.jpg)
|
Meeting Minutes |
|
| Planning Board | |
| 2007 |
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
December 17, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Kellie Dyjak; Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio; Gary Guzouskas
Others Present: Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Edward Miner; Mike Pacheco; Mr. and Mrs. Tullis; Roland Soucy, Peter Flynn, Town Administrator
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2008 Town Meeting Proposed Zoning Amendments
1) Educational District (Article II and VIII), Aricle II, ad definitions for “fraternity/sorority”, “fraternity/sorority house”, “classroom”, “dining hall”, “library”, “health care facility”, “maintenance and storage building”, “auditorium/assembly hall”, “theater”, “sport arena and building”, and “house of worship”, change “student housing” to “dormitory”, Article VIII, require a Special Exception for “Fraternities and Sororities”; change “churches” to “houses of worship”; and specify the parking requirements for “agricultural uses”, “sports arenas and buildings”, and “accessory uses”.
Laura Scott, Planning Consultant, described the proposed amendment. This refers to definitions that were in the zoning ordinance as permitted uses but had not been defined. “Houses of Worship” was proposed instead of “churches” to make it more inclusionary. “Student housing” was changed to “dormitory.” This makes fraternities and sororities permitted by special exception instead of by right and adds a level of protection for surrounding neighbors. Parking requirements were specified. Ms. Scott stated that one comment from legal counsel had to do with dormitories being housing without cooking facilities. There was discussion about that and removing the word “dwelling.”
Ms. Scott stated that she found a mistake in that it specifically named “New England College.” She stated that this should be edited to a generic form of “college or university.”
Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio, stated that this proposed ordinance is in place to clean up definitions.
Terry Stamps asked questions about Section 133-33E regarding parking and accessory uses and the needed parking requirements. If not needed, an applicant can go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Gary Guzouskas requested that language be added to the fraternity/sorority section to specify that it is an organization sanctioned, credentialed or approved by the college.
He stated that there are fraternities and sororities that are not recognized by a national charter, and if a group wanted to start a local chapter, he thinks local college approval is more critical. Suggested wording was for the fraternity/sorority “to have a national charter and/or be approved by the college.”
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:11 pm and asked for questions from the public.
Mrs. Tullis, residents of Pearl Street, stated that they are concerned neighbors who want to have an understanding of the zone. They were interested and attended meetings last fall when the college applied to put dormitories in. She asked if any of these proposed changes would allow that to happen. Chairman McElroy stated that activity would still require an area variance from the ZBA in that specific area. There was discussion about changes to single-family homes in areas where there are proposed changes to district boundaries.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Board is not considering any changes to boundary lines tonight. The public hearing is only to decide whether or not to advance the section about changes to the definitions to the ballot for Town vote in March.
The public hearing was closed at 7:20 pm.
Ms. Scott reviewed the actions which the Board may take: 1) approve the proposed ordinance as written; 2) withdraw it; 3) make changes and hold another hearing in January 2008.
Terry Stamps moved to approve the definitions as presented with the edits to the section regarding fraternities and sororities, and have another hearing on January 9, 2008. Ron Taylor seconded the motion.
Discussion: Chairman McElroy stated that the edit of …“dwelling and/or”…to “structures owned and operated by an educational entity”… do not change the meaning and can be handled simply as an edit. Also, the Board decided that changing “New England College” to “State-chartered college or university” is not substantive and is also just an edit.
Terry Stamps amended the motion to include the definitions as edited, and the allowed uses and parking regulations as presented. Ron Taylor agreed with the amended motion.
Vote: In Favor: 7 Against: 0
2) Floodplain Development Ordinance (Article XXI). Revise the definitions for “area of special flood hazard”, “development”, “manufactured home”, “regulatory floodway”, and “special flood hazard area”; add definitions for “new construction” and “violation”; and delete definitions for “area of shallow flooding”, “breakwawy wall”, “coastal high-hazard area”, “flood boundary and floodway map”, “flood hazard boundary map”, and “v-zone”. Clarify and add language to section 133-106 A, B, C, D, E, F (Alteration and relocation of watercourses); section 133-107 (Determination of one-hundred-year flood elevation); and 133-108 C & D (Variances and appeals).
Ms. Scott stated that the version showing the tracked changes was in the Board members’ packet for review. She stated that the changes to the ordinance have to do with complying with State requirements. The Board discussed an email from Jennifer Gilbert of the State agency whom drafted the language of this ordinance. Ms. Scott stated that residents could lose flood insurance status and would not be eligible to purchase flood insurance; she encouraged the Board to accept the suggested changes made by the State.
Ms. Stamps asked about the correct flood insurance rate map. Ms. Scott stated that the change has to be made on the flood map as some of the zones have changed, and the current reference does not show those changes.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:31 pm. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Kristin Claire moved to accept the suggested changes and put this on the ballot for Town meeting 2008. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Scott Osgood stated that he appreciated the work done to include the State regulations.
Vote: In Favor: 7 Against: 0
Proposed zoning amendments:
1) Educational District (Article VIII)
Ms. Scott noted that this is not a public hearing and is only open for discussion.
There have been no other updates to the proposed changes to the boundary lines or to the section on Planned Developments.
Ron Taylor stated that the Planned Development portion should be postponed until next year when there can be more time invested in it.
Ms. Stamps stated that the proposal raises questions, especially within the educational district.
Ms. Claire stated that the buffers are to protect open space. The planned development idea is a land-use tool to protect open space and promote cluster planning in the downtown area which would allow for a designed and well-planned walking community. She stated that the planned development concept would be restricted from residential districts, although it is commonly used for residential planning in other areas. This would encourage good planning for lots greater than 5 acres and would eliminate building in phases.
The Board discussed the significant implications of such a change and the need to educate the public to the benefits of such an ordinance. The OEP website lists towns using this type of land use tool.
Kristin Claire moved to send the Planned Development item back to the subcommittee and review it again with the Planning Board in 2008. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it passed, 7-0.
Modification to zoning boundaries
Ms. Claire showed the proposed changes to the Education District boundaries on the map. She stated that this was primarily done to eliminate spot zoning and to create boundaries which clearly follow roads instead of lot ownership. While there is the possibility that allowed property uses may change, current uses would be grandfathered. The benefit to the Planning Board is to have clearly defined areas of town in an educational district. If lots are combined, they will be in one zone. Abutting properties were discussed. She stated that the subcommittee was not trying to expand the zone. It is difficult to wisely plan uses when there is so much spot zoning within an area.
There was discussion about how this change may affect what people may do with their property. The Board discussed the importance of informing the public about planning issues which may directly affect the residents. Ms. Claire stated that a registered letter was mailed to the property owners when this item first appeared on the agenda. She stated that the subcommittee has tried very hard to notify everyone about what is being discussed, but it is the public’s responsibility to be involved in the process. Mr. and Mrs. Tullis stated that they have come to the public meetings as a result of receiving that letter.
There was discussion about the effectiveness of the Educational District in its entirety.
Gary Guzouskas moved that the Board not advance the proposed modifications of the educational district boundaries to the Town ballot. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Vote: In Favor: 5 (Ms. Dyjak; Mr. Osgood; Ms. Stamps; Mr. McElroy; Mr. Guzouskas)
Against: 2 (Ms. Claire; Mr. Taylor)
At 8:10 pm, Mr. Taylor suggested that the Board skip to item #5 on the agenda to avoid having guests wait to speak.
5) Building Code/Permit (Article XIII)
Ms. Scott stated that the State adopted building code for 1 and 2 family homes, and it is now in the State Law. She stated that the $5,000 limit is no longer valid. Towns cannot have less stringent codes than the State. Legal Counsel suggested that this could be a ballot item or could go as a warrant item; however, a decision must be made since the Board of Selectmen does not meet until tomorrow night. The Board discussed the need to publicize this issue very clearly, explaining that that ordinance must be changed to comply with the State codes.
Chairman McElroy stated that he feels it is the Planning Board’s job to advance this amendment to Town meeting.
Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, asked Town Counsel to interpret the State ordinance. The residential building inspection is in place on a voluntary basis. He stated that most people do call for inspections. The official code is what the State passed, but it is still voluntary. He stated that this ordinance definitely has to pass through Town meeting. He stated that there are two ways this can be accomplished: 1) silent ballot vote or 2) public hearings and vote at Town meeting. He said that it had to be discussed and decided tonight in order to cover proper time notifications for either option. The Board decided to invite Town Counsel to be present at the public hearing. It is the consensus of the Board to forward the revisions as written to sections 133-51 and 133-52 and delete sections 133-53 and 133-55.
Roland Soucy, Building Inspector, stated that it is better to adopt the description rather than listing specific items within the motion as it is already specifically covered in the State Building Code.
After extended discussion, the Board understands that if the Town agrees to enforce the State building code, building permits are required for all construction. If the Town does not agree to enforce the building code, then the State Fire Marshall handles all building code enforcement except for 1 and 2 family dwellings.
Kellie Dyjak moved to carry this amendment to public hearing on January 9, 2008, including such language that Town Counsel deems necessary to enforce the State Building code per RSA 155-A. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and the motion passed, 7-0.
2) Excavation (Article IV, VII, VIII)
Intensive use should be allowed by special exception not by right.
Ms. Stamps asked how these proposals relate to the priority map generated by the Conservation Commission. She stated that she would like to see in which zones excavation is allowed by special exception, and she is particularly concerned with the region of Route 114 north. Ms. Stamps also suggested close review of the Town’s master plan. The Rural Residential district is to be kept rural, and this use is not conducive to that. Chairman McElroy stated that it appears that this removes a use from 1000 feet of land from property owners. Ms. Scott stated that requirement is only in the Rural Residential district, traveling 1000 feet on secondary roads.
Kristin Claire moved to advance this amendment, with the minor edits, to public hearing. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion, and it passed, 7-0.
The Board discussed protocol for maintaining professional and civil decorum during the public hearing process. Legitimate concerns will be heard, however, personal attacks on Board members will not be tolerated. The process will be explained at the beginning of the next public hearing.
3) Institutional
These definitions exist elsewhere in zoning. Scott Osgood moved to delete “Institutional” from zoning and advance the proposed document as written. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and the motion passed, 7-0.
4) Manufactured Housing
Ms. Scott explained that most of the changes are strikeouts as it has to do with campground uses and other issues not dealt with by the Planning Board.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Board of Selectmen should be made aware that this is being removed from zoning.
The Board discussed differences between “parks” and “individual lots” as it relates to manufactured housing which are allowed in most areas of town. There is an edit on
page 4 (H) to show 40 feet from any other housing unit.
Mr. Taylor explained changing frontage to 70 feet giving room for a double-wide home.
The 2002 Town Master Plan and RSA’s governing manufactured housing parks were discussed. Mr. Taylor also explained that no new parks have been built in the last 30 years due to economics and strict water requirements.
Manufactured Housing Subdivisions are not an allowed use.
Mr. Taylor moved to accept the Manufactured Housing proposed zoning changes for the public hearing on January 9, 2008 with minor changes as proposed. Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Ridgetop Lane Bond Release
Chairman McElroy stated that there were conditions to be met for the Ridgetop Lane approval and a bond was issued. There was extensive work done on Davison Road and all but $40,000 of the bond was released. Ms. Stamps conducted a review of minutes, NOD’s, and bond documents and determined that striping of Davison Road was one of the conditions to be met. The road was accepted by provisional acceptance with outstanding items. The Board discussed the various actions which could be taken.
Terry Stamps moved for the Planning Board to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen recommending that the financial guaranty that was posted not be released until the outstanding conditions have been completed. The Board encourages the Board of Selectman to act quickly as the money could be lost if the bond is held at a bank and no action is taken. Ron Taylor seconded the motion.
Mr. Osgood stated that the bond could be called and the Town could finish the work to meet the conditions. Chairman McElroy stated that the Board of Selectmen is to handle the money.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously.
Alternate Planning Board Member
Edward Miner has applied to be an Alternate Member to the Planning Board. He brings 30+ years of civil engineering background in site development. Ron Taylor moved to accept Mr. Miner as an Alternate Member to the Planning Board effectively starting at the next meeting. Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miner will be sworn in at the Town offices, and his appointment is for three years.
Board Member Binder Update
Ms. Scott updated the Member Binder Information with the Capital Improvement Plan and the 2008 Meeting Dates.
Adjournment
Mr. Guzouskas moved to adjourn at 10:10 pm; Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
December 12, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Kristin Claire; Terry Stamps; Ron Taylor, Selectman ex-officio; Gary Guzouskas; Scott Osgood arrived at 7:06 pm.
Others Present: Laura Scott, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Edward Miner; Ron Talbot; Lance Moulton; Ian Johnson; Joseph Morette; Jennifer McCourt; KB Patenaude; Gigi Laberge; Rik Humboldt; Scott Dias; Elizabeth Shulson; Timothy Lamphere; Rebecca Weber; Katherine Weber; John Weber; Eric Hauptman; Leo Aucoin; Denis McComish; Eaton Tarbell; Dale Jennings; Dan Paul; Michele Rogers; Paul Mulcahey; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC
It is noted that there are other attendees whose signatures are not legible on the sign-in sheet.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. He noted for the record that Kellie Dyjak, member, will not be in attendance tonight.
The minutes of the November 28, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as edited. Kristin Claire seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Chairman McElroy reviewed the procedure that will be used for hearing the zoning amendments.
1) Article XXII Wetlands Conservation. 133-115 Special Provisions. To create a 50 foot wetlands buffer in which no structures will be located and no land disturbance will be allowed.
Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant, explained that the items that are written in bold and underlined are proposed additions, and those items that are written in bold with strikeouts are proposed eliminated language. Ms. Scott stated that legal counsel has reviewed the amendment two times. Also, Ms. Scott explained that any structure that is currently closer than 50 feet would be grandfathered; this amendment relates only to new structures.
Terry Stamps, on behalf of the Conservation Commission, explained the intent of the 50-foot buffer around wetlands. Ms. Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission compared Henniker’s ordinances with other towns in the State and found that many towns require setbacks of 25-125 feet.
Kristin Claire stated that she understood the intent is to keep the area free from grading but was not clear how this would apply to forestry, mowing, removing rocks, trees and stumps, etc.
Gary Guzouskas stated that the term “land disturbance” could be interpreted differently. He stated that he has seen other towns be inundated by zoning variance requests as the intent can be unclear.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:49 pm.
Jennifer McCourt stated that the term “no disturbance” means just that. She stated that legislation has tripled to clarify the Shoreline Protection Act, and this will be very similar. Ms. McCourt stated that there is a difference between measuring from the corner of a building or from the footer; depending on the requirements, this could actually turn out to be a 75-100 foot setback.
Scott Dias stated that Henniker does not need to be compared to other towns. He asked if there were any representatives from the Conservation Commission in attendance. Ms. Stamps stated that she is the representative of the Conservation Commission to the Planning Board.
Denis McComish stated that saying this amendment only applies to new structures and does not affect existing structures is not that simple. He stated that people will still build and put in driveways. He asked how much land will be used to accommodate this buffer. He also stated that this change could actually cause more land to be developed.
Ms. Claire stated that the 50 feet around the wetlands is desired to be protected, though it is possible that more land could be used to put in driveways, etc.
Joe Norton stated that there are times where land disturbance is desirable, such as planting vegetation for wildlife and erosion control measures.
Rik Humboldt asked if there was any other way to achieve the desired effect without having to create the buffer. Ms. Stamps stated that there may be another way, but the Conservation Commission is not aware of anything else to protect the wetlands.
Scott Dias asked what would happen if someone were granted a wetlands crossing permit. Laura Scott stated that this ordinance is more restrictive than the State Regulations and would require an application for a variance. Mr. Dias stated that any expansion to a Town or State road would be halted as a result of this action. Chairman McElroy stated that a variance would be required if the road abuts wetlands. Mr. Dias asked how many lots would be deemed unbuildable if this is passed.
Paul Mulcahey asked what prompted this action. He asked if there have been significant erosion issues in Henniker that precipitated this. Ms. Stamps stated that there has not been just one significant problem; they are trying to help guide growth in Henniker. She stated that this is really a more proactive action than a reactive one.
Denis McComish stated that washouts are only a problem with the State roads and highways. He stated that this doesn’t seem to help the real issues that affect Henniker.
Joseph Morette stated that he has been more involved with the Town’s leadership boards this year, and it seems that one has to be a business graduate to understand all of the regulations imposed on residents. He stated that they are not a bunch of cows willing to follow the board over a cliff. He asked if additional regulation was really necessary.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Conservation Commission asked the Planning Board to consider putting forward this proposed ordinance that extends the protection that is provided in zoning.
Scott Dias asked if this passes 1) who will enforce it; 2) if one applies for a variance, is there any real chance of it being granted. Ms. Scott stated that the building inspector would be responsible for enforcing the ordinance as it related to structures. She explained that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is the authority in evaluating the five criteria used for a variance.
The question was asked if a wetlands scientist will be required to delineate all of the wetlands this will affect.
Leo Aucoin asked why Henniker needs more government than what the State requires. He stated that we need less regulation and more common sense.
(It is noted that Scott Osgood arrived at 7:06 pm.)
Chairman McElroy stated that more people are continuing to move to Henniker, and the Planning Board is trying to help establish a plan for growth.
Jenn McCourt stated that she appreciated the work done by the Conservation Commission, but she felt that this proposed ordinance does affect existing lots of record.
Dan Paul asked for the practical input of the ordinance and wanted to know how many existing lots would be affected. He asked how many lots would not be able to be built upon. He stated this is important information for voters to know before casting their votes.
Kristin Claire stated that according to the 1998 Merrimack County Soil Survey, 7.6% of Henniker land is considered in the range of “poorly drained to marsh.”
Tim McComish stated that if the Town is making this requirement, they should be willing to compensate landowners for the land that is being taken from them.
Scott Dias stated that he felt that other members of the Conservation Commission should have been at the public hearing to hear the resident’s concerns as Ms. Stamps should not have had to field all of the questions and criticism by herself. He asked how much it will cost to make longer driveways on many lots. He also stated that this ordinance constitutes taking land from residents. He stated that proper silt fences and erosion control measures should be adequate protection for the wetlands. He stated that he would like to see this removed from the ballot.
Ms. Stamps stated that no one else on the Conservation Commission would be able to answer how many lots may be deemed undevelopable. She referred to the 2002 Master Plan which stated that issues of conservation, open space and development within wetlands were identified as primary concerns.
Mr. Humboldt stated that no one thinks it’s a good idea to purposely destroy the wetlands. He stated that most Henniker residents responsibly care for their land.
Ms. McCourt stated that the USGS maps are not completely accurate as they do not show the smaller areas of wetlands. Mr. Dias stated that the affected area is probably closer to 20%. Ms. McCourt stated that a building setback from wetlands can be helpful at times, but it definitely depends on what type of structure is being proposed. She stated that the Shoreline Protection Act is extremely difficult to read. She also stated that there is new technology developed which offers better protection for wetlands than natural forest or other natural features. She stated that she understands the intent of the Conservation Commission, but this ordinance is critical to building in Henniker. Ms. McCourt stated that there is a lot of Federal land as well as a lot of difficult land to build on in Henniker. This will make even more lots unbuildable.
Ms. McCourt stated that the ordinance needs to be more practical and created so that people don’t feel like the Town is taking their land. There are techniques that are permanent and will do more to protect the wetlands. Corkscrew driveways will eventually disturb much more land area.
Mr. Dias stated that the building inspector does not have the expertise to enforce this requirement when applying for building permits. This will increase time and expense to get a simple permit.
Mr. Humboldt stated that there should be specific scientific basis for creating a law that tries to preserve the wetlands. Chairman McElroy stated that there is a lot of information about the necessity of this, and is the reason for many State laws.
Tim McComish stated that he is aware of someone spending more than $3 million buying land and putting it into conservation easements. The land is bought privately and taken care of. Maybe allowing tax credits for this is an idea. Chairman McElroy stated that there are people beginning to do that, and he appreciates the comments. He stated that there must be balance in determining how much of a town should be conserved. For example, Manhattan has 45% green space, because it was given to the city for conservation.
Leo Aucoin stated that difference is that the land was donated to the city of Manhattan. This ordinance effectively takes 50 feet of land around wet spots.
Denis McComish stated that he feels a little bit of what the Indians must have felt when the white people took their land.
Katherine Patenaude stated that she came tonight because she felt troubled about the Town stealing their land. She stated that whoever wrote this must not live in Henniker. She stated that she is disappointed that no one from the Conservation Commission was there to hear them. She stated that this is all about money. She stated that if anyone votes for this, they are not thinking of others.
Paul Mulcahey stated that he does not want to beat up the members of the Conservation Commission. He stated that he believes they had a good intention but were misguided.
Denis McComish stated that there are many people who vote at Town Meeting who do not always understand what they’re actually voting for. This does not say that land is being taken from landowners. He stated that there have been times that he has felt duped by the wording on a ballot.
Chairman McElroy closed the public hearing at 7:44 pm. He thanked everyone for their input and stated that it is helpful to the process.
Ms. Scott explained three actions that can be taken by the Board: 1) approve the proposed ordinance as is; 2) make changes and hold a third hearing; 3) kill the amendment tonight.
Terry Stamps moved to take the ordinance back to the Conservation Commission with questions and comments from the public and request a proposed revision. Kristin Claire seconded the motion.
Scott Osgood stated that this amendment needs more time and discussion. Mr. Guzouskas agreed that it should not move forward this year.
Ms. Claire stated that it was proposed by the Conservation Commission and believes it should be their decision to revise or kill it. She stated that if the Board is not comfortable with the revisions, they still have the opportunity to vote it down.
Mr. Guzouskas asked how they would hear all of the input since no one else was in attendance. Ms. Stamps stated that she would review her notes and the minutes with them. Mr. Guzouskas stated that while the facts may be accurate, there is a difference between reading notes and hearing direct public reaction.
Ron Taylor moved to amend the motion and send it back to the Conservation Commission. Scott Osgood stated that he would like to have the Conservation Commission work on it and bring it back to review in April 2008. Ron Taylor withdrew the amended motion.
Ms. Stamps stated that it does not send a very good message to the Conservation Commission to kill the proposed ordinance without their input.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote to returning the proposed ordinance to the Conservation Commission for revision and return to the Planning Board.
In Favor: 3 (Ms. Stamps, Chairman McElroy, Ms. Claire)
Against: 3 (Scott Osgood, Ron Taylor, Gary Guzouskas)
Ron Taylor moved to remove the proposed ordinance from the 2008 Warrant and send it back to the Conservation Commission for further study with results to the Planning Board in April or May 2008. Scott Osgood seconded.
In Favor: 4 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Guzouskas)
Against: 2 (Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire)
2) Article II Definitions. To clarify that all types of fences are not to be considered structures and that the aprons and related construction around pools are to be considered structures.
Laura Scott explained that the original change was to remove “fences” as a structure. A suggestion was proposed since swimming pools are considered structures that related construction around pools be considered structures.
Ron Taylor stated that aprons & related construction was put in; agricultural and safety fences fall under different regulations.
Chairman McElroy stated that complete text will be posted on the wall at Town Hall.
Terry Stamps stated that related construction includes pool houses, patios, and anything else around and related to swimming pools. Ms. Scott stated that people have been building pools that meet the setback requirements, but the surrounding construction falls into the setback. The building inspector made the request to add pool aprons to the definition.
At 8:00 pm, Chairman McElroy opened the hearing to public comment.
Jennifer McCourt asked if related construction would include berms and patios.
The intent of removing “fences” was to allow people to put a fence up on their property line.
Ian Johnson asked if a fence greater than three feet high was a structure. He stated that there is an ongoing issue concerning an eight-foot high chainlink, spiked fence placed directly next to the driveway. He specifically asked that this be included in the minutes for the record. He also gave a copy of a letter dated August 9, 2007, from Roland Soucy to the Board and asked that this be included in the minutes. The letter states that a “fence greater than three feet in height is not considered a structure.” He stated that Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, approved it. He stated that it is an unsightly monstrosity which affects light into the building and is a safety hazard. He stated that the building inspector got this case wrong. Mr. Johnson stated that there are multi-family buildings in town without additional setbacks.
Chairman McElroy stated that the setbacks were put in place by the Fire Department to allow a place for safety equipment as well as to increase the quality of life and keep people from building right on top of their neighbor.
Mr. Johnson stated that this fence poses a life safety issue as a ladder cannot be erected to the bedroom windows three feet from the property line.
There was discussion about fences needing to be approved by the Fire Department on the building permit application. Mr. Johnson stated that he lacks confidence in the agency based on the errors made in his case. Mr. Johnson stated that it is his opinion that it is a strange coincidence that the rules are now being changed when he is dealing with a 2000 square foot fence being erected one foot away from the driveway. He stated that you could still put a ladder over a three-foot high fence and save a life. He stated that this cannot be done in this circumstance. He suggested that an exception be created that a 10’ setback be required when a fence is erected next to a driveway.
Mr. Johnson stated that his documents prove that he was lied to, and the building inspector and Town Administrator are essential components to the breakdown of the process in this case.
Chairman McElroy stated that he understands Mr. Johnson’s concerns and sees that changing the definition can create a problem. Chairman McElroy stated that the rules are to be clearly understood by the people. He stated that people may read the zoning ordinance and conclude that they do not need a permit.
The public hearing was closed at 8:25 pm.
For discussion purposes, Terry Stamps moved that the Board put forward Article II Definitions as presented for the 2008 vote. Ron Taylor seconded.
Kristin Claire asked what can be added to help the life safety issue. Mr. Taylor stated that the Fire Department is responsible for final approval. Mr. Taylor suggested the concerns about the process should be referred to the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Claire stated that there is still town-wide confusion as to when a building permit is needed.
Mr. Osgood stated that this is a more complex problem, and a fence really is a structure. He stated that he thought the Board of Selectmen acted on building permits for fences.
Mr. Osgood recommended that this not be approved.
Mr. Johnson stated that the building permit for the objectionable fence was signed by Nicole Gage of the Town office.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that he is also concerned about this. He stated that most people will consider a fence to be a minor installation. He stated that change first appeared to be a minor correction to a definition, but after this discussion, he realizes there is more to it.
Ms. Scott stated that there will be more discussion about building permits at the next Planning Board meeting to be held on December 17, 2007 and the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on December 18, 2007.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote.
In Favor: 1 (Ron Taylor)
Against: 5 (Mr. Osgood, Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas, Chairman McElroy)
Scott Osgood moved to amend the current definition as written but exclude “such as fences” and include “less than three feet high, agricultural and safety fences;” and to hold the next hearing in January. Mr. Guzouskas seconded the motion.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that this issue first seemed to be pretty simple; however, it appears to have a larger impact. He stated that it will take more time to draft the warrant properly.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote.
In Favor: 1 (Ms. Stamps)
Against: 5 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Ms. Claire, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Guzouskas)
Gary Guzouskas moved to remove this article form the 2008 warrant. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. In Favor: 5 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas, Ms. Stamps) Against: 1 (Mr. Taylor)
Mr. Osgood stated that he would like to have the Planning Board review this in 2008. He stated that it also sounds like a resident was wronged in this case. Ms. Scott stated that since it is past the 30-day appeal period, it will have to be discussed with the Board of Selectmen.
3) Article XIV and XV Zoning Board of Adjustment. To list the areas where the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) has jurisdiction; to clarify how to appeal a decision made by an administrative official; to include the criteria used by the ZBA when reviewing an application for a Variance; to explain the conditions under which an equitable waiver of dimensional requirement can be sought; to add language about ZBA procedures; and to provide information on motions for rehearing and appeals from decisions on motions for rehearing.
Ms. Scott stated that the members of the ZBA have reviewed this and support the proposed changes. Doreen Connor, Vice-Chair of the ZBA, was present.
Ms. Connor stated that she is responding to the concerns that the ZBA is bound by the provisions of this ordinance. She stated that they have summarized the changes rather than putting them in word for word. Mr. Connor stated that the ZBA’s Rules of Procedure relates to how cases are heard. This ordinance relates to the procedures which the ZBA follows to comply with case law, etc.
Mr. Osgood stated that even Town Counsel is concerned about the abbreviated version. The concern is in trying to convert the RSA to more reader-friendly version, something may be left out. The average person will look at our ordinance and could be misled since the entire wording is not there.
Ron Taylor stated that the ZBA acts in a judicial role, and there is no real preliminary hearing for the public like there is with the Planning Board. The Planning Board can meet with someone and explain things to them. This provides some help and can be made available with the RSA’s.
There was more discussion about how the ZBA must react to changes in case law made by the Supreme Court.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 8:55 pm.
Ms. Scott stated that she can make complete references to the RSA’s. It is noted that legal counsel suggested only referencing RSA’s.
Jenn McCourt stated that she has seen other towns attach the complete RSA’s to the ZBA applications for Special Exceptions and Area Variances for easier reference.
The public hearing was closed at 9:04 pm.
Ron Taylor moved to accept the ordinance as modified, with no substantive changes, to be put on the 2008 warrant. Kristin Claire seconded the motion.
Mr. Osgood stated that he felt there were a lot of changes, and he thinks it could take time to understand them. He stated that he does not feel prepared to approve this tonight.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote.
In Favor: 5 (Mr. Taylor, Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Chairman McElroy, Mr. Guzouskas)
Against: 1 (Mr. Osgood)
A 5-minute recess was declared. The meeting resumed at 9:14 pm.
Site Plan Application. Case #2007-019. Map 2 Lot 486 located at 116 Main Street in the Village Commerce (CV) Zoning District. The applicants, John and Rebecca Weber, are proposing a 3-story 3,390 sqft addition to expand the retail space for the existing Quilted Threads business. In addition, the application proposes to modify the landscaping, signage, lighting, and to add a second driveway for deliveries.
Ms. Scott distributed a memo from Henniker Fire & Rescue to the Board. She stated that there has been no response from the water department or police department to date.
Rebecca Weber made the presentation of their plans for expanding the Quilted Threads business. She stated that the business is at a crossroads, and they have decided to sell and repair sewing machines and build their inventory. The lower level will be to sell and service machines and a delivery entrance will be installed. There was discussion about the additional sign for the delivery entrance.
Sediment and erosion control has not been specified. Mr. and Mrs. Weber stated that there is excellent drainage on the property, and they have never observed any erosion, standing water or water in the basement, even during the heavy rains over the last two years. The applicants stated that they will pursue plans for erosion control and drainage in a most professional way. It was noted that the applicants cannot pull a building permit without conditions being met.
There was discussion about the fire department’s comments on egresses. The applicant stated that he spoke with Mick Costello about the regulations; he said an updated letter from the Fire Department is forthcoming as a formal response.
The applicants explained their plans for selling sewing machines, retail space, a gallery to hang quilts and an office. The number of employees is planned to gradually increase to the equivalent of 2.9 full-time employees. They anticipate adding 1.5 full-time employees to accomplish this. The have 30 parking spaces which is far above the required 18 spaces.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept the application as complete. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Mr. Taylor amended the motion to add conditions: a) details on the proposed signage for the site; b) details on the proposed landscaping for the site; c) detailed information about erosion and sediment control plan and the proposed retaining wall; d) updated letter from the fire department. The amendment was acceptable to Mr. Guzouskas who made the original motion.
Mr. Osgood asked why the Board is requiring this information at this phase as it will have to be provided anyway.
Ms. Scott stated that a conditional approval is valid for one year.
Gary Guzouskas asked to withdraw the amendment and second Ron Taylor agreed. The motion to accept the application as complete passed unanimously.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 9:52 pm.
Jennifer McCourt stated that she was confused by the description about signage, drainage and erosion control and landscaping. She stated that increasing impervious area will naturally change the drainage patterns and asked for specific information about erosion control.
Chairman McElroy stated that the plan must ensure that no more water will come off of the land than what currently does.
At this point in the discussion, an unidentified resident asked the Planning Board if the Town has ever considered putting a public swimming pool at the entrance to Henniker. Chairman McElroy responded by saying that there may be people in town interested in pursuing that, but this is not the case being heard right now. The resident thanked him and left.
Leo Aucoin stated that he is familiar with the property and that the water drains into a bowl. He stated that he does not believe that there would be an issue with stormwater even with the proposed construction and driveway.
The public hearing was closed at 10:00 pm.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the application with no conditions. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that he appreciates the quality of their business and the work on the property to date; however, he stated that there is a process in place. Mr. Osgood stated that they have required more information on other site plans due to specific circumstances. He does not feel that any more is required.
Ms. Claire asked if they wanted to have the bowl outlined on the plan.
Chairman McElroy stated that they will have to address the expectation for “best management practices for erosion control.” He stated that he would like to know what they are planning for landscaping, although detailed plans are not necessary at this time.
Mr. Osgood stated that the contractor will show detailed plans for construction, and we may be requiring redundant information. He stated that the applicants will be in violation of State law if the information is not provided.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote.
In Favor: 3 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Mr. Taylor)
Against: 3 (Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas)
Kristin Claire moved that the site plan be approved with the two conditions of erosion control measures and final grading information be provided. Mr. Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
1) Educational District (Article II and VIII). Article II, add definitions for “fraternity/sorority”, “fraternity/sorority house”, “classroom”, “dining hall”, “library”, “health care facility”, “maintenance and storage building”, “auditorium/assembly hall”. “theater”, “sport arena and building”, and “house of worship”; change “student housing” to “dormitory”. Article VIII, require a Special Exception for “Fraternities and Sororities”; change “churches” to “houses of worship”; and specify the parking requirements for “agricultural uses”, “sports arenas and buildings”, and “accessory uses”.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 10:20 pm. He moved to continue the public hearing until December 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
2) Floodplain Development Ordinance (Article XXI). Revise the definitions for “are of special flood hazard”, “development”, “manufactured home”, “regulatory floodway”, and “special flood hazard area”; add definitions for “new construction” and “violation”; and delete definitions for “area of shallow flooding”, “breakaway wall”, “coastal high-hazard area”, “flood boundary and floodway map”, “flood hazard boundary map”, and “v-zone”. Clarify and add language to section 133-106 A, B, C, D, E, F (Alteration and relocation of watercourses); section 133-107 (Determination of one-hundred-year flood elevation); and 133-108 C &D (Variances and appeals).
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 10:21 pm. He moved to continue the public hearing until December 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Case 2006-013. A Revised Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots to include a Lot Line Adjustment has been submitted by Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners Ronald Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 394 Bacon Road and Hamilton and Merrilee Dodge on Map 1, Lot 354-C1 at 396 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Ron Taylor recused himself from the panel at 10:21 pm. Cheryl Morse, alternate Selectman ex-officio, joined the panel. Laura Scott also left the meeting as she is not the Planner handling this case.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant with CNHRPC, requested that Todd Clarke and Steve Goddard, representing the engineering firm employed by the Town, address the Board. Mr. Goddard stated that they just had a productive meeting with the applicant, and Ms. Alexander recorded the details of their discussion. Mr. Goddard stated that anomalies were found when reviewing the plans. He stated that the computer model did not have the same assumptions for the exact details as the plans.
Ms. Claire stated that she requested a HISS map a long time ago. Chris Stewart responded that there is ample data from the test pits taken from the site. He asked the Town engineers if a HISS map would be required to satisfy their questions. Mr. Goddard stated that HTA would review the information after reviewing the response from DES about the alteration of terrain issue.
Mr. Goddard stated that overlapping well radii will be looked at during the building permit process.
Mr. Osgood questioned the long-term viability of this road. He asked what the construction will do to the condition of the road over a period of 20-30 years. Mr. Goddard stated that almost any place can be built with enough money and engineering.
Todd Clarke, from HTA, stated that as long as the road is properly constructed and maintained, it could almost be considered a standard practice.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that there appears to be a need for significant hillside work and fill. He asked if the top of the hill would be moved in as fill or would the fill be comprised of new material. Mr. Goddard stated that was a good point, and if the Board wants clarification of what the embankment will consist of, it should be required on the plans.
Cheryl Morse, alternate Selectman ex-officio, asked if changing the width of the travel lanes and shoulders would alter the integrity of the road. Mr. Goddard stated that the road widths would have to be an internal Board decision, but expressed his personal opinion of being uncomfortable travelling on too narrow of a road. Mr. Clarke stated that the difference between 2’ or 3’ shoulders will not disturb the integrity of the road.
Mr. Goddard and Mr. Clarke left the meeting at 10:41 pm.
It is noted that a letter from Gigi Laberge, an abutter, was presented to the Board tonight.
Stephanie Alexander reviewed the Consultant’s Report and reviewed the letter from the Town Engineer dated November 14, 2007.
Chairman McElroy asked Ms. Alexander to update the Consult’s Report to show actions taken tonight. Chairman McElroy asked if the time spent with the Town Engineer was helpful. The applicant stated that the meeting was productive and helpful.
Atty. Eaton Tarbell asked for continuance to the January 2008 meeting.
Kristin Claire moved to grant the extension of the case to the January 23, 2008 meeting. Cheryl Morse seconded the motion.
Mr. Osgood asked when this process ends. Chairman McElroy stated that while this process has been long, the landowners have asked to use their land in a particular way and the Board has a duty to go through the process. He stated that progress has been made with the engineering details. Mr. Osgood stated that there have been too many engineering and zoning issues to keep this ongoing.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote on granting the continuance of the hearing.
In Favor: 5 (Chairman McElroy, Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas, Ms. Morse)
Against: 1 (Mr. Osgood)
The design of the hammerhead turn-around vs. a cul-de-sac was discussed. Mr. Tarbell asked for clear direction from the Board as to how they should pursue road planning.
Ms. Claire stated that the meeting that the subcommittee had with the Fire Chief about road design was productive. The Fire Chief expressed that a 24’ wide road would be safer for pedestrian traffic with guardrails and the steep dropoff. Ms. Claire stated that she would not typically agree with that but would like to discuss the need for sidewalks in the future.
Cheryl Morse moved that the Board adopt the following three items recommended by the subcommittee into the plans: 1) RP-1A (8) & RP7D (15) & HTA #7, no level pad/platform at Hauptman Way cul-de-sac; 2) RP-1B (8) & HTA #5, road width at 24 feet and shoulder width at 2 feet; 3) Rp-7C (14), cul-de-sac radius on Hauptman Way designed at 60’. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Stewart asked if they may communicate directly with the Town Engineer. Chairman McElroy granted permission, but asked for documentation of any communication that takes place. Ms. Alexander is to be included in any meetings between the applicant and HTA.
The public hearing is continued to January 23, 2008.
- Revised 2008 Town Meeting Schedule
The Board reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2007.
Gary Guzouskas moved to adjourn at 11:25 pm. Ms. Claire seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Planning Board
November 28, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Kristin Claire; Kellie Dyjak; Scott Osgood; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio.
Gary Guzouskas called to say that he would not be in attendance as he was called out of state for an emergency.
Others Present: Laura Scott, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; residents: Jillian Schenck; Kerri Pacheco; Michael Pacheco; Edward Miner; Leon Parker; Mark Henniger; Susan and David Tullis
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
The minutes of the November 14, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 5-0-1 (Ron Taylor abstained).
2008 Town Meeting Public Hearing
Chairman McElroy explained the procedure that the Board would follow for conducting the public hearings on the proposed zoning amendments. The sponsor of the amendment will make his/her statement; the Planning Consultant may comment; there will be time for brief discussion by the Board members. After that, Chairman McElroy will open the public hearing for questions from the audience, and then a time will be given for the public to state any comments. The Chairman will call for a motion; after the motion is seconded, the Board will continue discussion and a vote will be taken.
1) Article XIV and XV Zoning Board of Adjustment. To list the areas where the ZBA has jurisdiction; to clarify how to appeal a decision made by an administrative official; to include the criteria used by the ZBA when reviewing an application for a Variance; to explain the conditions under which an equitable waiver of dimensional requirement can be sought; to add language about ZBA procedures; and to provide information on motions for rehearing and appeals from decisions on motions for rehearing.
Leon Parker, ZBA Chairman, presented this amendment on behalf of the Zoning Board members. He stated that ZBA applications were modified more than a year ago, and this brings the regulations in line with Superior Court guidelines which the ZBA follows. He stated that this change should have been made a couple of years ago.
Laura Scott stated that copies are available for the public to review and show the detailed changes to the document marked with strikeouts and additions. Ms. Scott stated that this outlines the procedures and practices that the ZBA follows and ensures that the Town regulations comply. Ms. Scott reviewed changes made by Town Counsel after their review of the document. A second public hearing will be required if this is to move forward.
Chairman McElroy asked if this document more clearly defines the procedures which must be followed, and the conditions the ZBA is to consider, when hearing applications for area variances, special exceptions and equitable waivers.
Ms. Stamps asked if the procedural section 133-66 is standard language found in other documents. Ms. Scott stated that it is.
Ron Taylor stated that this would have been a useful document to have had during his years as a ZBA member.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:16 pm for questions from the public. There were none. He then called for any comment from the public. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
Ron Taylor moved for the Planning Board to support this warrant article with the proposed changes and hold a second public hearing on December 12, 2007. Kristin Claire seconded the motion.
Chairman McElroy called for discussion by the Board members. Scott Osgood asked if the Planning Consultant wrote this document and from what sources the additional language was derived. Ms. Scott stated that she referenced Case Law, Superior Court Cases and the handbooks from the Office of Energy and Planning and the Zoning Board of Adjustment, as well as zoning ordinances from three other towns to update the document. Mr. Osgood stated that the RSA’s are documented, but there is not clear reference to other citations of sources. He stated that he is concerned about too narrowly defining the activities of the ZBA. Mr. Osgood referred to a comment from Town Counsel, from their response memo dated November 20, 2007, which stated that “even a single word may have greater importance than at first perceived.” Mr. Osgood stated that it may be best to not guide the ZBA to this degree.
Chairman McElroy asked Leon Parker to give his thoughts in his position as the Chairman of the ZBA. Mr. Parker stated that he did not really understand the comment made by legal counsel as the proposed ordinance establishes how the ZBA works and gives the basis for their actions. He stated that it is entirely probable that the Supreme Court guidelines will change and they may have to update the proposed ordinance again next year. He stated that all of the ZBA members are supportive of the proposed ordinance.
Chairman McElroy asked if there is some rationale for dividing the sections of procedures from that of guidance. Mr. Parker stated that the ZBA application forms have been following this model for a long time, and this simply corrects the ordinance to match. He stated that if the position taken by Town Counsel is taken to the extreme, then there is essentially no Town guidance for variances.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote on the motion to advance the article proposed by the ZBA. Vote: 5 For – 1 Against
2) Article XXII Wetlands Conservation. 133-115 Special Provisions. To create 50 foot wetlands buffer in which no structures will be located; to require wetland buffer markers to be placed every 25 feet along the 50 foot buffer.
Terry Stamps stated that she is submitting this warrant article to the Planning Board on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Stamps stated that this relates to both zoning and the Subdivision Regulations. She stated that currently nothing specific states what can or cannot be done next to the wetland areas. The Conservation Commission has done research and has reviewed ordinances from other towns which state a building restriction within the wetlands buffer. Buffers in other towns vary from 25 feet to 100 feet; most are 50-75 foot buffers. The Conservation Commission is proposing no structures within 50 feet of the wetlands. Ms. Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission supports the comments made by Town Counsel regarding clarification that this would apply only to new construction; existing structures would be grandfathered under this article.
Laura Scott stated that any structures currently in place would be grandfathered, and this ordinance would only limit new construction within the wetlands buffer. She also acknowledge comments made by Town Counsel, stating that boundary markers are not intended for existing lots but would only be required for new subdivisions.
Kristin Claire asked how this would apply to lots with large acreage and only a small section would be subdivided. She asked if all wetlands on the property have to be delineated and marked as this could be quite cumbersome. She stated that the intent is good, but she does not want the Board to create an unnecessary burden.
Ms. Claire asked if boathouses and decks fall under guidelines of the Shoreline Protection Act and are not applicable to the wetlands buffer.
Discussion continued about the placement of the ordinance in zoning and/or subdivision regulations.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:36 pm. A resident asked what boundary markers are. Ms. Claire explained that they are metal discs imprinted with a wetlands marking which would be nailed to a tree or post along the border of the wetlands area.
Leon Parker, resident, stated that his property has a field of grass sloping down to an area of wetlands; he asked where markers would be required. It was stated that posts would be placed every 25 feet along the buffer and would be expected to be kept permanently.
Another resident asked about the cost of these markers. Ms. Scott stated that depending on bulk ordering, they are usually 50 cents to $1.00. She stated that markers are usually installed by the surveyor at the time of the subdivision. She reiterated that this would only apply to new subdivisions and not existing lots.
Chairman McElroy called for any public comment. Mr. Miner, a retired civil engineer, stated that a 50 foot buffer is about the smallest area that would result in no disturbance to the wetlands. He suggested that the phrase “no disturbance” may better state their intentions (instead of “no structures”).
Mr. Parker stated that he agrees with the suggestion of the “no disturbance” terminology but is still concerned with posts sticking up every 25 feet.
The public hearing was closed at 7:42 pm.
Kristin Claire moved to change the 50 foot wetlands buffer to include “no ground disturbance” and proposed taking the boundary marker section out of the warrant article and place it into the Subdivision Regulations; the second public hearing for this zoning amendment will be held on December 12, 2007. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0.
3) Article II Definitions. To clarify that all types of fences are not to be considered structures.
Ron Taylor stated that the ordinance currently states that a 10 foot setback is required on property lines and that fences are “structures.” He stated that a fence is not a “structure” and making this change would allow people to erect a fence on their property line.
Ms. Scott stated that when the Code Enforcement Officer reviewed this, he requested that the Board also correct the definition of “swimming pool” to include the area of the apron around the pool as well.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:50 pm. Hearing no questions or comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Ron Taylor moved that the Planning Board accept this warrant article as presented and include the definition of “aprons and related construction” around swimming pools to be reheard on December 12, 2007. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Motion passed, 6-0.
Chairman McElroy declared a five-minute recess.
The meeting was called back to order at 7:56 pm.
2008 Town Meeting Items for Discussion
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Schedule: An additional meeting of the
Planning Board was scheduled for December 17, 2007.
2. Review Proposed Changes
a. Educational District: Kristin Claire explained the proposed changes to the
Educational (ED) District. She stated that the area should be looked at for overall planning of the town, not just for one entity like New England College. The proposed changes would make the area more cohesive and would benefit the Town whether the properties continue to be used by the college or other uses. Ms. Claire stated that definitions first needed to be reviewed and corrected. Ms. Scott stated that the list of new definitions were terminology that was used within documents but were not defined anywhere.
Ms. Claire explained that the entire district was looked at comprehensively; uses allowed by right and uses allowed by special exception were considered. The subcommittee has made recommendations to redraw boundary lines to eliminate the potential pitfalls of spot zoning. The new lines follow streets and not individual properties. She showed a small section where the zone went around a building which NEC no longer owns. This property would revert to Residential Neighborhood which is consistent with what is around it. Mr. Taylor described the center part of the district being within the Historic Overlay District.
The Board discussed the idea of eliminating the Education District altogether. The areas of Keene and Hanover were discussed for comparison as they have colleges but do not have a separate Educational district.
Mr. Osgood suggested that representatives from the college be included in discussion. Ms. Claire stated that they are aware of discussions and someone from the college did attend one meeting.
Ms. Claire stated that there are many concerns to consider about the use of the area if the college should ever cease to exist there. If the Board wants to keep the ED district active, she proposes that the boundaries should be cleaned up and definitions must be included/revised.
Chairman McElroy asked to consider the consequences of removing the district. Ms. Claire stated that there are some other innovative land uses which could be effectively established in that area. The Town must decide what kind of use they would like in downtown Henniker.
Mr. Osgood stated that the ED district was created to give the college the right to apply for what they wanted to do. He stated that it is worthwhile to consider eliminating the district and creating an overlay district, although it is his opinion that this is too much to prepare for this Town Meeting.
Chairman McElroy asked for the subcommittee’s thoughts on Planned Developments (PD) since zoning established around 1986 was specifically put in place to restrict development to one building per lot. Ms. Claire stated that Planned Development could apply to the tracts of land greater than 5 acres, granting the ability to develop the concept of a completely thought-out walking community development. She stated that single-family homes and home-based businesses would not be allowed in the Planned Development area. She stated that anything that is already allowed in the Educational district could be allowed, except for those two things.
Ron Taylor stated that the concept and intent of Planned Development may be confusing to some, although the uses are already currently allowed under a different mechanism.
Ron Taylor moved that the Planning Board support the first two pages of the document dated November 19, 2007 (Article II Definitions, Article VIII Commercial District Regulations including 133-33A Allowed Uses; 133-33E Parking Regulations) to be heard at the December 12, 2007, and continue Board discussion of the last two pages concerning District Boundaries and Planned Developments at the December 17, 2007 meeting. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Motion passed, 6-0.
b. Watershed Overlay District
Ms. Stamps reported that the Conservation Commission decided to withdraw plans for this district while they take a comprehensive look at other water issues.
c. Floodplain Development Ordinance
Laura Scott stated that every town that is eligible for flood insurance needs this Floodplain Development Ordinance. Ms. Scott presented the changes as written by the New Hampshire Office of Energy. She recommended that the Board revise the current ordinance and take it to Town meeting. Ms. Scott offered to track changes between the old document and the proposed revised ordinance for review at the public hearing. Ms. Scott stated that new floodplain maps and their adoption has been discussed with Peter Flynn, the Town Administrator.
There was some discussion about the possible impact to the duties handled by the Town building inspector. Ms. Scott stated that the building inspector has met with Mr. Flynn and the Office of Energy and Planning already.
Terry Stamps moved to hold a public hearing about the Floodplain Development Ordinance as submitted, on December 12, 2007. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Chairman McElroy called for any Board discussion. Scott Osgood stated that the amount of revision to the ordinance calls for careful review and feels that it is premature to rush to a public hearing. Ron Taylor stated that this cannot wait and is simply a document which is required to stay within FEMA guidelines. Ms. Stamps stated that the document would be carefully reviewed when they are able to compare the tracked changes. At that time, she said a decision could be made as to whether they want to support it or not. Chairman McElroy called for a vote. The motion passed, 5-1.
Kristin Claire asked what the consequences would be in the case that this revised ordinance does not get adopted. Ms. Scott stated that she will check with the Office of Energy and Planning.
Other Business
1) Report on Fire Chief and Road Agent meeting re: Case 2006-013
Kristin Claire stated that she and Gary Guzouskas attended a meeting with Fire Chief Gilbert and the Town Road Agent, John Margeson, to discuss plans of the Bacon Road subdivision. She stated that they had intended to write a formal summary, but with Mr. Guzouskas being called out of town, this did not occur, although she has the minutes of the meeting to give an oral summary.
(Ron Taylor recused himself at 8:50 pm.)
Ms. Claire stated that the first issue that was discussed concerned the diameter of the road turnaround. The Subdivision Regulations require a 100-foot diameter; however, Chief Gilbert and Mr. Margeson approved the 60 feet requested on the plans. The T-turnaround originally proposed is not allowed by NFPA guidelines; therefore, Chief Gilbert suggested the lollipop turnaround with the diameter reduced to 60 feet. The grade of the turnaround was also discussed. Ms. Claire stated that Chief Gilbert and Mr. Margeson were not concerned about the 5% - 6% grade of the turnaround. Ms. Claire stated that the road width was discussed. She stated that Chief Gilbert felt that 24 feet would be a better width for the travelway since there are guardrails, steep dropoffs and people walking within the neighborhood. The Subdivision Regulations call for 20 foot road width. (She stated as a side note that this discussion has caused her to consider a section on sidewalks in the Subdivision Regulations.)
Ms. Claire reported that Chief Gilbert was very open to assessing plans in the early stages of the application process. Ms. Stamps suggested that they invite the highway agent to comment at meetings about road plans. Ms. Claire stated that she would hesitate to request that he attend the Planning Board meetings, but suggested that the Board’s subcommittee schedule meetings with the Fire Chief and Road Agent to discuss applications as they are presented. Mr. Osgood stated that this process is already allowed in the Design Review section of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Scott stated that all applications are sent to the different department heads for their comment; she could act as the liaison to schedule the meetings.
Ms. Claire will summarize the contents of the meeting for Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, and asked that it be clear that it not be construed by the developer as any type of decision by the Board.
(Ron Taylor rejoined the Board.)
2) Legal Response to Planning Board question re: Planning Consultant Log
The memo from Town Counsel regarding the legalities of keeping a work log was discussed. Mr. Osgood stated that there have been times in the past when the consultant’s log was useful, and he suggested that the Planning Consultant be required to keep one. Ms. Claire stated that she has not decided if the advantages outnumber the disadvantages. Mr. Taylor stated that he does not feel that the log is necessary.
Ms. Stamps suggested that there be a standing place on the meeting agenda to have the Planning Consultant report on her activities.
Scott Osgood moved that the Board require the Planning Consultant to keep a log of her activities and types of meeting she has with the public. Hearing no second, the motion failed.
3) Inclusionary Zoning Grant Information
Ms. Scott gave the Board information about an innovative land use grant that is available. Inclusionary Zoning was discussed. Ms. Claire spoke about the vast difference between “workforce housing” and “affordable housing” which is administered by a Federal third party.
Mr. Osgood requested an electronic copy of the proposed ZBA changes that were approved tonight. Ms. Scott will email that to him.
The next meeting is scheduled for December 12, 2007 at 6:30 pm.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn at 9:20 pm. Terry Stamps seconded and it passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Kellie Dyjak; Scott Osgood; Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman ex-officio; Gary Guzouskas; Kristin Claire
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Laura Scott, Town Planner; Ron Taylor; Ron Bourcier; Chris Stewart; Eaton Tarbell, Esq.; Tim Lamphere; Ron Talbot; Eric Hauptman; Peter Cauklin; Roy Grieder; Daphna Anderson; Dale Jennings; Leslie Paul; Martha Sunderland; John Margeson; Michele Rogers; Scott Rogers; Dan Paul; Kris Blomback
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
The minutes of the October 24, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7 – 0.
Old Business
Subdivision Conceptual Consultation for Daphna Anderson, Map 1, Lot 559-B1, on Bear Hill Road.
Catherine (Daphna) Anderson presented drawings and described her property which has the Henniker/Hillsboro town line running through the property. She stated that she is interested in subdividing to create lots of record. Ms. Anderson stated that she would like to be able to sell some of the property within the next five years.
Laura Scott, Town Planner, stated that both Henniker and Hillsboro Planning Boards would have to approve the same set of plans. Daphna Anderson showed an area in Lot 3 where a driveway would have to cross the Henniker town line, but the house would be located in Hillsboro. Chairman McElroy stated that this would not rise to the level of regional impact, but the towns of Hillsboro and Henniker would be listed as abutters to each others’ applications.
Kristin Claire, Board member, reminded Ms. Anderson of the requirement of showing two buildable acres for each lot.
Chairman McElroy recognized Ms. Scott as having worked with the applicant and her availability to offer suggestions for coordination of this project. Chairman McElroy stated that this project will require close coordination of the two Town Boards. He requested that Ms. Scott plan a joint meeting with the Hillsboro Town Planner and surveyors. Ms. Scott also stated that plans will need to be registered in the two different counties.
Scott Osgood, Board Member, asked for the other Board member’s opinions regarding the advice given by Ms. Scott to Ms. Anderson. Ms. Claire, Cheryl Morse and Terry Stamps voiced that coordination between the two Town Planners will be essential.
Case 1996-013: Subdivision Waiver Request for Plummer Hill Road Extension
on Map, Lots 701-B and 701-B3. The waiver request is from Subdivision Regulations Section 202-16, Performance Guaranty, regarding the 1996-approved but currently being constructed road extension.
It is noted that Cheryl Morse stepped down from the Board, and Ron Taylor, Selectman ex-officio, joined the Board for this case.
A letter dated November 6, 2007, from Mr. Grieder to the Planning Board requesting a waiver of the Performance Guaranty was discussed. Mr. Grieder, applicant, thanked the Planning Board and Stephanie Alexander for their assistance. He stated that the subdivision plan was approved 11 years ago. He stated that the land for the road was never deeded over to the Town, and the Town carries no liability. All expenses have been his. He stated that the project cost $60,000, and he is proposing to put $6500 into escrow for repairs. The road, which will serve two lots, is scheduled to be paved this Friday.
Chairman McElroy stated that Mr. Grieder built this road on his own property and will request it to become a Town road. Mr. Grieder stated that the Town Engineer has seen plans and the actual site three times. He explained that Cindy Marsland suggested that instead of waiting until Town vote in March 2009, he could present a warrant article for 2008 and the Board of Selectmen could possibly accept the road on the Town’s behalf.
Gary Guzouskas, Board member, asked John Margeson, Highway Superintendent, if he is aware of any concerns regarding the road. Mr. Margeson stated his understanding that the bond was to be put up before work began on the road, and the Town has not received any engineering reports to date. Mr. Margeson stated that he has seen the Board of Selectmen accept roads in the past. The road would have to go through a complete freeze/thaw cycle to see how it performs. He stated that he is not able to determine if $6500 is an adequate amount to put in escrow.
Mr. Grieder stated that he has results of the compaction study from Miller Engineering (98 & 102) which were received today. Mr. Grieder apologized for the results not being passed on to Mr. Margeson. Mr. Margeson stated that the office should have contacted him to schedule inspections.
Chairman McElroy asked for questions from Board members. Ms. Stamps stated that the applicant’s request is for 10%; regulations call for 110%, but he has already spent the 100% to build the road. Mr. Grieder asked what the Town’s liability is if the developer is working on private land which has not been deeded to the Town.
Ron Taylor, Selectmen ex-officio, stated that land cannot be conveyed to the Town until Town meeting. He suggested revising applicable wording in the subdivision regulations for future cases. Mr. Taylor stated that there is protection in place if it is a substandard road. The Board of Selectmen will reject it if it does not meet standards. He stated that if the results of the compaction study meet the approval of the Highway Superintendent, he would be comfortable with the scheduled paving as there are two forms of protection in place.
Mr. Margeson stated that the road could be left with a gravel surface this winter so if the road does need repair it would be less expensive.
Chairman McElroy stated that the only charge to the Board is to decide on the request for the waiver of the Performance Guaranty. He asked if the Board would be more comfortable with an amount of $10,000.
Mr. Taylor stated that he is comfortable with the amount of money presented since there are other protective measures in place. He stated that it would be difficult to sell these lots if this is not done.
Cheryl Morse, as an audience member, asked if it were possible to postpone paving by a week or so to allow more time for Mr. Margeson to inspect the road and engineering reports.
Mr. Margeson stated that he was concerned about setting precedence for other developers. Chairman McElroy stated that is an appropriate concern, although he does not anticipate seeing this again. He stated that this happened since regulations have changed since the plan was approved in 1996.
Ron Taylor moved to accept the $6500 in escrow in lieu of the performance bond. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion.
Scott Osgood questioned the value of the waiver or escrow amount. He stated that if the road is substandard, $6500 will not be enough money to repair it. He stated that there appears to be good data, and Mr. Grieder is working with a reputable contractor. If the road fails, the Board of Selectmen could stop it or it could be turned down at Town Meeting. He stated that there is a chance it could be accepted, and there is a chance that it won’t.
Chairman McElroy stated that the protocol is to determine construction cost and add 10% (arriving at $6500).
Kristin Claire stated that the 10% should be held in escrow. She stated that she would like to see the Town Engineer and Mr. Margeson review the road and work with the Town offices to resolve this matter. Mr. Osgood stated that he does not believe that the Board has the authority to waive this.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote on the motion which would grant a waiver and accept the $6500 in escrow. The motion failed, 1 in favor – 6 opposed.
Mr. Grieder stated that he has been trying to resolve this since March and is not sure what is required. The Board advised him to work with Town Administration and authorities (Town Engineer, John Margeson and Peter Flynn) to make the final determination. Chairman McElroy thanked Mr. Grieder for his patience.
Case 2006-013: Continued Public Hearing: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots to include a Lot Line Adjustment has been submitted by Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 394 Bacon Road and Hamilton and Merrilee Dodge on Map 1, Lot 354-C1 at 396 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
It is noted that Ron Taylor recused himself from the Board at 8:05 pm. Cheryl Morse rejoined the panel at this time.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, stated that an application for modification of subdivision has been submitted. She stated that all fees except those for abutter’s notices and newspaper notices were waived. The Board received drawings dated 11/07/07 which show the Lot Line adjustment. Ms. Alexander referred to the memo dated 11/07/07 which explains the history of how this came to be. Items for completeness were reviewed, and items regarding Lot 354-C1 as noted in the memo were reviewed. Ms. Alexander stated that on 10/17/07, the ZBA entertained a motion to rehear the variance that had been granted. The ZBA rejected this request. The window for an appeal ends 11/16/07. The first order of business is to determine if the revised application is complete. No waivers are requested. The plans have been signed by the Dodge’s and benchmarks have been identified as requested.
Eaton Tarbell, Esq., spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that it is their belief and opinion that the remaining items outlined in the memo (Contours not shown for Lot 354-C1(J); Soils not shown for Lot 354-C1(M); Well radius and leach field not depicted for Lot 354-C1(N)) are not necessary as they relate to an existing lot. They are requesting that they be waived.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept the revised application as complete. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The Board discussed the motion.
Scott Osgood asked about the Alteration of Terrain permits. DES has sent a letter to the Town outlining items which must be addressed. The Board members concurred that information from DES was substantial and would need to be reviewed completely.
Chairman McElroy stated all information would be addressed, but they are to only evaluate the lot line change at this time. He then called for the vote: 5 in favor; 2 opposed. The revised application was accepted as complete.
Chairman McElroy called attention to the letter from the State regarding the Alteration of Terrain permit application. He stated that the Town Engineer is the authoritative resource for the Planning Board, and several of the same points raised by DES have been addressed by the Town Engineer as they have reviewed plans each time they have been submitted. The latest set of plans is dated November 2007, and a fairly extensive report from the Town Engineer dated 11/14/07 was received today. The Board has also received information from the Conservation Commission. The Board will use the Consultant’s report and the Town Engineer’s report to guide this evening’s discussion.
(Recused Board member Ron Taylor left the meeting at 8:29 pm.)
Kristin Claire asked to address changes to the road while Highway Superintendent John Margeson was still in attendance.
Ron Bourcier referred to sheet C-3 and showed the major change of the removal of Talbot Court from the plans. Mr. Bourcier showed where shared driveways were created for Lots 7, 8 & 9. Minor drainage revisions were made in response to the list created by Ms. Alexander.
The changed configuration of Lots 7, 8 & 9 (those on Talbot Court) also remove the profile and access issues at that section. Ms. Claire stated that this area must be built to Town specifications and a note will be added that the area is to be built the same width as Hauptman Way.
Mr. Bourcier stated that the Town Engineer has requested 3-4 catch basins be installed.
Mr. Osgood questioned note #16 on sheet C.4 from the DES report which identified some of the details as being a dam requiring a certain elevation as this is not filed as a dam. Mr. Bourcier stated that they would contest that. There was discussion about the large culvert over the wetlands crossing shown on sheet C.5 using a 10’ pipe (the span of the road). Mr. Bourcier stated that they rounded up to the nearest culvert size; however, RSA 234.2 states that a span of 10’ or greater becomes a bridge. They will find a 9’6” culvert to put in place instead of rounding up to the 10’ size.
Chairman McElroy referred to the Staff Report dated 10/10/07 which stated that there were 21 major and 5 minor issues concerning the road plans; 11 major and 8 minor issues concerning drainage; and 7 major and 13 minor issues were related to other regulations. Many of these issues are resolved by the removal of Talbot Court and the change to the drainage plans. Also, the lot line adjustment was resolved by the variance granted by the ZBA. The Board decided to review the items on that Staff Report in conjunction with the items listed in the letter dated 11/14/07 from the Town Engineer. Details of these comments can be obtained by Stephanie Alexander’s notes from the outstanding issue report from 10/10/07 and the 11/14/07 letter from Hoyle Tanner.
The Planning Board will need new common driveway easements to accommodate the revised plans. Atty. Tarbell stated that templates are in place.
New driveway applications have been received. Slopes of driveways and landings were discussed. Mr. Bourcier showed landings of 2% and 4% on the plans. There is 60’ of the shared driveway road that has a 2% slope.
It is noted that portions of Hauptman Way have a 10% grade; a waiver will be needed from Section 202-11D since regulations permit 8% grades. Mr. Bourcier cited “with Board approval, 10% can be granted.” Mr. Margeson stated that he is fine with that section of the road being at 10%.
It was decided that a new set of plans should be sent to Town agencies (fire department, highway, etc.) for review since Talbot Court has been removed.
All parties have agreed that every building will have sprinkler fire suppression systems installed. All road grades are below the 12% maximum grade.
Ms. Alexander stated that no consensus was reached, but there was a lot of discussion about the road travelway and shoulder widths. Mr. Bourcier recalled that the Board voted for 2’ shoulders with a 20’ road width. Shoulder breaks were discussed. Mr. Bourcier presented sheet SD-1 showing breaks 2-1/2’ from the face of the guardrail. It has been changed to 2 feet; this is classified as a minor correction as it has been revised but must be corrected on each drawing.
Mr. Guzouskas read from Planning Board minutes regarding road widths and shoulders. The minutes state that there was no resolution of the road width and shoulder issue.
Chris Stewart asked if the Board has taken any action with the Fire Chief and other Town agencies to resolve the issues concerning road standards. He would like to comply, but there are still conflicting standards.
Chairman McElroy stated that the vote was clear in rejecting 3’ shoulders. Ms. Claire stated that their vote leaves the plans at 24’ road width with 2’ shoulders. Mr. Bourcier stated that the Subdivision Regulations call for 20’ road width with
3’ shoulders while the Fire Chief insists on 24’ wide roads with 2’ shoulders. No action can be taken on this issue until the discrepancy of standards is resolved.
Cheryl Morse moved that a subcommittee be formed, consisting of two Planning Board members, the Fire Chief and the Highway Superintendent, to resolve the travelway and shoulder widths on Hauptman Way. Turn-around radii, T-turnarounds and all road-related issues on Hauptman Way may be included in their discussion. The subcommittee is charged to arrange this meeting within the next two weeks in order to bring a response to the next work session. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The subcommittee may issue a memo to the applicant summarizing the description of their meeting. Motion passed, 7-0.
The Board asked Mr. Margeson to comment on the 47.73’ section of road on Hauptman Way between Stations 13.81 and 14.25 with a 10% slope along a straightaway. Mr. Margeson stated that he has no problem with that section of road, although a waiver would be required either implicitly or explicitly.
Cross sections of Hauptman Way need to show slope protection matting
(sheet TEC3.1). The Town Engineer has recommended rip rap; however, the developer states that this is unsightly and is designed to maintain slopes of greater area. The applicant suggested blanket matting of geotech material which allows vegetation along that short distance. Mr. Margeson also stated agreement with that plan. Mr. Bourcier stated that the plan has been altered to make the slope steeper in order to avoid encroaching on the abutter’s property.
There was discussion about the amount of seasonal water flow in this area. Mr. Bourcier stated that there is not much natural drainage along this part of the property. Mr. Stewart stated that if there is unforeseen washout and the geotech material does not hold to design, the area could then be reinforced with rip rap.
Off-site improvements on Bacon Road were discussed. Mr. Bourcier stated that the Lamphere’s property line will be located, and construction will not interfere with the property line but work within the right-of-way. The Town Engineer has asked for a more detailed engineering plan which must be agreed to by the Board of Selectmen.
With the Lot Line Adjustment along the Dodge’s property, the only area less than 50’ occurs at Station 0.00 where it is actually 49.94’.
Comment #8 from the Town Engineer was discussed. Mr. Bourcier stated that Brown Engineering uses electronic datum, and they are not able to determine what the Town Engineer is referring to. Ms. Alexander will ask for specific information from Hoyle Tanner.
It was stated that the turn-around at the end of Hauptman Way does not meet Town Regulations. Mr. Bourcier stated that the original plans called for a
T-intersection; however, a cul-de-sac was designed per the Fire Chief’s request in accordance with NFPA regulations. He stated that the Fire Chief signed off on these plans; however, it is in conflict with the Subdivision Regulations which require 100’ radius.
(It is noted that Scott Osgood left the meeting at 10:10 pm.)
Atty. Tarbell requested an extension of this discussion to the next meeting of the Planning Board on December 12, 2007. Cheryl Morse moved to grant an extension to the next regular meeting of the Planning Board. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Motion was approved, 6-0.
The Planning Board took a 10-minute break and resumed the meeting at
10:30 pm.
2008 Town Meeting Items
Laura Scott reviewed the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Schedule. She offered her services to work with Board members on their assignments. Ms. Stamps asked for the date of the Henniker Herald.
The Board may schedule another work session in December. Ms. Scott will coordinate availability of dates by email.
Proposed Changes were reviewed. Ms. Scott stated that the changes to the Zoning Board of Adjustment make the Town Regulations conform to State law, Case law and better describe what the ZBA is currently doing. Ms. Scott stated that the ZBA members reviewed the document at their last meeting. The Chairman of the ZBA will be present at the public hearing to represent them.
Laura Scott and Kristin Claire will research Special Exceptions.
Kristin Claire moved to advance the Group 1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments (ZBA, fences, wetlands) to public hearing on 11/28/07. Cheryl Morse seconded the motion. Motion was approved, 6-0. Ms. Scott will post notices for the public hearing in the Concord Monitor, the Villager and other public places.
Continuation of Discussion:
At 10:50 pm, the Board resumed discussion with the applicants regarding the Talbot case. The Alteration of Terrain Permit will be addressed and drainage issues were raised. Ms. Claire suggested that the Town Engineer come to a Planning Board meeting to address concerns in person. Chairman McElroy asked Ms. Alexander to invite the Town Engineer to the next meeting on 12/12/07 to address the continuing questions.
Mr. Stewart asked if there were any other issues that should be brought to their attention.
Chairman McElroy noted a lack of agreement between the drainage report and their plans which will be addressed with the Alteration of Terrain permit.
Mr. Guzouskas commented on road sight distances. He stated that the Town Engineer recognizes that the sight distance has been increased, but they are looking for more detail as to how this will happen. Atty. Tarbell stated that they need direction as to whether 390’ is acceptable sight distance.
Ms. Claire stated that she is interested in seeing a HISS map (high intensity soil survey).
Ms. Morse requested that the Articles of Agreement be reviewed thoroughly to ensure that there is procedure in place to administer the open space and to give Henniker and individual owners the ability to enforce regulation of the open space.
Ms. Morse expressed concerns about drainage being tied to the roads. She will draft clear questions and email them to Ms. Alexander to be passed along to the applicant.
Discussion ended at 11:20 pm and will be continued at the December 12, 2007 meeting.
Cheryl Morse moved to adjourn. Kristin Claire seconded. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Kellie Dyjak; Scott Osgood; Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman ex-officio; Gary Guzouskas; Kristin Claire
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Stephanie Alexander, CNHRPC; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Ron Bourcier; Chris Stewart; Eaton Tarbell, Esq.; Tim Lamphere; Leslie Paul; Daniel Paul; Dale Jennings; Deb Dow; Matt Cottle; Michele Rogers; Scott Rogers; Timothy Walker; Gigi Laberge; Eric Hauptman; Ron Talbot; Stephen Pernaw; Dan Geiger; another signature is noted but is not legible.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
The minutes of the September 26, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Kellie Dyjak moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Scott Osgood seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7 – 0.
Old Business
Case 2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Chairman McElroy inventoried several new documents that were made available for review, including: Staff Review and Summary document prepared by Stephanie Alexander; letter from the Fire Department; Conservation Commission document dated 10/3/07; a letter from the public dated 9/29/07.
Atty. Tarbell outlined their agenda for the meeting: 1) request a 30-day continuance; 2) Dan Geiger is to address the concerns raised by the Conservation Commission; 3) Steve Pernaw will discuss traffic issues; 4) address minor road engineering details.
Kristin Claire, Board member, moved to grant the 30-day extension so that the hearing could continue at the next meeting in November. Cheryl Morse, alternate Selectman, ex-officio, seconded the motion. There was discussion by the Board members about the amount of new information received and the time needed to thoroughly review it. The next business meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2007. There was a question about accurate wording to grant the extension for 30 days or until the next meeting. Kristin Claire moved to amend her original motion to allow an extension of 35 days. Terry Stamps seconded. The motion to grant a 35-day extension passed, 7-0.
Chairman McElroy stated that the public hearing would be re-opened after hearing the applicant’s replies to the requested information.
Atty. Tarbell stated that the requested area variance concerning setbacks along the Dodge’s property was granted by the ZBA on 9/19/07. He reported that a handful of abutters have filed a request for rehearing on that issue. The ZBA will review their request on October 17, 2007. The issue of separating the boundary line adjustment or bundling it into one application was discussed.
Ms. Alexander stated that it was specifically noticed as an Open Space Residential Development, and now there is a lot line adjustment involved. She stated that the application can be revised, but public notification must be made.
Ms. Alexander stated that the Board could consider waiving the escrow fees and notice the abutters and post the notice in public places. There is a set of plans that can be used. The Board discussed various options with the applicant.
Kristin Claire moved to amend the original application to include a lot line adjustment with the Dodge property and to ensure that abutters are properly noticed; also application fee, escrow fee and recording fees shall be waived. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Ms. Claire stated that they are looking for the simplest answer, but it is imperative that abutters are properly noticed. Ms. Alexander stated that the Dodge’s will have to sign the application, and the variance must be noted on the plans. If the ZBA overturns the decision, it would be considered a modification not a re-notification. Chairman McElroy then called for the vote. Motion passed, 7-0.
Dan Geiger, a licensed wetlands scientist with Oak Hill Environmental Services, presented the applicant’s response to the comments made by the Conservation Commission. He stated that site visits were conducted in the Fall of 2006 and were attended by abutters, Conservation Commission members and representatives of DES. Wetlands were delineated, and the land was reviewed for natural, historic and environmental sensitivity. The letter from Fish & Game referred to drainage, erosion and detention ponds. An open-arch culvert was determined to be the best solution for the area. There is 50% open space in the development to protect the quality of the stream. Mr. Geiger described his conversation with Mr. McGee about a month ago when it was stated that his comments were in no way project specific. He stated that he did not review the plans, go on a site walk or physically participate in any review. He stated that he does not feel that this would be detrimental to the area. He stated that there are no fish on this property, and it appears that the steepness of the stream is not conducive to holding fish. The Contoocook River is about 4,000 feet away, and the Shoreline Protection Act applies. However, the Contoocook River does not apply to this project.
Scott Osgood, Board member, asked what drainage could be expected to come from the site to areas that do hold fish. He asked if this property could affect other waters if drainage and erosion measures failed. Mr. Geiger responded that detention basins are not a threat as they are not typically the type of structures that fail. He stated that the critical threat is during construction. Mr. Osgood stated that he is not concerned about well-managed construction but more concerned about long-term effects.
Mr. Geiger stated there is more concern with old septic systems, existing agricultural uses and point-source pollution. He stated that, in his opinion, nothing will present a problem, and DES also is not concerned.
Ms. Claire asked about restricting the use of fertilizers to reduce contamination. Mr. Geiger stated that one cannot legislate private property, and it really comes down to educating the public on effective conservation measures. He offered his services to assist in public education processes and stated that he has also presented workshops to town committees, etc.
Atty. Tarbell then introduced Steven Pernaw to address subsequent concerns raised by the Town Engineer (HTA). Mr. Pernaw reviewed the presentation he made in May 2007. He stated that there are times where two engineers may not exactly agree on necessary site distances and will try to show the discrepancies between his conclusions and those of HTA.
Mr. Pernaw described the differences between “stopping sight distances” and “intersection sight distances.” He stated that the Town Engineer is essentially requesting additional stopping distance. He stated that the current plans allows for an oncoming vehicle to see a car pulling out, react appropriately and stop. He commented on the speed survey taken from the traffic counter installed on Emory Hill Road. Another speed survey was conducted at the site from a Friday through Tuesday in October 2007. The average speed was 35 MPH and is lower than the original study; this is because it is closer to the actual site where there are curves in the road. He recommended that regrading be done to maximize sight distance; measurements of 372-390 feet are ample. An aerial view of the area taken last weekend was shown and depicted the new data vs. HTA’s recommendation (445 feet). Mr. Pernaw stated that an oncoming car may need to decelerate; this happens at least 15 times between here and Concord.
Ms. Stamps asked at what measurement he would be concerned about stopping distance. Mr. Pernaw stated that at 40 MPH, a minimum of 305 feet of sight distance is necessary, and he would be satisfied with anything more than that.
Mr. McElroy asked what stopping sight distance would be required without grading. Mr. Pernaw stated that 340 feet would be required.
Mr. Bourcier stated that the Police Chief measured the road and was satisfied with the distances.
Mr. Bourcier addressed concerns regarding Talbot Court. The Town Engineer stated that a typical road section for the Town is 20 feet of road with three-foot wide shoulders on either side. Discussions with the Fire Chief show that he is requesting 12-foot wide lanes, producing 24 feet of pavement with two-foot shoulders on each side. They are asking if the Board desires to see two or three-foot shoulders.
Chairman McElroy stated that the roads standards call for three-foot shoulders, though this seems to be independent of the lane widths recently adopted by the Fire Code.
Cheryl Morse stated that there are a few places where the steepness of the road is a concern and three-foot shoulders would be helpful.
Ms. Claire stated that she would rather see less pavement and have 20-foot wide roads with more gravel on the sides to address drainage issues.
Cheryl Morse moved to enforce the three-foot shoulders on the roadway per Town regulations. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Discussion continued. Ms. Morse stated that she would prefer 20-foot wide roads with three-foot shoulders; one reason is that people go faster on wider paved roads. Mr. Osgood stated that he also prefers the narrower lanes with three-foot shoulders. He stated that wider roads also require greater stopping distances.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote: In favor: 3; Against: 4.
Scott Osgood moved to reduce the roads to 10-foot travelways in two directions. Kristin Claire amended the motion to state 10-foot travel ways in both directions with three foot shoulders per Subdivision Regulations and Town Regulations. The motion was seconded. Discussion continued. Chairman McElroy stated that he feels that this must be appealed to the State Fire Marshall.
Ms. Morse stated that regardless of her personal feeling, she does not feel that this is the time to debate this issue.
Ms. Claire stated that she would like to see less impervious surface for this subdivision due to the number of lots with marked steepness. She stated that she does not wish to put the applicant in a legal struggle over this issue.
After much Board discussion over the roads issue, Mr. Osgood withdrew the motion with the understanding that the Board agrees to discuss this issue with other Town authorities by the next meeting.
Other discussion ensued about road plans. Mr. Bourcier stated that HTA requested 0% platforms at the top and bottom; however, they have provided 2% as they state it is a better plan.
Driveway plans and turnarounds were discussed. Ms. Claire stated that the road agent has expressed concern about the L-shaped turnaround. Mr. Bourcier stated that the plan calls for pulling in and backing out to accommodate snow removal. Ms. Claire stated that the road agent prefers working with a “T” or “P” turnaround.
Ms. Stamps asked to discuss documents governing the homeowner’s association and the Open Space covenants.
Atty. Tarbell stated that the open space is not intended for third-party management. He stated that the 14 property owners will be protecting their common land and documents will specify expectations. He stated that if the covenants require them to maintain the drainage structures and they are not attended to, the city could levy charges against the owners for maintenance/repairs. Mr. Tarbell agreed to include procedural framework as to how the association will work.
Ms. Stamps stated that she would be more comfortable if list of various restrictions to open space were included. She provided samples to Mr. Tarbell.
The Board and Ms. Alexander agreed that it was too early for documents to be sent to Town Counsel for review. Chairman McElroy stated that all documents are available to the public. Ms. Alexander made copies of the staff review and summary available to the public.
This case was continued to the meeting of November 14, 2007.
(At 9:15 pm, Cheryl Morse stepped down from the Board and Ron Taylor joined the panel as the Selectman, ex-officio. Stephanie Alexander is only providing services for the Talbot case, therefore, she also left the meeting at this time.)
Case 2007-011: A Minor Subdivision application for two lots has been submitted by Matthew D. Cottle for Map 1, Lot 730B-1 on Mount Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Laura Scott, Henniker Planning Consultant, stated that the applicant has submitted a new plan which was provided to the Planning Board tonight. She reviewed the memo from her dated 10/3/07 with seven items which must be addressed.
She stated that items #1, #3 had been resolved already; the remaining items are minor and can be considered conditions of approval.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Ron Taylor suggested that a copy of the consultant’s memo be attached with the minutes. It was decided the items included in the body of the minutes will be sufficient. The items which require further attention as recorded on the memo are: 1) Note #3 on the plans does not adequately address the issues of additional ROW. Applicant needs to show ROW and accompanying document for review; 2) Confirm that the plans, as currently submitted, meet the requirements for recording at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds; 3) Certification letter for the file that the bounds have been set (once the plan is approved; 4) All stamps, seal, and signatures on the final plans (3 large paper sets and 1 Mylar) are to be originals; 5) The Impact fees are to be assessed per 133-142(B) on the newly created lot.
The application was accepted as complete by a vote of 7-0.
Items remaining for approval were reviewed.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 9:25 pm. Hearing no comment, the hearing was closed.
Kellie Dyjak moved to approve the application with the following conditions:
1) Note #3 on the plans does not adequately address the issues of additional ROW. Applicant needs to show ROW and accompanying document for review;
2) Confirm that the plans, as currently submitted, meet the requirements for recording at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds;
3) Certification letter for the file that the bounds have been set (once the plan is approved;
4) All stamps, seal, and signatures on the final plans (3 large paper sets and 1 Mylar) are to be originals;
5) The Impact fees are to be assessed per 133-142(B) on the newly created lot.
Mr. Cottle questioned impact fees. It was explained that the fee will be assessed on the newly created lot at the time the building permit is pulled.
Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
New Business:
Case 2007-016: A Lot Line Adjustment application has been submitted by Timothy Walker on behalf of Donna M. Pauly, owner of record of Map 1, Lot 265 at 557 Rush Road and Maralyn J. Perron, owner of record of Map 2, Lot 262 at 551 rush Road, both of which are located in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Maralyn Perron presented the application. She is proposing a lot line adjustment with her neighbor. She reviewed the history of the property. She responded to the memo prepared by Laura Scott, Planning Consultant and requested waivers for the six items mentioned. When asked the reason for the lot line adjustment, the applicant stated that her neighbor wants more land and she wants lower taxes. Ms. Scott stated that the lots are only changing shape and acreage. This change leaves the two lots nonconforming.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
Waivers were discussed.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the application as presented for the lot line adjustment. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
Rules of Procedure:
Kristin Claire moved to approve the revised Rules of Procedure. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Discussion Items
The role of the Planning Consultant was discussed. The memos Ms. Scott prepares during the review of cases serves as a staff report and shows any missing components of the application process. She will assist in matters of completeness and approval. She will also interact with customers.
Discussion about keeping a consultant’s log ensued. Some Board members felt that a brief summary of her work would be sufficient. After much discussion, Chairman McElroy stated that he would check with Town Counsel about the legalities of keeping a log for personal use.
Ms. Scott asked the Board what they would like her to do for proactive work. She will keep the Board up-to-date on any applicable items as she learns of them. She would like to work on other items such as helping the Board to update the Town Master Plan, zoning amendments, etc. Ms. Scott stated that she will create member binders with all of the current and applicable updated documents.
Correspondence file was reviewed.
NFPA guidelines were discussed.
Scott Osgood moved to adjourn; Terry Stamps seconded. Motion passed, 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio; Scott Osgood.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm.
The minutes of the September 12, 2007 business meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Motion passed, 4 – 0.
Guests
Mark Mitch, on behalf of the Conservation Commission, provided summary of the Watershed Protection Ordinance for Henniker’s greater ponds. It was noted that some of the proposed restrictions would be removed from the ordinance as there are already State regulations in place that are more stringent. He stated that agricultural land use cannot utilize generic setbacks; each farm must be evaluated individually. It was suggested that the Conservation Commission review the State RSA’s, DES and local regulations regarding agricultural land use. He will be put on the agenda for the October work session meeting to report the commission’s progress.
(Kellie Dyjak, Board member, arrived at 6:50 pm.)
Projects and Action
Zoning Amendments:
Chairman McElroy provided a spreadsheet summary of the permitted uses and those uses allowed by special exception in each of the zoning districts. Terry Stamps stated that a definition for “apartment” must be included.
(Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair, arrived at 6:55 pm.)
Ms. Stamps suggested that the list be divided amongst the Board members to check against the Master Plan, RSA’s, zoning and definitions. Ms. Stamps also stated that some towns do not have a category of “special exceptions.”
Kristin Claire volunteered to research special exceptions. Kellie Dyjak volunteered to research rental units. Ms. Claire and Ron Taylor will review permitted uses in the Educational district.
Chairman McElroy will review commercial uses and districts. Scott Osgood and Ms. Stamps will review the excavation category. The “Institutional” category was assigned to Gary Guzouskas for review. Ron Taylor will write the draft for changes regarding fences. Ms. Stamps will review manufactured housing and parks. It was decided that storage units should be placed under “commercial services,” and the college’s storage facility was discussed.
Ms. Stamps distributed an updated list of the 2008 Zoning Amendments.
The table for road frontages for the Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Neighborhood (RN) districts was edited to correct frontage errors made when the zoning ordinance was published after the 2007 Town meeting. Chairman McElroy stated that he will take the changes to the Town office for corrections to be made to the book.
Ms. Stamps distributed the Timeline to be used for the 2008 Zoning Amendments. The first posting date was changed to 12/20/07 and the first public hearing will occur on January 3, 2008. A work session meeting has been scheduled for January 9, 2008. Chairman McElroy stated that he will review the January 2008 calendar with Nicole in the Town office.
Discussion
Legislation Concerning Uniform Fire Code Jurisdiction
The Board discussed advice from Town Counsel.
Rules of Procedure
A change was made to Art. VII, B to match the applicable RSA of posting Notice of Decisions within 144 hours.
The role of the Planning Consultant was discussed. The Planning Consultant will interact with the public and will assist with the application process and provide analysis to the Board. The Planning Consultant should be available during meetings to make presentations when asked and provide information when requested. The Planning Consultant is to provide services to the Planning Board and the ZBA.
Waivers to applications were discussed. The Board does not feel that it is necessary to be changed in the Rules of Procedure, but Mr. Osgood stated that public input should be allowed when considering waivers.
Kellie Dyjak moved to accept the Rules of Procedure, 2004 with the one correction as to the time to post Notice of Decisions. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6 – 0.
Correspondence
The file was made available for the Board’s review.
Other Business
The 2006 Book of Updates of Land Use Laws is now available.
It was noted that the applicant for the Talbot case has submitted materials for Board review in preparation of the October 10, 2007 meeting/public hearing.
Chairman McElroy requested that members suggest names for alternates to the Planning Board. He will write an article for the next issue of the Outlook.
Mr. Taylor stated that he would like to see something in the Subdivision Regulations about private dead-end roads. He stated that there are issues that must be considered on roads of less than 300 feet. Also, it was suggested that two means of egress be put into the regulations.
Kristin Claire stated that the Town now owns three riverfront properties, thanks to the work of the Conservation Commission.
Ms. Stamps stated that there is the opportunity for Randall Arendt, a proponent of conservation development (a different approach to open-space residential development), to provide training to the Central New Hampshire region. This is a way to make training for this approach available to Henniker and other interested towns, communities and land use Boards. The cost of the workshop is $4,000 plus travel and expenses. Ms. Stamps requested us to contribute $500 - $1,000.
Scott Osgood moved to request the Board of Selectmen to allow the Planning Board and Conservation Commission to spend $1,000 to attend a training session on conservation subdivision development by Randall Arendt in October 2007. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Terry Stamps, Budget Director for the Planning Board, will request to get on the agenda for the next Selectmen’s meeting. The motion passed, 5 – 0 – 1 (Ron Taylor abstaining.)
Scott Osgood moved to adjourn at 9:50 pm. Kristin Claire seconded the motion; motion carried, 6 – 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
September 12, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Ron and Barbara Talbot; Cynthia Bumford; Rick Bumford; Kris Bumford; Tim Lamphere; Matthew Cottle; Roy Grieder; Mark Moser; Eaton Tarbell, Esq.; Chris Stewart; Ron Bourcier; Eric Hauptman; Art Siciliano; Dale Jennings; Jeffrey Egner; Gigi Laberge; Jeff Laberge; Rep. Barbara French
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
The Board reviewed the minutes of the August 22, 2007 meeting. Corrections were made. Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair, moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Terry Stamps, member, seconded the motion. Minutes were accepted, 6-0.
Old Business
Case 2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Chairman McElroy stated for the audience that a great deal of information is available for their review in the public file. He stated that he would like to review the Consultant’s report and address each item. Atty. Eaton Tarbell, for the applicant, stated that they had just received these reports on Friday and have not had sufficient time to thoroughly address all items. He requested that the public audience have a chance to give their input so that when all information is presented at the next meeting, the Board may be able to make a ruling.
Chairman McElroy stated that he felt it would be helpful to have the audience share their input, but they would probably like another opportunity to speak after hearing all of the items which must be addressed. He asked for the opinions of other Board members as to how they would like to proceed.
Kristin Claire stated that she wanted to hear the public tonight and again at the next meeting, if needed.
Terry Stamps stated that she would like to hear from the public that is in attendance tonight, but feels the need to also continue the public hearing to next month so that they can hear all of the new information.
Kellie Dyjak, member, stated that it would be advantageous to hear from the public tonight and open the meeting to the public again next month after the new information is reviewed.
Gary Guzouskas, member, stated that he is comfortable with splitting the public hearing between tonight and a later date after additional information is reviewed.
Scott Osgood, member, stated that if the public speaks tonight, he recommends that they be aware that there is a great deal of pertinent information still forthcoming.
Kristin Claire moved to have an initial public hearing tonight and continue the hearing at a later date to respond to additional information. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 6-0.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, briefly related the contents of the Consultant’s Status Report (as outlined below). She stated that this report was last reviewed with the July plans. She strongly encouraged the public to review the complete materials.
A) The applicant has filed for an Area Variance with the ZBA to bring the road right-of-way to 50 feet by moving property boundary closer to the Dodge house. A lot line adjustment will be required if the variance is granted.
E) Boundary line concern still outstanding on the other side of the property.
F) Will there be a conservation easement on the open space?
G) Driveways must comply with standards set by NFPA guidelines.
8. Easement documentation must be reviewed.
9. Water information must be provided on plans. Will there be adequate water pressure for home sprinklers, etc.
11. Will the open space be accessible to new property owners during all three construction phases?
12. Will there be future connectivity of the dead-end roads?
14. Will riprap be placed on the south side of the arch culvert at the brook on C5.0 to help slow the flow?
16. Driveways need to be shown on recorded plans.
19. Clarification for buildings on Lots 3 and 12 has been requested.
20. School impact fees will be assessed on all 14 house lots at the time approval is granted.
23. Plan set provided last time shows two maps which appear to be combining two applications. These must be separated.
26. Information relating to roads is requested.
27. A waiver may be requested for the 10-percent grade.
29. Turnaround information is requested.
30. Grades displayed on conventional plan exceed the maximum of 8-percent, seemingly to 12-14% in places. If it doesn’t meet standards for conventional plan, open-space plan may need to change.
34. Have received a copy of the letter from DES giving conditional approval of the subdivision contingent on design.
35. Will construction disturb more than one acre?
36. Do not have a full copy of the report regarding the DES Alteration of Terrain permit. (Have only first page)
39. Information requested about drainage easements.
42. Requesting documentation about homeowner’s association, covenants, easements, etc. Atty. Tarbell stated that they have revised declarations and simple restrictions on the open-space lots. He stated that they have removed a lot of the building covenants as the Town ordinance already covers these matters. Drainage easements are in the covenants. A copy was distributed to the Board and to Ms. Alexander.
Chairman McElroy stated that he would like to review the reports from the Town Engineer and the Conservation Commission for the benefit of the public. Ms. Alexander gave a synopsis of the eight page report from Hoyle, Tanner. She read the specific questions posed to the Town Engineer by the Planning Board and summarized their responses. Due to time, about half-way through the report, Chairman McElroy explained to the audience the process the Board uses to request information from other Town agencies. He stated that these reports are in the public file available for their review. He assured the public audience that the applicant has to answer each of the engineering details in order for the Board to consider their application. He also explained that each plan submitted is also reviewed by the Conservation Commission, particularly to consider any impact to wetlands and wildlife.
Atty. Tarbell showed plans and reviewed the 1.86-foot bumpout for a length of approximately 45-feet to accommodate the 50’ right of way. He stated that they are scheduled to request the Area Variance from the ZBA on 9/19/07. He stated that the line would go straight across the Dodge’s property to access the 14 lots with a few inches hooking in on the Lamphere’s property. Mr. Bourcier showed the proposed roads, detention ponds, lots and open space to the audience. He also showed a section of 150-feet with 10% slope and another section about 75’ long. Mr. Bourcier showed the Hauptman Road profile where 10% grade from 13+80 to 14+25 (approx. 45’ long), as well as a 10% grade starting at 21+38 to 22+30 (appox. 75’ long).
Ms. Alexander summarized the report from the Conservation Commission.
Chairman McElroy explained to the audience that there are set zoning ordinances and open space residential development protocols to follow. All of the information presented is in response to these regulations. Other information has also been received, but they are trying to review the major topics tonight.
Chairman McElroy reviewed rules for the public hearing with the audience. He instructed the audience to ask questions about the subdivision as presented or to give their input to the Board. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 pm.
Gigi Laberge, resident of Bacon Road, asked if the safety component has been addressed in an area where there are already 3 bus stops within 600-feet. How will that intersection impact safety of the neighborhood?
Tim Lamphere, resident of Bacon Road, questioned the encroachment on his property based on the Town Engineer report.
Chairman McElroy stated that there are several ways that the issue of safety is approached. The Highway Safety Commission meets as needed for cases like this and has met to review the plan for the roads.
Gary Guzouskas, member, stated that there are meeting minutes which address the committees response to the plan. He stated that there have been two discussions with the committee and the Road Agent. All information is in the public file for review.
Mr. Lamphere stated that he attended the meetings of the roads safety committee. He stated that the members stated that they were not educated enough to make those specific decisions and would have to defer to the Town Engineer.
Dale Jennings, resident of Bacon Road, stated that he understood there is deliberation about Open Space or Conventional plans. Chairman McElroy stated that the applicant has the choice of how they want to submit their application. The Board is to rule on the application presented.
Mr. Lamphere asked if they can still have input on the validity of the traditional plan that the open-space plan is based on.
Mr. Jennings stated that he was at one of the Roads Committee meetings. He stated that the committee members were clear that they were not looking at overall safety issues in general, but only looking at questions from the Planning Board. He stated that he asked them specifically about the safety issue but was told that they were not looking at the overall project but have narrow and specific items to consider.
Jeff Laberge, resident of Bacon Road, asked if the applicant has received permission from the Lamphere’s to encroach on their property.
Chairman McElroy stated that was an opinion of the Town Engineer as to how a situation could be handled. Also, any off-site work is controlled by the Board of Selectmen. If they were to go forward with a condition that off-site improvements on the sight distance, they would have to pursue that matter. The Planning Board controls roads within the subdivision. The Board of Selectmen control modification of roads outside of the subdivision.
Mr. Lamphere stated that there is water runoff on the land next to this property. He asked what abutter’s rights are if something happens after the development is built. He stated that a drainage study was done on the applicant’s land, but does it review the surrounding land. Chairman McElroy stated that the drainage study is to ensure that no more water will come off of the developed land than what currently occurs.
Lesley Paul, resident of 31 Rand Road, stated that she appreciates the process and attention to detail that the Board does. She questioned when the Board will say that there are multiple concerns for development in this area. When would the Board say that the land can support the development without affecting the preponderance of information concerning traffic, safety, water, drainage, children, etc.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Board is involved in that process right now. The Board has the responsibility to look at all of the information and then make a ruling.
Terry Stamps stated that there have been examples when applications have been denied on the basis that the activity is too intense for the area. The Board has to look at each aspect to make sure it meets not only the letter of the law, but also the intent of the law.
Ms. Paul stated that she wants to make sure that the Board makes their final assessment based on the overall scope and tone of the individual reports concerning the big picture and not get bogged down in such myopic details.
Scott Osgood, member, stated that while they must follow the regulations and case law, they also get to use their judgment in deciding a case.
Ms. Paul stated that in a subdivision project she was involved in, a full survey had to be done to show undisputed property lines in order to file their subdivision in order to get a mortgage. She asked how this application could go forward with a disputed property line.
Mr. Osgood stated that the applicant has demonstrated that their surveyor disputes the other boundary line. The Planning Board cannot rule on boundary line disputes.
Ms. Claire stated that they have not heard any more from the Egner’s concerning the disputed property line. They have legal ways to pursue their case.
Mr. Lamphere stated that the Egner’s should not have to be responsible to prove their boundary line that they have had on their deed all this time.
Jeff Laberge asked which parties would be liable if there were a catastrophic event which resulted in damage to a neighboring property because of this development. He also stated concern about the ZBA granting an Area Variance.
Mr. Jennings stated that the Town still has a responsibility for safety and the Board can still override that intersection if it appears to be unsafe. He has been told that the turning radius is supposed to be within the property bounds.
Jeff Egner, abutter, asked how the access road is being defined. If the road meets Town standards but is not accepted at the Town meeting, what happens? Chairman McElroy explained that it would then become a “private road.” Maintenance of the road and setbacks would become the responsibility of the homeowner’s association.
Atty. Tarbell explained that it is the developer’s responsibility to design the road with necessary drainage. The Town would have the responsibility of all the drainage features. The Road Agent asked for easements in order for the Town to maintain the culverts.
Kristin Claire stated that before it is accepted at Town meeting, it is the developer’s responsibility, but asked if it should be listed as a possibility that it could become the responsibility of the homeowner’s association.
Atty. Tarbell stated that they plan for the road to be built to Town standards and hope that it would be accepted at Town meeting. If not, responsibility would fall to the homeowners.
Mr. Jennings stated that if it remains a private road, the homeowner’s need to be ready to maintain the costs.
Chairman McElroy stated that maintenance of the open space is a shared responsibility, and language of the documents would reflect such.
Atty. Tarbell clarified that this is not planned to be a “homeowner’s association.” “Planned Urban Development” consists of 15+ lots, so this development is under the statutory threshold; it would be considered shared ownership.
Gigi Laberge stated that her property is lower than the Lamphere’s property. Water drains off Beaver Pond into wetlands, into the unnamed stream, and her back yard floods when that area floods. She asked that after development and the land changes, what happens if additional water ends up on her property. Will the Town become responsible for damage to her property?
Ms. Paul expressed concern about the septic design. If the proposed drainage fails and the septic systems become problematic, who assumes responsibility?
Ms. Claire stated that the State is responsible for septic system design.
Ms. Paul asked who (Town, developer, homeowner’s association) is responsible for cleaning up if the plan doesn’t work.
Chairman McElroy stated that the goal is for the drainage system to be designed so that there is no more water coming off than there is right now. The measure that is used is the 50-year storm.
Ms. Laberge stated that she wants it recorded that they live downstream from the proposed development.
Jeff Laberge stated that they live across from the proposed feeder road. There is a granite marker and then a metal pin in about 5’ from it. He asked if the corner was marked by the granite marker or the metal pin. Mr. Lamphere stated that he believes it is the granite marker; the applicant states that it is the metal pin. Mr. Bourcier showed the angle point and the ZBA waiver for that point.
Ms. Laberge stated that this proposal has been very upsetting to the neighborhood. She stated that the only people who are in favor of the project are in a position to have financial gain. She stated that we are talking about where we live and what goes on in our yards. She stated that the developer doesn’t have to live with it after his work is done. She stated that they don’t feel that it is a good idea for the area. There are other areas still to be developed in Henniker, but this should not be the place. She also stated that Nancy Talbot’s heirs owned up to 1000’ of frontage in the last 10 years. In fact, the Dodge’s property was under Nancy Talbot’s control in the last decade. She feels like this has been shoved down their throats. If their families had planned to do this, they could have planned better for it. Their past poor decisions shouldn’t affect all of the neighbors now.
Public hearing ended at 8:32 pm.
Chairman McElroy stated that the public hearing would be continued at the next meeting on October 10, 2007. The applicant will provide their responses to the comments of the Town Engineer and Conservation Commission at that time.
Kristin Claire asked to respond to the comments made by Gigi Laberge. She agreed with the assessment that there could have been a better plan for this property. She stated that the ZBA granted variances to the regulations voted on by the Town.
Ms. Paul stated that her husband, who could not be in attendance tonight, would like to discuss the voting procedures used by the ZBA as it is his opinion their votes have more to do with personal financial gain. She stated that some of those members should recuse themselves if they can make any financial gain from a decision.
Chairman McElroy stated that the ZBA is appointed by the Board of Selectmen. He explained the appeals process that is in place for the land use boards in Henniker. If the Planning Board misinterprets a zoning ordinance, then an appeal is made to the ZBA. If it is deemed necessary, it goes to Superior Court. ZBA appeals go to Superior Court.
(Ron Taylor joined the Board at 8:40 pm.)
Case 2007-011: A Minor Subdivision application for two lots has been submitted by Matthew D. Cottle for Map 1, Lot 730B-1 on Mount Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman McElroy stated that this case was first heard on August 8, 2007; the applicant requested that it be continued to this meeting in order to produce revised plans. A project narrative is in the file. A lot line adjustment occurred previously. Mr. Cottle stated that they are dividing property to create two lots.
Chairman McElroy asked Ms. Alexander to review the consultant status report.
The applicant stated that no building is intended in the foreseeable future, therefore, several waivers have been requested: 1) Delineation of wetlands on site. The applicant stated that there are no wetlands where houses would be built. Chairman McElroy stated that a wetlands scientist stamp is required on the plans. 2) Driveway applications. Mr. Taylor stated that proposed driveways should be shown on the plans, but a permit application does not yet have to be filed. 3) Septic system design. Chairman McElroy requested that the location of the septic systems be placed, though actual design is not necessary.
The Board closely reviewed the plans and prior work that had been done on the property. Gary Guzouskas moved to grant the waiver requiring the wetlands be delineated and the need for the wetland scientist stamp. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued. Two types of soils are identified according to the USGA soil maps. Ms. Dyjak suggested that a site walk would be helpful. Ms. Claire stated that she would like to see test pits conducted. A vote was called. The motion passed, 5-2, granting the waiver for delineating wetlands.
The second waiver requested is in regards to showing proposed driveways. It was stated that the location of proposed driveways should be shown. Ron Taylor moved to grant the waiver for the driveway application. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Scott Osgood suggested that the Board ask for any public comment. Hearing none, the vote was taken. The motion to grant the waiver to omit the driveway location passed, 6-1.
The third waiver was to omit the septic system design for each lot. Terry Stamps moved to approve the waiver requested to show the location of the septic are on the plans. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion to approve the waiver failed, 4-3.
Ms. Alexander reminded the Board that school impact fees should be assessed on both lots. The impact fees are to be assessed at the time when building permits are issued.
Plat details, Item 202-9 of the status report, were reviewed as follows:
B) Buildable area is to be shown;
C) Surveyor’s seal and signature is on the plans;
D) Locus map has been revised;
E) Need right-of-way for Mt. Hunger Road and easement language where it is deeded to the Town;
F) Wetlands delineation requirement has been waived;
J) Condition met;
L) New monument is to be set on each new corner at Morse Road indicating the new lot line as a result of “dissolving” the former Lot 726X-1. This is a condition of approval.
M) Test pit information must be provided;
N) As the waiver was denied, the location of the septic system and well must be shown;
O) See Note C on the plans;
P) Showing 2-acre buildable land is enough;
Q) Notes regarding floodplains on are on the plans.
Item #13 requests that easement language needs to be submitted for review and approval by Town Counsel.
Gary Guzouskas stated that items B, E, L, M and N are significant and must be done before making a decision on completeness. This case is continued to the October 10, 2007 meeting so that the applicant may address these issues.
Case 1996-013: Plummer Hill Road Extension on Map 1, Lots 701-B and 701-B3. Discussion of a waiver request for the 1996-approved but presently unbuilt road plan, being currently modified to existing Town standards to begin construction, to permit a 10% grade to the extension of Plummer Hill in lieu of the approved 9.59% and a deviation from the 8% required in the existing Subdivision Regulations.
Mark Moser, Moser Engineering, assisted the applicant, Roy Grieder in the presentation. They showed original subdivision plans from 1996. The intent was to extend the road. They showed the portion of the road where the grade is greater than 8%, then showed the profile which was approved to 9.59% grade.
Mr. Moser drew new plans showing the necessary change from 9.59% to 10% which created a smoother transition.
Ron Taylor moved to approve the request to change the waived slope from 9.59% to 10%. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
New Business
Case 2007-015: A Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment application for 2 lots has been submitted by Walter G. (Jr.) & Cynthia Bumford, owners of record on Map 1/Lot 767 at 20 Cote Hill Road, and Richard W. & Kristina Bumford, owners of record of Map 1/Lot 767A at 112 Cote Hill Road, all of which are located in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Art Siciliano presented the plans for the applicants. Applicants are requesting to change the lot line to add to the small section of property, thereby squaring the lot. This would add 30+ feet to the frontage on Cote Hill Road, making a total of 275’ of frontage. There are existing houses on two lots, and there is one newly proposed lot. Mr. Siciliano showed existing access road which could be the driveway, and it meets the setback requirement.
Terry Stamps had questions about the notices to abutters. Ms. Alexander stated that abutters are checked against the tax maps. Mr. Siciliano stated that 566B is not an abutter. They verified that abutters were notified properly, but the Locus map needs to be corrected.
Ms. Alexander reviewed the status report. Waiver requests for Plat Details, Item 202-9, were reviewed.
F) Delineation of wetlands beyond the 2-acre buildable area. Ron Taylor stated that it is not acceptable to show additional houses, septic and well systems on existing lots.
Mr. Taylor moved to grant the waiver for topographic and wetlands delineation beyond the designated 2-acre buildable area. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
D) Locus map must be corrected.
F) Any flood zone locations on Lot 767-H must be depicted.
H) Benchmarks have been added.
L) Monuments have been set every 1000 feet.
Mr. Siciliano is requesting a waiver to the requirement that monuments be set on all angles and curves on this piece of property. Gary Guzouskas moved to grant this waiver as requested. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Motion passed,
7-0.
P) It was noted that this is not necessary. Ms. Stamps stated that they are due a $5 refund.
V) Septic design application.
Mr. Siciliano requested a waiver for the septic design application.
Mr. Guzouskas moved to grant the waiver as requested. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Mr. Osgood stated that he would like the Board to review the Subdivision Regulations to see how this may affect future buyers. Motion passed, 7-0.
It was noted that a letter from the NH Natural Heritage Inventory must be submitted as a condition of approval.
Ron Taylor moved to find the application complete with the following conditions: 1) Locus map must show proposed lots and corrections; 2) depict flood zone locations, if applicable. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
The public hearing was opened at 10:15 pm. As no comments were heard from the public, the hearing was closed.
Kellie Dyjak moved to approve the application for Case 2007-015 with the following conditions: 1) Locus map must show proposed lots and corrections; 2) depict flood zone locations, if applicable; 3) a letter from the NH Natural Heritage Inventory must be submitted; 4) modify Note 5 to state the Flood Hazard Boundary panel number, and to state that any construction on Lot 767-H will be undertaken in compliance with Art. XXI, Floodplain Development. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0. School impact fees will be assessed on Lot 767-H according to the schedule in effect at the time the building permit is applied for.
Other Business
Scott Osgood moved to revise the meeting agenda to allow Rep. French to discuss other business before continuing with the scheduled agenda. Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Chairman McElroy stated that Rep. Barbara French brought information about building codes, fire codes and land use issues. Mr. Osgood stated that he would like to have her come back at a later date to discuss the information and have this item placed under “New Business” on an upcoming agenda.
Discussion Items
Consultant’s Report: Ms. Alexander stated that the consultant’s log is available for review.
Adopting the “Rules of Procedure” will be placed on the agenda for the October meeting.
Zoning Amendment process must begin at next work session meeting. The meeting will begin at 6:00 pm on September 26, 2007.
Correspondence: A letter stating the release of 95% of the Performance Bond on Ridgetop Estates was received. The “Land Use Practice” book is available.
Ms. Stamps distributed sample covenants for open space residential developments. She also distributed conservation designs for open space developments and her summary of the report.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 pm. Ms. Stamps seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Members Present: James McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio; Scott Osgood.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
Minutes of the Regular Business Meeting of August 8, 2007 were reviewed and corrected. Ron Taylor moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Scott Osgood seconded the motion. Minutes were approved, 4 – 0.
Guests
None
Projects & Action
Finalize Rules of Procedure, 2004:
The Rules of Procedure, revised 6/27/07, were reviewed. Typographical errors were corrected. Terry Stamps moved to accept the Rules of Procedure (revised 6/27/07) as corrected. Scott Osgood seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
Finalize Revised Subdivision Regulations:
It was decided to keep the section about roads standards as is in the Town standards for the time being. There are various issues which must be resolved between various Town agencies to align the standards.
For Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant:
**Page 6, B: The Board is asking Ms. Alexander to offer guidance in creating a paragraph on policy regarding off-site improvements related to drainage. If development creates a situation where off-site work is required, it would be analyzed by the Town Engineer, and the cost would be determined by complete and limited responsibility.
**Develop policy statement for costs associated with water and sewer; the hook-up costs will be as directed by the water and sewer commissioners.
**Page 28: Why was the number changed from 50-year to 10-year storm tabulations? Board suggested that Stephanie check with HTA to see if that reference has changed.
**Page 30: Board is requesting Stephanie to get a current State reference to the non-invasive plant list and the RSA.
**Pages 34-42: Re: Streets. Section to be renumbered.
**Page 54: Delete section “202-23: Appendix.” May need to create an appendix to reference the applications, etc.
**The Board is asking Stephanie to review the schedule of fees for Design Review. (i.e., Recording fees are not applicable.)
Various typographical errors were corrected.
2008 Zoning Amendments
The Board reviewed the proposed list of ideas and assigned members to be responsible for reporting at the next meeting. The Board decided to meet at
6:00 pm on September 26, 2007, to begin the work on the Zoning Amendments.
Other Business
Open Space Developments:
Terry Stamps stated that she has read interesting information about creating Open Space Residential Developments. The approach begins with the applicants looking at the unique attributes and natural existing features of the property. A site walk is done at the beginning of the application process in order for everyone to understand the character of a property. Next, houses are sited, then the roads are outlined, and, finally, the lot lines are drawn. Chairman McElroy suggested that Ms. Stamps inform the CNHRPC’s Executive Director about this author/speaker that she was referring to, as they may be interested in scheduling him as a guest speaker. Ms. Stamps will create a summary sheet outlining this approach. The Board will consider using this approach on future applications.
Plummer Rd. Extension:
Chairman McElroy stated that a plan was approved in 1996 for the Plummer Road Extension. The owner is now ready to build the road. A slope of 9.59% was approved; however, it is actually a 10% grade. The fire department has already been involved. A hammerhead has been designed, and he has been instructed that it must be sized to allow a fire truck to turn around. Ron Taylor moved to consider the request for a waiver to approve the maximum 10% slope (changed from the 9.59% slope). Scott Osgood seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0.
Correspondence:
Information regarding the OEP Conference was highlighted.
Mr. Taylor moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 pm. Ms. Stamps seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman ex-officio; Kristin Claire, Vice Chairman; Scott Osgood, Secretary; Ron Taylor, Selectman ex-officio
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Eaton Tarbell, III, Esq.; Ron Bourcier; Roy Grieder; Matt Cottle; Neva Williamson; Ron Talbot; Tim Lamphere; Joe Wichert; Dale Jennings; Eric Hauptman; Martha Sunderland; Dennis & Susan Lanphear
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. The Minutes of the meeting of July 11, 2007 were reviewed. Scott Osgood moved to approve the minutes as written. Chairman McElroy seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0.
Old Business
Case 2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Ron Taylor, Selectman ex-officio, recused himself from this case. Cheryl Morse, Alternate, is sitting in this capacity.
Eaton Tarbell, Esq., reviewed the latest set of drawings and addressed the access points where the road is less than 46 feet wide. He stated that they are negotiating with the Dodge family to obtain ownership interest of property to widen to 50 feet. He stated that they have worked to get the 50-foot corridor with two minor exceptions. They are negotiating easements for the drainage culverts and a public right of way easement of .002 acres (1.86’ garage bump-out area). He expressed that the Dodge’s have concerns and are asking for the Town to indemnify ownership of that area. Ron Bourcier stated that he has a letter from the highway superintendent which says that he prefers 50-feet for maintenance, but he is not concerned about their arrangement in this case.
The language proposed in Atty. Tarbell’s letter dated Aug. 8, 2007 for the public right of way easement deed and the drainage easement for culverts must meet with Town Counsel’s approval as well as approval from the Dodge’s attorney.
Atty. Tarbell stated that the other issue concerning a boundary discrepancy has not been informally or formally addressed by that abutter.
Atty. Tarbell prepared a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. RSA 635.2 regarding posting to trespassers was discussed. Scott Osgood, board member, stated that if land is in current use, it is to be accessible to the public. It was stated that item #13 of the document is helpful in getting people to take care of the property. The Board expressed concern about maintenance of the features of the development and to ensure that controlling drainage is not ignored. Atty. Tarbell stated that the obligation falls to the homeowner to maintain the property. If this is not done, the Town can repair the problem then charge the homeowner to recoup the costs. Kristin Claire, board member, stated that in light of the discussion, item #15 should be removed as the covenants run with the land.
The Board and Applicant decided to make the suggested changes to the document before sending any of it to town Counsel for review.
Mr. Osgood suggested that the applicant go to the ZBA to decrease frontage in front of the Dodge’s house, thereby becoming Town property. Atty. Tarbell stated that he would need to speak to his client. He then requested a 30-extension to pursue this matter. Kristin Claire moved to grant the requested 30-day extension. Cheryl Morse seconded the motion; it passed, 4-0.
The shared driveways for Lots 8 & 9 were discussed. The owners are to equally share the cost of driveway maintenance.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, notified the Board that the new drawings were sent to the highway safety commission. Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, will let the Board know when that meeting is to take place. The Conservation Commission has received the report, but no comment has been received yet.
Tim Lamphere, resident, requested a copy of the plans, and a set was loaned to him. Martha Sunderland from the Conservation Commission requested a full-size set of plans to review. She was instructed to pick them up from the Town office.
The case is continued until September 12, 2007.
Case 2007-008: A Site Plan Review application has been submitted by Attorneys Respite
for a change of use from a vacant space, previously used as a construction
office, to Greater Henniker Counseling Associates, a counseling facility. The
property is located on Map 2 Lot 194-B1 at 168 Maple Street in the Village
Proper (RV) District.
Cheryl Morse stepped down from the Board. Ron Taylor rejoined the Board as a full member.
Neva Williamson represented the applicant in this case. Their application had previously not been accepted as complete as a Special Exception was required from the ZBA. This was granted on July 18, 2007.
Ms. Williamson stated that Greater Henniker Counseling Associates would like to fill the void in the community left by Riverbend. They would serve children through adults, individuals, groups and families. They are requesting to use the five-office suite on the main floor, leaving two vacant offices in the downstairs area. She stated that she will be working full time with one part-time employee. Their long-term goal is to employ five staff (one per office). She does not envision all five therapists in the office at the same time. Group session would run in the evenings. Groups would usually consist of 1-2 staff and up to 8 patients. Office hours would be 10am–6 pm, Monday through Friday. Groups would usually be in the evenings (approximately 6pm-8pm).
Ms. Williamson stated that this type of therapy practice is a quiet office use (which differs from residential therapy). She does not employ expressive arts therapy. She also stated that land is available if growth necessitates more parking spaces. Mr. Osgood stated that she will have to get a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Board reviewed several requests for waivers. There are no dumpsters on the property. Traffic will be significantly less than what it had been. No additional lighting is proposed.
Kristin Claire moved to find the application complete. Scott Osgood seconded. The motion passed, 4-0.
Ms. Alexander asked the Board to consider classifying the building as a multiuse building. She also suggested having a copy of the tenant’s lease in the file to facilitate tracking of businesses in the building. Ron Taylor, board member, disagreed with the suggestion as a lease has private information. He stated that a description of the use would be useful, however. Mr. Osgood also stated that having a copy of the business description as stated in the lease would be helpful to keep in the file so that future boards could know history of the use of the building to assess possible changes of use. Also, the Building Inspector could put a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy in the file to track changes of business.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 8:31 pm. Hearing no public comment, the public session was closed. Mr. Osgood reminded the Board that there was support for this change at the last meeting.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the change of use with the condition that the copy of the Certificate of Occupancy be put into the file.
Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Mr. Taylor stated that a site plan review is not needed for change of use. He stated that there should be no conditions imposed since it is not the tenant’s responsibility; it is the responsibility of the code enforcement officer. Chairman McElroy suggested that this requirement be separated from the Notice of Decision. Mr. Osgood withdrew the motion. Ms. Claire moved to approve the change of use, subject to Section 203-3E, and approve it as a multiuse building. Mr. Osgood seconded the motion. It passed, 4-0.
New Business
Case 2007-011: A Minor Subdivision application for two lots has been submitted by Matthew D. Cottle for Map 1, Lot 730B-1 on Mount Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
The applicant approached the chairman prior to the start of the meeting and requested that this case be continued to the September 2007 meeting.
Conceptual Consultation
Case 2007-014: Materials have been submitted for a conceptual consultation for a minor subdivision by Joseph M. Wichert, LLS Inc. on behalf of Ralene St. Pierre at Bradford Road, Map 1, Lot 10 and Map 1, Lot 68 in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Joe Wichert, land surveyor, stated that the applicant is interested in disposing of some of property. She is interested in creating two new lots about 5 acres in size with the remainder parcel of 35+ acres. He stated that they have done a full boundary survey and wetland delineation. He stated that this is a relatively steep piece of property. He asked if field topography would be required of the entire 35 acres. He explained the frontages and stated that they are trying not to have to cross the brook. He stated that a curb cut on Lot 1 would involve a wetlands crossing, although it is not an important area. This keeps Lot 2 at 250’ for a shared access.
Kristin Claire stated that this property is at the bottom of the Mink Hills tract which is rated one of the most biodiverse areas left in New Hampshire. Mr. McElroy stated that there may be difficulty getting two contiguous acres of buildable land.
Mr. Wichert stated that they are trying to minimize disturbance to the property and only have one wetlands crossing on Lot 1. He stated that there is a platform past the brook with is relatively flat. It was suggested that they start with topography of the two smaller lots first. The Board recommended that he talk with the Conservation Commission as Amey Brook has great significance to the Town.
Ms. Alexander also advised the applicant that zoning has changed in the Rural Residential District on Class V roads. The State highway is a Class IV road.
Discussion Items
Consultant’s Report: Ms. Alexander gave a summary of her work to the Board.
Other Business
Case 2007-013: Letter has been submitted by Dennis Lanphear for Stone Falls Gardens on Map 1, Lot 545 at 184 Stone Falls Road in the Heavy Commercial (CH) District.
Chairman McElroy explained that the Board is interested in reviewing this business site as it appears that they have expanded operation.
Mr. Lanphear stated that they erected a 125’ x 30’ greenhouse but did not feel that a permit was necessary. He stated that they did not understand that the $5,000 building code exemption did not apply to commercial businesses.
He described their use as a seasonal business; however, the greenhouses are used to store plants during the winter.
Location of structures, truck access routes, maintenance and snow removal were discussed. The Lanphears stated that a permeable ground cover is used throughout the property, and pesticides are not used, causing no damage to the brook which runs through the property.
The Board agreed that a site plan is not found to be necessary in this case. It is clear that the Lanphears have not violated any Town regulations since their business falls under agricultural use. The differences between requirements for agricultural businesses and those for other types of businesses were discussed.
The Lanphears offered to submit an updated drawing showing location of structures, roads, etc. and a descriptive narrative of their business operations. Chairman McElroy stated that the Planning Board is responding to a complaint that had been made. After speaking with the applicant, the Board found no need to require them to submit an application for expansion of use. A copy of these minutes will be placed in their file to document this action.
Ms. Claire moved to adjourn at 10:35 pm. Ron Taylor seconded; motion passed, 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio.
Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman, ex-officio, was excused.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Matthew Cottle; Ron Bourcier, Turner Group; Chris Stewart, Landmark Development; Eaton Tarbell, III, Esq.; Marilee and Hamilton Dodge; Ron Talbot.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
The minutes from the June 27, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Scott Osgood seconded the motion; motion passed, 5-0.
Old Business:
Case #2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
(Ron Taylor has recused himself from this case.)
Chairman McElroy stated that the board members had received a large packet of documents at the last meeting to review. Today, the applicant received the consultant’s report. Also, letters from highway superintendent John Margeson and DES were received. Attorney Tarbell stated their request to have the Board accept their application as complete. He stated that further negotiations could be reached on particular issues if needed.
Chairman McElroy requested that they fully review the consultant’s report this evening to determine which issues are needed to consider for completeness and which issues would be matters of approval. There was discussion about the different sets of drawings; one set is to be filed with the county registrar and the other set deals specifically with the open-space development, per se.
A question about five driveways coming off of “Talbot Court” was raised. Mr. Bourcier stated that there are only four driveways with one more on the curve of the road. Differences between sheet C-3 and Sheet 3.1 were compared and explained. Subdivision regulations 202-11(G) (page 8, item #29 of the consultant’s report) were discussed.
Mr. Bourcier stated that the Town Fire Chief signed off on this plan according to NFPA guidelines. He reported that letters from the Fire Chief indicate that this is a sufficient design.
Scott Osgood, board member, stated that there are several issues to be dealt with concerning the road which will require the input of the highway superintendent, the fire chief and the roads committee. He stated that they should stick to those issues tonight dealing with the matter of completeness, specifically sections 202-9 & 202-10.
Chairman McElroy raised the question of places along Hauptman Way where the grade is greater than 10-percent. Mr. Bourcier stated that according to the roads standards, the Board has the authority to allow increases. Mr. McElroy stated another issue is that certain driveways are not shown on various sheets of the plans. Mr. Bourcier stated that the driveways have been designed, but there is a layering situation with all of the information on the sheets. Mr. Osgood asked if he would draw the driveways in by hand for the purpose of discussing the overall drawing. Mr. Bourcier stated that he was not comfortable with drawing them in but would rework the drawings to show them.
Sheet 4.0 shows the subdivision plan. The ZBA has granted two wetlands crossings. Mr. Bourcier stated that the culverts were shifted from the original drawings. He stated that while the road has moved, the impact of the wetlands has not changed at all and are identical to what was filed.
Chairman McElroy asked about the locations of driveways and buildings (202-9 (P)). Mr. Bourcier stated that the plans for recording with the county are prepared by Brown Engineering. He stated that the final location will be determined by the owner and the builder. This plan refers to a reasonable building location on every lot.
Mr. Osgood stated that driveway placement is different than the buildings and are required because of possible impact to neighbors. He stated that neighbors should have a chance to see a plan that may affect them and be given a chance to discuss it. Atty. Tarbell stated that most cases he has dealt with are silent regarding building location and placement of driveways. He stated that they must meet specific requirements and be within set parameters but does not feel that placement is necessary. Terry Stamps, board member, stated that the subdivision regulations require proposed driveways, but the placement can be changed if necessary.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, stated that she is still concerned about the letter from the highway superintendent recommending that the road have an end loop for snow plowing.
Ms. Stamps questioned the notation on Sheet C-3, note #2, “open space lot area for property owners only.” She asked about the intended use of the open space and stated that the spirit of zoning was to make the open space available to the public.
Atty. Tarbell stated that this was discussed months ago as this development would be owned fractionally by the landowners. Making this open space available to the public could make these landowners liable. This development is not going to be marketed to be used by the public. He stated that there is still benefit to the public as this land will not be further developed.
Mr. Osgood stated that under the current use law, unless it is posted, the public has access to the land. Atty. Tarbell stated that he is not certain about this and will research the tort of trespass.
Chris Stewart stated that they can do a conservation easement. This land is individually owned, fee simple. Allowing public access can put the Town in jeopardy. They have the right to prevent trespassers. This will be designated in the homeowner’s agreement and the document of restrictives for the common areas.
Phasing was discussed. Per the GMO, developers are allowed five building permits per year.
Requirements for plat details (Item 202-9) were reviewed and addressed:
A) OK
B) OK
C) All signatures and seals are required
D) Will provide, albeit they will be very small
G) OK
H) Will add benchmark tied to USGS data
I) Will recheck the accuracy of the abutter’s list
K) This item is more related to condition of approval
L) Will set monuments
N) Well radii and septic areas will be considered for final approval
0/Z, P, AA) Will be considered at time of approval
Ms. Dyjak stated that she would benefit from seeing where the buildable area is on Sheet C-3. Atty. Tarbell stated that they will show that information to satisfy her request, as long as it does not imply that there is anything wrong or further required from the conventional plan about buildable area.
Ms. Stamps asked about the number of children expected to be in the development. They anticipate 9.8 students--below the threshold for a major development.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept this application as complete. Scott Osgood seconded the motion. It was asked whether any conditions are to be identified for completeness. The board did not feel that was necessary at this phase. Board voted, 5 – 0, to accept the application as complete.
Chairman McElroy stated that the application has been accepted as complete. The next phase is to prepare to move into the public hearings.
Ms. Stamps stated that they need to talk about the drainage report. She stated that she would like to hear feedback from the Conservation Commission about that also. Chairman McElroy will provide the Town Engineer with the drainage report and the revised plans.
Ms. Stamps also stated her concern about the ongoing lot-line dispute. Mr. Bourcier reviewed the comparisons between Cowan’s survey (1971) and the recent one conducted by Dennis Railland (9/18/06).
Mr. Bourcier gave an overview of the drainage report. The open-bottom culvert design was discussed. He stated that recent seminars on drainage show multiple detention areas collecting and stopping water so total runoff does not increase drainage, thereby the plan for Bacon Road. Sheet 3.1 shows a larger picture of six smaller detention areas discharging at a slower rate. The design is based on 25-year storms. He stated that the design must keep runoff the same or less than prior to developing the land.
Mr. Stewart explained that structures, culverts, etc. have to be designed to withstand 100-year flood conditions. He offered to bring the engineer that prepared the report in to discuss it in further detail. Mr. Osgood stated that may be a good idea.
Mr. Bourcier stated that no driveways are planned to be off the end of the road but are off the sides of the road. Plowing can be piled at the end of the road in the right-of-way. Lots 7 & 8 will have a shared driveway.
Action Items: The Board will request the Conservation Commission to review the drainage report and make a written response. The Board asked Mr. Stewart to stake the proposed road to aid in another site walk. They will be put on the agenda for the August 8, 2007 meeting.
New Business:
Case #2007-010: An application for a Voluntary Merger has been submitted by Matthew D. Cottle. The merger is to combine Map 1, Lot 730-B1 on Craney Pond Road with Map 1, Lot 726-X1 on Morse Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
(Ron Taylor joined the panel at 8:50 pm.)
The board reviewed the Boundary Line Agreement and discussed the history of the land with the applicant. Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the voluntary merger of Lot 730-B1 with Lot 726-X1. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Motion passed, 6 – 0.
Chairman McElroy signed the document and stated that he will leave it for the Executive Secretary.
Discussion Items:
Davison Road: The Board discussed issues relating to the striping of Davison Road. Ms. Stamps also stated that there are drainage concerns along the slope on the side of the road as well. It was decided that Ms. Stamps will make a list of what is left to be completed. Upon receipt of this list, Chairman McElroy will call Thomas Patenaude to discuss the items with him. The board will then schedule a site walk to review the work before releasing the bond.
Meetings: Due to several people being away, the Board decided to not conduct a work session meeting in July. Terry Stamps moved to not meet on July 25, 2007. Ron Taylor seconded. Motion carried, 6 – 0. Gary Guzouskas stated that he will be out of town for the August 8, 2007 meeting.
Correspondence was reviewed. It was noted that Verizon is erecting a tower in Sunapee.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
July 11, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio.
Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman, ex-officio, was excused.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Matthew Cottle; Ron Bourcier, Turner Group; Chris Stewart, Landmark Development; Eaton Tarbell, III, Esq.; Marilee and Hamilton Dodge; Ron Talbot.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
The minutes from the June 27, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Scott Osgood seconded the motion; motion passed, 5-0.
Old Business:
Case #2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
(Ron Taylor has recused himself from this case.)
Chairman McElroy stated that the board members had received a large packet of documents at the last meeting to review. Today, the applicant received the consultant’s report. Also, letters from highway superintendent John Margeson and DES were received. Attorney Tarbell stated their request to have the Board accept their application as complete. He stated that further negotiations could be reached on particular issues if needed.
Chairman McElroy requested that they fully review the consultant’s report this evening to determine which issues are needed to consider for completeness and which issues would be matters of approval. There was discussion about the different sets of drawings; one set is to be filed with the county registrar and the other set deals specifically with the open-space development, per se.
A question about five driveways coming off of “Talbot Court” was raised. Mr. Bourcier stated that there are only four driveways with one more on the curve of the road. Differences between sheet C-3 and Sheet 3.1 were compared and explained. Subdivision regulations 202-11(G) (page 8, item #29 of the consultant’s report) were discussed.
Mr. Bourcier stated that the Town Fire Chief signed off on this plan according to NFPA guidelines. He reported that letters from the Fire Chief indicate that this is a sufficient design.
Scott Osgood, board member, stated that there are several issues to be dealt with concerning the road which will require the input of the highway superintendent, the fire chief and the roads committee. He stated that they should stick to those issues tonight dealing with the matter of completeness, specifically sections 202-9 & 202-10.
Chairman McElroy raised the question of places along Hauptman Way where the grade is greater than 10-percent. Mr. Bourcier stated that according to the roads standards, the Board has the authority to allow increases. Mr. McElroy stated another issue is that certain driveways are not shown on various sheets of the plans. Mr. Bourcier stated that the driveways have been designed, but there is a layering situation with all of the information on the sheets. Mr. Osgood asked if he would draw the driveways in by hand for the purpose of discussing the overall drawing. Mr. Bourcier stated that he was not comfortable with drawing them in but would rework the drawings to show them.
Sheet 4.0 shows the subdivision plan. The ZBA has granted two wetlands crossings. Mr. Bourcier stated that the culverts were shifted from the original drawings. He stated that while the road has moved, the impact of the wetlands has not changed at all and are identical to what was filed.
Chairman McElroy asked about the locations of driveways and buildings (202-9 (P)). Mr. Bourcier stated that the plans for recording with the county are prepared by Brown Engineering. He stated that the final location will be determined by the owner and the builder. This plan refers to a reasonable building location on every lot.
Mr. Osgood stated that driveway placement is different than the buildings and are required because of possible impact to neighbors. He stated that neighbors should have a chance to see a plan that may affect them and be given a chance to discuss it. Atty. Tarbell stated that most cases he has dealt with are silent regarding building location and placement of driveways. He stated that they must meet specific requirements and be within set parameters but does not feel that placement is necessary. Terry Stamps, board member, stated that the subdivision regulations require proposed driveways, but the placement can be changed if necessary.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, stated that she is still concerned about the letter from the highway superintendent recommending that the road have an end loop for snow plowing.
Ms. Stamps questioned the notation on Sheet C-3, note #2, “open space lot area for property owners only.” She asked about the intended use of the open space and stated that the spirit of zoning was to make the open space available to the public.
Atty. Tarbell stated that this was discussed months ago as this development would be owned fractionally by the landowners. Making this open space available to the public could make these landowners liable. This development is not going to be marketed to be used by the public. He stated that there is still benefit to the public as this land will not be further developed.
Mr. Osgood stated that under the current use law, unless it is posted, the public has access to the land. Atty. Tarbell stated that he is not certain about this and will research the tort of trespass.
Chris Stewart stated that they can do a conservation easement. This land is individually owned, fee simple. Allowing public access can put the Town in jeopardy. They have the right to prevent trespassers. This will be designated in the homeowner’s agreement and the document of restrictives for the common areas.
Phasing was discussed. Per the GMO, developers are allowed five building permits per year.
Requirements for plat details (Item 202-9) were reviewed and addressed:
A) OK
B) OK
C) All signatures and seals are required
D) Will provide, albeit they will be very small
G) OK
H) Will add benchmark tied to USGS data
I) Will recheck the accuracy of the abutter’s list
K) This item is more related to condition of approval
L) Will set monuments
N) Well radii and septic areas will be considered for final approval
0/Z, P, AA) Will be considered at time of approval
Ms. Dyjak stated that she would benefit from seeing where the buildable area is on Sheet C-3. Atty. Tarbell stated that they will show that information to satisfy her request, as long as it does not imply that there is anything wrong or further required from the conventional plan about buildable area.
Ms. Stamps asked about the number of children expected to be in the development. They anticipate 9.8 students--below the threshold for a major development.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept this application as complete. Scott Osgood seconded the motion. It was asked whether any conditions are to be identified for completeness. The board did not feel that was necessary at this phase. Board voted, 5 – 0, to accept the application as complete.
Chairman McElroy stated that the application has been accepted as complete. The next phase is to prepare to move into the public hearings.
Ms. Stamps stated that they need to talk about the drainage report. She stated that she would like to hear feedback from the Conservation Commission about that also. Chairman McElroy will provide the Town Engineer with the drainage report and the revised plans.
Ms. Stamps also stated her concern about the ongoing lot-line dispute. Mr. Bourcier reviewed the comparisons between Cowan’s survey (1971) and the recent one conducted by Dennis Railland (9/18/06).
Mr. Bourcier gave an overview of the drainage report. The open-bottom culvert design was discussed. He stated that recent seminars on drainage show multiple detention areas collecting and stopping water so total runoff does not increase drainage, thereby the plan for Bacon Road. Sheet 3.1 shows a larger picture of six smaller detention areas discharging at a slower rate. The design is based on 25-year storms. He stated that the design must keep runoff the same or less than prior to developing the land.
Mr. Stewart explained that structures, culverts, etc. have to be designed to withstand 100-year flood conditions. He offered to bring the engineer that prepared the report in to discuss it in further detail. Mr. Osgood stated that may be a good idea.
Mr. Bourcier stated that no driveways are planned to be off the end of the road but are off the sides of the road. Plowing can be piled at the end of the road in the right-of-way. Lots 7 & 8 will have a shared driveway.
Action Items: The Board will request the Conservation Commission to review the drainage report and make a written response. The Board asked Mr. Stewart to stake the proposed road to aid in another site walk. They will be put on the agenda for the August 8, 2007 meeting.
New Business:
Case #2007-010: An application for a Voluntary Merger has been submitted by Matthew D. Cottle. The merger is to combine Map 1, Lot 730-B1 on Craney Pond Road with Map 1, Lot 726-X1 on Morse Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
(Ron Taylor joined the panel at 8:50 pm.)
The board reviewed the Boundary Line Agreement and discussed the history of the land with the applicant. Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the voluntary merger of Lot 730-B1 with Lot 726-X1. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Motion passed, 6 – 0.
Chairman McElroy signed the document and stated that he will leave it for the Executive Secretary.
Discussion Items:
Davison Road: The Board discussed issues relating to the striping of Davison Road. Ms. Stamps also stated that there are drainage concerns along the slope on the side of the road as well. It was decided that Ms. Stamps will make a list of what is left to be completed. Upon receipt of this list, Chairman McElroy will call Thomas Patenaude to discuss the items with him. The board will then schedule a site walk to review the work before releasing the bond.
Meetings: Due to several people being away, the Board decided to not conduct a work session meeting in July. Terry Stamps moved to not meet on July 25, 2007. Ron Taylor seconded. Motion carried, 6 – 0. Gary Guzouskas stated that he will be out of town for the August 8, 2007 meeting.
Correspondence was reviewed. It was noted that Verizon is erecting a tower in Sunapee.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Work Session
June 27, 2007
In Attendance: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Scott Osgood; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak; Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman ex-officio.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
The Minutes of the meeting of May 23, 2007 were reviewed and corrected. It was noted that business regarding the striping of Davison Road should be added to New Business to be discussed tonight. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as amended. Gary Guzouskas seconded; motion carried, 6-0.
The Minutes of the June 13, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. It is noted that Scott Osgood and Gary Guzouskas took their copies of the Bacon Road drainage plan that evening. Also, the Board has asked for a copy of the Consultant’s Report. Terry Stamps moved to approve these minutes as amended. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Projects and Action:
Revise Rules of Procedure, 2004
It was noted that the Board of Selectmen name their delegate to the Planning Board.
Page 2: There was discussion about the importance of attendance at ZBA meetings depending on the agenda items. Any members of the Planning Board can attend ZBA meeting as a public citizen at any time. Mr. Guzouskas reviewed State policies and found that there is nothing noted about requiring attendance. He stated his opinion that making it a formal policy may not be a good idea.
Page 2 F: …members should notify (delete “the chairman or”) the secretary of any anticipated absences.
Page 2 E: Last sentence: A member may resign at any time by notifying the chairman (delete “or the secretary”) in writing. Discussed 673.13 I & II.
Page 3, Article III.D.3: The secretary will (delete “keep”) ensure that planning board minutes and records are maintained. The secretary will also post notices, assist the chairman with meeting agendas and manage attendance to ensure a quorum. The secretary will maintain a record of the designation of alternate members as voting members, to assist the chairman in ensuring an even rotation of alternate members as provided in Article IV, section C. Any of the duties described in this paragraph may be delegated to an individual agreed to by the Board.
Add #4. Budget Director prepares and tracks the budget. This includes the annual submittal to the Budget committee. The Budget Director provides monthly budgetary status information to the Planning Board.
Page 3, Article IV, A: Meetings: …”but may be rescheduled as necessary to accommodate the needs of board members of other parties. (Insert: The Planning Board may specify work sessions as needed. Special meetings may be called…”
Page 4: Article IV, D: (last paragraph) “…the chairman will designate an alternate to act in that member’s place (insert: and will continue to participate on that topic until its completion as provided in article IV, section C.”
Scott Osgood discussed voting procedures and asked about the ZBA’s procedure for voting on each individual criterion. Chairman McElroy stated the ZBA is different; if one criterion fails, the entire case fails. ZBA has to demonstrate each criterion has been satisfied before a ruling can be made.
Gary Guzouskas stated that the members can ask questions during the hearing portion but not discuss. Once a motion is made, discussion would take place. That procedure could help make it more organized. Mr. Osgood stated that once a motion is made and seconded gives time for members to discuss the item. The board discussed keeping procedural control of activities during a hearing as it has sometimes been difficult for the applicant and audience to know when their time for discussion stops.
Robert’s Rules of Order was discussed briefly. Cheryl Morse stated that a little formality in the proceedings helps to create a buffer and reduces emotionality of the situation.
Page 4, E: Gary Guzouskas observed that every time there is a new chairman, procedures can change.
Page 5, Article VI, Item 4: “Discussion by board (insert: after motion is made and seconded.
Page 5, Article VII, Item 7: “Discussion by board (insert: should occur after motion is made and seconded.”
Item 8: “Decision (insert: shall be made by the chair calling for a vote of the members and/or designated alternates.”
(The Board decided to use the above-mentioned wording changes. Mr. Guzouskas will review Robert’s Rules and report if any changes are suggested.
Peter Flynn gave a copy of the written procedures used for conducting the Selectmen’s meetings.
Page 6, Article VIII, B: Nonpublic session: (Middle of paragraph: “The motion to go into non-public session must state the specific exemption under NH law that is relied upon as the foundation for the non-public session. Insert: Roll call vote shall be taken. All discussions…”
It is noted that new revision date needs to be put on the document.
Review of Subdivision Regulations:
The Board reviewed the additions/deletions to the document for accuracy. Additional notes are listed here:
Page 2: Terry Stamps will locate where this requirement exists in zoning (viii). “Land within 50 feet of wetlands.
For cases of water, sewer and drainage, we rely on the Town Engineer. Roads are addressed in these regulations.
Ask Stephanie Alexander to prepare summary paragraph about drainage, sewer and water upgrades.
Page 4, L,1: Insert at end of paragraph: “All off-site improvements are subject to the approval by the appropriate Town authorities.
Page 17: C: Waivers: …Please make these corrections: “In accordance with RSA 674:36 II (n), …in such cases where, in the opinion of the Board, strict conformity would…
**Please make general change when referring to specific section. IE, page 30, F, end of last sentence shall read “…described in section 202-20 of the document.” This also occurs at the end of section H and again on p. 47, D.
Also, please check all cross-references within the document.
Page 30, H: Awaiting noninvasive plant list from Jenn McCourt to refer to.
Page 30: Middle of paragraph correction: “Plants that die shall be replaced within the next planting season.” (delete “plant in is a”)
Page 36: Street Design Standards: The Board discussed the issue of paved vs. gravel roads. Cheryl Morse stated that there is an overwhelming disagreement between the highway superintendent and others. She stated that it is not an attitude of the Board of Selectmen to disallow gravel roads, but a conflict of philosophy regarding construction and maintenance that needs to be worked out, hopefully with the help of the roads committee.
Page 37: J: Jenn McCourt to provide
Page 37: K: Ron Taylor to provide
Page 47: insert “section 202-13H of this document.”
Page 49: Scott Osgood to provide
Zoning List:
One building per lot may become an issue. Chairman McElroy stated that there are lots that do not conform to this requirement that existed prior to the enactment of zoning.
Roads Standards: This is not a zoning issue but should be kept on a list of things to work on.
Terry Stamps stated that it may be helpful to have a subcommittee review permitted uses and uses allowed by Special Exception in all districts. Perhaps solicit other members to make recommendations to the Planning Board. This could take a lot of detail work. Also, definitions (ie, apartments) need to be reviewed.
Cheryl Morse said there are no regulations or guidelines concerning homes with one apartment and there is no definition of an apartment. There are cases of homeowners adding bedrooms on to the allowed “one apartment,” creating nuisances.
Scott Osgood stated that this is a problem relating to the lack of code enforcement in Town. He stated that there needs to be a mechanism to enforce existing laws. At some point, renting rooms becomes a “commercial use.” There needs to be a way to protect from abuses. He stated that the owner should come in for site plan review if changing or adding something.
Review permitted uses. Discussed site plan review, change of use and expanded uses.
Ms. Stamps will ask theConservation Commission how they would like to work on the conservation maps.
Rte. 114 Subcommittee: Would like to complete comparison of zoning to conservation maps (slopes, vegetation, wildlife management, etc.) first before pursuing commercial development along 114 north. They may be helpful with assisting with the conservation maps.
Correspondence:
Chairman McElroy passed out correspondence file for review.
Other Business:
Stone Falls Gardens: Site plan is seven years old. They have expanded the business. The Board would like to talk to them and have an updated “as-built plan” on file.
Board discussed possibility of looking at building permits again so that enforcement of change of uses and expanded uses can be tracked. Some of these around town are affecting parking, traffic congestion, safety, etc. Ms. Stamps stated that communication and strategy would be key to pursuing building permits so that Town residents would understand why it is in their interest. Mr. Guzouskas suggested thinking about what they really want to focus on this year.
Terry Stamps stated that she will investigate the performance bond and details relative to striping Davison Road and any other items relative to Ridgetop Estates. This should be added to the next agenda for discussion.
Scott Osgood reported on a Transportation Advisory Committee meeting he attended. He stated that there has been interest in developing a plan for public transportation between Henniker and Concord. During the meeting, the Dial-A-Ride service (based at White Birch) was discussed. The viability of this should be recognized and possibly expanded upon. While a quasi-volunteer system, there is the possibility that it could grow. He stated that it appears to be a more viable option to consider (in contrast to CAT, DOT, etc.) Transportation and land use are related.
Cheryl Morse moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 pm. Terry Stamps seconded, and the motion passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
APPROVED MINUTES
June 13, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Gary Guzouskas; Scott Osgood; Cheryl Morse, Alternate Selectman, ex-officio.
Others Present: M.R. Dahlberg, LLS; Ronald Bourcier; Eaton Tarbell, Esq.; Art Siciliano; Rev. Mark Dollard; David Brouillet; Judy Champlin; Deb DeMello; Rob Howard; Tim Lamphere; Neva Williamson; Ron Talbot; Dale Jennings; MerriLee & Tony dodge; Jennifer McCourt; Joan O’Connor; David P. Currier; Val Ingersoll; Alison Wimmer; Susan and Ted Chumas; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
Review of Minutes:
Scott Osgood, Board member, moved to table the review of the minutes of the May 23, 2007 work session meeting to the next meeting in order to expedite tonight’s business. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion passed, 4-0.
Old Business:
Case# 206-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots and 2 open space lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lt 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Eaton Tarbell, Esq., first pointed out that the description of the case as stated on the agenda needs to be changed as they are no longer looking for the two additional open space lots. The plans reflect a 14-lot open space subdivision.
Atty. Tarbell stated that they had an on-site meeting with John Margeson of the highway department; Mr. Margeson is expected to attend the meeting to discuss his findings. Ron Bourcier stated that Mr. Margeson preferred not to write a letter but would rather address the Board in person at tonight’s meeting.
(Note: Mr. Margeson did not appear at the meeting tonight.) Mr. Bourcier stated that Mr. Margeson did give his opinion that the road could be put in the allowed area.
Mr. Bourcier stated that plans have been developed based on the most recent road configuration. The applicant submitted seven (7) sets of drawings and twenty (20) sets of 11x17 plans.
Mr. Bourcier explained that there are seven (7) copies of the drainage design which go with the current road configuration plan. He stated that the alteration of terrain permits will be submitted Thursday or Friday. The wetland permit reached 70 days. He stated that they are very close to having the wetlands application done. They are going to submit for their subdivision approval with NHDES. He stated that they need a couple more test pits to meet the criteria. Copies will be provided when they are done.
Mr. Bourcier made a copy of his letter from the Fire Chief for distribution to Board members as a copy was not in the file. The Board members were also looking for the backup information to Dennis Rialland’s letter dated May 23, 2007. This information is necessary for review and for the Planning Board file.
Chairman McElroy stated that he appreciates the applicant’s interaction with the highway supervisor and Fire Chief. He stated that the applicant has submitted all physical information that the Board has requested. The Board was instructed to review all information as the matter of completeness may be addressed at the next public business meeting scheduled for July 11, 2007.
Case# 2002-008: St. Theresa Parish Site Plan. Discussion of potential modifications to approved site plan.
David Brouillet, Project Manager for SFC Engineering Partnership, presented for the applicant. Mr. Brouillet stated that the plan was originally approved on May 8, 2002. He stated that at the July 8, 2003 meeting, the plan was shown to be completed in two phases. While the entire project was approved, the project itself had to be completed in two phases due to funding issues. Now that the second phase is ready to begin, the applicant wishes to inform the Board of minor changes to the original plan.
(Note: At 7:25 pm, Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio, joined the panel and Alternate Cheryl Morse was dismissed to the audience.)
Chairman McElroy stated that the mylars did not include phased plans, but the minutes show phasing was approved. While this is believed to not have been filed as a phased plan, the first phase has been completed.
Mr. Brouillet described the following summary of changes to the plans:
→The driveway and bridge to the rectory was modified to a 5-foot walkway with a wood footbridge that spans the wetland.
→The access drive to the northeast corner of the hall was eliminated the dumpsters were relocated to the east side of the Hall.
→The stormwater detention basin was revised per NHDES requirements.
→A walkway is proposed from the westerly entrance to the Hall.
→Guardrail will be added to the south parking lot.
Mr. Brouillet stated that he does not believe it is necessary for the Board to take any formal action since the plans have already been approved; however, the applicant wanted to make sure that the Board was clearly informed about the proposed changes.
Mr. McElroy asked about emergency access into the building. Mr. Brouillet stated that all buildings are handicap accessible. There are nine exits which provide access for gurneys and equipment.
Gary Guzouskas, Board member, stated that the other driveway is to be used for emergency access in and traffic access out. He wanted to make sure that it will all be signed properly as was originally approved.
Chairman McElroy stated that he would like to see an “as-built” drawing showing updated plans and property changes for the records. Mr. Guzouskas moved to approve the revised site plan. The applicant will provide a copy of “as-built” drawings, showing both phases of construction, when completed to the Town. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4-0.
New Business:
Case# 2007-006: A Lot Line Adjustment application has been resubmitted by co-owners Gregory and Judith Champlin and Debora DeMelo to adjust the boundaries of Map 1, Lots 282 and 283 at 678 Dodge Hill Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Art Siciliano made the presentation showing the property. He stated that “Parcel A” will become part of Lot 282, totaling 5.9 acres; Lot 283 will become 5.7 acres. The boundary follows an existing stone wall. He stated that the ZBA granted the variance to go below the 10-acre minimum on a Class VI road. There were no comments from Town agencies regarding the property.
Review of necessary items and request for waivers was made. Mr. Siciliano stated that the tax map has been provided. He will add the note of variance to 10-acre minimum on the plan (Art. X). Mr. Siciliano showed wetlands on Lot 283; Lot 282 is an existing developed lot (202-9F). A note will be added that the line is more than 500-feet away from the state grid (202-9G). The note will be corrected to show 2.0 acres of buildable area on Lot 283 (202-9B). A monument will be set and is on the plan (202-9L).
Mr. Siciliano stated that he could add the proposed leachfield, well and driveways. Ron Taylor, Board member, stated that could be done later when applying for the driveway permit. Scott Osgood stated that he thinks it is a good idea to do at this time. Mr. Siciliano stated that there is plenty of sight distance in both directions, so a driveway will not be a problem.
Mr. Osgood stated that if the proposed driveway is not on the plan, the Board loses the chance for any input. The purpose of the process is for the public to have a say on what’s going on in their neighborhood.
Ron Taylor moved that the driveway not be shown on the plan as a condition of approval for this lot line adjustment. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. It was understood that the applicant would draw in a proposed driveway if he had to in order to not hold up the completeness phase of the application. Mr. Osgood stated that these activities impact the neighbors and this gives them a chance to speak. The motion carried, 3-1.
Scott Osgood moved to accept the application as complete. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0.
Chairman McElroy called for public hearing at 8:10 pm. Cheryl Morse, Alternate Board member, noted that there are wetlands that may have to be crossed and asked if there was a way to require a right-of-way to the public road. The Board explained that there are different requirement for a lot line adjustment. Mr. Siciliano stated that wetlands do not have to be crossed in order to build.
The public hearing was closed at 8:14 pm.
Mr. Osgood stated that he attended the Zoning Board hearing regarding this case. He stated that the Planning Board originally rejected this case as it did not meet zoning. He stated that it may also set a precedent. Mr. Osgood stated that he thought that the ZBA responded properly to this concern as they stated that each case is looked at independently. Nothing is being created that does not already exist in the immediate area, and this adjustment is beneficial to the smaller lot.
Gary Guzouskas moved to approve this lot line adjustment with the following conditions: 1) Note of 10-acre minimum and note of approved variance is to be added to the plans; 2) Add note that it is more than 500-feet away from State grid benchmarks; 3) Correct note to 2.0 acres (202-9B)
Ron Taylor seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0.
Case# 2007-007: A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Kristin B. Fusco to subdivide Map 1 Lot 726 into 2 lots. The existing house and amenities shall be subdivided into 22.05 acres and the new lot shall have 76.5 acres. The property is located at 108 Morse Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Michael Dahlberg presented for the applicant. He stated that the property is currently 98.05 acres. They are proposing to subdivide into two lots, one being 22.05 acres, the other being 76.5 acres. The owner would like to construct a new home in a more private location and rent the existing house. The owner would retain control of the horse barns on the property. There is no impact to any wetlands. Minor revisions have been made in response to the letter from CNHRPC. Mr. Dahlberg distributed updated plans to the Board. They are seeking conditional approval for the wetlands scientist seal and the NH Natural Heritage Inventory letter. Mr. Dahlberg stated that topography has been done on 8.5 acres to demonstrate that building can occur on the property without impact any wetlands, slopes, etc.
Chairman McElroy asked what is around the area on abutting property as it is on the border of Weare. Mr. Dahlberg stated that there is a house about 300-feet away. There are some vacant lots around the property, one of which he knows is for sale.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Board has to decide if this poses any regional impact. Ron Taylor moved to declare this action as not having any regional impact. Scott Osgood seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
The Board discussed the completeness of the application. It was decided to change some of the “request for waivers” to “conditions of approval.”
Scott Osgood moved to waive the requirements for the boundary survey (202-9F/G) and for the topography and soils certification for the remainder parcel (202-9J). Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
Regarding Item #14, Mr. Dahlberg explained the drilled well was installed some time prior to 1989. The well radius extends 65-feet from the well to the right-of-way on the east side of Morse Road and only extends 10-feet. He stated that a release is not necessary as it is pre-1989. The Board stated by consensus that no easements need to be created since the owner will continue to own both properties. The rental agreement will cover access to the amenities on both properties.
Scott Osgood moved to accept the application as complete with the following conditions: 1) Wetlands scientist seal required for wetlands outside septic area; 2) Submit a letter from the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory identifying rare plant and animal species and exemplary natural communities; 3) Submit application for driveway permit. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0.
The Board decided by consensus that a site walk was not necessary.
Letters have been received from the Town Water, Wastewater, Highway and Fire & Rescue departments. No report has been received from the conservation commission.
Public hearing was opened at 8:50 pm. There was discussion about the Fire Chief calling for a sprinkler to be installed in the new house; they do not believe he is asking for retro-fitting the old house. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he will write a letter to the Fire Chief clarifying that for the records. Mr. McElroy stated that a note on the drawing will show that a sprinkler is required on new construction.
No other public comment was heard. Public hearing was closed at 8:54 pm.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the application with the above-mentioned conditions and the requirement expressed by the fire department letter of June 1, 2007. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
Case #2007-008: A Site Plan Review application has been submitted by Attorneys Respite for a change of use from a vacant space, previously used as a construction office, to Greater Henniker Counseling Associates, a counseling facility. The property is located on Map 2 Lot 194-B1 at 168 Maple Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Attorney Rob Howard, sole owner of the property, gave a brief history of the property. He stated that the building was designed as an office. He is now the owner of the LLC that owns the building. He introduced the prospective tenant, Neva Williamson, hoping to set up the Greater Henniker Counseling Associates.
Mr. Osgood stated that the original application and ZBA records show that the applicant was originally approved for a law office. He asked to build a law office and that was approved; in fact, there were three offices. Mr. Osgood stated that this application and its previous use do not meet this description.
Rob Howard stated that he never intended it to be one office. He has a variance for approval for “professional law office.”
The Board continued discussion about multi-use office or needing to go back to ZBA. Ron Taylor stated that he had excused himself from the ZBA at that time but was in the audience during the hearing. It was his understanding that approval was granted for a law office. The Board reviewed the ZBA minutes of 11/20/02 and the Notice of Decision that was granted. The minutes say “professional” office; the NOD states “law office.”
Mr. Taylor stated that he disagrees that anyone would need to come back for a change of use of a “professional office” as he does not think there would be a significant impact. Mr. McElroy stated that the Planning Board should be involved in any type of change of use to determine potential impact.
The Board and applicant agreed on a continuance of this case for the period of two months. Mr. Howard will go to the ZBA to keep all agencies informed of the change.
Scott Osood moved to continue this case for two months (August 13, 2007) to give the applicant time to meet with the ZBA. Applicant will return to the Planning Board for site plan review. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Motion carried,
4-0.
Case #2007-009: A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Richard A. French, Sr. and Richard A. French, Jr. to subdivide Map 1 Lot 549-F1 into 2 lots. All existing buildings shall remain contained on Lot 549-F1. The proposed Lot 549-F1B shall be used as a storage area. The property is located at 1104 Old Concord Road in the Heavy Commercial (CH) District.
Jennifer McCourt, McCourt Engineering, presented this proposal for the applicant. She asked that the description notice be change to accurately reflect that the area is currently being used as storage. While it will continue to be commercial, there are no future commitments as to what will be done with proposed Lot 549-F1B.
In response to the consultant’s comments, Ms. McCourt stated that changes have been made and plans have been resubmitted showing such changes. This property is in the Heavy Commercial zone, and the newly created lot will be 5.03 acres. There is 125-feet of frontage on the Class V road. An access was placed on Centervale Road; she stated there are multiple ways to access the area. She stated that there is no frontage requirement in the Commercial zone, but this plan utilizes 125.1-feet of frontage.
She stated that they are requesting waivers on topography, drainage and utility structures. Fire suppression measures are created for specific use in commercial zones.
Ron Taylor moved to grant the requested waivers. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
Ron Taylor moved to accept the application as complete. Scott Osgood seconded the motion.
Mr. Guzouskas asked about frontage on a Class VI road. Ms. McCourt stated that the plan was changed to grant frontage on the Class V road so that is not necessary.
The Board voted, 4-0, to accept the application as complete.
Gary Guzouskas moved that a site walk of this property is not necessary. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
The triangular shape of the property designed for frontage on the Class V road was discussed. Mr. McElroy stated that it may be difficult to get a driveway permit for this plan. Ms. McCourt stated that they could obtain an easement for a shared driveway with the other commercial business.
Mr. Osgood stated that this plan creates a difficult lot as there is no real legal access right now.
Chairman McElroy moved into public hearing at 9:57 pm and called for public comment.
David Currier, abutter, gave a brief history of his involvement with the property and property owners. He stated that there is no buffer zone or tree line in the area. He stated that there is an issue with the amount of rain causing some drainage issues. With more use, he stated that drainage will have to be taken into consideration as there is a lot of water sitting in the lower corner of the property. He is also concerned about maintaining a Class VI road. He stated that a culvert has had to be replaced.
Public hearing was closed at 10:05 pm.
The Board discussed that the plan cannot stand without a clearly defined access to Old Concord Road. Ms. McCourt showed where the proposed shared driveway access would be located on the plan.
Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the plan with the condition that the placement of driveway and easement language is to be supplied for review by Town Counsel. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
Discussion Items:
The Board realized that impact fees were not assessed on Case #2007-007. According to Zoning Ordinance 133-142, impact fees should be issued at the time of building permit for the subdivision. The Board decided to include in the NOD that the impact fee will be assessed and collected at the time of issuance of the building permit in reference to the chart of fees per zoning ordinance 133-142, Article XXVIII passed at Town Meeting 2004 for type of structure.
Ron Taylor found previous documentation that impact fees may be collected at the time of issuing the building permit if not assessed at the time that the subdivision is made.
Other Business:
Minutes of the May 23, 2007 and June 13, 2007 will be reviewed and corrected at the next meeting.
CNHRPC is conducting a bus tour of conservation subdivisions in Bow, Henniker and Hopkinton on July 19 from 6-9 pm.
The drainage report on the Talbot case was distributed to Board members for review.
Ron Taylor moved to adjourn at 10:40 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
APPROVED MINUTES
May 23, 2007
Members Present: Kristin Claire, Vice-Chairman; Terry Stamps; Scott Osgood; Ron Taylor (Selectman, ex-officio)
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Jennifer McCourt; Joe Morette
Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Guests: None
Projects and Action:
The Board discussed many of the roads in town. Authority between boards concerning town and subdivision roads was discussed. Problems with road shoulders were discussed. There was consensus to discuss with the Board of Selectmen about subcontracting road reconstruction in order to possibly save the Town some money.
Scott Osgood stated that they may want to consider a regulation to have the Planning Board sign off on a Certificate of Occupancy when a Site Plan is completed.
Ron Taylor asked if a developer is expected to erect a street sign at their own cost and who is responsible for making sure that this is done. Jennifer McCourt stated that it should be on the checklist from HTA.
In the case of the Ridgetop development, the striping of Davison Road and painting the stop bar at the intersection still needs to be done.
Action: Inspect Ridgetop to determine striping needs on Davison Road; check file to ensure all items are met.
Review Land Subdivision Regulations:
It was noted that the Table of Contents is inaccurate. (I.e. Art. V,
Streets, is on p. 34).
Page 36: Table I: Minimum slopes of road and minimum slope of shoulders should be 2%. Scott Osgood will draw the cross-section of the road. Gravel roads were discussed. It needs to be clear that people know that it is possible that a gravel road may not be recommended by the Board of Selectmen to become a Town road; therefore it would not be maintained by the Town. An option to having the Board’s recommendation is to have it put on the warrant by petition.
Jenn McCourt suggested roads slopes to have a Minimum Grade of 1% (instead of .5%). The Board agreed.
Page 37, J: Ms. McCourt will provide design specifics from DOT requiring 20’ platform to keep water from going across the travelway or sitting in the driveway.
Page 34: Driveway slopes were discussed. Planning Board has no control of this right now, but other towns have regulations. The Board discussed setting one standard for gravel roads and another for paved roads.
Page 37: K (Dead-end Streets): Board discussed 3.a. and b: These were written for urban areas with smaller road frontages. Mr. Osgood reminded them that road frontage requirements are negotiable in open-space developments.
Options for length of roads in subdivisions were discussed. Action: 1) Need to find out maximum length of fire hose (Mr. Taylor will talk with Chief Gilbert about this); 2) decide on the methodology which will be used to calculate maximum road length.
It is also noticed that p. 41, X, repeats the section about “Access” and should be removed.
Page 35, 1: Insert “cross sections at any drainage structures…
Page 41, V.3: shall read…”Storm sewer pipes and culverts shall be reinforced concrete, HDPE, or equivalent and shall have a minimum four-foot cover over all pipes and all other areas crossing beneath roadways and a minimum two feet of cover in ditchlines and all other areas.
Page 41, V.4: Class C or other acceptable material …
Page 49, 202-23: Remove list of streets and make note of where the list is available.
Page 2, G.2a: add: “land within 50’ of wetlands”. Terry Stamps will verify exactly where this is in zoning.
Page 2, G.2.a.i: specify what flood zone?
Page 2, G.2.a.ii: Shown to be wetland. (Remove remainder of that item.)
Page 2, G.2.a.vii: Remove
Page 14, B.3: Change wording to “conventional subdivision plan”
Add to definitions.
Page 14, B.1: Change “5160” to the actual size of the label.
Page 16, A.2: Change “5160” to the actual size of the label.
Page 17: Article IV, 202-10 C: Insert section on “Waivers.” Use wording from 2007 Legal Update: (Beginning of sentence?)…”for waiver of any portion of the regulations in such cases where, in the opinion of the planning board, strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations.”
Action: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: Change to: Type of Intended Subdivision (remove …“Housing In the”) Add one box for “Commercial” and another box for “Industrial”
Page 30, 202-13 H: Insert the word “number” before “location, and size of trees…” Add separate sentence about non-invasive plants referencing the species list that Jenn McCourt will provide to the Board. Add reference to performance guaranty for landscaping for first two years of planting.
Page 46, 202-20.D.1: Add “Any landscaping will require a two-year performance guaranty.”
Page 23, 202-12.5: Insert: “m. Show approximate location of structures, wells, septics and driveways on abutting properties if they are within 100’ of the boundary lines.
Action: Continue to review Subdivision Regulations (Exactions) at next work session.
Rules of Procedure: Add ‘Budget Director’ position to the document. Change ‘Secretary’s tasks: The secretary will not be responsible for taking minutes. A minute taker will be appointed to keep the minutes of Planning Board meetings. Action: Scott Osgood will review the document and suggest changes at the next work session meeting. Add to agenda for June work session meeting.
New Town Planner Position: The Planning Board needs to vote on their recommendation of this position to the Board of Selectmen.
Ron Taylor stated that the best case scenario would be a part-time planner and a part-time enforcement officer.
Scott Osgood stated that the position could easily fill full-time hours. Skills, knowledge and qualities were discussed. Budget would currently be funded from the $5,000 from ZBA and $27,000 from Planning Board.
Kristin Claire moved to support pursuing a town employee to fill the duties of the Town Planner. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4 – 0.
Action: Mr. Osgood will write a letter to Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, notifying him of the Board’s decision.
Draft List of 2008 Zoning Amendments: See attached revised list.
Discussion Items:
Kristin Claire directed the members of the Board to review the 2007 Land Use Law Update for their information.
The Board reviewed the complaint document about Stone Falls Gardens. The Board would like to see them scheduled for the June agenda.
The agenda for the June 13, 2007 meeting was discussed. Jennifer Astholz will confirm with Stephanie Alexander the reason for St. Theresa’s Church being on the agenda.
Minutes of the May 9, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Ron Taylor moved to approve the minutes. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The minutes were approved, 4 - 0.
Scott Osgood moved to adjourn at 10:30. Terry Stamps seconded the motion; it passed, 4 – 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
April 25, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak; Ron Taylor, Selectman ex-officio; Scott Osgood; Cheryl Morse, Selectman ex-officio (alternate)
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Minutes from the meeting of April 11, 2007 were reviewed and corrected. Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Minutes were approved, 5 - 0 – 1 (Ron Taylor abstained as he was not present at the last meeting.)
Guests:
Road Exactions Policy:
Nick Alexander, CNHRPC, was in attendance to review the Draft Framework for Equitably Assessing Off-Site Exactions. He stated that according to RSA 674.21,V (j), the Town can collect exactions for four specific reasons: 1) highway; 2) drainage; 3) sewer; 4) water improvements. He stated that exactions will not apply to everyone who comes before the Planning Board, but a preliminary assessment should be in place to determine the necessity.
Mr. Alexander cited examples when exactions would be applicable: 1) a development requires the addition of a turn lane on an existing town road;
2) road needs improvement/modifications. The Board should evaluate incremental impact to the road. A large development can create increased traffic that could require a road to be paved. If improvements are necessary, and the Town is willing, the cost could be proportionately shared due to the increase of cars on the road from that development. There is a six-year shelf-life for exactions. If the Town does not appropriate their share of the funds within six years, the original portion of the exaction needs to be returned.
There was active discussion amongst the Board about how various Town departments will communicate about the impact of new developments on roads, water and sewer systems. All Town departments currently receive notification of intent when an application is received. Also, issues specific to larger developments are referred to the highway safety committee for input.
Mr. Alexander stated that researching information about trip generation does not create large costs or pose burden to the Town or the CNHRPC. If a development requires additional services such as another pumping station, costs should be shared with the developer. Mr. Alexander stated that “developer agreements” are commonly used.
Mr. Alexander stated that he has spoken with Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, about the Roads Management Plan, and it is his understanding that a meeting will be called soon. Gary Guzouskas is the representative for the Planning Board.
Regarding the Draft document presented by Mr. Alexander, the Board suggested some editions: IIA.1: add highway safety committee to those being notified; IIA.3: Clarify the section about “proportional fair share.” Sometimes the developer will be responsible for 100% of the cost; oftentimes, the Board will need to determine the percentage for which the developer is responsible.
IIB.1: Mr. Alexander stated that it is easy for someone to look up trip generation information in the manual. IIB.2: This does not pose a burden to anyone and is a small financial expense. Unless the traffic has changed considerably in an area, there are many traffic counts already available.
Cheryl Morse, alternate Selectman ex-officio, asked for the proper way a traffic count should be done and if the new machine owned by the Town would suffice.
Mr. Alexander stated that a traffic count should be conducted over a typical seven-day week (not during a holiday, etc.) He said that a machine that records data is necessary. (The Town’s machine does this.)
The Board discussed the timing of imposing exactions on the developer. Chairman McElroy stated that the exactions would have to be imposed at the time that the application is approved and the same time that impact fees are stated. Scott Osgood stated that the costs have to be discussed during the application process so that they are finished upon completion of the application. Mr. Alexander suggested that the representative to the Board of Selectmen communicate any pertinent information about subdivision roads. He suggested frequent and friendly communication between the Boards would be advised.
Mr. Osgood stated that the Selectmen may have to make a decision about a road prior to the Planning Board deciding on approval so that negotiations about financial impact can be worked out. Any Town contribution has to have the support of the Board of Selectmen before a decision is made.
Action: Nick will communicate with Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, about how to fit this assessment document into the subdivision regulations and site plan review. Mr. Alexander will re-write the document with the suggested comments and have the other Town agencies review it. He also suggested that Town counsel review the document for methodology.
The Board asked Ron Taylor and Cheryl Morse to bring this topic up for discussion at the next Board of Selectmen’s meeting.
Projects and Action
Review of Subdivision Street Regulations
Subdivision Regulations have always included road standards; however, the regulations do not always match the Town standards. For example, there is a provision to allow a subdivision to put in a new gravel road. If the Board adapts these particular standards, the Town would not accept the plan as the new gravel road does not meet the Town standards. Mr. Alexander stated that the committee was comprised of representatives from the fire department, police department, Planning Board and the highway superintendent. They reviewed the master plan and reviewed the State fire department standards. The highway superintendent did not want any new gravel roads. A compromise was reached stating that a development could build a gravel road off of an existing gravel road.
The Roads Management Committee is charged to inventory, provide description for improvements and outline policy for how various services interact. Road lengths of dead-end streets, driveways, cul-de-sacs, etc were discussed. Chairman McElroy stated that they currently rely on the Fire Department to consider primary safety concerns. Mr. Alexander stated that most towns have driveway and dead-end road standards. Ron Taylor agreed with imposing standards on a road but not on a private driveway. Chairman McElroy stated that the document should be clear that driveways must comply with the standards set forth by the Fire Department.
Terry Stamps stated that she would like the wording of the first sentence in section (f) to be changed from “shall” to “may” to allow for more flexibility so that a gravel road could be constructed off of a paved road if appropriate.
Gary Guzouskas suggested that Section V be provided to the Board of Selectmen, fire department, police departmment, road agent and the highway safety committee for their review and input.
Action: The Board agreed by consensus that the Planning Commission will make discussed changes to the document. Chairman McElroy will write a cover letter asking for specific items (having a second egress, length of roads, etc) to be addressed by the various Town agencies. He will ask that they respond in a timely manner so that the information can be discussed at the next work session in May.
Review of Revised Subdivision Regulations:
The Board discussed the best way to review the document. It was decided that the Board will study the document and come prepared to discuss it at the next meeting.
Draft List of 2008 Zoning Amendments:
The list of potential Planning Board Zoning List of Ideas for 2008 was reviewed. Many were deleted as they had been done in the past or were no longer felt to be necessary. Jen Astholz, recording secretary, will provide Stephanie Alexander with the revised list. (Scott Osgood left at 10:05 pm)
Home businesses and “grandfathered” businesses were discussed. While home businesses are allowed in every district, the community needs to understand that they are to come before the Planning Board to establish a business.
Discussion Items:
Correspondence was made available for the Board members to review.
The annual Town traffic count request form is available. Mr. Guzouskas will confer with the Roads Management Commission; he will then bring the recommendations for which nine locations should be studied to the Board and complete the form.
Rules of Procedure (revised 2004): Chairman McElroy stated that this is essentially the By-Laws of the Planning Board. Cordell Johnston is working on an electronic communications policy for the Town. This document will be revised when all information is collected.
Remote Agreement: The Board discussed the agreement that has been prepared in light of the changes of Ms. Alexander’s revised work schedule.
Other Business:
Chairman McElroy reported on an action taken with an applicant, Landmark Engineering regarding the Talbot property. He stated that he wrote a letter instructing the applicant to send all questions to the Planning Board and Hoyle Tanner. HTA’s response will be sent to the Planning Board and then will be shared with the applicant as HTA is retained as the Town’s engineer. This will protect the applicant and the Board. When the Board receives the submission from the applicant that was sent to HTA, the Board will send the copy of the conventional yield plan asking about the feasibility of the road on the conventional plan.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn; Gary Guzouskas seconded. Motion carried, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Potential Planning Board Zoning List of Ideas for 2008
Conservation Commission to review:
- Add wetland buffers of 50’
- Sourcewater protection/Aquifer Protection ordinance
- Local shoreland protection ordinance (bigger buffer locally)
- Revisit Watershed District Overlay ordinance
- Revisit Skyline Conservation Overlay ordinance
- Stormwater and erosion control (steep slopes)
- Review permitted uses and uses allowed by special exception in all districts
- Create definitions for steep slope, grades floor area, loading space, lot of record, Lot depth, Lot non-conforming, sign, commercial uses
- Guidelines for commercial subdivision in Lot Table, for frontage etc. (CH & CM District-no frontage on minimum frontage tables)
- Guidelines for institutional use in Lot Table, etc.
-Planned unit development (Concord)/1 principal building or a lot
-Connect Route 114 North CR-1 and CM move permanent use for single-family & 2-family housing to Special Exceptions
- Revise Earth moving ordinance (Where is the current zoning?)
- Review allowed uses in Commercial Recreational District
CM/ Route 114
- Redefine the purpose of Medium Commercial District
- Compare zoning to conservation maps. ie, slopes, vegetation, wildlife management, etc.
- Maximum road length of cul-de-sac and dead-end roads
- Requirement for multiple ways of egress for subdivisions
- Requirement to show structures of abutting properties
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Jim McElroy; Cheryl Morse, Selectman ex-officio.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Chris Stewart; Ronald Bourcier; Eaton Tarbell, Esq.; Dennis Railland; Joe Morette; Judy Champlin; Debora DeMello; Jill Fournier; Andrew Fourniew; Tim Lamphere; Deb Dow; David Eilenberger; Michele Rogers; Scott Rogers; Tony Dodge; Janine Bates; Mary & Jim Walsh; Dan Paul; Doug Paul; Jennifer McCourt; Paul McInnis; Ian McSwedy; Michael Azure
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He stated that Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC, has to limit her duties due to medical leave. She will continue to work during the day and be available by phone; due to her restrictions she will not be attending the evening meetings. The Board members and secretary will keep detailed notes of her status memos on each case.
The minutes of the March 28, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to approve the minutes; Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0.
Case #2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots and 2 open space lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Chairman Osgood informed the audience about process of hearing this case. The first phase is for the Board to accept the application as complete. The second phase is to accept or reject the application. Public comment is allowed during the second phase.
Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning and Development, stated that he would like time to review the letter from Hoyle Tanner with Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, and will make an appointment with her during office hours. Eaton Tarbell, Esq., stated that he would like to wrap up the lot line discrepancy issue with the Egner’s, abutters to the property. He introduced Dennis Railland, surveyor, to review their information. As Mr. Egner was working and his father- in-law was not yet here to represent him, they decided to wait until later to discuss this issue.
Ronald Bourcier made the presentation on the number of lots requested for the development. He demonstrated 14 conventional lots and stated that they are requesting permission for two additional lots in the open space plan.
Chairman Osgood referred to the Hoyle Tanner report, citing issues of slopes and impact to the neighborhood. He stated that road issues, steep slopes, etc., need to be considered before selecting a number of lots.
Terry Stamps, Board member, stated that she does not feel comfortable choosing a number of lots when a site walk has not yet been done and they have just received a preliminary engineering report.
Jim McElroy, Board member, also stated that he would like to see more hydrology studies and wait until the other issues were better understood.
Mr. Bourcier stated that the conventional plan is only used for basis of criteria. The ZBA has already approved a cluster development and they are looking for guidance as to the number of lots the Planning Board would allow.
Mr. McElroy stated that it is still not clear if there are 14 sustainable open-space lots. He suggested careful review of the engineering study would be wise.
Mr. Bourcier explained that there are differences between a 14-lot and a 16-lot design scheme, so they would like to know where the Board is leaning, so that proper calculations for drainage, etc. could be made. They understand the need for complete drainage analysis, road studies, etc.
Mr. Stewart stated that he understands that they will not grant a decision on the number of lots tonight, but would like the Board to grant latitude for the design which grants more green space.
Kristin Claire, Board member, asked for comparison of the two open-space designs, one plan has 14 lots with 40-percent green space (20.8 acres open space); the other design shows 16 lots with 60-percent green space (28 acres open space). There is more road and other issues with second plan, even though it provides for more green space. She stated that she generally prefers more open space with less road, but if this causes increased engineering problems then that is not a good decision.
Ms. Stamps stated that, typically, a development with larger open space is more favorable, however, because of the Town engineer’s preliminary report, in this case, the 40-percent open space plan may be better.
Cheryl Morse, Selectman ex-officio, stated that hammerhead roads are difficult to maintain and asked for other considerations such as a cul-de-sac design.
Mr. Stewart stated that he is not sure if Hoyle Tanner was working from the most recent set of plans.
Ms. Stamps said it is difficult to tell if they were comparing the conventional plan with the two open space plans or only comparing the open space plans. She stated that it would be helpful to have an engineering study on the conventional plan so that there is a solid foundation on which to make judgment about all of the issues of steep slopes, drainage, etc. for each lot.
There was discussion about the applicant having to spend more money on studies of a plan that is not going to be built. The unbuildable areas were already taken out of the calculations. The Board thought it most important to focus on the report and work on what can be developed; there has to be concrete engineering as to how the land will handle development considering drainage, septic systems, water, traffic and roads.
Mr. Stewart is confident that they can prove the viability of 14 buildable lots but stated that he is looking for guidance as to what plan the Board would prefer them to design.
Mr. McElroy stated that he cannot see the additional value for the increased amount of open space with that road plan and the smaller lots.
It was decided that the best course of action is for the applicant to meet with Stephanie Alexander next week about the concerns of drainage, traffic and roads. Feedback on the conventional yield plan will also be discussed.
Mr. Railland, surveyor, then made his presentation about the research of the lot lines and the discrepancy regarding the Egner’s abutting property. He stated that he met on March 27, 2007 with Mr. and Mrs. Egner and Mr. Paul to discuss the issues. He stated that it was the Egner’s belief that the line was moved in some way. He stated that there did appear to be some conflicting evidence on the ground. There were two concrete boundaries in front; there was reference to the concrete boundary in one deed. Mr. Paul said that there was one concrete marker lying on the ground and one was buried. Mr. Railland reviewed the extensive history of the previous surveys of the property and stated that he was confident that he was able to recreate the same bounds. He stated that three surveyors arrived at the same conclusion.
He acknowledged the final decision in the court case with a boundary line agreement. He stated that this has no bearing on the survey line in question. The details of this case concern property to the far side of the line and do not affect the line now in question.
Mr. Paul said that a granite post at the road was moved. It appears that the cement marker was used to do the measurements when the lot was subdivided before. The intent was to create a line 50-feet parallel from this line. They found the rebar set by the other surveyor and the granite marker; the distance to rebar is 49.94 feet. Mr. Railland stated that mathematically the lines work out to within one-quarter to one-half of an inch.
Atty. Tarbell stated that he does not know if the Egner’s are willing to sign off as being in agreement with the findings, but he wants to make it clear that they have done everything in their power to accurately prove the boundary lines.
Mr. Paul stated that since 1971, everyone thought their property line was where they stated. He stated that the corner marker cement post is the issue, and the previous owner said that was the boundary. He stated that he is certain that the Egner’s are not in agreement with Mr. Railland’s findings.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the survey and stated that bearings and distances on the current plan and the 1971 plan do not match. He stated that if the Board is to be convinced that the plans match, he does not see it. Mr. Railland explained that the angles will have differences due to the change in technology used; however, the principles are the same.
Mr. Paul stated that if the subdivision was done in 1971 using 1971 technology and everyone agreed at the time, how can it be changed based only on using new technology. Mr. Railland stated that the intended lines were recreated.
Chairman Osgood thanked Mr. Railland for his time and extensive research. He stated that the information would be put into the file.
Mr. Railland stated that if the Egner’s hire a professional surveyor, he would be happy to offer his files for review.
Atty. Tarbell stated that they have filed an application for a wetlands crossing; the ZBA hearing is April 25 (Actual hearing was April 18, 2007).
The Board scheduled a site walk of the property on May 5, 2007 at 9:00 am. This will be properly posted as a public meeting. This case will be continued at the May 9, 2007 meeting.
New Business
Case 2007-004: A Site Plan Review application has been submitted by Mary Walsh, WF Enterprises LLC, on behalf of owners Philip and Donna Richardson to add a 15’x32’ patio for additional seasonal seating in the outdoor courtyard of Que Pasa Restaurant located on Map 2, Lot 205 at 25 Maple Street/Route 114 in the Residential Village (RV) District.
Notification to abutters was done properly. There is no comment from the highway department.
Mr. and Mrs. Walsh stated a change in the LLC to County Cork Taco Company. The abutters were notified properly of the hearing, but there was an error in omitting two of them from the map. That was corrected.
Mr. Walsh showed an outdoor seating plan accommodating 32 seats. There were formerly 92 seat occupancy and due to the other changes, inside seating will be approximately 50 seats. A new certificate of occupancy is required as the old one expired. He anticipates getting the new one on Monday, April 16. Letters from the fire and police departments show no concerns for their proposed plans.
Chairman Osgood suggested that the applicant request a waiver for the items listed on Section 203-12 Plat details (E1, E4, E5, E6, E7, E9, E10, E11, E13, E15, E16, E18, E20). He stated that this is only for a seasonal deck, and they recognize the type of impact involved.
Mr. Walsh showed pictures of the type of aborae vitae and lattice with planters that will be used to create the area. According to the Liquor Commission a clearly delineated defined space for open containers is required. They plan to create a more natural environment; any lighting will be shaded.
At 8:40 pm, Chairman Osgood called for any public comment. There was none.
The Board reviewed other items including lighting and noise. Chairman Osgood moved to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 5-0.
Discussion about noise factors continued. The applicants stated that they may play soft music and will possibly have a strolling guitarist. The only neighbors who may be affected are across the street. The applicant stated that they want to be good neighbors and are aware of being considerate to those around them. The deck will be closed at 10 pm.
The Board asked for any public comment. Hearing none, the Board was ready to vote on the plan.
Kristin Claire moved to approve the plan for the outdoor deck as described. Applicant is to submit a permit to operate a place of assembly. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Case 2007-005: A Site Plan Review application has been submitted by Idlewild North LLC, David Eilenberger, on behalf of owner Patenaude Meeting House to complete a 30’x25’ deck for additional seasonal seating on the outside of Idlewild North Steakhouse located on Map1, Lot 589 at 35 Flanders Road, in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
The applicant began by withdrawing his request for waiver of the 22x34 plans; he is submitting that. He copied the tax maps and has a topography map, although it is not signed and stamped. Letters from the fire chief, water and sewer departments and the highway departments show no concern for this plan. Nothing was received to date from the police department.
Andrew Fournier and his mother, Jill Fournier, abutters, were in attendance and stated that Ray Fournier is no longer living at the given address; they are now representing that property.
Mr. Eilenberger described his plans for completing the deck space. He thinks it may seat about 30 people. He intends to play background music. He intends to place low-wattage sconces on the building for lighting. Noise issues were discussed and it was stated that the town noise ordinance leaves repercussions of violation of the spirit of the ordinance to the discretion of the investigating officer.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the application as complete. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Chairman Osgood called for public comment. Mr. Azure and Mr. Fournier, abutters, stated that the deck is visible from the road. They also commented that sound and lighting does travel as there is not much natural foliage buffer. Jill Fournier stated that she has eaten at the restaurant two times. She stated that she was there for lunch one time and the TV was blaring much too loudly. The staff did not do anything to control the unpleasant noise and asked how they would be instructed to control outdoor noise.
Mr. Eilenberger stated that his plans call for another wall to run across the back corner to the stairwell. There is a 10:00 pm shutdown of operation, and he will make sure that they are operating their business in consideration of their neighbors.
Jennifer McCourt, audience member, stated that the applicant has a good plan to stop the noise at the source and will direct noise away from the neighbors.
The public hearing was closed at 9:27 pm.
Kristin Claire moved to approve the plan; Cheryl Morse seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Case 2007-006: A Lot Line Adjustment application has been submitted by co-owners Gregory and Judith Champlin and Debora Demello to adjust the boundaries of Map 1, Lots 282 and 283 at 56 Dodge Hill Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Judith Champlin, applicant, left earlier as she was not feeling well. The Board reviewed the plan even though the applicant was not present. After review, it became evident that the application would have to be rejected as it did not meet the necessary zoning requirements per Article X, Section 133-40 (c) as lot 283 would become a nonconforming lot. There is a requirement for 10-acre minimum lot size on Class V nonconforming roads. Chairman Osgood moved to reject the application. Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0.
Case 2005-019: A modification of Phasing Plan has been submitted by McCourt Engineering Assoc. PLLC on behalf of Chase Brook Realty Trust to amend the original phasing plan of the Chase Brook subdivision located on Map1, Lots 583 A through T on Flanders Road and Craney Hill Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
The Board reviewed the documentation and phasing agreement.
Terry Stamps moved to accept the application as complete; Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Chairman Osgood called for public comment at 9:50 pm. There was none.
Jim McElroy moved to approve the application with the condition that the language on the mylars and the agreement document are subject to satisfactory review by Town Counsel. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Motion carried,
5-0.
Chairman Osgood stated that he will write a letter to remind the police department that with people living there, they will need to be aware of increased traffic in that area.
Planning Board Elections:
Jim McElroy stated that he is the incoming Chairman of the CNHRPC. He stated that he would like Terry Stamps to take the responsibility of all budget related items on the Planning Board level and work on the contractual agreements with the regional planning commission.
Scott Osgood moved to create a new position of Budget Director. Jim McElroy seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0.
Scott Osgood moved to elect the following slate of candidates for the Planning Board:
Chairman—Jim McElroy
Vice-Chairman—Kristin Claire
Secretary—Scott Osgood
Budget Director—Terry Stamps
Jim McElroy seconded the motion. Motion passed, 5-0.
Mr. Osgood stated that as secretary, he would like to keep an up-to-date action list of items the Board is working on.
The Planning Board has three openings for alternates. Mr. Osgood will place an e-mail to townspeople to put an put an all-call e-mail out to an extensive list of contacts. A notice will also be placed in the Town Hall.
Discussion Items
Town Planner Position: Mr. Osgood stated it is his opinion that the position has been defined too professionally. He does not think that someone with that level of expertise is necessary. He will continue to work with Peter Flynn to develop the ideas for this position.
Ms. Osgood stated that he decided not to write a letter in response to the Ruffled Road petition. The Board supported his decision. Cheryl Morse stated that a town-wide mailing could be done to notify residents of upcoming zoning amendments prior to the hearings next year.
Scott Osgood moved to adjourn at 10:43 pm. Terry Stamps seconded; motion passed, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
March 14, 2007
Members in Attendance: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Don Armstrong; Gary Guzouskas; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chairman; and Jim McElroy.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Ronald Bourcier; Chris Stewart; Eaton W. Tarbell, Esq.; Jeffrey Egner; Dale Jennings; Tim Lamphere; David Eilenberger; Dan Paul; Mary and Jim Walsh; Rebecca Egner.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant (CNHRPC) was not present.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. The minutes from the previous meeting of February 28, 2007 were reviewed, and corrections were made. Kristin Claire moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The minutes were approved, 6-0.
Old Business:
Case 2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots and 2 open space lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Chairman Osgood stated that this is a continuation of this case for the purpose of reviewing the new set of plans presented by the applicant. Additional copies of the traffic study were distributed to the Board members.
Attorney Eaton Tarbell began the presentation. He asked if the Board had received a copy of a letter from him dated March 7, 2007. The Board did not have this letter, so copies were made and distributed. Atty. Tarbell reviewed the contents, citing RSA 676 Section 12 (6) which states that the development is bound by the prior road frontage ordinance that was in effect at the time of filing their plans (125-feet of road frontage) even though the new ordinance increasing road frontages just passed by Town vote on March 13, 2007. Kristin Claire, Board member, stated that this interpretation of the State law is correct and legal, and the applicant locks in their rights to this ordinance at the time of notifying the abutters and filing an application within a year. The plans for this subdivision were heard on November 22, 2006, and a public hearing was held on December 13, 2006. The posting of the new road frontage ordinance was made on December 28, 2006. Jim McElroy, Board member, asked if it was necessary to have Town counsel review this. The Board agreed by consensus that was not necessary as the RSA is available online.
Atty. Tarbell stated that he would like to talk with Mr. Jeff Egner, an abutter to the property, at this meeting about the disputed boundary lines being set. A letter from Doug Paul was also referenced.
Kristin Claire asked if the development company has researched prior title work on the property. Chris Stewart, Landmark Development, said that a title analysis was done, but he cannot recall the comments made. Mr. Stewart stated that the survey performed by Dennis Railland and the survey performed by Ray Cowan in the 1970’s match completely.
Chairman Osgood asked Mr. Egner, abutter, to speak to the question regarding his property rights in regards to the boundary line. Mr. Egner presented a letter dated March 14, 2007 describing the discrepancies of the property boundaries. He then described the physical property and the points of confusion as to where the rebar pin with the aluminum cap should be located. Mr. Egner stated that he had asked, as a professional courtesy, someone from the State to review the information for him, and this person agrees that the point should not be where Mr. Railland marked. Mr. Egner stated that the papers regarding his property state that he has 168-feet of road frontage, and he is not willing to sign a document forfeiting his lot line to the term marked as an “Approximate Boundary.”
Mr. Egner stated for clarification that the old monument is present and both monuments identifying road frontage are there. He reported that the “approximate boundaries” as marked encroach on his land. He would like to see a definite boundary line marked. Mr. Egner suggested that a line could be carried in from two fixed points with known markers, such as the bridges nearby.
Chairman Osgood reviewed survey law, explaining that “approximate” and “more or less” are common terms used in the industry.
Don Armstrong, Board member, stated that the Merrimack County Superior Court ruled on this property in 1973, according to Mr. Egner’s letter of March 14, 2007 on file to the Board, and this information must be included in any decision that is made.
The Board agreed that this case cannot move forward as long as there is a dispute about boundaries with an abutter.
Atty. Tarbell responded by stating that Dennis Railland was hired for his services as a professional surveyor by the development company. He stated that Mr. Egner simply does not agree with the findings, but has offered no proof that there is actually any discrepancy. He stated that it is not up to the Board to force them to agree with the abutter. Mr. Tarbell suggested that Mr. Egner hire a surveyor. The survey may or may not agree with the one performed by Mr. Railland. Atty. Tarbell stated that Mr. Egner has the right to file a lawsuit if he so chooses.
Terry Stamps, Board member, asked the other Board members whether zoning or subdivision regulations apply in times of discrepancies with the property. Kristin Claire stated that the Planning Board cannot rule on boundary line disputes. Don Armstrong stated that this issue has to be resolved as it can be perceived as illegally taking land.
Ms. Stamps stated that she did not appreciate of Mr. Tarbell’s statement that someone can sue them later (referring to Mr. Tarbell’s previous remark). She encouraged a more cooperative approach to the issue.
Gary Guzouskas, Board member, stated that the problem seems to be in the wording as designated as “Approximate Boundary.”
Mr. Egner stated that he has an accurate tape and compass report dealing with this triangular piece of land.
Chairman Osgood reminded everyone that the applicant has a right of way issue which is drawn by these boundaries, and so the plan rests on this issue. Mr. Osgood also stated that the applicant telling the abutters to sue them later is probably not the best answer to this problem.
Mr. Egner stated that he has no question about the integrity of the surveyor’s work, as he is certain that Mr. Railland performed his duties to the best of his ability; however, this is a gray area which requires additional investigation.
Chairman Osgood asked the applicant if Landmark Development would be willing to pay for the services of another surveyor hired by the abutters. Mr. Stewart stated that asking the applicant to pay to survey an abutter’s property is not acceptable.
Mr. Stewart stated that Mr. Railland performed a great deal of investigation and his survey “closed the loop” on any questionable areas. He stated that Mr. Railland could come back before the Board to testify on his findings. Ms. Stamps stated that even if he did come back to review his findings, the Board does not have the authority to settle this dispute.
When asked if the Egner’s ever met Mr. Railland on the physical property, Mr. Egner stated that they had only spoken on the telephone. Rebecca Egner stated that one monument is in her dad’s garage and was never set.
Jim McElroy stated that the Board can only ask for an update on this matter at the next meeting. Atty. Tarbell requested the Board to take this matter to Town counsel for advice on proceeding with this matter. Mr. McElroy asked if the applicant would be paying the cost of that service which Mr. Tarbell declined.
Atty. Tarbell stated that he did not mean to appear disrespectful to the Board or to the Egner’s by his comment about suing them. He stated that because of the way that the law works, the property owner must prove his point, and it is incumbent upon Mr. Egner hiring professionals to present his case.
Ms. Claire suggested that the Egner’s get a professional opinion regarding this dispute.
Mr. Egner stated that he has contacted an attorney. He also stated that he will make every attempt to meet with Dennis Railland to review the property before the next Board meeting.
(End of discussion)
Ron Bourcier presented an updated set of plans of the proposed development to the Board. The new plans were highlighted to see the lots more clearly. He stated that there are 14 lots which meet the criteria.
Terry Stamps asked what characteristics were included in “unsuitable area.” Mr. Bourcier explained that it is a mixture of ledges and poor soil. Lots 8 and 9 are the only two lots that have those characteristics. They reviewed the Conventional Lot Area Table.
Ms. Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission walked the area before the snow came. They discussed soil groupings and wetlands taken out of the buildable area. Mr. Bourcier reported that the test pits were done on the open space lots.
Ms. Claire stated that there is a large impact involving crossing the wetlands. Mr. Bourcier stated that it is still within DEA criteria. The Conservation Commission agrees with him that a natural bottom would be a better plan instead of a solid culvert.
Road frontages along the circle area were discussed and appear to be acceptable.
Chairman Osgood asked if there were any other questions relating to the Conventional Yield plan. He stated that a site walk would be necessary when the snow is gone. He stated that the applicant did provide the information that was requested showing how they arrived at 14 conventional lots.
Mr. Bourcier then showed plans for a 14-lot cluster development with 40-percent open space. He stated that they are requesting two additional lots making a total 16-lot development with 60-percent open space. He stated that they need to know if they can get these extra lots approved by the Board. Mr. Bourcier showed an extended road with a “T” at the other end. These plans move the development down and create more open space at the other end, increasing the open space to 60-percent.
Kristin Claire asked for the total road length. Mr. Bourcier stated that he did not calculate it yet. Mr. Stewart thought that it was 300-400 feet longer than the original plans.
Form of ownership was discussed. Atty. Tarbell stated that each deed would own a fractional portion of the open space. He stated that 15 to 16 lots generally dictate a homeowner’s association for management of the open space; ownership is one of the reasons they would like to know how many lots will be allowed.
Tim Lamphere, resident, asked which type of ownership is better for the homeowners. Chairman Osgood stated that impact on conservation matters and homeowners’ rights need to be considered.
Chairman Osgood asked for a copy of these plans to be supplied to the Board prior to the next meeting.
Don Armstrong discussed the perc tests performed on each lot and the protected well radii.
Mr. Bourcier stated that an agreement letter from PSNH was put into the file. They also expect a letter to be forthcoming from TDS Telecom. Mr. Bourcier distributed a letter from Dan Geiger (Oak Hill Environmental Services) to the Board. Mr. Stewart stated that they expect to install aerial lines due to the cost involved with underground installation.
Chairman Osgood explained to the audience that this case is not in the public phase yet. This case will be scheduled for continuation during the April 11, 2007 regular business meeting.
(Discussion ended at 8:50)
New Business
None
Conceptual Consultation
Case #2007-004: Materials for a conceptual consultation had previously been submitted on behalf of Que Pasa owners Phil and Donna Richardson for an expansion of use on Map 2, Lot 205 at 3 Maple Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Jim and Mary Walsh, prospective owners of Que Pasa restaurant, represented the property owners. They are asking for permission to create a temporary outdoor seating area. This would be put in front of the door facing Maple Street. The tree in front will not be affected. They stated that a trellis may be erected, but no roof, permanent walls or other permanent structure will be constructed. They stated that the area will not be used during inclement weather. Mr. Walsh proposes a patio area of about 15-feet wide, creating an outdoor area by creative landscaping, potted plants, and patio stones, etc. An actual deck will not be constructed. He stated that this will also increase accessibility.
Chairman Osgood suggested looking at drainage from the roof as it will probably need a gutter to redirect flow
Board members suggested getting the original plans of Que Pasa then include their plans for the outdoor patio area. Chairman Osgood stated that the process is to inform the public of any change in the character of land use. The Board advised the applicant to show lighting, seating, and anything else that abutters may see on their plans.
Mary Walsh asked if it was appropriate to begin discussion with the police and fire departments, as well as the neighbors, at this stage. The Board agreed this was a good idea. Mr. McElroy also suggested that they meet with Stephanie Alexander next week for her to review the requirements with them.
Case 2007-005: Materials for a conceptual consultation have been submitted by David Eilenberger, Manager of Idlewild North LLC for building owner Patenaude Meeting House LLC for an expansion of use on Map 1, Lot 588A at 35 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Mr. Eilenberger stated that he was originally planning to request a waiver as he thought he had met the criteria. However, after hearing the preceeding case, he understood that he would have to submit to site plan review. He stated that he wants to complete the back deck that was started by previous owners. He stated that he has letters from the three direct abutters expressing their positive response (Rousseau’s, Nash’s and Fournier’s) that they understand his request.
He stated that the only abutter who expressed concern was Mr. and Mrs. Rousseau as they have young children and want the business to be considerate about increased noise as the restaurant’s deck faces their house.
Ms. Claire stated that the site plan give abutters a chance to be heard about the changes. Chairman Osgood suggested that the applicant write a descriptive narrative of the proposed work to be done, including any changes in lighting, sound mitigation, etc.
Mr. Eilenberger stated that he has a building permit that is good for a year to cover renovations on the property. He plans to meet with Ms. Alexander next week for application at the next meeting in April.
Discussion Items
Chairman Osgood recommended to the Board that Conceptual Consultations are not necessary for simple plans such as those presented this evening.
Kristin Claire suggested road length limits for dead-end roads and cul-de-sacs be set. The Board discussed stating limits in the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Osgood will ask CNHRPC for recommendations. The suggestion to review common driveway regulations was also made.
Process for making recommendation that a new road become the responsibility of the Town was discussed. Where, on a planning level, does the Board have the obligation to approve an application with a questionable road? The Highway and Fire Departments have the right to express their input as to whether the Town should accept the liability of a road. The Planning Board is responsible for getting the Town engineer to comment on the relevancy of accepting the road as a Town Road.
Consultant’s Log
The log was discussed.
Other Business
Election results were reviewed.
The Spring Planning Convention is April 28, 2007 at the Radisson Hotel in Manchester. Reservations can be made online.
Chairman Osgood stated that he is still working on GIS information. He attended a Fish & Game seminar where they discussed wildlife action plan which was read by GIS software.
Gary Guzouskas reported on the Roads Management Commission. Information has been collected and they have spoken with Nick Alexander as to how to coordinate the format. The proposal was given to the Board of Selectmen to create the Road Management document. This will cost $1,000. The Selectmen may come back to the Planning Board to ask if they will share the cost.
Chairman Osgood moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 pm. Don Armstrong seconded, and it was approved, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Don Armstrong; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Cheryl Morse, Selectman, ex-officio; Kellie Dyjak.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Ron Bourcier; Chris Stewart; Tim Lamphere; Jennifer McCourt; Eaton Tarbell, III; Jim Walsh; Dan Coolidge; Martha Sunderland; Hamilton Dodge; Gary Harper; Mark Moser, Scott Dias.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
The minutes of the January 24, 2007 meeting of the Planning Board were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to approve the minutes; Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The minutes were accepted, 6-0.
Old Business:
Case #2006-017: A Lot Line Adjustment/ Minor Subdivision application for a two-lot subdivision with lot line adjustment has been submitted by Edward J. Bowser, Jr. for Map 1, Lot 568-C on 3 Cote Hill Road and by Edward J. and Reba Bowser, Sr. for Map 1, Lot 568-C-1 on 5 Cote Hill Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District. The lot line adjustment was previously approved at the November 8, 2006 meeting.
Terry Stamps, board member, recused herself from this hearing as she is an abutter to the property. New maps were provided to the Board, and additional waiver requests were presented. Dan Coolidge, surveyor for the property, presented the application on behalf of the applicants. He showed where the soil delineation lines were enhanced and existing culverts were labeled. The well release form was presented and given to Stephanie Alexander. Mr. Coolidge stated that the driveway application was submitted earlier that day, and the DES wetlands permit was noted.
(Kellie Dyjak, board member, arrived at 7:15 pm.)
Jim McElroy moved that the application be accepted as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-0.
At 7:20 pm, Chairman Osgood asked for any public comment. Hearing none, the public session was closed. Chairman Osgood asked for any further comments from the Board. Don Armstrong, board member, stated that he saw the property and thought it was very clear what was being done.
Jim McElroy moved to approve the application with the following conditions:
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 568-C2. Active and substantial development is defined for this subdivision as adopted at the May 10, 2006 public hearing.
Don Armstrong seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
New Business:
Case #2006-013: An Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots and 2 open space lots has been submitted by Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners of record Ronald and Nancy Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 34 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
The Board had information mailed to them for review and additional information was presented to them at the meeting, including a letter from the fire department and comments from the Conservation Commission and ZBA decisions. Stephanie Alexander stated that this application is to go before the ZBA on March 21, 2007.
Chairman Osgood asked Ms. Alexander to review her checklist. She reported that many of the items have been addressed. The applicant plans to meet with her on March 7, 2007 to revise the list for the March 14, 2007 meeting. She suggested that the administrative details can be addressed on a staff level so that the applicant can focus on presenting their plans and address major concerns during this meeting.
Terry Stamps suggested that they begin by focusing on the conventional plans and then convey that information to the open-space development plan. The Board reviewed the plans for the conventional development to ensure that it meets the subdivision and zoning parameters. The Board requested specific information regarding how the calculations of the two-acre contiguous buildable area were made. Ron Bourcier, engineer for the applicant, stated that the calculations have been done properly, although, the plans may be shown in a different format than what they are used to seeing. Kristin Claire, board member, asked about the calculations on the lots where there is not ample road frontage. Mr. Bourcier stated that steep slopes greater than 20 percent, all jurisdictional wetlands and areas for driveways were removed when calculating buildable area.
Mr. Bourcier stated that the applicant would like to have specific items addressed in order to proceed with their plans: 1) how many lots would be allowed?
2) Comments regarding the traffic report which had been submitted; 3) Right-of-way width; 4) schedule of site walk.
Jim McElroy stated that the application presented to them does not appear to be complete enough to answer how many lots would be allowable in an open-space development. Chairman Osgood stated that these plans are not showing sufficient information proving how they arrived at 14 lots on the conventional plan.
Mr. Bourcier stated that they believe the lots match the criteria. He stated that the Planning Board has the right to grant additional lots; he reminded the board that the original plan showed 18 lots and this plan has been revised to 14 lots in an attempt to meet the subdivision and zoning requirements. There was discussion about the general guidelines of the previous RSA 133-120 (D). Mr. Bourcier stated that he would like to see the plans go from 14 to 16 lots and offer greater amount of open space.
Jim McElory stated that he was uncomfortable with their submitting plans for 14 lots then asking for a total of 16 lots.
Don Armstrong, board member, stated that adding two houses and reducing lot size would result in increased open space to 60-percent; however, he said that there would be soil issues to consider.
Chairman Osgood stated that the first issue is that the plans, as submitted, do not easily show buildable area.
Discussion then ensued about road frontages possibly changing as the zoning amendment was posted on 12/28/06. These plans were submitted 1/24/07. If the road frontage ordinance passes by Town vote, there are at least three lots that may not be acceptable. The Board stated that plans must show steep slopes, ledges, wetlands, driveway area and road frontages; all items must be shown per lot.
Property lines were discussed. Lot lines have been set in the field. Mr. Bourcier stated that the surveyor has been in touch with the abutters and no complaints have been raised at this time. Mr. Egner’s property line was not touched, and Mr. Dodge’s property marker has now been set. Mr. Bourcier stated that the road can be graded to 43.5 feet with 10-feet lanes and 2-feet shoulders. He stated that the road begins with 50-feet, narrows to 43.5 feet then re-widens back to 50 feet. Chairman Osgood stated that it will be important to have in writing that the boundaries have been set and that there are no disputes from the abutters.
Jim McElroy suggested that the road plans be sent to the Town engineer for review as the plans involve lowering the finished grade; this will also change direction of the flow of the culvert next to the driveway. The Board agreed and will request the Selectmen to ask for review from the Highway Safety Commission also. Ms. Alexander stated that no comments have been received from the Highway Department.
Chairman Osgood stated that once the snow is gone, a site walk will be scheduled.
The traffic study was presented, but it had not yet been reviewed. The study was conducted 12/1/06 through 12/8/06. The Town engineer will be asked to review the traffic safety study. Tim Lamphere, resident, asked if the normal traffic pattern had resumed at the time of the study as Rte. 202/9 had been closed from repair
Mr. Dodge, resident, asked if the applicant is requesting a waiver of the 50-foot road requirement. It was explained that the Board may approve a reduction in the width of the right-of-way.
Mr. Lamphere asked when the public may express their opinions. Chairman Osgood explained the process of the public hearings.
This case will be continued at the next meeting.
Case #2007-001: A Minor Subdivision for 2 lots application has been submitted by McCourt Engineering Associates PLLC on behalf of owners Laurie A. and Pamela G. Grob on Map 1, Lot 277 at 9 Foster Hill Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Chairman Osgood recused himself from this case. Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair presided.
Jennifer McCourt presented the plans for this case. She distributed new plans to the Board and submitted requests for waivers. Administrative requirements addressed included: zip codes added to abutters’ notices; typographical errors were corrected; title block was corrected. General plat requirements: Lot numbers were flipped so that 277-C will be the remaining parcel. General provisions: Ms. McCourt explained that this is an existing, grandfathered non-conforming use. She stated that they are not requesting any action on the Board’s part. The intensity of use has not changed and multiple buildings are on the existing lot.
Requests for waivers were discussed. Waiver for Item 202-9.N regarding the location of septic and wells was requested as Ms. McCourt stated that there is plenty of room to put a well and septic system. She noted that all wetlands were delineated and stamped by a soils scientist.
Vice-Chairman Claire asked for any public comment. None was heard.
Jim McElroy moved to accept this waiver. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0, to grant this waiver.
Ms. McCourt explained that they are requesting a waiver for the proposed driveway plans (Item 202-9.P) as there is 400 feet of road frontage and 66 acres.
Vice-Chairman Claire asked for any public comment. Scott Osgood, abutter, stated that Foster Hill Road has unique traffic situations and safety concerns. He stated that driveway placement on this lot is a critical issue which will impact the neighbors and must be considered carefully.
Jim McElroy asked Ms. McCourt to explain the downside of showing a driveway location on the plan. She explained that it depends on how the property owner wants to build on the lot; with so much frontage, she is almost certain that what would be planned now will probably change at the time of someone actually building. She stated that if the owner wanted to move the driveway from the proposed site, they will have to come back before the board to request that change.
Cheryl Morse, Selectman ex-officio, stated that if a driveway permit is in the subdivision regulations, it should be done.
Don Armstrong stated that he does not like to approve subdivisions without a driveway application.
Jim McElroy suggested splitting the request for the waiver into two parts. He moved to grant the waiver for the building not to be shown, but require showing the placement of the driveway. Don Armstrong seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the request for waiver of Item 202-9.J. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Ms. McCourt stated that they had reviewed the Planning Consultant’s other requirements, and necessary changes were made. The applicants understand that any new house will have to have fire suppression methods (sprinkler or cistern) to meet Henniker’s fire standards.
Terry Stamps conveyed the Conservation Commission’s concerns of the change of density of the property. Jim McElroy stated that there will be an increase of density but it is still within standards.
Ms. Alexander stated that easement documentation has been submitted; right-of-way information will be reviewed by Town counsel.
Jim McElroy moved to accept this application as complete with the following conditions: 1) identify driveway locations; 2) submit driveway application; 3) note fire suppression measures; 4) easement language reviewed by Town counsel.
Terry Stamps seconded the motion for completeness. Motion carried, 6-0.
It was the consensus of the Board that a site walk is not necessary.
The applicant was assessed an impact fee of $5,518 for a single-family housing unit for this subdivision.
Vice-Chairman Claire asked for any further public comment. Scott Osgood asked if the driveway placement had been decided by the applicant. He stated that the Board was considering approving a subdivision without an important piece of information.
Ms. McCourt stated that she would act on behalf of the owners and drew a proposed driveway entrance on the plan. She invited Mr. Osgood to review the plan. He commented that it appeared to be a prudent area for a driveway, but noted that there are other issues with the property. Ms. McCourt drew the proposed driveway on each of the five plans, then initialed and dated the additions.
Public hearing was closed at 9:15 pm.
Terry Stamps moved to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. Submit right-of-way easement language subject to satisfactory review by Town Counsel.
2. Submit a town driveway permit application and display the driveway on the final plan for Lot 277-C.
3. Added the following note to the plan: Residential sprinkler systems or other acceptable measures shall be installed in accordance with Henniker Fire Department specifications for Lot 277-C.
The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set. As the applicant has stated that a single family detached home could in the future be built on the lot, school impact fees have been assessed by the Planning Board at $5,518 for Lot 277-C. Active and substantial development is defined for this subdivision as adopted at the May 10, 2006 public hearing.
Jim McElroy seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Case 2007-002: A Lot Line Adjustment application has been submitted by Arthur F. Siciliano, presented by Dan Cooledge, surveyor, on behalf of Brian and Dawn A. Sanel on Map 1, Lot 650X at 42 Craney Hill Road and Dale P. Clement on Map 1, Lot 654 at 2 Corbin Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Jim McElroy recused himself from this hearing.
Stephanie Alexander stated that new plans were provided to the file today and were reviewed by the Board. There is no intent for more building on the property.
Waivers were requested for wetland delineation; topography; bench marks; and soil delineation. Waivers were granted, 6-0. An additional request was granted to waive buildable area requirements, 6-0.
Chairman Osgood moved to accept this application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
Session was opened for public comment at 9:26 pm. Dale Clement stated that there will be a clause so that he can put his ham radio operation there.
He stated that it would be helpful for abutters to be notified when this is done or when there is a sale of property so that more information can be gathered which would help avoid these types of problems. He stated that he believes this is an honest mistake, but what may be on written deeds may be in conflict with each other.
Scott Dias, resident and contractor, stated that the problem was identified when the home was near completion. He stated that it appeared to be a case where the surveyor misinterpreted the reading of the deed rather than the actual deeds themselves.
Public session was closed at 9:33 pm.
Don Armstrong moved to approve the application. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6-0.
The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set.
Case 2006-020: A Lot Line Adjustment application has been submitted by Thomas C. Dombroski LLS on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester on Map 1, Lot 551X at 12 – 16 Old West Hopkinton Road and the Catherine Costello Trust, William Costello Trustee, on Map 1, Lot 553 at 22 Old West Hopkinton Road, in the Residential Neighborhood District (RN).
New plans were distributed to the Board. This application is to move the property line away from the house and include the pond in the church’s property. The Board reviewed the list of requested waivers.
Item 202-9U: The owner signed the application. Item 202-9C: This will not require a wetlands stamp. Nothing else under plat details is an issue with the Board. No comments received from Town departments.
Chairman Osgood called for public comment at 9:45 pm. None was heard.
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the application as complete. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 7-0.
Kristin Claire stated that she would rather see the lot line moved to the stone wall.
Jim McElroy moved to approve this application. Kristin Claire seconded. The application was approved, 7-0.
The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set.
Conceptual Consultation
Case 2007-003: Materials for a conceptual consultation have been submitted by Moser Engineering LLC on behalf of New England College for an 80-bed dormitory on Map 2, Lot 461 at 6-10 Union Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Gary Harper, Director of Operations at New England College and Mark Moser, Engineer, presented their plan. The college has reached maximum enrollment and is requesting additional dormitories on Union Street. This is not in the Educational District.
There was discussion about applying for “special exemption” from the ZBA. Terry Stamps stated that she does not believe that institutional dormitories are considered “multi-family” dwellings as used in the ordinances. The Board discussed the ordinance of one primary building per lot and the possibility of needing to subdivide the property. Kristin Claire suggested that the subdivision process would be better to pursue than requesting a variance from the ZBA as there really is no hardship requiring the variance.
Chairman Osgood stated that there may be merit to discussing an “Educational Overlay District” to cover these situations in town. He stated that he would like to see someone from NEC work with the Board in developing this.
Jim McElroy advised that applicants to be aware of building setback requirements.
Stephanie Alexander stated that zoning does not really address this situation. Board discussed using the Educational District (ED) guidelines in the RV District.
Ms. Alexander will request further guidelines from legal counsel and also ask if the Planning Board can apply ED Zoning parameters for this situation. Ms. Alexander will give the response from Town counsel to the Planning Board.
Cheryl Morse commented on the changes at the college and thought the timing may be advantageous to talk with the new President and Director of the Board of Trustees about these matters.
Case 2007-004: Materials for a conceptual consultation have been submitted by Joanna Maznek and Matt Puza on behalf of Que Pasa owners Phil and Donna Richardson for an expansion of use on Map 2, Lot 205 at 3 Maple Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
This case will be continued at the March 14, 2007 meeting.
Jim Walsh, audience member, stated that he has personal interest in this case. He stated that he has offered to buy the business (not the real estate) and was expecting to hear this case. He asked if a permit was necessary for a non-permanent structure. The Board answered “yes.” Jim McElroy explained that it changes the use of the property. Chairman Osgood stated that going through the site plan review process is a good idea. Mr. Walsh asked who would have to apply for permits, the landlord or the business owner. The board stated that those decisions are made between the two parties.
Discussion Items:
Zoning Amendments: Communication Plan:
Jim McElroy stated that he has not heard of any other meetings of civic groups conducting community meetings.
Chairman Osgood stated that he will write an article for the newspapers.
Terry Stamps stated that she spoke with White Birch Community Center, but that did not work out for a variety of reasons.
The Board stated that the idea of holding forums in community businesses was not generating any interest.
Cheryl Morse suggested showing what road frontages actually look like so that voters can get an actual visual of the impact.
Ms. Alexander reminded the Board of voting day on March 13, 2007.
Kellie Dyjak stated that she missed the sign-up date for re-election so there is an open spot for the Planning Board. She can run as a write-in candidate.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the only business on the agenda at the next meeting will be to review the minutes from this meeting and the continuation of the Bacon Road Development.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn at 10:38 pm. Kellie Dyjak seconded. Motion carried, 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PUBLIC HEARING for
ZONING AMENDMENTS
Community Center
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Kellie Dyjak; Don Armstrong; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman, (Selectman, ex-officio)
Others Attending: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Michael Pon, newspaper reporter
Residents Attending (as they signed in): Joe Morette; Danny Aucoin; Bob Stamps; Laurie Grob; Denise Rico; Peter Flynn; Rachel Coombs; Molly MacDougall; Patrick Connor; Randy Wilson; Leon Wilson; Dennis Hamel; Joan O’Connor; Judith Englander; Jeff Roach; Ted Parkins; Bill Goss; Patrick Gagne; Diane Mallett; Aaron Sterling; Jessica Michie; Spencer Bennett; Linda McGuire; Ken Hauptman; Jason Michie; Martha Sunderland; Gene Brown; Tim McComish; Roni Hardy; Holly Green; Cynthia Marsland; Eleanor Kjellman; Michele Bergh; Caleb Dobbins; Dale Clement; Jennifer McCourt; Leon Parker; Ed Ulmer
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The minutes of the December 13, 2006 Business Meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to approve the minutes. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was passed, 7 – 0.
Chairman Osgood explained to the audience that the meeting was the first public hearing of the proposed warrant articles prepared for Town Meeting. He stated that this is the forum to listen to public comment on each issue. Jennifer McCourt, resident, clarified that four actions could be taken during the meeting: 1) amend the article and have it go to a second public hearing; 2) make no change to the article; 3) send article to Town Counsel for review; 4) decide not to proceed with the amendment.
Commercial Recreational District CR-1: Leon Parker presented this amendment. He stated that the charge to the committee was to review the Rte. 114 corridor and find any place to change zoning to accommodate commercial enterprises. He stated that changes in the tax rate prompted the town to look at new ideas for commercial uses. He stated that the committee took inventory of Rte 114 activity; there is more open land northbound, but the land is full of wetlands, steep slopes, etc. He stated that the committee has some ideas for that area, but due to the complexity of the topography would like to work with the conservation commission further to investigate the ability in that direction. The committee concentrated on the area of Rte 114 south. He stated that they talked to many landowners in the community and a very large majority expressed positive opinions to the proposal. Mr. Parker explained the current zoning areas and explained the proposed boundaries. He explained one of the Planning Board’s concerns was the 5-acre lot sizes in RR district would be changed to two-acre zones. He explained that the CR-1 district requires 5-acre minimums and permitted uses. Excavation would be allowed by special exception. The committee envisions small retail shops, restaurants, a variety of business which would be attractive to the town. The committee is concerned that no commercial development will happen unless there is a belief of the town residents that this should happen.
Cindy Marsland, resident, asked how the town plans to attract businesses as the Economic Development Committee is no longer active. Mr. Parker stated that this is the first step in developing an economic plan. The town can begin recruiting members for a new Economic Development Committee as the plan progresses.
Joan O’Connor, resident, questioned the use of the term “Commercial Recreational.” It was explained that this was an extension of the district closest to the area.
Mr. Parker explained that town water and sewer services do not extend to that district. That will limit larger activity as the Town infrastructure is not in place.
Ed Ulmer, resident, asked about the 5-acre minimum lot size with 125-feet road frontage promoting larger buildings. Mr. Parker addressed the concern of subdividing into smaller lots and inadvertently encouraging more residential lots. Don Armstrong, board member, also stated that the State does not like to see too many curb cuts along roads such as Route 114.
Cindy Marsland asked if the abutters had been notified of these plans. Mr. Parker stated that an effort was made to talk to the abutting landowners.
Another homeowner (did not identify herself) stated that this will put her home in a commercial district and had not been notified of these plans.
Pat Connor, resident, stated that Rte. 114 is a limited access highway, and there are limits that would be imposed.
Jennifer McCourt stated that the zone will not attract large retailers due to lack of town water and sewer services. The plan is to give another opportunity to put smaller businesses and cottage industries in that area. Rural Residential zoning does not allow for that. The traffic in that area also is not enough to draw large businesses. She stated that the committee envisioned a continuation of the type of businesses from Weare to Pat’s Peak.
Dennis McComish, resident, asked if a resident could opt out of the zoning.
Ms. McCourt stated that there are processes to have your opinion made known.
Judith Englander, resident, asked how much revenue could be generated for the town by these limited businesses.
Mr. Parker stated that it is not possible to speculate; the real increase of value would be from buildings and structures. Jim McElroy, board member, stated that one-quarter of the revenue comes from commercial districts.
Another resident (not identified) stated that she lives in the affected district and this is the first time she is hearing this proposal. She stated that there was a commercial strip in the 1980’s which prompted reviewing the commercial zoning back then. She stated that a committee reviewed the master plan and decided to keep commercial zoning in the center of the village. She stated that the natural density makes Henniker attractive, and the committee fought hard to avoid the common strip-mall mentality. She asked if permitted uses could be changed in the RR district. She commented on the restaurants in town that have failed and would like to see the existing commercial areas fully developed before expanding. She stated that this proposal reverses what the master plan outlined
years ago.
Caleb Dobbins, resident, stated that property taxes are based on improvements to the land.
A resident asked how much land was extended into this district; Mr. Parker stated that is approximately 1,000 acres.
Dennis Hamel, resident, stated that the lack of parking is not the cause of failure. He stated that the town has been anti-business.
Michele Bergh stated that making this change would cause large farms to be turned into commercial areas. She stated that this does not help homeowners sell their homes. Jim McElroy stated that residential use is a permitted use in the CR district.
Eleanor Kjellman, resident and member of the rezoning subcommittee, stated that this plan does not take residential area but creates an extension of the village with homes and businesses.
Chairman Osgood asked for any further input from the Board. Jim McElroy stated that he has not heard any specific changes to be made to the warrant article. Terry Stamps stated that she would recommend that the board vote whether to go forward with this article or not and would like to see the subcommittee move forward. Chairman Osgood moved to recommend placing this warrant article on the ballot as it is written. Tom Watman seconded the motion. The motion carried, 7-0.
Building Permits: Chairman Osgood stated that this warrant article is an attempt by the Town’s Board of Selectmen and Planning Board to ensure that the Town is aware of construction projects in order to maintain current records in regards to each property.
Dennis Hamel, resident, gave a brief background of the history of the building permit issue. He asked why the Planning Board is trying to change it again and stated that the change is only to give the Board control of people’s property.
Tom Watman, Selectman ex-officio, stated that this warrant article came to the Planning Board from the Board of Selectmen as property taxes are the major way that services are paid for in New Hampshire. He stated that to assess the property tax, the Town needs efficient, honest and accurate information about each property. He stated that this impacts not just the Henniker tax but also the high school, state property tax, etc. He asked how records shall be efficiently maintained if people are not recording what they are building. He stated that the Town has a choice to pay to do the reevaluation each year based on the building permits or, if the permits are not current, the Town will be forced to revaluate the entire town every five years. He stated that if accurate data is kept, the experts say that the Town will save one-half of revaluation fees. He reported that the State said that even after the last revaluations were done, there were many items not recorded. He stated the need to implement this action to help with everyone paying as fair a share of taxes as they should.
Rick Patenaude, resident, asked if he spends $4,000 to put up a shed and he reports it, does that mean that he will not be revaluated? He asked where the money would be saved if the assessor is still coming out, even if building permits were filed. Tom Watman stated that the assessor would not need to evaluate the entire property in that case.
Cindy Marsland, resident, stated that one way to save money is every five years the Town goes through recertification. If records are updated, assessor’s can do partial revaluations. She stated that the permit only notifies the Town so that the tax assessor can do revaluations. She stated that Department of Revenue Administration holds the town to standards.
Eleanor Kjellman stated that the Town is required to reassess every five years. If the Town sets up this honor system to keep records current, the Town can use its own local assessor.
Scott Dias, resident, asked how many small permits this would mean and if everyone is subject to an inspection, there may not be enough hours for the inspector to get all the work done in his allotted time. Don Armstrong stated that there is no building code in Henniker.
Tim McComish, resident, stated that the public likes their liberty and does not want to have permits. He stated that he does not think the public minds if it costs a little more to not have to report everything that is done on their property.
Tom Watman stated that this only asks property owners to be accountable.
Tim McComish stated that the public voted before and said “No” to this idea.
Joan O’Connor asked if this only pertained to residential properties. Chairman Osgood stated that everyone in town is revaluated.
Jennifer McCourt stated that there used to be a card that a property owner filled out to update their records and asked if this could be useful again. She stated that she objects to requiring permits on renovations and repairs as this will still only look at the honest people and will not help find the dishonest ones.
Tom Watman stated that an inventory form is another option for the Board of Selectmen to consider, although it is not an efficient system.
Cindy Marsland stated that there was a case of an assessment card said a property was a vacant lot; however, there was a house on it. The house had never been assessed. This activity is not fair to all other taxpayers.
Ed Ulmer, resident, stated that we must remember that this is the “Live Free or Die” state. He stated that $5,000 doesn’t even put a furnace in a house these days. Repairs do not increase the value of the property.
Rick Patenaude stated that this article should not be considered as it has been voted on twice and was denied.
Don Armstrong stated that labor, equipment and materials are factors that must be included.
Eleanor Kjellman stated that she is concerned about repairs being included. Repairing a roof does not add value to a house. She stated her concern about creating a situation where neighbors are reporting neighbors.
Caleb Dobbins questioned the entire assessment process.
Ted Parkins, resident, asked why they concern themselves with $5,000 improvements. He suggested not worrying about the little stuff, but concentrate on the big things.
Michele Bergh stated that this process appears cumbersome for the Town and suggested making the amount of $20,000.
Someone else (unidentified) asked if “all projects” was too broad of language. Chairman Osgood stated that the legal language of the warrant article does not say “all projects.”
Chairman Osgood asked for comments from the Board. Jim McElroy stated that he heard two major areas of concern: 1) requiring a permit for any building project; 2) no fee charged but should be no permit for such a small amount. He stated that a more important issue has to do with fire safety, and having a building permit is a good idea to protect safety issues.
Dennis Hamel stated that there is a discrepancy of wording in the published ordinances. Chairman Osgood stated that this was not an individual effort and there was an error of wording in the books.
Tom Watman recommended having the Board put the warrant article on the ballot without change. He stated that if the Planning Board does not want to do it, it could go back to the Board of Selectmen for discussion.
Kristin Claire stated that she would rather not do full revaluations, but is not comfortable with the stated dollar amount.
Kellie Dyjak stated that the residents are saying that small projects cost $10,000 to $15,000. She asked if increasing the amount would be helpful.
Chairman Osgood reopened the public session at 8:45pm. Terry Stamps recommended giving the article back to the Selectmen with this input and rewrite it to come back for a second public hearing. Jim McElroy moved to give the article back to the Selectmen for discussion and rewriting the document (not go to Town counsel) and have a second hearing on January 31. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6 - 1.
Growth Management: Jim McElroy presented the new regulations and reasoning of the Growth Management Ordinance. He stated that the current GMO expires this year. He stated that this article proposes to continue the GMO but changes the method of calculations. This shows that Henniker is not restricting growth compared to other towns and is also not allowing unreasonable growth. Chairman Osgood stated that this tool enables those responsible for the Town budget to project for growth. It was stated that this only concerns newly created lots and new housing units.
A resident stated that she understands the process of paced growth. She suggested looking at the master plan and making sure that the CR-1 zone is consistent.
Don Armstrong stated that without a GMO, a Town cannot impose phasing of developments.
The 2007 number of housing units calculates to be 56 units. One-quarter of them would be reserved for individuals.
The Board discussed language of lots of record and the term “and/or approved by the Planning Board.” Chairman Osgood moved to reinsert the pertinent language. Jim McElroy seconded the motion.
Rachel Coombs, resident, asked why the Town has to be concerned with the “fair share of growth” compared to surrounding communities. She asked why can’t Henniker residents define what type of housing we want in town. Kristin Claire explained that without this, the GMO is not defensible in court. Don Armstrong stated that the courts refer to it as “snob zoning.”
The Board agreed, 7-0, to continue with this warrant article without another public hearing.
Watershed Overlay District: Mark Mitch proposed this article on behalf of the Conservation Commission. He reviewed the history of monitoring ponds and the increase of cyanobacteria and phosphorous in specific areas. This zone would create stricter buffer zones for specific great bodies of water.
Aaron Sterling, resident, stated that he owns 156 acres in the center of the proposed district and feels that he is being targeted. Patrick Connor stated that farmers are probably the most concerned about natural resources, but appear to be the target of the zoning.
Mark Mitch stated that French Pond is of most concern right now. He reported that the State will not help find funds ($300,000) without this protected districted being created.
Residents in the affected areas stated that no one from the Conservation Commission spoke to them about this. Chairman Osgood agreed that there could be better communication; however, information is posted in public places inviting residents to meetings and hearings on various issues. Kristin Claire reminded the audience that members of the Board and the commissioners are volunteers working for the benefit of the Town.
Michele Bergh stated that Keyser Pond and French Pond are the only ones showing a problem and not everyone living near water should be punished. Mr. Mitch stated that Middle Pond, Upper Pond and Long Pond have showed slightly increased levels as well.
Spencer Bennett, resident, stated his credentials and read from a written statement. He stated that all concerns should be looked at from a risk assessment basis. He related four scenarios which described various types and levels of risk to the watershed. He suggested that the whole document must be looked at again before it is ready to put before the public for a vote. He stated that these regulations would prohibit forestry in Henniker, thereby ignoring significant risk while focusing on insignificant risks. He stated that this proposed overly district may be well intended but is wrong in its application. He submitted a written statement to the Board.
Chairman Osgood stated that this article deals with the great ponds and is trying to keep the existing problems from getting worse.
Leon Parker, resident, stated that he strongly supports Mr. Bennett’s reasoning. He stated that this action will cause at least 10-percent increase in zoning regulations and will require review by a hydrologist for anything done in this district. He stated that he is in favor of cleaning up the ponds, but feels that more time should be taken to review the process.
Holly Green of the Conservation Commission clarified that fuel oil is not considered hazardous waste, although spilled oil is.
Eleanor Kjellman asked what the risks are to human health of the cyanobacter algae. Mr. Mitch stated that it can pose a serious health hazard if a person comes in contact with the water while it is blooming.
Chairman Osgood stated that this is such a complex document that it deserves more attention and can be brought up at the February meeting. He moved to table the article for now. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0. Chairman Osgood asked that any residents that live in those areas please put a notation on the sign-in sheet to be notified when the meeting will be held.
Skyline Overlay District: Martha Sunderland presented the background for this warrant article.
Laurie Grob, resident, asked how much taxpayers are willing to abate the property owners for these views.
Cindy Marsland stated that she contacted several people about the ordinance. She asked what the penalty would be for violating this ordinance as any State agency and police will not enforce it. She quoted from a letter from a representative of the Timber Association, stating that the restrictions do not meet the State objectives. She also quoted from the NFPA stating houses are in danger of fire.
Michele Bergh, resident and owner of “unnamed Hill A,” stated that this ordinance continues to take away owner’s rights.
Stever Forrester, resident, stated that he looks at this as a form of eminent domain.
Roni Hardy, resident, stated that it is her opinion that the Board not table this warrant article, but let the Town vote on it.
Tom Watman stated that he was skeptical about this ordinance since it is dealing with aesthetics. He moved to not proceed with this warrant article.
Eleanor Kjellman stated that it all comes down to aesthetics and personal opinion of what is attractive. She stated that she is inclined to give more consideration to the fire safety issue that was raised.
Dennis McComish stated that this concerns the rights of private property owners.
Bill Goss, resident, stated that he has a problem with government telling a taxpayer what to do with their land.
Jennifer McCourt stated that regulations should be specific to developments.
Jim McElroy seconded the motion made by Tom Watman to table the article.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like the Town to have a chance to vote on this issue.
The Board voted 6 – 1 to table the article.
Commercial Retail Buildings: Chairman Osgood presented this warrant article stating maximum retail space of not greater than 35,000 square feet. He stated for comparison that Edmund’s Hardware is approximately 10,000 square feet.
Leon Parker asked how they arrived at this number.
Don Armstrong stated that available parking spaces are a factor. Terry Stamps stated that they reviewed other building sizes currently in Henniker and arrived at this number specifically for commercial retail buildings. She stated that they reviewed last year’s warrant article and considered the feedback from Town residents.
Rick Patenaude asked if the Town is trying to encourage business to come to Henniker, why are they limiting the commercial space?
Bob Stamps stated that this is a way to limit the big box stores which hurt towns by closing local businesses.
Jim McElroy moved to put the warrant article on the ballot. Tom Watman seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Land on Class V Streets: Jim McElroy stated that when zoning was first instituted, the Town restricted lot sizes on gravel roads. You had to have a 10-acre lot. This ordinance corresponds to current zoning.
Jennifer McCourt stated that the existing map at Town Hall still refers to Class A and B roads. If somebody brought their road to Town standard, the zoning could be changed.
Chairman Osgood stated that this is a correction to a previous zoning change. He moved to put this on the warrant. Don Armstrong seconded. The motion passed, 7-0.
Lot Frontages: Don Armstrong stated that the current trend is for developers to create “bowling alley” lots. Septic and well radiuses must be protected. This helps to meet DES standards.
Jim McElroy stated that this warrant article was voted down last time, but the feedback was that 400-feet of road frontage was too extreme. Terry Stamps stated that this was changed based on public input to change it to 250 feet.
Jennifer McCourt stated that well radiuses can be accommodated with 150 feet of road frontage. This decreases the ability to subdivide and creates the need to build more roadway. She stated that this is the fourth year that this has tried to pass. She stated that bowling alley lots cause development by the road but leaves a wildlife corridor along the back of the property.
Laurie Grob stated that the lot size adjustment is not relevant to the well problems.
Rick Patenaude stated that he is against this idea for the fourth time.
Don Armstrong stated that the State has changed the protected well radius standards. There is also logic of decreasing traffic in denser areas.
Leon Parker stated that he used to agree with this, but he has changed his mind. He stated that this could cause more roads being built.
Gene Brown, resident, asked what the plan is for managing growth in Town. He asked why have a RR district if it is not any different than the Town or RN district. If you want to preserve the rural nature of Henniker, this is one way to do it.
Ed Ulmer stated that he personally would have had to have broken the land up more and put a road in if the 250-feet road frontage requirement were in place.
Terry Stamps stated that she hears the concerns, but this seems closer to what the public wanted based on reviewing history. This issue only failed by 5-percent last year. She stated that it should be put to vote.
Laurie Grob stated that as east/west and north/south corridors are developed, building pressure will occur to develop the back land. He stated that the Board needs to look at other communities. He wonders how much good this will do to slow growth.
Chairman Osgood responded with worldwide examples and societal changes based on land use.
Rick Patenaude stated that a lot of people are against this, but people wear out at this late hour.
Terry Stamps stated that the Board thinks this is important and this is the process to discuss the issues. She stated that this is the benefit of local government, and it is the voters that make the system work.
Eleanor Kjellman stated that larger frontages can increase urban sprawl. She referred to the book, “The Only Henniker on Earth,” which describes a bustling town in the 1970’s with characteristics much different than today.
Kristin Claire stated that the sprawl is an interesting point. She stated that they are trying to plan and adapt to changes as they are not a mill town any more. This is to help plan where the town wants growth and density and where rural character will be.
Kristin Claire moved to put this item forward for vote. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7 – 0.
Wireless Towers: The purpose was to explain that applicants adding equipment to an existing tower are required to engage in a conceptual consultation with the Planning Board; however, extensive site reviews may not be necessary. Kristin Claire moved to put this article on the warrant. Jim McElroy seconded. The motion passed, 7 – 0.
Open Space Development: This is a revision to CR-1 to allow for open space development. Jennifer McCourt stated that this should be allowed in all the zones.
Chairman Osgood moved to put this on the warrant. Kristin Claire seconded. The motion passed, 7 -0.
Rachel Coombs stated that she was concerned about how the vote was taken on the road frontage article. She stated that members of the audience did not feel that they had been heard and may have felt alienated. The Board responded that all members were heard, but they do not have to change their vote based on the opinions expressed at the public hearing.
The Board expressed their appreciation for her concern and explained that there is sometimes a need for business to continue.
Gene Brown expressed appreciation to the Board for their work.
Eleanor Kjellman stated that the Board members should not subject themselves to the personal attacks made in a public forum. She encouraged the Board to stop any disrespectful remarks immediately at future public hearings.
New Business:
Growth Management Calculations: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, has prepared the new numbers of building permits based on the new calculations. Kristin Claire moved to accept the calculation. Tom Watman seconded. The new calculation was adopted, 7-0.
Agenda for the January 31, 2007 meeting was discussed. Correspondence was passed out for the Board to review.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 12:04 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz