s Mount Hunger Road Sub-Division. Ms. Alexander reported on upcoming agenda applications. Ms. Alexander reviewed the draft agenda for the work session scheduled for July 13, 2005.
8:25 p.m. Procedures for Amending Filed Phasing Plans
Stephanie Alexander asked the Board for a process for amending a previously filed and approved application. The Board advised the applicant must complete the following:
¨ No application is required, but fees for a public notice and abutter notification need to be paid at time of submission of the amended plan.
¨ Amended plan needs to be submitted at appropriate sizes and with the correct number of copies.
¨ A narrative needs to be submitted with the amended plan.
¨ Mylars needed for signature of the Chairman of the Planning Board.
¨ The amended plans need to be filed with the registry of deeds.
8:30 p.m. Procedures for Handling Growth Management Ordinance Provisions
Stephanie Alexander asked the Board how they would like to track the issuance of Building Permits that apply to Growth Management Ordinance. The Board asked Ms. Alexander to draft a memo to the Building Inspector. The memo is for the purpose of sharing the information that if more than 5 units are being constructed a Phase Plan is required before a building permit can be issued.
8:45 p.m. Correspondence
Mr. Scott Osgood read correspondence from public members regarding construction on Mount Hunger Road. Scott Osgood is going to respond to the letter addressed directly to the Planning Board. Town Counsel is currently handling this matter and all avenues are being pursued.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to adjourn the meeting. Don Armstrong seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston (left at 9:00 p.m.), Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Angela Martin, Board Member, Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
John Kowalski, Keith Wing, Priscilla Dube, Leo Dube, Martha Sunderlund, Ed Bowser, and Ted Parkins, and Eric Johnson.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from May 25, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the May 25, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
Public Hearings
1. 7:10 p.m. Case #2005-018.
A continuation of a Major Subdivision application submitted by Spencer Bennett, on behalf of Stephen E. Bennett, Jan Bennett, Christina Bennett, Judith Northup-Bennett, Ross Bennett, Stephen Mark Bennett, Judy Bennett-Brown, Dale Brown, Jeffrey Nesmith and Stephanie Brown. The application is to create a 7-lot subdivision on Mount Hunger Road, Map 1. Lot 723 in the Rural Residential District.
The applicant requested that this hearing be removed from this evening’s agenda as he is still awaiting and compiling data needed.
2. 7:10 p.m. Case # 2005-011
Amendment to an existing approved Site Plan – An application to amend an existing approved Site Plan has been submitted by John Kowalski, owner of Riverside Precision Sheetmetal. The application is to construct a 32’ X 74’ addition to the existing structure located at 152 Western Avenue, Map 1 Lot 763, in the Rural Residential District.
Terry Stamps asked about the high water mark. The applicant said it was noted this was the edge of the flood plain.
Scott Osgood read a Memo from Stephanie Alexander; Planning Consultant outlining a conversation she had with Mr. Jeff Bleharczyk, NH DES regarding proposed plan concerns.
Ms. Stephanie Alexander noted in her Site Plan Application Review that the revised plans and accompanying narrative clarify most of these items; the applicant clarified the remainder on May 25, 2005 when they met. Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant explained to the Board Members that Ms. Alexander left a note for the Board there were no outstanding issues with the proposed plan after her final review.
Scott Osgood asked Martha Sunderlund, Conservation Commission Representative if she had any questions or concerns.
Ms. Sunderlund reviewed her questions and most had already been addressed by the previous memos. Ms. Sunderlund reminded the applicant that erosion controls should be enacted prior to construction and stay in place until after the construction concludes and the site is stabilized.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Kristin Claire and accepted as complete unanimously.
7:20 p.m. Public Hearing opened.
No Public Comment.
7:20 p.m. Public Hearing closed.
Scott Osgood asked the applicant to title and date the proposed plan. The applicant dated and titled the plan at this time.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by James McElroy and approved unanimously.
Martha Sunderlund offered the Planning Board a copy of The Shoreline Protection Act and data sheets to explain The Shoreline Protection Act. The Board thanked Ms. Sunderlund and accepted the information. The information will be forwarded to the Planning Board Consultant and added to the Planning Board Library for future use.
Conceptual Consultations
7:30 p.m.
1. Site Plan for White Mountain Kettle Corn Company, LLC, Western Avenue, Map 2, and Lot 369B in the Commercial Village District.
Priscilla Dube reviewed the proposed plan for a new facility for their business, White Mountain Kettle Corn Company, LLC. The new proposed facility will be used for popping kettle corn, packaging and placing it in cartons, which will then be delivered to the distributor by Priscilla and Leo Dube.
There was discussion regarding traffic patterns, aroma control, parking, building doors, loading and unloading areas and abutters. There will be minimal impact to the site as there will be no construction outside. They will add a sign to help UPS and Fed-Ex find the correct location.
7:55 p.m.
2. Minor Subdivision for Edward Bowser, Western Avenue / Cote Hill Road, Map 1, and Lot 568-C in the Rural Residential District, 31.77 acres.
Mr. Edward Bowser reviewed this is a proposal for a minor subdivision to separate 5.6 acres encompassing the house and barn at the corner of Western Avenue and Cote Hill Road from the 31.77acres.
The Board discussed frontage, lot size, lot configuration, and access.
There was discussion regarding changing the proposed plan in order to meet Zoning Ordinances to prevent a land locked lot.
8:10 p.m. Impact Fees
Scott Osgood reported that Bruce Mayberry will be available to attend the June 22, 2005 Public Hearing regarding School Impact Fee Methodology.
The Board decided to start the June 22, 2005 meeting at 6:00 p.m. the public hearing will be scheduled for 7:00 p.m.
Scott Osgood reported he had a conversation with Michael Tardiff, Interim Executive Director CNHRPC regarding the Road Impact Fee Analysis. Mr. Tardiff suggested speaking with the Planning Board to discuss in detail the project’s progress to date and decide on the next course of action. The Board scheduled Mr. Tardiff to the come to the Planning Board Work Session on July 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
8:15 p.m. The Planning Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant provided Scott Osgood with a draft letter via email regarding mylars left at the town offices by Mr. Ralph Joyce. The Board discussed the letter. Scott Osgood will make the final edits to the letter and mail it to Mr. Joyce with a copy to Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant.
Colleen Lynch, Alternate Planning Consultant reported on behalf of Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant regarding:
ü Upcoming Lot Line Adjustment
ü Planning Board Schedule
ü Letter to Conservation Commission
8:45 p.m. Correspondence
There was no new correspondence to review.
8:50 p.m. Zoning Sub-committee Recruitment Effort
The Board discussed how to proceed with recruiting members for Zoning Sub-committee.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to adjourn the meeting. Angela Martin seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
May 25, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston (left at 9:40 p.m.), Selectman Ex-Officio; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; James McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps (left at 10:00 p.m.), Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Marty Davis, Stephen Forster, Ted Parkins, Gene Brown, Roni Hardy, and Denise Rico.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from May 11, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to approve the May 11, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
7:15 p.m. Impact Fee Report
Planning Board members asked that this report be forwarded to Town Counsel for review and input.
The Board discussed the administration of School Impact Fees.
The Board members discussed the date June 22, 2005 as a potential date for Public Hearing. Stephanie Alexander will contact Mr. Bruce Mayberry to confirm his availability. Once availability is confirmed Ms. Alexander will schedule Public Hearing for June 22, 2005. Additionally, Ms. Alexander will request Peter Flynn to forward the School Impact Fee Final Report to Town Counsel for review and input.
Stephanie Alexander will place this item on June 8, 2005 Agenda as a business item for Planning Board members to review and discuss any questions or concerns regarding the report prior to the scheduled Public Hearing.
After the methodology is accepted the collection of the School Impact Fees goes to the Selectman to be administered by Peter Flynn and managed by Russ Roy, Town Finance Director.
7:35 p.m. The Joyce Case Discussion
Scott Osgood updated the Board. The judge denied the request for reconsideration. The applicant needs to return to the Planning Board to address the altered application, as trees and natural buffering have been removed changing the original proposed application. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the altered application.
8:35 p.m. Zoning Committee
The Board discussed the need for a diverse committee of citizens with varying opinions and viewpoints. The scope of the Zoning Sub-committee should be to deal with the the following issues: lot size, road frontage, width-to-depth ratios, open space ordinances and other lot characteristics, however, not limited to these concerns only.
The first meeting scheduled is Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 7:00 pm at the Henniker Town Hall. Scott Osgood will secure and confirm this space is available for the meeting. Kristin Claire and Scott Osgood will attend Zoning Sub-committee regularly. All Planning Board members are invited to attend the Zoning Sub-committee at any time.
Planning Board members will contact any interested individuals who want to participate on the Zoning Sub-committee.
The goal of the Zoning Sub-Committee will be to have information ready to share with public and the Planning Board by September 1, 2005.
9:00 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Schedule
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant provided the Planning Board members an updated Planning Board Schedule that includes administrative dates.
9:10 p.m. Exactions
The Board reviewed state statute RSA 674:21 V (j). The Board discussed the process of obtaining experts in any particular subject area. The Board determined that the first step in determining the correct professional would be to contact Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc and solicit their professional opinion and / or recommendation based on the scope of the study needed.
9:15 p.m. Hydrological Studies
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant provided Board members with an informational sheet reviewing Hydrological Studies. The Board discussed the benefits of hydrological studies.
9:30 p.m. The Planning Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant provided the Board members with a draft copy of a memo written to the Conservation Commission regarding Case # 2004-18 requesting input from Board members.
Ms. Alexander reported there was a request from Art Siciliano to meet with John Margeson, Highway Superintendent. John Margeson contacted Ms. Alexander and asked for a Planning Board member volunteer to attend the meeting. A Planning Board member will contact John Margeson and let him know the applicant was directed to an Engineer for assistance to develop an acceptable plan.
Ms. Alexander reported information regarding Class V and Class VI roads. The Board discussed road standards.
Ms. Alexander reported upcoming agenda items.
10:30 p.m. Correspondence
James McElroy reviewed piece of correspondence received from CNHRPC regarding historic sites.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to adjourn the meeting. Gail Abramowicz seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
May 11, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Jim McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Angela Martin, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Donald DiBuono, Ellen Harbour, Richard Harbour, Gene Brown, Stephen Forster, Art Siciliano, Terri Trier, Joe Trier, Ted Parkins, John Kowalski, Keith Wing Jr., Marty Davis, Allen Wilson, Ray Bigwood, and Robert Todd.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from April 27, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to approve the April 27, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Kristin Claire seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Public Hearings
1. 7:15 p.m. Case #2005-018.
A continuation of a Major Subdivision application submitted by Spencer Bennett, on behalf of Stephen E. Bennett, Jan Bennett, Christina Bennett, Judith Northup-Bennett, Ross Bennett, Stephen Mark Bennett, Judy Bennett-Brown, Dale Brown, Jeffrey Nesmith and Stephanie Brown. The application is to create a 7-lot subdivision on Mount Hunger Road, Map 1. Lot 723 in the Rural Residential District.
Scott Osgood asked if the applicant received copies of the letters containing questions posed by the Planning Board and the responses received from the various town departments. Stephanie Alexander said that Arthur Siciliano, representative of the applicant, had been provided faxed copies of the letters that had been sent to the town departments. The response letters were provided to Mr. Siciliano today.
Scott Osgood reviewed the letter from John Margeson, Highway Superintendent. Angela Martin said the sight-distance concern had not been addressed in the letter.
Scott Osgood shared the informational packet received from the town’s engineer HTA. The informational packet received today is extensive. A copy of the informational packet will be provided to the representative of the applicant Arthur Siciliano. Mr. Osgood summarized that preliminary information received from HTA notes the various factors in determining sight-distance.
Jim McElroy asked, based on that information, what would the applicant be required to provide. Arthur Siciliano said he would review the informational packet and then contact HTA, for their input to develop an acceptable plan.
Scott Osgood reviewed letters from the other Town Departments.
Gail Abramowicz highlighted a request from the Police Chief regarding additional speed signage.
Kristin Claire asked about Conservation Commission input and if those concerns were addressed. Discussion continued regarding the reconfiguration of the lots specifically the creation of the common land lot.
Stephanie Alexander read a letter received from the Conservation Commission dated April 19, 2005. Jim McElroy suggested providing the revised plans to the Commission for further review as the plans have been updated since their letter of April 19, 2005 was received.
Arthur Siciliano interjected that the common land lot was going to be increased to 10 acres and, therefore, there would be slight lot line adjustments to most if not all lots.
Arthur Siciliano requested a 90-day extension.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to extend the Board’s deadline of May 26, 2005 to take action upon this application with a 90-day extension, terminating on August 24, 2005. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to continue the discussion of this application to our next regularly scheduled meeting June 8, 2005, to allow the applicant adequate time to respond to the road issues and provide revised plans. Seconded by Angela Marin and approved unanimously.
2. 7:45 p.m. Case #2005-010.
Minor Subdivision Review – A Minor Subdivision Review application has been submitted by Ray Bigwood. The application is to create a 2-lot subdivision on Mount Hunger Road and Morse Road, Map 1, Lot 723B1, in the Rural Residential District.
Allen Wilson, representative of the applicant, reviewed the application.
Terry Stamps asked if the Board should move forward with this application while there is an ongoing boundary dispute.
Mr. Wilson introduced Robert Todd a Licensed Land Surveyor. Mr. Todd has completed a boundary analysis for Mr. Bigwood that has been included in the application.
Robert Todd reviewed his report to the Board. Mr. Todd concluded that the strip of the land Map 1 Lot 726 X1 in question was conveyed in 1962 as part of the Morse tract. Mr. Todd said that his conclusions, in respect to the strip in question, is misrepresented on the Town Tax Map and currently would be part of Mr. Bigwood’s tract of land.
Scott Osgood reviewed the process the Board must follow. Mr. Osgood said that the Board is in the completion phase of the application and information provided by the public is important and pertains to the completeness of this application.
Cordell Johnston voiced support and said it would be appropriate to gather information from the public.
Donald DiBuono, an abutter provided information that describes the Morse land in 1944. Mr. DiBuono also read deed language from later deeds. Mr. DiBuono also asked why, if this strip of land in question was part of the Bigwood lot, why was a past purchase needed for access to the property.
Scott Osgood said at this time there is contradictory evidence regarding boundary lines.
Kristin Claire said there were other concerns to be considered with the plan due to zoning.
Mr. Robert Todd suggested the abutters hire a land surveyor that can converse with him based on standard survey principles.
Cordell Johnston voiced concerns regarding the road. It was unclear whether the road is built to Class A or Class B standards. If it is not built to those standards, the minimum lot size is 10 acres, not 5 acres. It was agreed that the applicant would discuss this with the town road agent.
It was further agreed that the board could not take any action until the boundary dispute is resolved, and the board is not in a position to resolve that dispute.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to deem application as incomplete due to boundary dispute and concerns regarding minimum lot size. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
3. 8:15 p.m. Case # 2005-011
Amendment to an existing approved Site Plan – An application to amend an existing approved Site Plan has been submitted by John Kowalski, owner of Riverside Precession Sheetmetal. The application is to construct a 32’ X 74’ addition to the existing structure located at 152 Western Avenue, Map 1 Lot 763, in the Rural Residential District.
Keith Wing Jr. reviewed the application on behalf of the applicant John Kowalski. The application proposed is to expand an existing building for the purpose of storage, to move equipment around to promote a better workspace, and the last third of the proposed space would be used to house a new piece of equipment that eventually will replace an older machine. This addition would create a safer environment for the employees. They do not use any chemicals and there would be very little impact to the area. He further said there is relatively no noise and no waste as a result from this business.
The Board discussed the setback requirements under the Shoreline Protection Act. The Planning Consultant, Stephanie Alexander advised to determine exact state regulations research would be needed.
There was extensive conversation regarding what items are required on the proposed plan.
The applicant was provided with a copy of the Planning Consultant’s application review.
Scott Osgood reviewed the checklist the applicant had been provided compared to the proposed plan submitted. There were approximately 6 items missing out of the 20 items required.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to deem the application as incomplete and continue until our next regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting on June 8, 2005 due to missing items as outlined in the Planning Consultant’s application review. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
The Joyce Case Discussion
9:05 p.m.
The Board discussed the Joyce Case. The process of reconsideration and appeal was discussed. There were interactive discussions with members of the public.
The Planning Consultant’s Report
9:55 p.m.
Stephanie Alexander reported upcoming agenda items. The Board provided topics and concerns that need to be addressed and scheduled for upcoming meetings. Ms. Alexander provided Board members with a schedule and contact information for herself. She was going to ask the office staff to post this information. The information will be posted to the public.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Angela Martin seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
April 27, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman (arrived 7:10 p.m.); Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Jim McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Angela Martin, Board Member; Kerrie Diers, Planning Consultant; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Bruce Spencer, Judy Bennett, Art Siciliano, Michael Pon, Stephen Bennett, Spencer Bennett, Rick Patenaude, Andy Mitchell, Peter Furmonavicius, Debra Archambault, David Archambault, Jody Keeler, Tom Clark, Wayne Patenaude, Ross D’Elia,
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Minutes
7:05 p.m.
Meeting Minutes from April 13, 2005 were reviewed.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve minutes as submitted. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
Public Hearings
7:10 p.m. Case # 2004-018
A continuation of a Major Subdivision application submitted by Spencer Bennett, on behalf of Stephen E. Bennett, Jan Bennett, Christina Bennett, Judith Northup-Bennett, Ross Bennett, Stephen Mark Bennett, Judy Bennett-Brown, Dale Brown, Jeffrey Nesmith and Stephanie Brown. The application is to create a 7-lot subdivision on Mount Hunger Road, Map 1. Lot 723 in the Rural Residential District.
Scott Osgood summarized the site walk. Scott Osgood said that the application was deemed conditionally complete. Mr. Osgood asked the applicant to review the application.
Arthur Siciliano reviewed the proposed application and highlighted the revisions made after the site walk to the proposed plan.
There was discussion regarding the stamping of the mylar by a certified wetland scientist. Kerrie Diers clarified a certified wetlands scientist must stamp final mylar for areas outside the septic area. The applicant asked if the Board would consider waiving this requirement. The applicant said any buildings on this proposed subdivision would be a great distance away from any wetlands on these lots.
Gail Abramowicz asked if there was any concern with having certified wetlands scientist delineate the wetlands. Arthur Siciliano said there was no concern however it would mean having someone review the work previously done. Jim McElroy spoke in favor of having a certified wetlands scientist delineate the wetlands.
The letter from the Conservation Commission notes concerns regarding steep slopes, run off patterns, and impacts to Pleasant Pond.
The Board verified NH RSA 482 requires that certified wetlands scientist delineate wetland and that a certified wetand scientist sign and stamp the final mylar.
The two-acre buildable area with less than 20% slope was depicted in an additional submission of the proposed plan. The submission plan was a large file copy. Kerrie Diers provided this file copy for the Board members to review
The driveway sight distance for lots 723 and 723A was discussed. During the site walk 200 feet was paced and reviewed. The consensus was that it was not a great line of sight distance however the Board questioned what are the regulations and have the regulations been met. Discussion continued and it was determined that the action taken at the site walk was informal. Scott Osgood asked the planning consultant to find out what and where the standard is derived from.
The proposed driveway easement language has been not submitted at this time. Kerrie Diers advised that no draft deed language for any easement had been submitted. The agreement between the owners for the common land language was previously submitted and is part of the file.
The applicant asked the Board to review the outstanding items they are looking for. Scott Osgood said the first item will be the certified wetlands scientist stamp and secondly the sight-distance measurement.
Jim McElroy said he would like a letter from police and highway departments regarding safety concerns.
7:40 p.m. Public Hearing Opened
Richard Patenaude asked if the driveway permit process would handle the sight distance concerns. Kristin Claire responded after reviewing the driveway permit, although the driveway permit requests the distance measurement but does not provide the requirement needed.
Richard Patenaude said this application looked good and well prepared.
7:45 p.m. Public Hearing Closed
Kristin Claire said if the Board was requiring letters from other town departments there should be specific questions outlined. The Board discussed the information they wanted to obtain.
Jim McElroy identified three sources the Board should obtain information regarding the sight distance concerns. Those sources are the Town Engineers, Road Agent, and Police Department. Mr. McElroy also said safety concerns should be reviewed by both Police and Highway Departments.
The Board summarized the five items needed to proceed with this application.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to continue the discussion of this application pending input from other Town departments and consultants. Terry Stamps seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.
7:55 p.m. Case#2004-008
Ross D’Elia, President, on behalf of HHP, INC, has submitted an application for an amendment to an existing site plan. The application is to construct two bin sorter buildings and a kiln building totaling approximately 33,256 square feet located at Map 1, Lot 553-B2 on Old Concord Road in the Heavy Commercial District (CH).
Ross D’Elia reviewed that this is an amendment to a previously approved, existing site plan to construct a 9,044 square feet enclosed bin sorter building, a 21,010 square feet bin sorter building and a 2,152 square feet kiln building. The enclosed bin sorter building is to house the machinery that sorts the lumber from the enclosed mill.
Mr. D’Elia reviewed parking, aesthetics of the building, the tree line, impacts to truck traffic, impacts to school population, stormwater, and detention pond
Jim McElroy asked about the impact to truck traffic. Ross D’Elia reviewed how this would automate the process and workflow currently used. The change to production will be slight, but this will allow the mill to offer a value-added product to their customers. Jim McElroy concluded there would be no impact to internal traffic patterns and Mr. D’Elia agreed.
Jim McElroy asked what powers the kiln. Ross D’Elia reviewed 4 separate steps that the business has taken to minimize the noise impact. Mr. D’Elia reviewed that at 10 feet the impact will be approximately 62 decibels (300 feet is approximately 43 decibels). Oil and heat pumps fire the kiln.
Scott Osgood asked if the kiln would run all year round. Ross D’Elia said the kiln would run all year long.
Jim McElroy asked what material would the new proposed structures be constructed of. Ross D’Elia said the interior sheeting is constructed of stainless steel and the outside wall will be galvanized steel. There are no sides to this building with a pitched roof.
Terry Stamps asked about noise created by the bin sorter. Ross D’Elia said this bin sorter would not create any additional noise.
Scott Osgood asked about drainage calculations. Ross D’Elia said he did not know if the engineer ran those calculations.
Jim McElroy asked about building elevations and if there was a concern for those to be added to the proposed plan. Scott Osgood said that was not of concern to him.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept the application as complete subject to correcting the abutters list, the addition of the engineers list, correct the spelling of the owners name and updating the approval block to reflect Map 1 correctly. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
8:25 pm Public Hearing Opened
Dave Archambault expressed concerns regarding noise level and excess water drainage impacting Keyser Pond.
Andrew Mitchell voiced his concerns regarding noise. His concern with the study used, as example was that of it was done in a city environment and not a rural atmosphere. Mr. Mitchell pointed out background noise that exists in a city is much different than that of this rural area. Mr. Mitchell also expressed concerns of lighting and water runoff.
8:40 pm Public Hearing Closed
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the application subject to correcting the abutters list, the addition of the engineers list, correct the spelling of the owners name and updating the approval block to reflect Map 1 correctly. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
8:45 p.m. Case # 2005-009
Wayne and Richard Patenaude, on behalf of Contoocook ArtesianWell submitted an application for an amendment to an existing site plan. The application is to construct additions totaling approximately 20,090 square feet located at Map 2, Lot 539-D located at Map 2, Lot 539-D located at 36 Weare Road in the Commercial Recreational District (CR).
Gail Abramowicz asked if any additional materials had been received since the site plan application review had been distributed. Kerrie Diers said no further information had been received.
Richard Patenaude reviewed the application and summarized the application was to add another garage bay to the previously approved existing site plan.
Kerrie Diers provided the file of the previously approved existing site plan. The Board compared the missing items to information contained in the file of the previously approved existing site plan.
The Board determined there were two items of concern. The location of dumpster needs to be added to the proposed plan and the applicant must provide the original application submitted on May 14, 2003.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to accept the application as complete subject to the original application approved on May 14, 2003 being submitted with dumpster location added to the proposed plan. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
9:00 pm Public Hearing Opened
No public comment.
9:00 pm Public Hearing Closed
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the application subject to the original application approved on May 14, 2003 being submitted with dumpster location added to the plan. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and approved unanimously.
9:15 p.m. Case # 2005-007
Jody D. and Margaret L. Keeler on behalf of James and Brenda Connor Irrevocable Family Trust submitted an application for a Minor subdivision for condominium ownership. The application is to create condominium ownership for a new two family dwelling to be constructed at Map 1, Lot 238-B on Crescent Street in the Residential Village District (RV).
Jody Keeler presented his application. Mr. Keeler is here asking for a conditional approval. He would then bring an as built mylar with changes outlined in the April 14, 2005 letter from the applicant back to the Board for final approval.
The Board reviewed the list of waivers the applicant was requesting. The Board determined the applicant would still need to provide ground elevation contours, drainage, town utilities location, adding appropriate blocks for seals and signatures, correction of turn-around for Unit 1 and final language for “The Crescent Street Bylaws” and “Declaration of The Crescent Street Condominiums” to be added or submitted with the as built final mylar plan.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to accept the application as complete subject to submitting and/or adding ground elevation contours, drainage, town utilities location, adding appropriate blocks for seals and signatures, correction of turn-around for Unit 1 and final language for “The Crescent Street Bylaws” and “Declaration of The Crescent Street Condominiums” to the as built final mylar plan. Seconded by Angela Martin and approved unanimously.
9:25 pm Public Hearing Opened
No public comment.
9:25 pm Public Hearing Closed
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the application subject submitting and/or adding ground elevation contours, drainage, town utilities location, adding appropriate blocks for seals and signatures, correction of turn-around for Unit 1 and final language for “The Crescent Street Bylaws” and “Declaration of The Crescent Street Condominiums” to the as built final mylar plan. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
Conceptual Consultation
9:30 pm
Arthur Siciliano reviewed his proposed project at Map 1 Lot 580 on Chase Road North of Butter Road. The Board determined that Mr. Siciliano’s request for a road was a Board of Selectman function and he was referred to the Board of Selectman.
Minutes
9:35 p.m.
Meeting Minutes from April 16, 2005 site walk were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve April 16, 2005 site walk minutes as edited. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
9:40 p.m.
Meeting Minutes from April 13, 2005 non-public session minutes were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve April 13, 2005 non-public session minutes as edited. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Other Business
9:45 pm
The Board discussed a Zoning Sub-committee formation in response to the public’s request and concerns of land usage. The members discussed the scope of the sub-committee should be and how to form this committee.
10:00 pm
Karrie Diers, Planning Consultant updated the Board members with upcoming agenda items.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Gail Abramowicz seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
April 13, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Selectman ex-Officio; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Jim McElroy, Board Member; Angela Martin, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant.
No recording secretary was in attendance.
Mr. Don Armstrong will be a voting this member this evening in place of Board Member Terry Stamps.
Guests Present:
No Guests were in attendance
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item 1 - Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from March 24, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to approve the March 24, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Don Armstrong seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion passes.
Agenda Item 2
No one attended the meeting to address the Agenda item. The issue will be taken up if requested to be included in a future meeting.
Agenda Item 3 - Election of Officers
Planning Consultant Stephanie Alexander notified the board that the CNHRPC Executive Director Kerrie Diers has announced her resignation. She will be leaving the Planning Commission at the end of the month. Ms Alexander will be staying on as the Town of Henniker Planning Consultant.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to nominate Scott Osgood as Chairman, Seconded by Gail. No other nominees were offered. Board vote was unanimously in favor. Scott agreed to accept the position.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to nominate Kristin Claire as Vice Chairman. Seconded by Scott Osgood. No other nominees were offered. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Kristin accepted the position.
Discussed the position of Planning Board Secretary. No volunteers or nominations were offered. Duties are currently shared by Scott Osgood, Jim McElroy and Terry Stamps.
Agenda Item 5 –Other Business
7:58 vote taken to go into non-public session to discuss legal issues.
8:18 Non public session ended
Agenda Item 4 – Prioritize/ review items on work list
The list of April 9, 2005 containing recommendations of action items was reviewed. After extensive discussion the following items were identified as the priority items for Planning Board review this year.
Ø Finalize school impact fee
Ø Decide on Road Impact Fee
Ø Review Building Permit Requirements
Ø Review process for paving class 5 roads
Ø Review a requirement for upgrading roads affected by subdivisions.
Ø Review frontage requirements
Ø Review Lot size requirements
Ø Review Zoning Boundaries
Ø Factors to be considered are where commercial uses could be located, what are the conservation, and recreational uses on the areas
Ø Review open space residential development criteria
Ø Clarify home business criteria
Ø Review percentage of Land Use Change Tax going towards Land Conservation
A recommendation was made by Cordell Johnston to appoint a committee to research these items. A recommendation was made to invite attendees of the public hearings on the 2005 warrant articles. The board will include the formation of this committee on a future meeting agenda.
Other Business:
The issue of water supply frequently comes up in subdivision review. The Fire Department asks that consideration be given to requiring cisterns be provided with new subdivisions.
Scott Osgood asked if the Board could ask the Fire Department for technical details of installations that would meet these requirements. The Board agreed the request could be forwarded.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Kristin Claire seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully,
Scott Osgood
TOWN OF HENNIKER
March 23, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Jim McElroy, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Angela Martin, Alternate Board Member; Rebecca Voegele, Planning Consultant, Kerrie Diers, Planning Consultant; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Leon Parker, Edith Hadley, Lorraine Knapton, Steve Bennett, Art Siciliano, Jon Routon, Brad Clark, Jean-Louis Nicknair, Dan Blanchard, Judy Northup Bennett, Jeffrey Holt, Bruce Spencer, Bill McGirr, Ted Parkins, Peg Keeler, Kevin Daniel, and Roger Belson,
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Don Armstrong will be a voting member this evening in place of the absent Selectman Ex-Officio, Cordell Johnston.
7:05 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from February 9, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to approve the February 9, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Don Armstrong seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion passes.
Meeting Minutes from February 23, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve the February 23, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Jim McElroy seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the March 2, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Kristin Claire seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.
Public Hearings
1. 7:25 p.m. Case #2005-003.
A Change of Use – Site Plan Review application has been submitted Jonathan B. Routon and Jeffrey W. Holt on behalf of Kenneth B. Routon and Gary E Blindt. The application is for Site Plan review and Change of Use acceptance for a new business to be located in the lower level of the Pop Schulz Market Building 15 Bridge Street, Map 2, Lot 471B in the Village Commerce (CV) District. Change of Use is proposed to turn a portion of the basement currently used for storage, into a bar / restaurant.
A response from Town Counsel was received today. She stated that because the applicants are seeking to open a new business in the building, they would need to obtain a special exception with respect to parking requirements. If the special exception is denied they apply for a Variance.
This information was given to the applicants.
Brad Clark, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army submitted documentation regarding the easement and parking agreement to the Board. There were questions concerning the completeness of the information, which were not resolved.
Michael John Costello from the Henniker Fire Department submitted a letter regarding the proposed plan for Stone Bridge Pub. Mr. Costello cited several issues with the plan:
Ø Roadway
Ø Suppression Systems
Ø Egresses
Ø Interior Finish
Ø Knox Box
Ø Inspections
Mr. Costello also said there are various other items that will need to be addressed but the above list will give the applicant and the Board an idea of what will be expected and encouraged the applicant to please call with any questions.
The Board shared all information with the applicants.
The applicants asked questions regarding the ZBA process.
The applicants decided to withdraw their application at this time.
2. 7:50 p.m. Case #2004-18.
Major Subdivision Review - A Major Subdivision Review application has been submitted by Spencer Bennett. The application is to create a 7-lot subdivision on Mt. Hunger Road, Map 1, Lot 723 in the Rural Residential District.
Arthur Siciliano, Land Surveyor presented the application. Mr. Siciliano stated that reviewed this is a 7-lot residential subdivision with on-site septic systems, wells, and one non-building common land lot, which abuts Pleasant Pond. He also explained the change in lot numbers.
The applicant is requesting a waiver. The waiver request is to allow slopes up to 25% to be included in the 2-acre buildable area.
The Conservation Commission reviewed the plan. They had several concerns regarding the plan:
Ø Wetlands
Ø Drainage Channels
Ø Dredge and Fill effects
Ø Impact to Pleasant Pond
Heather Herrmann from NH Natural Heritage Bureau submitted a letter in response to Mr. Siciliano request for review. Ms. Herrmann stated in her letter “we currently have no recorded occurrences for sensitive species near this project area.” She also said “However, many areas have never been surveyed, or have only been surveyed for certain species. For some purposes, including legal requirements for state wetland permits, the fact that no species of concern are known to be present is sufficient. However, an on-site survey would provide better information on what species and communities are indeed present.”
There was conversation regarding soil testing, wetlands, and septic design. Arthur Siciliano said he was authorized to delineate wetlands on plans.
The Board discussed the waiver requested. The proposed building areas shown on the plan contain areas with greater than 25% slope. The Board determined that if the lot meets the requirement of Site Plan Review a waiver was unnecessary and the proposed plan would need to be updated to reflect this information.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to accept the application as complete subject to renumbering of lots on proposed plan, updated phasing information on plan, update owner names, location and results of percolation test, State Subdivision approvals, copy of easements (driveway and right-of-way) and copy of deed language for common land. Seconded by Don Armstrong and approved unanimously.
The applicant and Board scheduled a Site Walk for April 16, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.
3. 8:35 p.m. Case #2005-006
Minor Subdivision Review – A Minor Subdivision Review application has been submitted by Peter Mellen on behalf of Edith Hadley and Lorraine Knapton. The application is to create a 2-lot subdivision at 16 Dodge Hill Road, Map 1, Lot 306, in the Residential Neighborhood District.
Peter Mellen, Land Surveyor presented the proposed plan on behalf of the applicants.
The applicant is requesting waivers for plat details 202-9: F, G, and
The Board determined that the waiver request for plat details 202-9 F, G, and H are unnecessary as the lot does not contain these conditions.
The Board discussed and read the requirement for 202-11 C. The Board determined the existing road meets these requirements.
Gail Abramowicz asked the applicant about the locus map and how it designates the new proposed lot. The conversation indicated while most applicants highlight the new lot it was not required by Hennikers regulations.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to accept this application as complete. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
8:50 p.m. Public Comment opened
No public comment.
8:55 p.m. Public Comment closed.
MOTION made by Kristin Claire to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
Conceptual Consultation
9:05 p.m.
Proposed Lot Line Adjustment consultation for Jean Louis and Yolande Nicknair. Map 1, Lot 154 J.
The Board and applicant discussed positioning of the house and driveway, easements, and sewerage.
Other Business
9:30 p.m. The Board discussed the vacancy on the Planning Board due to Mr. Geoffrey Hirsch’s recent resignation.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to appoint Angela Martin to this position for the remainder of the year. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Angela Martin accepted this position as a Board Member.
Correspondence
9:45 p.m. Jim McElroy reported there would be a public hearing April 14th at CNHRPC regarding transportation.
Planning Consultant Report
9:50 p.m. Rebecca Voegele advised the road documents needed for the impact fee methodology study are in existence and she is working to obtain them for the Planning Consultant.
Rebecca Voegele informed the Board she would be relocating and introduced Kerrie Diers for CNHRPC as her replacement.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to adjourn the meeting. Donald Armstrong seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion Passes.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Approved Minutes
March 2, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio (left at 8:40 p.m.); Jim McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Angela Martin, Alternate Board Member; Rebecca Voegele, Planning Consultant: and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Jennifer Geaumont, Eric Geaumont, Susan Rainier, Kirk Spofford, Jon Routon, Jeff Holt, Brad Clark, Dennis Holt, Roger Belson, Grace Cohen, Art Siciliano, Kerry Ainsworth, John Weber, Rebecca Weber, Elizabeth Sheldon, and Stacey Goldberg.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Public Hearings
1. 7:05 p.m. Case #2005-002.
Kerry Ainsworth has submitted a Minor Subdivision application and Voluntary Merger. The application is to subdivide Map 1, Lot 324 on Old Hillsboro Road in the Rural Residential District into two parcels and then voluntarily merge the smaller newly created parcel with Map 1, Lot 322.
Arthur Scilliano, surveyor spoke on behalf of the applicant Kerry Ainsworth and reviewed the information submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. Sciliano explained that this is actually preliminary discussion as there are several outstanding items still needed for the application to be completed.
This is a Minor Subdivision application however no "new" lot will be created. The applicant has two parcels and the subdivision / voluntary merger will leave her with two parcels.
The Board reviewed frontage, boundaries, and wetlands. There was discussion regarding the access to the back of the lot.
The voluntary merger will be replaced with a lot line adjustment and then follow with a minor subdivision. The end result will be two lots one approximately 5 acres and the second will be 6.32 acres.
2. 7:25 p.m. Case #2005-003.
A Change of Use – Site Plan Review application has been submitted Jonathan B. Routon and Jeffrey W. Holt on behalf of Kenneth B. Routon and Gary E Blindt. The application is for Site Plan review and Change of Use acceptance for a new business to be located in the lower level of the Pop Schulz Market Building 15 Bridge Street, Map 2, Lot 471B in the Village Commerce (CV) District. Change of Use is proposed to turn a portion of the basement currently used for storage, into a bar / restaurant.
Jonathan Routon and Jeffrey Holt thanked the Board for their time and they highlighted the benefits to the community.
Rebecca Voegele raised two Zoning concerns and presented these to the Board.
The Board discussed the lot size and determined there was no need to request a Variance from the ZBA as this is an existing lot of record and predates the Zoning Ordinance.
Parking was then discussed and the applicants shared they have a verbal agreement with Dr. Roger Belson to lease 3 spaces. The Board then pondered whether Zoning Ordinances apply to a pre-existing building and lot. The Board then pondered the Zoning is applied to new construction of buildings and lots and therefore there was not a need to send the applicant to the ZBA, as parking will be addressed in Site Plan Regulations.
Representative of Army of Corps of Engineers Brad Clark spoke to the easement information regarding the right side of the building. He showed the Board the boundaries of the easement by highlighting the area on the proposed plan.
Kevin Daniels voiced concerns in regards to parking.
Cordell Johnston suggested the parking concerns be brought to the Town’s legal counsel for input and whether the Selectman opinion of 1987 is binding.
Angela Martin asked what exactly the late night activities on the proposed plan would include. The applicant advised karoke, open microphone, and comedy would be examples of late night operations.
Scott Osgood said survey details might be needed. Plat details would need to certified on plan and documentation of easements and such.
The Board outlined for the applicant the following items that still need to be accomplished or completed and added to the existing proposed plan:
Abutter information
Lighting
Easements
Survey details
Plat details
Scott Osgood will request that Peter Flynn will ask town counsel for direction regarding the issues of parking and whether the Selectman’s 1987-1988 written opinion is binding on the Planning Board.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to continue this hearing until March 23, 2005. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
3. 8:15 p.m. Case #2005-004.
Rebecca and John Weber have submitted a Change of Use – Site Plan Review application. The application is for Site Plan review and Change of Use acceptance for a new business to be located at 48 Main Street, Map 1, Lot 486 in the Village Commerce (CV) District. At present this is a single family home, zoned for commercial use. Change of Use is proposed to convert home to house Quilted Threads, a retail quilt shop doing business in Henniker since June 2002.
Scott Osgood recused himself from this hearing. Kristin Claire read the application.
Rebecca Weber updated the Board with new information regarding the application.
Responded to Board’s concerns of parking and lighting. Documentation is in the file.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to accept application as complete. Seconded by Jim McElroy and approved unanimously.
Public hearing opened
No public comment.
Public hearing closed
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Terry Stamps and approved unanimously.
The Board members complimented the applicant on their thoroughness of the application.
Scott Osgood rejoined the Board.
4. 8:55 p.m. Case #2005-005.
Larry E. and Nanette A. Colby have submitted a Voluntary Merger. The request for a voluntary merger is for Map 1, Lot 562 (partial piece) to Lot 562B. The property is located on Browns Way in the Rural Residential District.
The Board members reviewed the request and determined that it was complete. The request was signed for the file.
Other Business
9:00 p.m. The Board members discussed the need for a Board member to be named as secretary. They discussed many options. This will be resolved in April 2005, when the election of officers happens for 2005.
9:10 p.m. Correspondence
The Board reviewed correspondence.
Don Armstrong provided each Board member with a copy of an article titled, Anti-Sprawl Laws, Property Rights Collide in Oregon for reading purposes.
9:20 p.m. Planning Consultant Report
Rebecca Voegele updated the Board with upcoming meeting schedules.
The Board discussed the need with Ms. Voegele to obtain information regarding road standards from the Road Agent.
MOTION made by Jim McElroy to adjourn the meeting. Gail Abramowicz seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion Passes.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Approved Minutes
February 23, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Selectman Ex-Officio; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Angela Martin, Alternate Board Member; and Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present:
Bruce Mayberry, Planning Consultant
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
School and Road Impact Fees
7:10 p.m. Schools
Bruce Mayberry, Planning Consultant from CNHRPC presented the draft report for public school impact fees basis of assessment – 2005 for Henniker NH. He compared the initial report of December 2004 to his report presented this evening.
The report provided a detailed methodology for the calculation of proportionate impact fees to offset the school capital cost impacts of new residential development in Henniker. He talked about the detailed research conducted as part of the study:
Average enrollment impact of housing development specific to Henniker
Public school enrollment in Henniker
Property assessment data Henniker
Provide documentation of the basis for school impact fee assessment amounts
These impact fees may be assessed to new residential development under the terms of the town’s impact fee ordinance. The resulting revenues and interest on impact fee accounts may be used to construct school facility capacity, or to recoup capital expenditures made in the past to create sufficient capacity to accommodate enrollment generated by new development.
The primary determinants of the school impact fee schedules developed in the study are:
Enrollment generated per housing unit
Quantity of school floor area required per pupil
Cost of school development per square foot less state building aid
Credit allowances in the formula for past and future property tax payments by the assessed property to provide adequate capacity to serve existing enrollment.
The school impact fee schedule supported by this study is based on the average enrollment characteristics of housing in Henniker.
The general structure of the formula for school impact fee assessment for Henniker is as follows:
Enrollment per housing unit by grade level
Multiplied by square feet of school facility space required per pupil (by grade level)
Multiplied by estimated gross development cost per square foot of facility space (by grade level)
Less state building aid @ 30% for K-8 and 40% for grades 9-12
Less credit allowances for taxes paid for capacity needs of existing development
This would then equal Henniker school impact fee assessment per dwelling unit
Scott Osgood asked who would pay the impact fee, the developer or the homebuyer. Bruce Mayberry said typically the developer would incur the cost, however it is an industry fact that the cost associated with impact fees is directly passed onto the homebuyer.
Gail Abramowicz asked about the return of funds after the six-year period if there was no expense generated by the impact. Earlier discussion determined the developers typically pass the expense onto the buyer. Bruce Mayberry explained that in Henniker’s situation the funds could be used to payback funds already used to build anticipated capacity.
Cordell Johnston asked the effect of the impact fees in the future when the bonds have been satisfied. Bruce Mayberry answered this by explaining when the bonds responsibility have been satisfied (2011 and 2015) it would be in Henniker’s best interest to review the public school expenses and the direct relationship to the need for the impact fees.
Terry Stamps asked about factors that would increase the school capital expenditures that are not enrollment based. She used computer labs as an example of an improvement that due to technical changes may need to be remolded and / or reconfigured. Bruce Mayberry said there could be if it was an improvement that enhanced enrollment, however general repairs and maintenance should not be considered as they are not capital improvement but rather normal ‘wear and tear’. Mr. Mayberry will make a list of capital improvements that are not enrollment based. .
Gail Abramowicz asked about the Planning Board’s charge. Henniker has previously approved the Impact Fee Ordinance. This presentation is the methodology that the town could choose to use. The Board could also choose to discount the fee schedule however; Mr. Mayberry recommends if a discount is considered it should be considered and applied to all building types evenly, such as a percentage discount.
Scott Osgood said the discount should be reviewed yearly. Bruce Mayberry said the other numbers that go into the formula should also be reviewed. Terry Stamps agreed with this.
Bruce Mayberry suggests that yearly review may be too frequent and he would suggest a review be completed every 2 or 3 years. Mr. Mayberry said that once the methodology and formula is in place the review process should be minimal.
Bruce Mayberry suggested that this draft report go to Town Counsel for input. He then suggested the Board schedule a public hearing for public input and then vote to adopt schedule A or B from the report submitted.
8:00 p.m. Roads
Bruce Mayberry provided the Board Members information collected and information still needed. Information needed from Henniker is the following:
Henniker’s RSMS (Road Service Management System)data from Road Agent
Henniker’s 5 year road management plan from Road Agent or CIP
Review of highway and bridge project list to add any known and/or anticipated projects
Mr. Mayberry explained that a methodology comes down to what is the average trip length? Additionally, should the town be broken down into districts or geographic areas to determine if one area should be assessed at one rate and another area should be assessed at another rate. Mr. Mayberry said the most accepted methodology is to assess areas and districts based by their unique travel paths and trip lengths, rather than to assess a town wide impact fee.
Exactions were discussed. Exactions can pertain to roads, drainage, water, and/or sewage.
Cost of improvement to bring them up to the approved road standard. Growth and existing demands not the annual maintenance needs.
The Board discussed the intent of a road impact fee. An impact fee is a one-time standardized fee assessed at the beginning of construction that is a generalized assessment town wide. The other option available to Henniker would be an Exaction that can be done on a specific development site. The nature of improvements would determine which approach to choose.
Bruce Mayberry said the next step should be to set up a meeting with the road committee and then a submission of preliminary draft information collected.
Scott Osgood will call the Planing Consultant Rebecca Voegele and ask her to outline the information.
8:45 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from January 26, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the January 26, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Scott Osgood seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion passes.
Planning Board Procedural Discussion
9:00 p.m. Planning Board Schedule / Itinerary for 2005
Cordell Johnston said the Zoning (including open space development, acreage minimums, and road frontage) should be a goal for 2005. Terry Stamps, Kristin Claire, Don Armstrong, and Scott Osgood agreed.
Scott Osgood said that the Building Permit process should be on the itinerary for 2005.
Terry Stamps said directives from the Master Plan should be reviewed and implemented.
Terry Stamps suggested the goal and procedures for public hearing in preparation for town meeting preparation.
The Board decided this schedule would be put in place directly after town meeting 2005.
9:35 p.m. Select key procedures to review, discuss, and agree on
Terry Stamps said this item that was placed on the agenda in an effort to determine what Planning Board processes are working and which need improvement.
Processes reviewed were:
ü Notices of Decision (72 hours) by Recording Secretary
ü Minutes (6 days) by Recording Secretary
ü Town office update of Planning Board Meetings (next business day) by Planning Consultant
ü Posting of public hearings
ü Abutter notification
10:00 p.m. Conflict resolution as a board
This agenda item was tabled to a future meeting.
Correspondence
10:05 p.m. Geoffrey Hirsch submitted a letter of resignation effective immediately. There was a brief discussion about the need for additional alternate members.
Planning Consultant Report
10:25 p.m. There was no report to review, as the Planning Consultant was unable to be in Henniker today as previously planned.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Gail Abramowicz seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion Passes.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
February 9, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Jim McElroy, Board Member; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Terry Stamps, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; and Rebecca Voegele, Planning Consultant.
Guests Present:
Curtis Richmond, Peg Keeler, Stacey Goldberg, John Weber, Rebecca Weber, Jody Keeler, and David Currier.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Review of minutes of January 26, 2005
This agenda item was tabled until next meeting.
Public Hearings
1. Case #2005-001
Gerald and Kathy Eisen have requested a voluntary merger of Map 1, Lot 328-E and 328-F on 10 and 12 Gould Pond Road in the Rural Residential District.
The Board was in agreement with this voluntary merger. The merger was signed.
2. Case # 2004-21
Cousineaus Forest Products application is for the construction of a 30’ X 100’ structure for dry storage at 42 Old Concord Road, Map 1, and Lot 604 in the Heavy Commercial District.
The applicant reviewed the proposed plan.
Jim McElroy clarified dimensions and attributes of the land. Mr. McElroy asked about the storage of wood chips. The Board discussed the uses of wood chips and the types of customers that Cousineaus Forest Products provides wood chips to.
Lighting of the site and building was discussed. The building was compared to a butler building. This proposed building would be placed on a level area that is the highest area and placed on a slab.
The applicant is requesting waivers for the following because they are not applicable to this proposed plan:
Locus plan
Topographical plan
Names, width, and classes of abutting roads
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to grant waivers for application # 2004-21 requiring a locus plan, a topographical plan, and names, width, and classes of abutting roads. Seconded by Jim miserly and approved unanimously.
The Board discussed the need for the applicant to add the exterior lighting placement and location of electric line to the proposed plan. Additionally, the applicant should modify the letter contained within the application to state it is a 4-sided enclosed structure.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to approve the application with conditions. The conditions would be to add the exterior lighting placement and location of electric line to the plan. Additionally the letter contained within the application is modified to reflect this is a 4-sided enclosed structure. Seconded by Jim miserly and approved unanimously.
Case # 2004-18
Major Subdivision Review submitted by Spencer Bennett. The application to create 7-lot subdivision on Mount Hunger Road, Map 1, Lot 723 in the Rural Residential District.
This hearing has been postponed / withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
4. Conceptual Consultation
Proposed Minor Subdivision by Jody and Peg Keeler by means of building a two-family home on Crescent Street, Map 1, and Lot 238-B in the Residential Village District. Two family home to be two separately owned condominium units.
Scott Osgood asked why this would be a Minor Subdivision. Rebecca Voegele responded by explaining these two homes, (each side of the duplex), owned by two separate parties could not be on one lot.
The Board discussed what the responsibilities would be of the condominium association and what would be the responsibilities of the homeowners.
Gail Abramowicz stated the plan should show set backs, existing buildings, and noting the abutters on the proposed plan for the application.
Jim McElroy asked about proposed parking plans. The applicant said that attached garages would be part of the building structure. Mr. McElroy asked if there would be one or two driveways. The applicant said he wanted there to be two driveways in order to enhance harmonious neighbors.
Gail Abramowicz asked the applicant why chose a condominium versus a duplex. The applicant reviewed the benefits as he sees them.
Scott Osgood reviewed the responsibilities and requirements of requesting a condominium type structure. The applicant acknowledged Mr. Osgood’s information. He further explained that he wanted to know that he could create this environment on the lot in question, instead of proposing a duplex and then deciding on a condominium. He wouldn’t have to come back to the Board with another plan.
The Board asked the applicant if he had any questions. The applicant stated the condominium paperwork needs to be part of the application and the Board agreed.
Abutters’ information and buildings within 250 feet of the boundaries would need to be placed on the proposed plan.
Driveway permits were discussed. Board members encouraged the applicant to speak with the Road Agent and obtain the required information.
Gail Abramowicz said that the project looked good and encouraged the applicant to follow it through.
Conceptual Consultation
Proposed change of use by Rebecca Weber. Ms. Weber needs to obtain appropriate documentation that she will be able to use current residential home site for a Commercial business. Property is located in the Commercial Village District at 48 Main Street, Map 2 Lot 486. No structural changes will be taking place.
Rebecca Weber reviewed the intent and purpose of this proposed change.
The Board discussed location and parking areas.
Jim McElroy asked the applicant about considerations they are making for the disabled population visiting their location. Ms. Weber talked about ramps and bathroom facilities.
The Board and the applicant discussed the differences between building permits and site plan reviews. The Board explained that site plan reviews and change of use pertain to the land. Building permits apply to the construction and modification of buildings.
The Board said the proposed plan should include parking areas, lighting, and intensity of lighting.
The applicant asked the Board about the specifics and how bound they would be to adhere to that plan. Gail Abramowicz said the proposed lighting must be reflected on the plan. Rebecca Voegele provided a lighting manual to assist the applicant and the Board with appropriate detailed lighting plan.
Jim McElroy explained to the applicant that the Board may ask many questions during site plan such as but not limited to hours of operation, parking, drainage, deliveries, customer counts, run off patterns, and parking surface.
The Board thanked the applicant for her time.
Non Public Session
The Board went into non-public session at 8:30 p.m. to discuss legal matters. The Board returned to Public session at 8:50 p.m.
Planning Consultant Report
Rebecca Voegele reviewed upcoming meeting schedule and agenda items.
Scott Osgood and Terry Stamps expressed appreciation to Ms. Voegele for her assistance with Planning Board issues.
MOTION made by Scott Osgood to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jim miserly seconded and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
January 26, 2005
Town Hall
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Cordell Johnston (arrived 7:30p.m.), Selectman Ex-Officio; Gail Abramowicz, Board Member; Don Armstrong, Alternate Board Member; Angela Martin, Alternate Board Member; and Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.
Guests Present:
Seth Cate, Lisa Cate, Spencer Bennett, Joseph Trier, Marty Davis, Ted Parkins, and Peter Furmonavicius.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Martin were designated as voting members in the absence of two voting members.
Conceptual Consultation
Spencer Bennett spoke to the Board regarding a parcel of property that borders Bennett Road and Elm Street (Map 1 Lot 540 and Lot 540-X2D). Mr. Bennett reviewed the proposed project with the Board. The Board reviewed setbacks, frontage, minimum acreage, and driveway placement. Mr. Bennett discussed deed restrictions he would be willing to put in place. These restrictions would ensure the barn lot and house lot could not be separated in the future.
Kristin Claire spoke in favor of the proposed project as presented.
Scott Osgood spoke in favor of the proposed project as presented.
Angela Martin also spoke in support of the deed restrictions as they apply to the proposed project.
Discussion
7:45 p.m. Town Meeting Articles
The Board discussed the proposed warrant articles that had been withdrawn at the last Planning Board Meeting on January 12, 2005. The Board Members discussed that although the public did not like the approach of the Board, it was concluded that the public did like the intent. Marty Davis, Joseph Trier, and Ted Pakins all confirmed that was their opinion also.
8:05 p.m. Planning Board Elections
Chairman Osgood reviewed the open positions and their terms for this Board. Gail Abramowicz, Terry Stamps, and Kristin Claire have or will file with the Town on or before Friday January 28, 2005.
8:10 p.m. 2005 Budget Update
Chairman Osgood reported that the proposed Planning Board Budget had been reduced. This was due to the decrease in Consultant hours. Cordell Johnston said there might be more changes to come as the Town works through budget concerns.
8:20 p.m. Meeting Minutes
Meeting minutes from December 22, 2004 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to approve the December 22, 2004 meeting minutes as edited. Scott Osgood seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion passes.
Meeting Minutes from January 12, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Gail Abramowicz to approve the January 12, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Kristin Claire seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion passes.
Correspondences
9:15 p.m. Chairman Osgood reviewed the building permit packet that is issued to those who are building in Henniker. The Board reviewed the various forms in the packet.
Planning Consultant Report
9:25 p.m. Chairman Osgood reviewed report and said that Rebecca Voegele would be at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting (February 9, 2005).
MOTION made by Cordell Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Gail Abramowicz seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Motion Passes.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting of January 12, 2005
Henniker Community Center
Members present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Geoffrey Hirsch; Don Armstrong, Alternate; Angela Martin, Alternate; Cordell Johnston, Selectman Representative
Guests present:
Mark and Alexis Deruisseau; Rick Patenaude; David Eilenberger; Tom Chase; Rudy Fuchs; Tom Bell; Daniel Welton; Leo Aucoin; Leon Parker; J. Paul Aucoin; Phil & Donna Richardson; Albert Aucoin; Roger Belson; Katherine Patenaude; Judith and Howard Miller; Richard A. Aucoin II; Shawn Richard; Peter Wright; Therese Aucoin; Richard Aucoin; Sam Kjellman; Steven Tedstone; Randy Wilson; Ray Aucoin; Jennifer McCourt; Jack Krantz; Marty Davis; Ted Parkins; Daniel Aucoin; John J. Healy; Lawrence S. White; Lucy Davison; Dennis McComish
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Martin were designated as voting members in the absence of two regular voting members. Mr. Johnston was designated acting recording secretary for the purpose of recording the minutes.
Chairman Osgood opened a public hearing on the board’s proposed amendments to the Henniker Zoning Ordinance, as previously published and on file at the town office.
1. Proposal to remove sections 133-15, -19, -23D, -25F, -25E, -27C, -27D, -29F. There were no comments from the public.
2. Proposal to change the definitions of “abutter,” “agriculture,” “wetlands,” and “kennel” and to add a definition of “nonconforming lot.” There were no comments from the public.
3. Proposal to amend section 133-134 to allow Bed-and-Breakfast Homes by special exception in all zoning districts except the Heavy Commercial District. There were no comments from the public.
4. Proposal to amend Article XII, Home Business, to be consistent with the town’s site plan regulations by incorporating Article II of the site plan regulations into the zoning ordinance, replacing the definition of “home business” with “home business professional,” and replacing the definition of “home business/retail” with “home business retail/service.”
Roger Belson expressed concerns about how the amendment was being presented. He said (1) home business/retail does not currently require site plan review, (2) the definition of home business professional was being narrowed substantially because the number of permitted employees would be changed from two to one, and (3) the definition of home business retail would be expanded to included services. He stated that this was a major substantive amendment, not just a housekeeping matter, and it should have been presented more clearly.
Cordell Johnston clarified that home business/retail does currently require site plan review, and that it is the site plan regulations, not the zoning ordinance, that determines what is subject to site plan review.
Jennifer McCourt spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Leo Aucoin spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Chairman Osgood suggested that the amendment should be withdrawn.
Ms. McCourt said that if the board is going to make substantial changes, it should do it by amending the zoning ordinance first, not by amending the site plan regulations and then amending the ordinance to conform to the regulations.
MOTION: Cordell Johnston moved to withdraw the proposed amendment. Kristin Claire seconded, and the motion was approved, 6-0.
5. Proposal to amend section 133-47 regarding permitted sign sizes to add dimensional requirements for signs in the Educational District.
Jennifer McCourt asked why the proposed sign sizes were different from those in the other zoning districts. Chairman Osgood explained that it was a compromise between the sizes in the commercial and residential districts. There was no further public comment.
6. Proposal to amend Articles XV and XVI, making technical changes, amending special exception criteria, adding time limits, and adding provisions for equitable waivers of dimensional requirements.
Leon Parker, chairman of the zoning board of adjustment, explained that these were mostly technical changes, and that the provisions for equitable waivers were being proposed because state law requires such provisions. There was no further public comment.
7. Proposal to amend sections 133-40C and –40D to change the minimum lot size on substandard and seasonally maintained roads to 20 acres (from 10 acres).
Leo Aucoin spoke in opposition.
Jennifer McCourt spoke in opposition. She said the amendment would reduce the value of affected properties.
Alexis Deruisseau spoke in opposition.
Tom Chase spoke in opposition.
Leon Parker spoke in opposition. He said that about 75% of the non-federal land in town would be affected.
Rick Patenaude spoke in opposition.
Lawrence White suggested withdrawing the proposal and continuing to work on the issue over the coming year.
Albert Aucoin spoke in opposition.
Reger Belson spoke in opposition. He said the amendment might create more pressure to pave the roads involved.
Daniel Aucoin spoke in opposition.
MOTION: Cordell Johnston moved to withdraw the proposed amendment. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0.
Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing. The board agreed that the five remaining amendments would be placed on the ballot for vote on town election day. Cordell Johnston offered to draft the language of the amendments and the questions to appear on the ballot.
The board discussed its budget for 2005.
Chairman Osgood mentioned the Office of Energy & Planning’s spring conference and encouraged members to attend.
The board decided to defer review of the December 22 minutes to the January 26 meeting.
Leo Aucoin and Katherine Patenaude offered further comments on zoning and development issues.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cordell Johnston
Acting Recording Secretary