.jpg)
|
Meeting Minutes |
|
| Planning Board | |
| 2006 |
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Work Session
November 29, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Vice-Chair Kristin Claire
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Leon Parker; Bob Stamps; Martha Sunderland; Jennifer McCourt; Ron Taylor; Holly Green; Eleanor Kjellman; Rik Humboldt
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. He noted that Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, was absent due to illness.
The minutes of the November 8, 2006 Regular Business Meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the corrected minutes; Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The minutes were approved, 5-0.
Projects and Action
2. Final Zoning Ordinance Amendment Review
a. Conservation Commission:
Skyline View Ordinance: Martha Sunderland presented the revised edition of the proposed Skyline View Ordinance. She distributed a map showing 20 hilltops in town which would be within this conservation overlay district. She stated that one of the hilltops is actually within another hilltop on the map. It was noted that five of the hilltops are not named on the USGS map, and it was decided that they must be identified by specific latitude and longitude points. Ms. Sunderland stated that Denise Rico of the Conservation Commission has taken extensive photographs of the specified hilltops from public sites which demonstrate their importance to the Henniker skyline. Several points were discussed regarding agriculture, forestry and building aspects of the ordinance. ACTION: 1) Clarify that any building is to be below the ridgeline; 2) Demarcate the five unnamed hilltops by latitude/longitude; 3) number the diagrams within the document for ease of reference.
Watershed Overlay District: Mark Mitch reported on the progress of the Watershed Protection Ordinance. He distributed a revised document to the Board. He stated that the Conservation Commission has revised the document to separate buffer zone requirements of existing sites from those of proposed or new construction. Mr. Mitch noted that a significant change was to clarify specific “best management practices” in each section. He stated that the ordinance would not cause much impact to existing local farms. Enforcement of such an ordinance was discussed. Mr. Mitch stated that the codes enforcement officer would need to be educated; subsequently, complaints or claims would be investigated. It was noted that the ordinance must specifically state that it applies to great bodies of water larger than 10 acres (ponds). ACTION: The Board suggested that town residents should be educated through the use of newspaper articles, etc. describing the background and motivating factors causing the need for such an ordinance.
Jennifer McCourt made a recommendation to the Conservation Commission regarding their proposed ordinances that they have a technical review performed by the State so that defining information used to demarcate boundaries is consistent with the State documents. Mr. Mitch responded that State agencies have been involved throughout the process and that the document has been written to ensure its validity and will need to be updated as State documents are amended.
b. Route 114 Subcommittee
Eleanor Kjellman presented the rationale for adjusting zoning along Rte. 114 in order to proactively manage Town growth, balance development and allow for better control of the Town plan. She stated that the committee recommends to continue study of the area along Rte. 114 northbound towards Bradford in conjunction with the Conservation Commission. She reported that the area south of Town center towards Weare is a good area for controlled commercial growth. Ms. Kjellman stated that an informal survey has been conducted with the abutting landowners in that area. She also stated that the tax rate will not change.
Jennifer McCourt discussed more specifics of the warrant article changing the RR District to CR District. She reported that nothing too large would be developed in the area as town water and sewer is not available out that far. The committee envisions an area suitable for multi-family housing units and tradespeople (such as an electrician) working out of their homes. Considering the reduction of lot size from five acres to two acres, the Board noted that the chanes may draw more residential use. After much discussion about the intended use for the area, Leon Parker suggested creating a “subset zone” called CR-1 that provides for five-acre commercial zoning. Further allowance of excavation pits in the district was discussed. It was noted that this type of business creates revenue for the State but not as much as other commercial entities do for the Town. Ms. McCourt suggested that excavation pits could apply under “special exception.” The Board suggested that a well-communicated plan to educate the public about the positive aspect of commercial growth in Henniker would be beneficial. Kristin Claire suggested that New London is a good example of the type of development that would be positive for Henniker.
ACTION: Modify and expand the current CR zone further down Rte. 114 to Weare. Lots 742 and 743 will be included in the zone. The proposed CR-1 District will be reviewed by the Town attorney.
c. Planning Board
Chairman Scott Osgood stated that the revisions to the building permit ordinance have not come back from the attorney yet.
GMO: Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire distributed the revised ordinance as the current one expires at the time of Town Meeting. They reported that the most significant change relates to the method of determining the growth rate based on the growth of neighboring towns. Ms. Claire stated that this is the legally accepted method of managing growth. If accepted, it would expire in 2010.
Other Proposed Zoning Amendments:
Open Space Minimum Lot Size: The Board decided not to pursue this.
Terry Stamps will e-mail Don Armstrong about the Board’s decision to eliminate this from the list of proposed zoning amendments since he was not present at the meeting tonight.
The Board reviewed the list of the final nine items. The list includes: 1) Maximum square footage for Commercial Retail; 2) Frontage; 3) Wireless Communication Towers; 4) 10-Acre Minimum on currently nonconforming roads; 5) GMO; 6) Route 114 Commercial Zone; 7) Skyline View; 8) Building Permits; 9) Watershed
Kristin Claire moved for the Planning Board to accept this list to go forward to public hearing. Jim McElroy seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0.
3. Town Meeting Communication and Education Strategy
The Board decided that effective communication to the public is key to understanding the vision of each warrant article. Some of the articles simply reference changes in definitions and will not need explanation; however, the Watershed, Skyline View, GMO, Building Permits, Route 114 Commercial Development, Commercial Retail and Frontage ordinances require more understanding. Chairman Osgood will contact The Villager and will write an article to submit to The Contender. Kristin Claire suggested that information be posted on the town website. Jim McElroy will contact the Rotary and Lions Clubs; Chairman Osgood will contact the Henniker Business Association. Terry Stamps volunteered to develop the format for conducting in-home informational forums to discuss the issues. This is a community outreach action to reach other residents who are not already involved in the other clubs or associations.
Terry Stamps is coordinating the writing of the actual warrant articles. She will contact the original authors with specific format information and dates of when documents need to be submitted, proofed and sent to Stephanie Alexander. Any e-mails relative to content will be appended to the minutes to be made available for public review.
Discussion Items
4. Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander was not present at the meeting to give her report.
5. Correspondence: Chairman Osgood relayed a question that had been raised about conflict of interest. The response from the attorney stated that there is, in fact, no conflict of interest in this matter.
A letter was received about timber rights in the deed of the Flanders Road development. Kristin Claire will call Peter Flynn about the deed.
Reports
6. Other Business: Chairman Osgood reported that the budget was reduced for the recording secretary position. The total operating budget was reduced by about $500.00. There is money to purchase the GIS system; however, the $40,000 for a consultant was not put into the 2007 budget.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 pm. Chairman Osgood seconded the motion; motion carried, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Work Session
October 25, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy; Kellie Dyjak.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Martha Sunderland; Denise Rico; Holly Green; Mark Mitch and Bob Stamps (all representing the Conservation Commission); Jennifer McCourt.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm.
1. The minutes of the Regular Business Meeting of October 11, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The minutes were approved,
4-0.
Projects and Action
2. Zoning Amendments
a) Conservation Commission
Ridgetop Protection: Martha Sunderland, representing the Conservation Commission, presented information to the Board concerning the Ridgetop Protection amendment. Ms. Sunderland stated that the Commission has been working on this amendment for the past two years. The purpose is to identify specific ridgetops and give them extra protection in order to keep the value of the views they offer. The intent is to avoid clear-cutting the ridgetop and protect the visual impact. The Commission identified the major hilltops in town and the elevation criteria (top 15%) to be protected. The proposed ordinance allows for buildings, roads, selective-cut logging, small areas of clear cutting and various uses for farming and nursery uses. The Conservation Commission was asked to talk to Cordell Johnston and Cynthia Marsland to verify current use definitions for agriculture. After discussion of various items, it was noted that photographs would be helpful to illustrate the need for this amendment. Also, the name of the ordinance was changed to “Viewshed Skyline Ordinance” to clarify the meaning so it is not confused with any existing development.
(Note: Kristin Claire arrived at 6:39 pm.)
Chairman Osgood stated that changes will have to appear in the Subdivision Regulations to identify when properties are in this overlay district.
Jim McElroy empahasized that the pertinent information will have to be clearly explained in brief form on the ballot.
Kristin Claire stated that it needs to be clear that property owners still have rights to develop, but the ordinance will limit tree cutting.
Action: The Conservation Commission is to write the article; rename the ordinance; produce a sketch and photographs to illustrate the identified hilltops.
Steep Slopes: Denise Rico presented the proposed amendment on behalf of the Conservation Commission. She stated that this ordinance would prohibit development on slopes greater than 25-percent. She stated that there are 27 other towns with this ordinance in New Hampshire. Ms. Rico stated that a lot of the lower, flatter lands in Henniker are already used, so the Town can expect more impact to the hillsides. She reported that elevation, drainage and runoff are major concerns with hillside development. She stated that it is common on the East Coast to have steep slope protection at 20-25% grades.
Chairman Osgood stated that it would be helpful to have scientific data (hydro-study, soil degradation, etc.) showing the impact to the land.
(Note: Gary Guzouskas and Don Armstrong arrived at 7:01 pm.)
Jennifer McCourt, (McCourt Engineering) audience member, asked to speak to this. She stated that there is typically a 4:1 ratio (25% slope), but how much of the slope the developer is using must be considered. If they only need two feet or 50 feet makes a difference. She also stated that this will not keep people from re-grading the area before coming to the Planning Board. She stated that there is scientific date supporting development of 33-percent slopes depending on soil types, etc. She stated that she does not like the idea of picking an arbitrary slope number as development should be site specific with proper engineering.
Kristin Claire stated that she would feel better if the town had a building code enforcement officer to oversee this, but the town has not voted yet to adopt these codes.
Action: Conservation Commission will determine what percentage of the town is affected by the proposed ordinance; they will also try to find more scientific data to be included. Commission will report findings at the next work session meeting.
Watershed/shoreline protection: Mark Mitch presented the need for this ordinance. He gave history of French and Keyser Ponds, noting their decreased use and lack of swimming availability due to the cyanobacteria bloom contaminating the ponds. He stated that the Conservation Commission has been involved in studying this problem for about seven years, and it appears that one of the contributing factors is phosphorous released from land use. He stated that there is $300,000 available from DES to help pursue protection, but the State would not contribute without the Town having a watershed protection ordinance in place. He stated that four towns have adopted this type of ordinance and five other towns are in the process this year. He stated that this is a long-term problem, and the ordinance would be tailored to the specific needs of Henniker relative to drainage, river, stream and pond needs.
Discussion of agriculture and landscaping roles contributing to the cyano-bloom problem continued.
Chairman Osgood stated that they may want to write in specific exemptions where necessary.
Jim McElroy stated that having a list of things not to be within the buffer zones would be helpful. He also stated that he is struggling with the enforcement issue. He asked who would regulate this ordinance as the Planning Board is not an enforcing body.
Don Armstrong stated that it should be clear that the ordinance concerns all “great water bodies (greater than 10 acres) so people don’t panic over requirements.
Mark Mitch stated that the real problem comes from phosphates released by manure, chemicals and disturbance.
Jen McCourt stated that a similar issue came up in Derry. The State identified farms that were contributing to the problem and gave them grants to help keep the farm in business.
Action: More work will be done on writing the ordinance and will be discussed at the next work session.
Aquifer Protection: Holly Green recommended the water resource management plan on behalf of the Conservation Commission. She stated that DES has resource protection grants to go towards developing plans, inventories and ordinances, but the major criteria is that it be directly related to well-head protection ordinances. There is a November deadline for this application.
Chairman Osgood stated the Planning Board, the Town Selectmen and Cogswell Springs have roles in this and an integrated plan for aquifer protection needs to be developed.
Holly Green stated that it is premature to get a grant or put in an ordinance at this time. They will continue to do research during the next year.
Action: Chairman Osgood asked that representatives from Cogswell Springs and the Town Selectmen be invited to a future business meeting to discuss this matter. The grant application could be used as the guiding document.
b) Route 114 Zoning Committee
Jennifer McCourt stated that the subcommittee has spoken to many property owners in the targeted areas along Rte. 114. She stated that they do not have a problem rezoning the area; only one property owner did not want any changes. She presented the plan of a Commerce Park District, limiting businesses to 20 employees and manufacturing. She stated that it is easier to regulate commercial entities than single-family households which aids in protecting the environment. For example, bonuses could be given if they save existing trees to offer more attractive development. The committee is looking for low-impact type businesses, multifamily unit “affordable housing”. It has been determined that no auto body shops, etc, be allowed.
Terry Stamps stated that permitted uses should not include excavation sites. She also stated her concern that some of the area of Route 114 north has been identified by the Conservation Commission as a high priority area to be protected.
Jen McCourt stated that extending the CR zone along Route 114 South would be a great place for cottage industry.
Action: Jen McCourt asked for help from the Conservation Commission as the CZ could be more regulated than a residential zone along Route 114 north. Ms. McCourt stated that the committee would write two separate articles for the areas of Rte. 114 north and south to be presented at the 11/29/06 meeting.
c) Planning Board
Building Permits: Chairman Osgood is working with the Selectmen on this. There will be more discussion on this at the next meeting.
(Note: Kellie Dyjak left at 9:21 pm as she was not feeling well.)
GMO Re-Adoption: Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire are working on this. They stated that the population continues to grow at a rate greater than the state and county average. Ms. Claire reviewed several other factors involved. She stated that the tax rate is high because taxable property is so low. They will show the algorithm used instead of a specific number.
Action: Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire will look at the algorithm, put the tax table in and find the number of lots created in 2004 to complete the document.
Open space minimum lot size: Don Armstrong stated that DES takes precedence over Town standards. He recommended going with the DES requirements.
Action: Revise section to include the DES requirements. Stephanie Alexander recommended that it be titled appropriately.
Class V, A & B Roads: Terry Stamps passed out draft versions (Section 133-40; in the new book, Section 133-39) for Class A, B & C roads. She recommended that previous references to Class A & B roads be removed.
Class V roads state that changing the road changes the zoning. Class V gravel roads in the RR District have 250-feet minimum (changed from 125 feet).
Maximum square footage for Commercial Retail was discussed. Jen McCourt suggested that a 100-percent retail business may have 35,000 square feet maximum and a business that is 50-percent retail and 50-percent wholesale may be 50,000 square feet.
Discussion Items
3. Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander decided to hold her report until the next meeting.
Agenda for 11/8/06: The Transportation Planner from CNHRPC will be invited to offer a 30-minute question/answer session regarding the Roads Exactions Policy.
There is one new application and two matters of old business on the agenda. One conceptual consultation for minor subdivision by Ed Ulmer is planned. The Board noted that the Harvester Market has put arborvitae in its landscaping, so that item may be taken off of the agenda. GMO updates will be put on the agenda, and there may be information concerning building permits.
4. Correspondence: Books on “Lecture I of Planning Board Basics” are now available.
Other Business
5. Budget Season: Jim McElroy reported that the preliminary CIP budget contains $40,000 for a GIS consultant. There is a question whether it belongs in the capital or expense budget.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn at 10:16 pm. Kristin Claire seconded; it was approved, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Business Meeting
October 11, 2006
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Gary Guzouskas; Jim McElroy; Don Armstrong
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary. Members of the audience included Art Siciliano; Tom Wagner; Robert and Jan Aucoin; Jennifer McCourt; Tim Pigsley; Sean Curran; Joe Morette; Janine Bates.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. Chairman Osgood asked board member Jim McElroy to preside over the review of the minutes since he was not in attendance at the last meeting.
1. Minutes from the Work Session of September 27, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Don Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Old Business:
2. Case #2003-023: Ridgetop Estates, Map 2, Lot 95. No representative was present to discuss the performance bond release. This will be put on the agenda for the November business meeting.
New Business:
3. Case #2006-012: A site plan review application for a summer day camp at Pat’s Peak has been submitted by Kris Blomback, General Manager, on behalf of owner Wayne Patenaude, on Map 1, Lots 588A and 589B at 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, gave a status report of the application process. She reported that the proper letter of authorization was received; waivers will be submitted tonight and all fees have been paid by the applicant. She stated that a complete legend has been placed on the plan, and there are various items to be discussed at this meeting.
Chairman Osgood asked the applicant, Kris Blomback, to present a brief explanation of the proposed plans relating to the Adventure Day Camp to be conducted at Pat’s Peak during the summer months when school is not in session. Mr. Blomback stated that the day camp will support approximately 75 children, ages 6-14 and offer activities such as swimming, mountain biking, canoeing and kayaking lessons, ball fields and a multi-use court. He also stated that they envision a counselor-in-training program geared for 14 to 18-year olds. Jennifer McCourt, assisting Mr. Blomback, showed revised plans to the board. Ms. McCourt stated that they would be requesting several waivers as this plan is derived from an existing plan and an existing use. The applicant is only trying to amend the use of the facility for the summer months.
Discussion ensued about the picnic pavilion, parking spaces, landscaping, lighting and security (especially of the swimming pool). The applicant stated that all areas that will not be covered with another surface (such as the ball field, tennis court, pool, etc.) will be loamed and seeded. Hours of operation for the day camp were also discussed, stressing that the day camp will not conduct overnight sessions and will conform to the town noise ordinance.
Proper security measures concerning the pool including fencing, motion detecting lights, strong covers, etc. were discussed. The Board agreed that the fence needs to be higher than four feet and is not to be chain-link. Kris Blomback stated that he has researched several facilities in Concord as well as other recreational sites to see what security measures have been taken. He stated that all reasonable measures will be instituted to ensure public safety.
Chairman Osgood stated that seven waivers have been requested. The Board reviewed all of them. The waivers were deemed to be applicable and relevant. Jim McElroy moved to accept the waivers; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
Kristin Claire, Vice-Chairman, moved to accept the plan as complete; Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Osgood asked for public comment. Janine Bates, an abutter on Craney Hill Road, stated that she is concerned about noise in the area as the PA system is very loud. She also raised the need for a larger stop sign exiting the recreational area on to Flanders Road in order to increase safety. Ms. Bates stated that she would like reassurance that this will be utilized specifically for a day camp and will not progress into further development.
Kris Blomback stated that they may occasionally page someone over the PA system, music will not be broadcast during the summer camp, and the staff will rely mainly on two-way radio communication to reduce noise. Jennifer McCourt also stated that there is much more vegetation in the summer than during the winter months which will help to absorb noise generated during the camp. Also, as kids will be in a camp setting with counselors, the tone of the camp will be much different than the winter activities during ski season. Mr. Blomback stated that the facility has been approached for many other types of business expansion including summer concert series, alpine slide operations, water parks, etc. He stated that the owners recognize the need to diversify; these other activities have been rejected because they do not fit with their vision of what Henniker desires.
Tom Wagner, resident on Flanders Road, questioned the tree line survey around the reservoir area. Mr. Blomback stated that no trees would be cleared except what was necessary for the canoe launch area.
As there was no further comment, the public hearing was closed at 8:10 pm.
It was determined that a site walk of this property is not necessary.
Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the plan with the following conditions
1. The following note shall be added to the plan: The summer Adventure Day Camp will operate only during daylight hours.
2. New fencing details for the pool will be provided, including a 6 ft high fence, rod-style fencing, or other detail acceptable to the board, and incorporated into the plan.
3. The applicant will install a larger stop sign on the granite post at the exit to the facility.
Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion to approve the plan passed, 7-0.
The Board took a five-minute recess and resumed business at 8:27 pm.
4. Case 2006-015: A minor subdivision application for a 2-lot subdivision has been submitted by Aucoin Farms, on behalf of owner Lorraine Aucoin, on Map 1, Lot 642 at 17 Huntington Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Stephanie Alexander reported that the application had been reviewed by another CNHRPC consultant. She stated that the applicant did meet briefly with her to present the application.
Art Siciliano, representing the applicant, presented the plan of subdividing the 76.73-acre property with frontage on Huntington Road into a two-lot subdivision with the second lot being 6.34 acres on Quaker Street. He addressed all of the details required for plat details and noted that the wetlands scientist has delineated a small area of wetlands on the map.
Stephanie Alexander conducted further discussion of the waiver applications. It is noted that the applicant will provide a copy of the driveway application to the Board. It is also noted that letters from the Conservation Commission and the Fire Department were received tonight.
The Board discussed the requested waivers. Jim McElroy moved to accept the waivers; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion to accept waivers passed 7-0.
Chairman Osgood requested that more detail of the area around Quaker Street be provided.
Jim McElroy suggested that a letter from the partnership granting the authority for Mr. Siciliano to represent them would be in order as the person listed on the application was not present at the meeting. It is noted that three of the four partners are in attendance at this meeting and all four signatures are on the application; therefore, it is recorded that proper authorization is granted.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the application as complete with several conditions; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. They realized the procedural error of including specific conditions in that motion and called to have the motion amended. Kristin Claire moved to accept the application as complete; Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion to accept the application as complete was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood asked for any public comment regarding this case; there was none. The Board decided that no site walk was necessary. The public hearing was closed at 9:56 pm.
Chairman Osgood asked for the Board’s comment before considering approval. Several conditions were discussed.
Chairman Osgood moved to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. More survey detail on Lot 640-A’s lot configuration at the location of the Old Road right of way and Quaker Road shall be provided.
2. The following note shall be added to the plan: Residential sprinkler systems or other acceptable measures shall be installed in accordance with Henniker Fire Department specifications.
3. The driveway permit application for Lot 642-D shall be submitted.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set. As the applicant has stated that a single family detached home will be built on the lot, school impact fees have been assessed by the Planning Board at $5,518 for Lot 642-D. Active and substantial development is defined for this subdivision as adopted at the May 10, 2006 public hearing.
Conceptual Consultation
The Board agreed to skip the next item on the agenda in order to keep
Mr. Morette from waiting.
5. Case #2006-016: Conceptual materials for a multi-family residential site plan and lot merger have been submitted by Joseph and Jin Morette at 19 Newton Road on Map 2, Lots 369C and 369D in the Commercial Village (CV) District.
Stephanie Alexander gave a synopsis of what has transpired thus far. She stated that Mr. Morette had gone before ZBA for special exception for a multi-family unit in a commercial district. The ZBA denied the application as it was not complete. She explained his request to come before the Planning Board to get a better idea of how to move forward.
Mr. Joseph Morette presented his plan for creating reasonably-priced housing on these two lots. He included his ideas for how to create some revenue for the town without causing a great deal of impact on services.
Many factors were discussed including the viability of town water, town sewer and paving the road. Also, the merits of modular housing versus manufactured housing were clarified, and it was noted that modular housing is allowed.
Calculations for deriving the number of units that would be allowed were debated. Jennifer McCourt, representing Mr. Morette, stated that the ratio of 1:6 applies to living area and driveway area pavement times six for land area is the correct density calculation. She stated that it would probably calculate to 30-40 units. She also stated that the real problem with zoning is that it states that only one principal building per lot is allowed. This is detrimental to avoiding the “big box” complex.
The Board collectively stated that if the numbers could work for the land, they like the concept and would like to see affordable housing within walking distance of the downtown area.
Kristin Claire stated that the biggest issue is how to comply with zoning while providing what is best for the town. She stated that it would be better to get this particular zoning language changed to allow this type of development for the benefit of Henniker.
The merits of creating an overlay district or amending zoning ordinances were discussed. It was generally felt that trying to craft changes to the zoning ordinances this late in the year would be premature. Tom Watman, board member, stated that there are yet too many questions and not enough time to properly answer them. It was the consensus of the Board that while it is a good idea and is necessary for the area, it would be better to research possible zoning changes over the next year.
Sean Curran, real estate attorney for Mr. Morette, recapped the discussion and stated that, in his opinion, Henniker would not want what the current zoning ordinances require.
Mr. Morette stated that he will continue to develop his plans and will continue communication with the fire department and departments of water, sewer, road management, etc.
Tom Watman asked Stephanie Alexander to get information as to how other communities (in and out of New Hampshire) have handled this situation. He suggested looking at Arizona and Oregon to see how they have progressed with “workforce housing.” Chairman Osgood stated that if anyone thinks of any other resources for this type of development, send them to him or to Stephanie.
Chairman Osgood moved to investigate ideas for “workforce housing” in the CV District. Tom Watman seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
6. Planning Board 2007 Meeting Schedule
Stephanie Alexander presented the Planning Board’s meeting schedule for the coming year. Jim McElroy moved to accept the schedule; Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The schedule was approved, 6-0.
Discussion Items
7. Zoning: Terry Stamps presented the list of 2007 Proposed Zoning Amendments. The GMO readoption was discussed at length. Jim McElroy agreed to help Kristin Claire with the GMO since he has information and experience from other committees. It was also noted that the Conservation Commission will make proposals and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will adopt them and make them Planning Board amendments.
8. Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander stated that there is no log to review. The agenda for the October 25, 2006 Work Session meeting was discussed. The meeting will begin at 6:00 pm and will consist of reviewing the Zoning Ordinances. It was decided to invite the Transportation Planner to the November 8 meeting to discuss exactions policies.
Ms. Alexander stated that the zoning ordinance books are at the printer and should be available next week.
9. Correspondence: The minutes of the Board of Selectmen’s meeting was made available.
10. Other Business: Gary Guzouskas was appointed to the Roads Management Committee.
Don Armstrong moved to adjourn at 10:53 pm. Kristin Claire seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Town of Henniker
Planning Board
Work Session
September 27, 2006
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman pro tem; Kellie Dyjak; Don Armstrong; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman; Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Jennifer McCourt; Joe Morette
Jim McElroy, Chairman Pro tem, called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
The minutes of the regular business meeting conducted on September 13, 2006, were reviewed and corrected. Don Armstrong moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded; the motion passed, 6-0.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, relayed information that Kristin Claire is having some difficulty with the GMO project. She stated that Kristin is hoping to have the other board members volunteer to help with specific tasks that will be sent via e-mail.
Stephanie Alexander stated that no guests had made any request to be put on the agenda for the evening, but the Board may entertain hearing anyone from the audience if they chose to. Joe Morette, audience member, approached the board for information relative to a conceptual consultation. Mr. McElroy instructed Mr. Morette to work with Ms. Alexander during a break or at the end of the meeting in order to follow proper procedures in presenting a conceptual consultation.
Projects and Action:
Review Revised Road Classification List: The board reviewed the various classifications. The board had asked for examples of which roads were what type; this information was distributed into tables. A section was added to the table noting whether the road meets town standards or not. Every road is tied to the status map, although not all of the roads are on the map. Gary Guzouskas stated that the table is based on the road status map dated 12/02. The board will check with Cindy as she can verify exactly which map was used.
Discussion about the road classifications included how a road is actually used. Don Armstrong, board member, stated that some of the roads are used as collector roads, thereby costing three times the amount to maintain, even though classified as a local road. Also, Old Hillsboro road is a paved town road. The board will ask the town engineer if it should be a local road or a collector road.
The term “meets town specifications” was discussed. Definitions of geometry and site distance may be included. No traffic data was utilized for the roads on the table.
After discussion, it was decided that the information presented would be considered an ancillary document and would not officially be placed in the subdivision regulations. This information is useful to the planning board for guidance of general traffic flow analysis and delineates portions of roads that carry more traffic than the rest of the road.
Route 114 Zoning Subcommittee: Jennifer McCourt, chairman, asked the planning board to officially confirm the members of this subcommittee to include: Leon Parker, David Currier, Ron Taylor and Eleanor Kjellman. Gary Guzouskas moved to confirm the committee appointments; Kellie Dyjak seconded; the motion passed, 6-0.
Ms. McCourt stated that the committee has had two meetings to date and are reviewing the areas both north and south on Rte. 114. The members are talking to town residents and lot owners to discuss the goals of the town. She stated that they are gathering information from other towns with similar terrains, wetlands, etc. Ms. McCourt stated that the committee is generating good ideas for the area. She stated that commerce could offer more protection for the town than if the area is left to single family homeowners. She explained that cottage industries help the overall tax rate without much increase of traffic or impact to the land. The next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2006.
Ms. McCourt asked for copies of the new maps created by the Conservation Commission. Ms. Alexander loaned her the CD of the maps so that Ms. McCourt can print her own copies.
Ms. McCourt asked the board to review Section 133-18 of the zoning ordinances concerning one building per lot. She stated that it may behoove the town to review this ordinance as there may be times when more than one smaller building on a lot would be helpful in maintaining the desirable “small-town feel” of Henniker.
Zoning Amendments: Terry Stamps stated that a representative of the Conservation Commission is planning to come to the meeting on 10/25/06 to review steep slopes, Ridgetop ordinance and the watershed overlay district.
Other zoning concerns:
*Change in the general paragraph about wireless communication towers;
*Proposed minimum frontage changes;
*Maximum square footage of commercial retail businesses;
*Aquifer protection ordinances (may be worthwhile to reference the DES Water Source regulations)
*GMO
*Building permits (Scott Osgood working on this)
*10-acre standards
Ms. Stamps stated that she will have draft copies at the 10/25/06 meeting.
Reviewed business for the next meeting: Presentation from the Rte 114 Subcommittee; Conservation Commission presentation; Planning Board’s list (Board will have to prioritize the list).
Discussion Items:
Consultant’s Report: Stephanie Alexander passed around her log from the last couple of weeks. She reviewed the agenda for the next meeting on 10/11/06 where the board will consider:
1) Recommendation to release bond;
2) Pat’s Peak Summer Day Camp;
3) Aucoin Farms application for two-lot subdivision. (Note: Has not had a Conceptual Consultation with Stephanie Alexander.)
4) Review PB meeting schedule for 2007;
5) Zoning Amendments;
6) Exactions Policy
7) Invite CNHRPC Transportation Planner
Tom Watman, board member, asked if the Selectmen could go forward with the Roads Management Plan. Ms. Alexander stated that they need to be in communication with the chairman of the Planning Board but sees nothing to preclude them from moving on it. Long discussion continued about how they should proceed, and it was thought that it would be very helpful if the Planning Commission could provide criteria to include in a plan.
Letter received from Town Counsel Re: Bacon Road:
Stephanie Alexander asked for permission to send either the entire response letter or just relative excerpts to an applicant. As this is legal advice and is privileged and confidential information, it was decided that only the applicable excerpts would be sent and the entire letter would be kept in a separate, confidential file. Ms. McCourt suggested that the applicant should know that other issues were discussed in the letter and that it was recorded as such in these minutes.
Ms. Alexander stated that a question arose about fees for a site plan application regarding new nonresidential construction. It was decided that because of the intense meeting schedule over the next few meetings, this issue will be discussed in the future.
Correspondence: OEP Planning and Zoning Conference—There has been some difficulty registering online. Members discussed possible carpooling to the event.
The board briefly discussed the Selectmen’s meeting of 9/26/06 concerning the possible re-numbering of addresses.
Jim McElroy discussed regional impact issue of a new cell tower going up in Newport.
Other Business: None
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn at 9:20 pm. Don Armstrong seconded; motion passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Approved
August 9, 2006
Members present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Tom Watman, selectman ex-officio; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Gary Guzouskas; Kellie Dyjak; Kristin Claire
Others present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Barry Hobbins, representing Cingular; Randy Howse; Jennifer Lougee; Dorothy and Anthony Riccio.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Jim McElroy presided over the review of the minutes of the July 12, 2006 meeting. Corrections were made. Terry Stamps moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Jim McElroy seconded the motion; the minutes were approved 5-0. Chairman Osgood abstained from the vote as he did not attend that meeting.
Old Business:
Chairman Osgood requested Jim McElroy to preside over this portion of the meeting as he had more familiarity with this case from the previous meeting.
Case #2006-008: Continuation of a Telecommunications Site Plan Review application submitted by Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Crown Castle International. The plan is to add up to 6 panel antennas to the existing cellular tower, add an 11’ x 20’ equipment shelter, and add a LP Gas system to the compound to the property location of Map 1 Lot 588A on 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Barry Hobbins, representing Cingular, addressed the concerns that were raised by the board at the initial presentation of July 12, 2006 and in a subsequent memo dated August 4, 2006, from Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant. He distributed new plans to the board members. Mr. Hobbins stated that some of the supplemental documentation had been mailed overnight to the Henniker Town Clerk and had been received in the town office on August 8, 2006.
Mr. Hobbins first showed the board several photographs taken from the tower at a height of 118 feet. He addressed each view in the packet and noted that each one was labeled applicable to the viewshed analysis.
Supplemental information was presented as requested and labeled as Exhibits 12 through 22.
Gary Guzouskas, board member, began discussion of how many propane tanks would be contained as there is concern about the protection of that amount of propane. Mr. Hobbins stated that he could not specify exactly how many tanks would be housed; however, he believes that there are currently eight tanks for other carriers there now. It was noted that the plans indicate the need for three tanks.
Relative to Exhibit #14, noise study-- Mr. Hobbins stated that there would be a 4-ton capacity wall-mounted air conditioning unit that at its highest output would be equivalent to a 10-foot surf. He also stated that the data tables of various outputs and sound produced is available.
Exhibit #15, revised antenna specifications—52 inches high; 6 inches wide; broadband.
Exhibit #16, radio frequency interference study—Letter dated July 21, 2006, addressed to the Planning Board and signed by engineer Randy Howse states that Cingular will provide an emergency phone contact 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The number will be available at the site and in the Town Offices. Mr. Hobbins stated that this contact can control all sites and radios can be turned off in an emergency if necessary.
Exhibit #17, underground feasibility—A letter has been provided stating that this area is not suitable for underground placement due to 1)logistical construction obstacles; 2) safety factors; 3)impeded maintenance.
Exhibit #18, generator specifications have been provided giving the type of alternator, etc, which would be helpful to an electrical inspector.
Exhibit #19, site photos have been provided in accordance with the viewshed analysis. There is negligible impact from the sites chosen which included Pat’s Peak parking lot, Flanders Road and Depot Hill Road.
Exhibit #20-- Mr. Hobbins stated that Article 14 outlines liability coverage, worker’s compensation insurance, aggregate and subrogation rights, waivers, etc., that are similar throughout the industry.
Exhibit #21, Mr. Hobbins stated that a statement regarding future technology was difficult to put together, but the statement conforms to the town ordinance.
The list of administrative requirements supplied by Stephanie Alexander was reviewed. There was discussion as to the repositioning of the gate and whether the site would have to be built up and filled in to keep it level. Mr. Hobbins stated that the site is level and as they are presenting the construction, it will not have to be built up.
The board asked for a statement of “best erosion control practices during construction” to be put on the plans.
After thorough review of the documentation, Tom Watman, board member, moved to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 7-0.
The board moved into public hearing on this application. No public comment was made, and the public hearing was closed at 8:04 pm.
The board discussed whether to accept this application. Terry Stamps, board member, stated two conditions for approval: 1) Town of Henniker is to be updated in writing if the emergency contact phone number is changed; 2) notation of “best management practices for erosion control per the accepted current State standards” is to be added to the plans.
Gary Guzouskas moved to approve the application with the two conditions so stated. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0, granting this application.
You are hereby notified that the application to add up to 6 panel antennas to the existing cellular tower, add an 11’ by 20’ equipment shelter, and add an LP Gas system to the compound to the property located on Map 1 Lot 588A on 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational District (CR) District, submitted by Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Crown Castle International was APPROVED at the August 9, 2006 meeting with the following conditions:
1. A note that the Contractor will comply with current State Standards for Best Management Practices will be added to the plan
2. The applicant agrees to notify the Town if the emergency contact number displayed at the site changes.
Other old business on the agenda was postponed to later in the meeting in order to serve community members in attendance awaiting conceptual consultation.
Conceptual Consultation
(8:10 pm--Chairman Osgood presided over the remainder of this meeting.)
Case #2006-009: Materials for conceptual site plan review have been submitted by Dorothy and Anthony Riccio, owners of Village Greenhouse, on Map2, Lot 166 at 3 Gould Street in the Village Proper (RV) District.
Dorothy Riccio stated that she would like to add a small-scale, prepackaged health food line to her current retail store. She stated that she hopes that this will generate more customer flow, however, does not anticipate any increased traffic or parking issues. She stated that the store currently has 7 parking spaces with one handicap spot. She stated that the flower business currently generates deliveries three times per week and she anticipates another one time per week delivery of the food items.
Chairman Osgood stated that in reviewing the definition for change of use and of the current and proposed uses, a site plan review does not appear to be necessary in this case. The board encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Riccio to contact the town Health Officer, Jill Fournier, to further pursue any action needed to comply with the State food regulation laws.
Old Business:
Case #2004-001/Case #2004-16: Harvester Market Self Storage. Discussion of fulfillment of plan approval regarding fencing and landscaping.
The board reviewed the particular language of what was approved on the notice of decision. It was decided to take pictures of the site and discuss the issue further at the next meeting.
New Business:
Case #2006-010: A waiver from site plan review has been submitted by ANK Import Export Wholesalers on Map 2, Lot 396 at 88 Western Avenue in the Village Commerce (CV) District. The applicants were not present at the meeting.
Kristin Claire read from Stephanie Alexander’s, Planning Consultant, status log report. It was noted that there are several inconsistencies in the application and the case is not coherent.
Chairman Osgood stated that he will write a letter to Kevin Steinbach, property owner, indicating that a site plan review is necessary for this property, and there was not sufficient information to decide on this case. He stated that the Salih’s and the Code Enforcement Officer will also receive copies of the letter.
It was also noted that there is some type of dog biscuit manufacturing/packaging business being run out of the same building. This will be investigated further.
Kristin Claire moved to not grant a waiver for site plan review. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 7-0, to NOT grant a waiver.
You are hereby notified that the application for a waiver from site plan review submitted by ANK Import Export Wholesalers on Map 2, Lot 396 located at 88 Western Ave in the Village Commercial District was NOT APPROVED at the Planning Board Meeting of August 9, 2006..
Discussion Items
Gravel Excavation: The board discussed options of studying the documentation necessary for monitoring active gravel pits. Kellie Dyjak suggested taking pictures of every gravel pit being excavated in town. The board decided that doing that right away could cause misunderstanding. Jim McElroy suggested using dated aerial photographs of town that would show the excavation sites and where excavation has increased over time. Tom Watman clarified that the Planning Board is the town regulator and authority of this industry. He suggested talking to Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, about putting a paid person on staff in the town office to monitor this business. Kellie Dyjak stated she will write a job description of the tasks involved, discuss putting the position into the town budget with Peter Flynn, and she will also continue research to find the current state of all the gravel pits in Henniker.
Correspondence: None
Other Business:
Kristin Claire read Stephanie Alexander’s consultant’s log in her absence. She noted a phone call by Art Siciliano asking for information whereby Stephanie referred him to Deb.
Planning Board subcommittees were discussed. Tom Watman stated that he had recruited three members for the Route 114 subcommittee: Ron Taylor, Leon Parker and Dave Currier. Chairman Osgood stated that he had talked to Kris Blomback about that committee also.
Terry Stamps relayed that she had heard comments expressing concern about Jennifer McCourt being the chair of the Route 114 zoning subcommittee as it might be a conflict of interest for her.
Kristin Claire moved to establish a subcommittee to study the development potential for Route 114 north and south. Terry Stamps seconded, and the motion passed, 7-0.
Terry Stamps submitted the following for the Charter of the Route 114 Subcommittee: “The Planning Board charges this subcommittee to reevaluate the current zoning for Route 114 north and south in Henniker. The Planning Board’s focus is to ensure there are growth opportunities for future commercial and other development along Route 114. “
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the charter as written. Tom Watman seconded the motion. It was accepted, 7-0.
GIS Software was discussed as being helpful in forming a buildout analysis of the town. Chairman Osgood stated that he will create a job description relative to the GIS system for future town budget considerations.
At 9:25 pm, Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, joined the meeting. He asked for clarification of how town roads are added to the official maps. The board confirmed that roads are selected at town meeting.
The Zoning Subcommittee to prepare for Town Meeting 2007 was discussed.
Kristin Claire moved to form a subcommittee for zoning changes for 2007 Town Meeting. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire will work on creating a charter for this subcommittee. Terry Stamps stated that the conservation commission will work on verbiage regarding the slopes issues to be brought before the board.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Planning Board
Approved Minutes
Work Session
Members present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy;
Kellie Dyjak; and Tom Watman (selectman, ex-officio).
Others present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC;
Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Denise Rico, Conservation Commission respresentative; Ging Blanchard.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Minutes of the last regular business meeting on August 9, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. They were approved, 5-0.
Conservation Land Priorities:
At 7:16 pm, guest speaker Denise Rico, representing the Conservation Commission, presented information relative to Conservation Land Priorities.
She explained to the board that the Conservation Commission has created a scoring system and mapped each parcel of land in town in accordance with this rating. Total scores that lots earn are based on analysis of the resources relative to each lot, thus creating an objective view of the lots. Ms. Rico then explained the factors involved in evaluating the lots with this point system.
Jim McElroy, board member, questioned how neighboring properties in the general area of Pleasant Pond could rate scores varying from 3 to 5 points.
Ms. Rico stated that several factors are involved such as whether wetlands are present, if a lot is within 300-feet of a shore or stream or whether it is lakeside property. Each factor earns different point values.
Mr. McElroy observed that lots deemed to be most important to conservation concerns seem to be in the least populated regions. Ms. Rico pointed out where town and state forests are marked on the map as part of the permanently protected land areas; however, not all of the small town-owned properties are shown on this map.
The areas that score quite low are typically subdivisions. Some area on the Hillsborough border has been identified as not having much conservation potential and could be used for some possible development.
Ms. Rico stated that these maps were done some time ago, utilizing the most recent tax maps she had as of March 24, 2005, and there are already revisions to be made. She noted that one of the highest scoring lots in town has been divided into six parcels on Mr. Hunger Road.
.
The Board asked how the Conservation Commission envisioned using the information on the maps. Ms. Rico stated that the Conservation Commission used this information in a targeted mailing and conducted a workshop; unfortunately, it was not well attended by Henniker residents. Chairman Osgood also asked if this would assist the Conservation Commission in commenting on various parcels that are of particular interest to conservation needs. Ms. Rico stated that the maps have just come out of the draft stage, and there has been no formal discussion as to how they should be used yet. She envisions the information to be useful to landowners in order to educate them about easements, potential conservation measures, etc.
The Board discussed how the newly formed Route114 zoning subcommittee could make use of these maps. Ms. Rico stated that the northwest corner of town is part of a statewide unfragmented forest network and that there are some very interesting conservation leads along Route 114 that need to be investigated. This kind of information could be helpful to developing a buildout plan and could be used as a resource tool for subdivision regulations.
Ms. Rico stated that she intends to make necessary revisions to the maps over the winter.
Suggestions for revisions include: 1) key the maps with different visual cues besides color for easier reading; 2) terms and definitions need to be clarified if the maps are posted for public use; 3) maps should be numbered and labeled for easy reference.
Other map layers that would be useful to the town are: 1) new road classifications; 2) wildlife habitats and migratory routes. (This could possibly be a project for a student at the college or high school.)
Recreational values were not part of the scoring, and it was determined that they should be included. ATV and snowmobile trails, recreational value of the river, etc. could be mapped.
One criteria applied to the scoring system involves slopes greater than 15-percent. The Planning Board has used a 20-percent grade in reviewing site plans. A map showing 20-percent grades would be helpful. Ms. Rico said that the maps need to be proofed to make sure each lot is site specific.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to have the maps enlarged and posted in the Town office.
This set of maps show that there is a lot of land in town that has high elevations, high slopes and unfragmented forests. The discussion tonight shows the flexibility of the use of these maps.
Stephanie Alexander stated that she will put a set of maps in a binder to be kept in the Planning office for use by the Route 114 zoning subcommittee and the public.
Ms. Rico asked for someone to assist her in reviewing lot line adjustments and subdivisions that have taken place since creating the maps. Chairman Osgood volunteered to help her update the subdivision lot lines. Kellie Dyjak stated that she would also be available to help during the winter.
The board thanked Ms. Rico for all of the work that she and the Conservation Commission have put toward creating this very useful tool.
This discussion ended at 8:04 pm.
Official Map:
Ging Blanchard was in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions regarding the official town map.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, stated that according to her research, it is up to the Planning Board to approve or not approve a road for a new subdivision. The Town approves the name of the road then it goes to the Board of Selectmen before it can be placed on the official map.
Mr. McElroy stated that he called Cordell Johnston about the RSA referring to an “Official Town Road Map.” That information has to do with surveys, contours, proposed roads, etc. He was told that few towns have an “Official Town Map.”
It was clarified amongst the Board that the Town Meeting represents the legislative body while the Board of Selectmen is the governing body. The current map has been approved by the Selectmen and shows the official roads to date.
There is some question as to the status of Ridgetop Lane. Ms. Blanchard stated that she heard that the road is in the process of final inspections and were expecting acceptance soon. Chairman Osgood stated that they have not yet applied for acceptance.
There was discussion about the addition of private roads to the map. Chairman Osgood stated that once the subdivision road has occupied houses on it, the private road should be on the map until the town accepts it.
Procedure for how the fire, police and other types of emergency calls are handled on new roads was discussed. Currently, a letter of a new subdivision is sent to departments so that they are aware of any new subdivisions. The Fire Chief performs inspections of all new buildings and is aware of new roads in town.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that if the Board of Selectmen has final input on map decisions, they should be the last department to see it.
Kellie Dyjak suggested that a new map be presented to the Planning Board first for input prior to being sent to the Selectmen.
Ging Blanchard clarified that she will submit a proposed map to the Planning Board asking for any input. Chairman Osgood stated that all existing information should be on the map.
Ms. Blanchard stated that the lot lines maps are usually updated every month, except during the winter when she is away for an extended time.
The Board thanked her for the work she does in updating the town maps.
This discussion ended at 8:30 pm.
Kellie Dyjak left the meeting at 8:30 pm.
Review Draft Subdivision Regulations Revisions:
Chairman Osgood and Jim McElroy stated that they had provided Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, with a copy of their comments relative to this document prior to this meeting. Chairman Osgood asked Ms. Alexander to summarize the changes made to the document before it was discussed.
Ms. Alexander stated that there have been hundreds of changes to the entire document. She reviewed the content changes, Article by Article. She noted that the Roads Classification table appears in the Appendix. She stated that she would like the Town Engineer and Town counsel to review some areas.
The issues of “steep slopes” and “two-acre buildable area” were discussed. It was decided to put the language back in to the subdivision regulations document.
The board discussed the use of hardship waivers on page 14, C. A statement indicating the applicant’s reason for hardship needs to be submitted in writing.
The wording of several other sections of the document was discussed to ensure the greatest clarity. Wetlands, buildable area, placement of buildings, phasing plans, landscaping, timber harvesting and water and sewer issues were discussed and clarified.
The most substantial changes in the document concern “Design Review,” “conceptual consultation,” and roads. These sections will be sent to Town counsel for review. Ms. Alexander stated that the earliest she would anticipate the document to be ready for public hearing is probably November.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn at 10:00 pm; Tom Watman seconded the motion.
Chairman Osgood noted that they did not complete the items on the agenda. Stephanie Alexander stated that there is not as much business expected at the next meeting. She stated that the discussion of the Harvester Market issue and three possible conceptual consultations are all that are scheduled on the agenda for the next meeting.
There was brief discussion concerning which issues are the most important to consider for Town Meeting.
Mr. McElroy stated that the reclassification of roads and how zoning changes due to paving a road (10-acre zoning) are important issues and must be reviewed.
The motion to adjourn was passed, 3-1 (Scott Osgood dissenting).
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Planning Board
Approved
July 12, 2006
Members Present: Kellie Dyjak; Tom Watman (selectman, ex-officio);
Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chairman.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Barry Hobbins (representing Hobbins & Gardner, LLC, for Cingular); Randy Howse; Jen Lougee; Kris Blomback; Edward Bowser; Art Siciliano.
Jim McElroy, board member, called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Minutes from the work session meeting of June 28, 2006 were reviewed and corrected. Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, noted that she had provided changes to Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary, prior to the meeting. Stephanie stated that she had Nicholas Alexander review the portion of the minutes pertaining to the roads committee to assure clarity. Kristin Claire moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded the motion; the minutes were approved 5-0.
Vice-Chairman Kristin Claire presided over the meeting.
New Business
Case #2006-008: A Telecommunications Site Plan Review application has been submitted by Cingular Wireless, on behalf of Crown Castle International. The plan is to add up to 6 panel antennas to the existing cellular tower, add an 11’ x 20’ equipment shelter, and add a LP Gas system to the compound to the property location of Map 1 Lot 588A on 24 Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreational (CR) District.
Barry Hobbins (Hobbins & Gardner, LLC) presented the application on behalf of Cingular. Mr. Hobbins stated that Cingular is proposing to add 6 panel antennas to the existing tower near the top of Pat’s Peak in order to increase coverage to the surrounding area. He stated that co-location of the wireless technology in a single area is a positive advancement in the industry. He stated that the company does have a letter of authorization signed by Kris Blomback, the general manager of Pat’s Peak.
Mr. Hobbins directed the board to review exhibit #2 which describes a 160-foot tower, with six panel XPOL antennas measuring 48 inches high, 12 inches wide and 7 inches deep coated with a nonreflective material to be placed at the 118’ level. He stated that two would be positioned in a triangular fashion with the possibility of adding six more (total 12 antennas) in the future. He stated that the company is currently seeking approval for the first six antennas, and they would have to come back to the board for another site plan review to add the additional six antennas.
Mr. Hobbins also outlined the 11’6” x 20’ x 9’ equipment shelter described in exhibit #4. He stated that 1-1/2 inch to 2-inch thick coaxial cables would be inside the pole. A backup propane system would also be used in case of loss of power. The actual plans were reviewed and discussed. Mr. Hobbins referred to exhibit #7 for the summary of weight loads and stress factors and stated that the plans are in accordance with the industry standards. He stated that the specifics are detailed in the report.
Cingular’s licensing, which expires June 23, 2015, was discussed. It was noted that they are in compliance with the FCC regulations.
Mr. Hobbins stated that this is a co-location of wireless technology, not a new structure being erected. He agreed to notice the abutters and neighboring communities within a 20-mile radius of the proposed structure if the planning board desires them to do so. Jim McElroy, board member, stated that it is a matter of courtesy that Henniker notify its neighboring towns, and he expects the same courtesy from them.
Mr. Hobbins stated that the consulting firm that was retained apparently inadvertently listed an incorrect abutter, and a notice was not delivered. He stated that this will be resubmitted properly to notify that one abutter.
Mr. Hobbins stated that the tower is 160 feet high, and the company is proposing its highest point to be 118 feet. He stated that the ordinance states 150 feet for the maximum height, and he is questioning as to whether this would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. The overall intention of the wireless telecommunication ordinance overrides everything else in the ordinance, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 effectively says that you cannot discriminate one carrier versus another carrier. A lower rate at a lower height than what is proposed would effectively minimize their capacity and put Cingular in a non-competitive situation. He stated that based on case law there is discretion in not enforcing that particular portion of the ordinance and having to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Stephanie Alexander, planning consultant, agreed with this position.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that a zoning ordinance is on the books, but there is a policy that co-location is of great importance to the town. He stated that it is his opinion to give the co-location plan approval.
At some point, the discrepancy in the ordinance may have to be reviewed for its application to co-location.
Terry Stamps, board member, asked other questions about the technology used.
Mr. Hobbins explained that the company has a contractual arrangement through Crown Castle and Pat’s Peak to avoid interference of other systems. He also stated that there are two types of backup (gel-pack batteries and propane) to cover when there is a loss of power.
Jim McElroy asked for more information regarding the propane backup system and generator as it is not mentioned in the plans. Mr. Hobbins stated that the generator sits on a 4 x 8 foot pad.
Mr. Hobbins stated that they have requested waivers from some portions of the ordinance as many of the provisions relate to a new structure being built. This is an existing site and requires different considerations.
Jim McElroy expressed concern over the use of a generic document as some of the specifics are different for this site. He requested that the record be completed and that specifics of the buildings, moving the fence back, etc., be added to the plans.
Other issues, such as view shed analysis, landscaping and diagram of the tree canopy were discussed. Some of these may require the input of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. The necessity of these items was discussed since these concerns are relative to new sites, and this application is for co-location on an existing site.
Mr. Hobbins stated that he is only interested in being held to the same State standards that were in place when Nextel was installed in 2003. He expressed his concern that they not get caught between two boards.
It was noted that with the changing site plan review regulations in place over the last few years, some internal inconsistencies may need to be addressed in the ordinances.
Jim McElroy stated that some of the other items are simply not applicable to a co-location scenario and may not require waivers.
Maintenance of the equipment was discussed. It was noted that agreements are arranged between the company and the landowner as to whether a helicopter, four-wheel drive vehicle or snowmobiles are best used to reach the equipment. Mr. Hobbins stated that US Cellular is a service provider that uses propane at that location; arrangements are some times made with the same vendors to simplify deliveries, etc.
Jim McElroy asked about the non-interference law. He asked for the company to provide the board with a statement of their interference mitigation procedures. He stated his main concern is interference with the rescue squad emergency system, and asked for written company protocol should this occur.
Mr. Hobbins and Randy Howse stated that emergency contact numbers will be available at the site and in the town offices. They stated that the police and fire departments have keys to all of the equipment to help in emergencies, and local technicians will be dispatched if problems arise.
Mr. Hobbins stated that they will provide the same type of information that other carriers have been asked to provide.
Cingular maps detailing present coverage and the proposed increased coverage were presented to the board. The greatest increase of coverage included Rte. 202/9 and 114 in Henniker as well as New England College. Mr. Hobbins explained that if NEC wanted to go to a wireless system, Cingular could not currently provide that technology. He stated that the company currently provides wireless technology to UNH and the University of S. Maine. He stated one use is to provide phones to students when alone on campus for safety reasons.
Mr. Howse stated that it is now mandated that wireless technology include the e-911 service to locate the position of a wireless phone.
The “fall area” terminology was discussed. The term refers to things falling from the tower, i.e. during construction or a massive ice storm. The propane tank would be in compliance to the safety standards of the fire marshal.
Stephanie Alexander reviewed the necessary components of the application.
Page 2: administrative requirements
Page 2: #1, #4, #5: OK; were supplied tonight
#2, #3: will be done
#6, #7: will be submitted at the next meeting
Page 3: require a number of things in order to call application complete.
Item 2b: require to see all of the abutters’ names
Provide replacement for exhibit #10
Page 3: #8-11: Administrative type items, such as Map and Lot numbers.
Page 3: #9: Project description could be more specific. Items put on the plans themselves and on T1 page.
Page 3: #10: Give brief summary
Zoning was omitted from table (CR) zone.
Mr. Hobbins stated that Bay State Design can update to current standards.
Page 3 variances needed to be obtained from the ZBA were discussed.
Mr. Hobbins stated that these are not intended for co-locations. He asked for the board to make its approval conditional on the approval of the ZBA in order to expedite the process.
Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair, explained that the planning board does not usually even hear a case if there are elements to be brought to the zoning board first. She agreed that a new section on co-location of wireless technology is apparently necessary in the town ordinance. She assured Mr. Hobbins that no one wants to make Cingular do anything that is not necessary.
Clarification of the variances were again reviewed and include 1) view shed analysis; 2) landscaping; 3) buildings within 500 feet to be provided on the map; 4) diagram of average tree canopy.
Stephanie Alexander stated that until these requirements are met, the application cannot be voted on as complete.
Relative to #5 on their list, Mr. Hobbins stated that there is no impact to the competitor’s facility. (This item does not require a waiver, just a statement to answer the question.)
#4: Company will provide a statement explaining co-location, not the construction of a new tower.
Jim McElroy suggested, and it was decided on, that pictures of the tower may be taken from vantage points such as Depot Hill Road and Dodge Hill Road, and wording such as, “antennas and cables are invisible at x-number of feet,” may make that requirement easier to fulfill.
A statement of agreement as to how all of the equipment would be removed is necessary.
A written document stating that the area is not suitable for underground equipment is required.
Bay State will provide something to comply with the topography requirements, including where the change of the fence will be.
Equipment shelter has a small fan that produces noise similar to a small air conditioning unit. The specific details of the noise output will be provided.
There is one motion light above the exterior of the shelter that needs to be noted on the drawing.
The fire department had no comments on the plans. Other departments have not yet responded.
It is formally noted in these minutes that the applicant withdraws the waivers as were submitted in the document.
Stephanie Alexander gave a summary of recommendations:
A: Total area of improvement is less than 500 feet, so they do not need to follow the provisions of that law;
B: Best practice clause on the plans concerning propane tanks;
C: Verify type of engineer (seal by Architectural Engineer);
D: Specifications to address noise production;
E: Fire and police
F: Height issue: OK
G: N/A
H: There is an accessible road for a few months of the year. Maintenance will probably be 1-2 times per year. Arrangements to be made with Pat’s Peak.
I: Lighting
J: N/A
K: N/A
Bonding for removal of abandoned equipment is necessary.
Provide information as to how interference occurrences will be handled.
Abutters’ notices and fees must be submitted by July 19, 2006.
Case is continued to the next meeting on August 9, 2006.
The board took a short break and reconvened at 9:37 pm. Kellie Dyjak left at 9:25 pm.
Other Business:
Art Siciliano and Edward Bowser presented a conceptual consultation concerning Lot 568-C and 568-C1 in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Mr. Bowser showed the board maps of the existing property. He is considering subdividing his 31-acre parcel, utilizing road frontage on Cote Hill Road. He stated that acreage for the split meets requirements but has not been calculated yet. He is trying to give each lot 10 acres plus the house lots. There is a total of 38 acres on which to alter the lot lines (as he had given seven acres to his parents in 2000).
Mr. Bowser stated that last year Stephanie Alexander had encouraged him to wait for the town warrant article to be voted on to see if road frontage changed before continuing with his plans. He is now ready to pursue subdividing the land.
There was discussion about where driveways could be placed and that a wetlands permit would need to be applied for. The board stated that the concept looked like it could work.
Discussion Items:
Having a planning board member present on each of these committees was discussed:
1) Roads committee: They will find out if Don Armstrong still planning to attend.
2) Annual Zoning Subcommittee: Terry Stamps; Kristin Claire stated that she will still probably attend.
3) Route 114 Zoning Subcommittee: They will call Kellie Dyjak to find out if she is planning to continue on this committee.
Kristin Claire stated that she will call Chairman Scott Osgood about membership for the roads subcommittee meetings. She asked that members generate an email list of potential members to contact for the two zoning subcommittee meetings.
Terry Stamps, board member, asked for a debriefing session to be placed on the August work session to review the last two years of zoning issues covered by the planning board.
Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander stated that there have been some inquiries over the last four weeks. She stated that the board may see a site plan review in the future concerning the property at 88 Western Avenue.
The only business on the next public meeting agenda is the continuation of the Cingular case.
A representative of the Department of Revenue will be at the Selectman’s meeting on July 18, 2006 to discuss the repercussions of the $5,000 building permit exemption.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the Lincoln Institute is offering a free citizen’s planner tool kit on growth management. Kristin Claire will request this for the board.
The expenditure statement shows 46% of the money is available.
Other Business
Terry Stamps stated that the Harvester Self-Storage landscaping has not yet been done. She stated that was part of their approval. Stephanie Alexander will put it on the August 9, 2006 agenda for the board’s discussion.
Kristin Claire asked Stephanie Alexander to put discussion of RSA 155-E on the agenda for the August 9, 2006 meeting. She stated that she will talk to Chairman Osgood about this.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 pm. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
June 28, 2006
Corrected Minutes
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; Jim McElroy; Terry Stamps; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Kellie Dyjak and Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC; Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary.
Exactions Progress Report: Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC, gave a report on the exactions progress. Mr. Alexander stated that he met with the roads committee and the table of street specifications was finalized. He stated that he met with the town road agent today to review the information. He stated that he will give information to Stephanie Alexander to present to the board at the next work session meeting regarding: 1) list of road classifications; 2) examples of dead-end or cul-de-sac limits. Mr. Alexander said that all of the town roads would be reviewed, and the list should be reviewed periodically if an area is developed over time.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that Craney Hill Road will soon have twice the number of houses on it and questioned when it may need to be reclassified.
Mr. Alexander stated that it would be reclassified if the true character of the road changes. Just because more houses are there, the purpose is not necessarily changed. If construction includes road improvements, the classification may change. He stated that the new standards are plenty generous and should not require reclassifying roads very often.
There was discussion over who has jurisdiction to change the road classifications. It was stated that the selectmen’s duty is to protect the roads, Town Code also impacts road classification, and the planning board is involved. Mr. Alexander stated that it depends on whether a new road or an existing road is being discussed.
Jim McElroy stated that the planning board has jurisdiction over roads in subdivisions. The standards have to match town standards in that regard.
Mr. Alexander stated that no further meetings have been set with the roads committee. He stated that the needs are now changing and questioned how that group will be at working with the exactions policy. He stated that the committee has had very good technical insight but will now need more planning insight. Mr. McElroy pointed out that more economic factors are now involved such as costs, how to assess the developers, etc.
Mr. Alexander also stated that Henniker has another designation for roads:
Class A) paved roads; Class B) gravel roads that meet town standards; Other) gravel roads that do not meet town standards. He stated that there are lots of Class A and “Others’; there really are no Class B roads. He stated that the only place that these are defined is on the map. He stated that the two criteria for gravel roads failing to meet town standards are lane width and shoulders.
Mr. Alexander stated that these classes are tied into zoning ordinance 133-40, Item C. While he stated these classes are not used in any other towns, they do have an impact in Henniker such as the zoning issue of whether lots with less than 10 acres on a gravel road can be subdivided. He stated that the rule probably came as a result of two intents: 1) the intent to limit the amount of traffic because it is substandard, such as a safety issue; and 2) the intent to preserve the gravel corridor. He stated that the two intents can conflict with the new standards.
There was discussion about the old standards making one unable to build a new gravel road in town no matter how well it is built.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that the roads rebuilding plan can change zoning. He stated that there is a 5-year plan for rebuilding and replacing roads, along with a summer plan, which is done in accordance with current roads standards. Mr. Watman stated that he is not aware of a process that includes all of the input to determine if reconstruction impacts zoning.
Mr. Alexander stated that zoning is not specific to a road, but to the condition of the road which is subject to change.
The board discussed the positive and negative impact of doing away with the designation of Class A and Class B roads. Mr. Alexander stated that zoning needs to be reviewed before making any decisions.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the public hearing to accept the road classifications table will be done at the same time as the changes to the subdivision regulations.
The question as to the accepted length of dead-end streets was posed to Mr. Alexander. It was noted to find out what the town engineer says about the issue.
Mr. Alexander stated that the next phase of the committee’s work will be much less standard-oriented and will include creating the framework for how the board can impose exactions, getting information from the developers and developing policy. He asked if any of the board members would like to be involved. He anticipates two committee meetings and then a report to the board.
Review Draft Subdivision Regulations Revisions: Stephanie Alexander presented the changes to the document.
Concerning page 6, Item C, Chairman Osgood asked why a board member would be excluded from the list of those attending the informational conference.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that it is unlikely that a board member would have any other information, and his/her presence may appear political.
Terry Stamps, board member, stated, in her opinion, the risk would outdo any possible gain of the board member’s presence.
Chairman Osgood stated that since things change, and Stephanie may not always be the one there, it may be helpful to have a board member there. He stated that there could be issues with a board member attending the informational conference.
Regarding page 7, 202-5E: There was question as to public comment being made at that stage of the meeting. It was noted that the public must wait until a public hearing to express their views.
Page 9, B3, brought forth discussion as to what the minimum standards of a conceptual plan should include. Chairman Osgood stated that they are most concerned with slopes, wetland areas, proposed location of structures, driveways, roads, septic, utilities, sewers and buffers. This is of particular concern when considering open space.
Page 10, D, calls for public hearing. Jim McElroy asked if this is the best time to do it. Is public hearing suggested or required? It was noted that State Statutes do not require a public hearing.
Tom Watman said he was concerned about asking people to supply too much information at this stage.
Terry Stamps asked the board to consider when the public comment is most useful to the board.
Jim McElroy stated that asking for public comment too early can often times open it up to a complaint session. He stated that it seems questionable to have public input during conceptual consultation.
Chairman Osgood stated that he likes to have public information sooner in regards to major subdivisions. He stated that he supports public input at this stage, as long as the board keeps control of the meeting.
Tom Watman stated that there would be another public hearing at the next stage. The board can postpone their decision until after that next stage.
Gary Guzouskas, board member, suggested allowing comment strictly from abutting landowners during this phase in order to get information from those who are most affected.
Jim McElroy stated that limiting which people can speak may be perceived as political. After further discussion, Mr. McElroy suggested that this will not be a formal duly noticed public hearing, but as part of the design review process the board will accept public comment at the conclusion of the design review.
Gary Guzouskas suggested the specific wording in IV-5 of the NH OEP Planning Board Handbook.
There was discussion about relocating sections of the document (specifically Article IV) to make for easier reading and continuity. It was decided that content only would be discussed at this meeting and the arrangement would be considered later.
Terry Stamps stated that Item B on page 15 needs to reflect more of the criteria used in granting waivers concerning steep slopes.
Discussion over the term “Best Management Practices” concluded with the actual referencing of an actual document for specific information.
Other changes were noted throughout the document up to page 27. Stephanie Alexander will write a new draft indicating the changes and present it at the next scheduled work session meeting.
Correspondence
Stephanie Alexander related an email that she received today at her office. The email stated that a GIS pilot program is being developed and is seeking three communities to participate in the program. Chairman Osgood stated that the author of the email works in the same building as he; he would find him and talk to him about it as soon as possible.
A letter was received from residents of Shore Drive about fixing the beach at Long Pond.
Other Business
Chairman Osgood moved to not hold the July work session. Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. (Terry Stamps did not vote.)
Stephanie Alexander stated that she will not hold office hour on July 26 or be present at the August 9, 2006 meeting. She stated that she will reschedule Denise Rico for the August work session.
Stephanie Alexander stated that 2006 traffic counts can be done on nine town streets. The board proposed the following streets: 1) Davison Rd.; 2) Flanders Rd.;
3) Rte. 114; 4) Rte. 202/9; 5) Craney Hill; 6) Western Ave.; 7) Old Concord Rd.; 8) Rush Rd.; 9) Old Hillsboro Rd. The chair will return the form to the CNHRPC.
Chairman Osgood stated that no one came to the zoning subcommittee meeting to review zoning on Rte. 114. He suggested that the board make a list of people to call for a meeting in the early fall. He asked that the board members bring their ideas to the next meeting on July 12.
The Map Update research was postponed until the August 2006 work session so that members can read the material presented by Kellie Dyjak, board member.
Chairman Osgood reported on a meeting that he attended of the Transportation Advisory Committee. He stated that he would like for the board to get together with representatives from the towns of Hillsboro and Bradford to discuss bus service to Concord.
Earth Excavations: Kellie Dyjak, board member, has assembled a packet of information regarding RSA 155-E; “The Law Governing Earth Extractions.” In it, she has assembled State laws, Town laws, permits required, phone numbers to call for assistance, etc. She has also included the Town warrants and the affirmative votes concerning who has been grand-fathered. She stated that she has accumulated information for a basic starting point to tackle the potential project concerning this matter.
Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander stated that for the July 12, 2006, meeting there is no old business to discuss. She stated that there is a potential public hearing regarding a new application from Cingular. Ms. Alexander distributed notebooks to board members outlining the application. She also stated that she would like to continue the discussion of the three subcommittees: 1) the Rte. 114 Zoning Subcommittee; 2) Zoning (preparing for 2007 Town Meeting) Committee; 3) Roads Exactions Committee.
The minutes from the June 14, 2006 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion, and it passed, 6-0.
Chairman Osgood moved to adjourn at 10:36 pm. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion, and it passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Public Meeting
June 14, 2006
APPROVED
Members present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Tom Watman, selectman (ex-officio); Terry Stamps; Jim McElroy; Kellie Dyjak; Kristin Claire.
Others present: Stephanie Alexander, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Paul Apple, Esq.; Spencer Bennett; Linda McGuire; Stephen Bennett; Scott and Diana Tilton; Cathy & Scott Dias; Michele Bergh; Dale Clement; Jennifer McCourt.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, requested that the review of minutes from the last meeting be postponed until the end of the agenda. The board decided that there were some items relevant to the cases being discussed tonight and would, therefore, be reviewed first.
The minutes from the May 24, 2006 Work Session Meeting were reviewed and corrected. Kristin Claire moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Old Business
Case #2004-018. A modification of the Major Subdivision application approved on August 10, 2005 has been submitted by Spencer Bennett, on behalf of Stephen E. Bennett, et al. The modification is to the driveways on the approved subdivision of Lots 723 and 723A on Mt. Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman Osgood stated that another site walk had been performed to review the proposed placement of the driveway. Comments from the town’s engineer had been received.
Paul Apple, Esq., stated that the site distance issue is resolved as a result of the redesigned driveway plan.
In reference to the comments from Hoyle, Tanner, Chairman Osgood raised a question as to the actual speed limit on the road versus the site distance being adequate for a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.
After board discussion, it appears that the speed limit for that area is 15 miles per hour; therefore, the site distance is in compliance with the town-accepted design speed.
Kristin Claire, board member, asked Mr. Bennett about the stone wall right at the driveway location. Mr. Bennett stated that when the engineer did the calculations, he assumes that the builder will move that section of the stone wall out of the way. No more of the wall will be removed than what is necessary for the driveway.
Chairman Osgood stated that the line of site is now a straight line between the peak of the hill and the new driveway.
Mr. Apple stated that he and his clients feel that appropriate signage warning drivers of a dangerous curve on that road would be a wise course of action and would be a condition that the board may want to consider. He stated that the site distance was of particular concern to the board and the town engineer has answered that particular question.
In reference to the second comment by Hoyle, Tanner, stating that the driveway is too steep and what grade would correct that issue, Mr. Apple stated that the applicant has no objection to that opinion. Also, as for the drainage issue, Mr. Apple stated that the driveway will have a downward cross slope which can be addressed. Mr. Apple stated that they have reviewed a couple of drafts of the right-of-way easement, and there are a few comments from the town council that remain to be addressed and will be easily resolved. Mr. Apple stated that there are no objectionable comments on the town council’s observations, and none of the engineering review materials are a problem for the applicant at this point.
Mr. Apple proposed that their request for modified application be approved with the conditions that are set forth as well as the conditions to address obstructions to the line of site such as the stone wall, plowed snow and terrain features. He also stated that the shared driveway be conformed to the restrictions listed in item #2; the driveway plan have a downward cross slope in sections where it will run parallel to the contour; the easement language be agreed upon; and the signage.
Stephanie Alexander clarified that the shared driveway language has been reviewed by town counsel.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that all of these things from town counsel dealt with the quitclaim deed.
Paul Apple stated that there are seven points on the quitclaim deed and four points on the declaration of easement; all eleven comments are relatively minor and do not raise an issue for the applicants and should not raise an issue for the planning board.
Stephanie Alexander stated that there are a few minor issues to consider as they approach conditions of approval: numerous typographical errors; the wetlands scientist stamp to be submitted; submit copies of driveway applications; add a note to the plan stating best management practices for erosion control.
Chairman Osgood stated that there are no other comments from other town departments.
Chairman Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Jennifer McCourt asked if the suggested signage would have to be approved by the selectmen since it is a town road. Communicating about signage with the police chief and selectmen was discussed to ensure routing through proper channels.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the components to be corrected before accepting as approved. It was noted that it is the same as what had been approved prior, except for the placement of the driveway which has been modified to a shared driveway plan.
Mr. Bennett stated that the wetlands stamp was submitted in December 2005 but is just missing from this version.
Jim McElroy moved to accept this application as complete. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Chairman Osgood moved to grant conditional approval with the following:
1. Construction and maintenance activities of the shared driveway shall not obstruct the line of sight on Mount Hunger Road in conjunction with Hoyle, Tanner and Associates’ Comment #1 from 06/13/06.
2. The shared driveway plan shall be modified as directed by Hoyle, Tanner, and Associates in conjunction with their Comment #2 from 06/13/06.
3. The shared driveway shall be constructed with a downward cross-slope as directed by Hoyle, Tanner, and Associates in conjunction with their Comment #3 from 06/13/06.
4. The Mount Hunger Road right of way Quit Claim Deed shall be amended as directed by Town Counsel to their satisfaction.
5. The shared driveway easement between Lots 723 and 723A shall be amended as directed by Town Counsel to their satisfaction.
6. The following note shall be added to the plan: Best management practices for erosion control during construction shall be utilized to prevent site disturbance from impacting the wetlands.
7. Typographical errors on the Plan shall be corrected, including “buried”, “are” in Note 6, and easement detail on Sheet 2 should refer to Note “6”.
8. The wetlands scientist’s signature and seal shall be affixed to all final plans.
9. Copies of the driveway application shall be submitted.
10. Signage shall be erected warning drivers of the curve.
Jim McElroy seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Stephanie Alexander notified the applicants that they are assessed $5,518.00 per single family dwelling unit in impact fees.
This discussion concluded at 7:54 pm.
New Business
Case 2006-005: A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Catherine A. Dias for a two-lot subdivision on 13.64 acres at Craney Hill Road located on Map1, Lot 651 in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman Osgood referred to a letter from Jacques E. Belanger and the Consultant’s review.
Jennifer McCourt with McCourt Engineering Associates presented new drawings of the property. She stated that Lot 651 located on Craney Hill road has been selectively cut. The two driveways for each of the lots have been approved by the highway department and are in place. The total area of the lot is 13.64 acres with 1390.33 linear feet of frontage. This property is in the rural residential zone which requires five acre lots with two acres buildable and 125 feet of frontage.
Referencing the consultant’s report, page 3, “Plat Details Required for all Subdivisions,” Ms. McCourt spoke to the list of needed items.
Ms. McCourt stated that the applicant has submitted request for a waiver relative to the contiguous two-acre buildable land. The width of the road has been added. The plans are stamped and signed by the wetland scientist.
She stated that the entire lot is covered in soil type 380D and a note was added to the plans stating this. She showed where a benchmark was denoted on the plans. Ms. McCourt showed where a monument was marked by a tree at the bend in the fence line which corresponds to the other physical data.
Ms. McCourt stated that there is a purchaser in place for one of the proposed lots and building plans have been designed by a local architect. This building is represented in the actual building site. She stated that the other drawing represents a potential building site, and they are not looking at building on that area right away.
Ms. McCourt presented ideas for creating the required two-acre contiguous buildable lots. She stated that one plan could be to cut trees down and re-grade the area, adding a couple five-foot strips to connect the buildable area to create the two contiguous acres. She stated that this would require cutting and filling 10- to 20-feet elevations. She stated that the second idea is less costly and involves creating a couple five foot strips to connect the buildable areas with less than 20% slopes but creates an irregular lot line. The 50 foot buffer to the wetlands is added to this plan.
Ms. McCourt stated the intention of the two acre buildable land requirement is to create a lot that can be built on and to make sure that owners are not continually requesting variances and to protect the land with erosion control. She stated that prior to the recent storms, Mr. Dias had selectively cut the region. She stated that after the storms, she reviewed the property and there was very minimal erosion to the areas at this point. She showed how the location of the proposed house works with the natural environment and provides views which increase the tax base. She stated that there are erosion control measures which can be put in place during construction to make sure that there are no problems.
Ms. McCourt stated that the planning board has requested that notes of “best management practices,” be added; however, she stated that specific information should be included. She stated that a letter had been received from the fire chief concerning the addition of a cistern or sprinklers.
She stated that in response to the memo from the conservation commission addressing the environmental issue of the slopes, once finish grade is established there will be a deadline as to when the area will be loamed and seeded to begin the stabilization process. The applicant has requested that they be allowed to begin as soon as possible in order to remain in the best window of opportunity for the growing season.
Terry Stamps, board member, stated that the conservation commission has raised two concerns: 1) erosion control; 2) as more steep slopes are developed there are more risks and continued erosion.
Ms. McCourt stated that once the area is established and growing and a healthy stand is in place, there is little risk of future erosion problems.
Terry Stamps asked for the current contiguous acres with less than 20% slope per lot. Ms. McCourt stated that the actual amount has not been calculated yet.
Scott Dias, applicant, stated that the home was designed by a local architect for the site. He worked with Jacques Belanger so that the house could be worked harmoniously into the neighborhood rather than sticking out on a perch. There are fairly significant views and the driveways are already in. He stated that this property is in line of site of his own residence which is the main reason why they purchased the property. He stated that the conservation commission’s concerns are to ensure that development is done in a way to best protect the environment. He stated that this plan works with the land rather than bulldozing the area to make two contiguous acres to meet a regulation. He stated that this plan provides sensible development in a reasonable approach.
Jim McElroy, board member, stated that the house spans a dropoff of roughly 20 feet.
Ms. McCourt stated that there is a walkout, and the house is designed to fit into the landscape.
Jennifer McCourt stated that adding the three conditions to the plans for development that when the future lot is constructed, those conditions would still be in place. She stated that she would rather put a note on the plans stating the approximate directions for the silt fence to be placed, leaving the exact placement to Mr. Dias during the actual construction. Notes could be added indicating the need for inspection once per week or so that the proper measures are in place. Another condition would be for the area to be loamed and seeded within four to five days. She stated that these are powerful notes which help to maintain an environmentally friendly land.
Jim McElroy asked that once construction and landscaping is done, what impact will changes have on drainage.
Chairman Osgood stated his opinion on the request for waiver. He stated that based on Ms. McCourt’s presentation, he is confident that they have formed a nice lot, there is a nice future owner who will put the lot to good use, and it appears to be a good rational plan. The fact that the plan has been developed with the environment in mind makes him willing to grant the variance based on their design.
Terry Stamps, board member, stated that her objection is not with this application but rather why have the 20% slope regulation if we can assume that we will see proposals by responsible people.
Kristin Claire, board member, stated that the regulation is in place for the typical applications that come before the board by people who are not as concerned for the environment.
Ms. Stamps stated that her concern is not with this application, but the way that the planning board will be granting or denying waivers based on the integrity of the presenters.
Jim McElroy and Kristin Claire, board members, both shared their opinions that the plans are being evaluated, not the people presenting. Ms. Claire stated that looking at a proposed plan where the house has been designed, buyers are in place, the driveways are already in place and very specific erosion control measures are presented helps to make an educated decision on granting a waiver. There have been other circumstances where none of this information has been available which makes the board unable to address waivers for land with slopes over 20%.
Ms. McCourt stated that is the reason that they are requesting a waiver instead of a variance, which asks for something that is not allowed. The waiver is for a unique situation and the parties are willing to go the extra mile to address the concerns in the regulation.
Kellie Dyjak, board member, stated that since the contractor has designed the house specifically to fit into the site, she is willing to grant the waiver as requested.
Tom Watman, board member, stated that this appears to be wise use of the land and is willing to grant the waiver. The waiver does permit the board to be flexible and review the land on a case by case basis. He stated that since he is not an expert on erosion control matters, he defers to others as to whether the measures presented are adequate. He stated that may be something that the conservation commission may want to consider being involved in if they are knowledgeable enough about a piece of land to make recommendations about what they would see as reasonable steps for control.
Ms. Stamps stated that because the conservation commission is looking at the requirements from a different point of view, they are not yet in a position to look at exceptions to the regulation.
Mr. Watman stated that the commission might want to consider what steps would be appropriate as a sample of soil control when it comes up for discussion.
Chairman Osgood stated that the board may want to look into developing protocols for erosion control.
Scott Dias stated that the steep slope requirement offers the opportunity for would-be land owners and developers to bring in bigger equipment to level the existing land. He stated that the best scenario is to utilize the land as it is and work with smart environmental practices. He stated that the conservation commission’s requirement for two-acre contiguous land is not reasonable, nor is he sure if it is even legal.
Kellie Dyjak asked if the conservation commission saw the plans for the land and the design of the house. Ms. Stamps stated that they only saw the plans for the land.
Kristin Claire stated that she partially disagrees with Scott as she thinks that 20% slope is reasonable when you do not have a good builder in charge. Ms. Claire stated that when conscientious people are involved, she has much less concern.
Chairman Osgood stated that the regulation is important as there are some areas in town that have no land with less than 20% slope on them, and it keeps those areas from ever being developed. He noted that there are times when there is gray area, and it can be reasonably discussed to be achievable.
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the waiver; Jim McElroy seconded the motion. The motion was passed, 5-1 (Terry Stamps dissenting.)
Chairman Osgood moved to accept the plan as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0.
Stephanie Alexander asked if the board will be requiring a letter from the power company stating that electrical service will be available.
Ms. McCourt stated that the electric company hates issuing those letters. Some towns also request letters from phone and cable providers also. She stated that if a line is in the area, by the Public Utilities Commission, service then has to be provided. Jim McElroy stated that there are times when a development can be made far enough away from an existing power line that the question should be made, however, he does not feel that this is such a case.
Chairman Osgood moved approve this plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Typographical errors on the Plan shall be corrected, including those in the text of Lots 648A (name spelling), and the truncated text of Lots 647 and 652.
2. The following note shall be added to the plan: Residential sprinkler systems shall be installed in accordance with Henniker Fire Department specifications.
3. A narrative shall be submitted stating the types of best management practices, including weekly inspection, for erosion and sedimentation control which will be employed on the site and an accompanying note shall be added to the plan. The measures will include silt fencing, haybaling, loaming and seeding, and hydroseeding. Weekly inspection of the site shall be undertaken by the Code Enforcement Officer or designee to ensure the functionality of the measures.
Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0.
Scott Dias stated that he would like to hydroseed the slopes with a conservation mixture within four to five days and leave the area directly around the house ready for landscaping.
The impact fee was assessed at $5,518.00 per single family dwelling unit.
Conceptual Consultation
Tilton Minor Subdivision at 21 Liberty Hill Road on Map 1, Lot 134-F on 5.46 acres in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District:
Scott and Diana Tilton presented their request for subdividing their property and building a smaller home on the newly created lot. They stated that they enjoy living in town and neighborhood and are exploring the opportunity of lessening their property taxes and building a more affordable home. Mr. Tilton explained that by doing this, they would be able to continue to reside in Henniker.
Description of the property, any wetlands and special features were discussed.
Jennifer McCourt noted that the property is on a gravel road.
The board explained the regulations of requiring ten acres to subdivide on a nonconforming road. The applicants have the option to take a request to the town for approval to bring the gravel road to a Class V road in order to pursue subdivision. Because of this condition of the road regulations, this conceptual design was not supported.
Discussion Items
The letter dated May 31, 2006 from Diane M. Gorrow of the law office of Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward and Loughman regarding the School Impact Fees was discussed.
Stephanie Alexander stated that she has tried to summarize the content of the letter. In response to the question of what lots can be charged impact fees, the letter states all lots except for those that were approved under the four-year exemption that were developed by the planning board between July 27, 2001 and July 2005.
Chairman Osgood stated that a spreadsheet listing all parent lots and the subdivided lots during that time is available.
Ms. Alexander stated that those lots are subject to the impact fees if they have not taken undertaken active and substantial development within a year of their approval.
Chairman Osgood stated that if the building has already been done, then no impact fees can be assessed.
Ms. Alexander stated that these fees will be collected at the time when building permits are issued. The flow chart will be consulted to determine whether there is the need for assessing this impact fee. The second consideration is to determine whether there is any old fee structure that would apply to those lots.
Chairman Osgood stated that impact fees were adopted on July 27, 2001. Everyone who was approved after that date is automatically assessed the impact fee. He stated, “For example, if you have a lot and in four years you developed it before the impact fees were in place, but you didn’t pull the permit until after the fees were instituted, then the fees would be assessed. If the fees are changed, then they are grand-fathered for four years from the date of approval.” He also noted that the fees have to be changed as it is currently a static number; they should be time-sensitive and include an inflation factor.
Ms. Alexander stated that the process is almost complete and the structure will be explained to those who will be responsible at the building permit level.
Discussion took place of item (2.a.) on page 4 of the letter regarding “parent lots.”
Chairman Osgood stated that as soon as a permit is pulled for any lot, an impact fee may be assessed and collected.
Ms. Alexander stated that a checklist be reviewed during subdivision approval to catch any necessary items. She stated that the board has been doing that.
Discussion of the Elm Street subdivision took place. Chairman Osgood stated that work began after the impact fee was approved. It was in effect, but the fee was not assessed.
Ms. Alexander stated that you cannot go back to collect the fees retroactively as they are to be collected at the building permit stage or before the certificate of occupancy is granted.
Regarding the Elm Street phased development, the first phase of building has already been completed, and the board neglected to impose the newly adopted impact fee structure at the time of subdivision approval. Now the question stands that when they come back to build the second and third phases, should an impact fee be imposed? The board is in agreement that future building will require assessing impact fees. While there are legal grounds to go back to assess fees on the first phase, the board agrees that should not be done.
Ms. Alexander stated that she still has some questions, especially relating to the four-year exemption.
Discussion continued specific to the Elm Street subdivision, indicating that because it was approved and work started, there may be no legal basis for the phasing determination. The question remains as to assessment made at the approval of phasing or when permits are issued.
Jim McElroy stated that the document states that the board has the right to get the money if we want to; however, someone could make that argument in a court that the board is overstepping its bounds as the subdivision was approved and nothing was assessed at the time.
Terry Stamps stated the necessity to be very clear in the active and substantial requirements especially in a phasing plan.
Scott Osgood, Stephanie Alexander and Peter Flynn are to meet to clarify all of the details, especially with regard to the four-year exemption.
Jim McElroy stated that there should be a column on the spreadsheet titled, “Approved But No Building Permit Issued.”
Ms. Alexander showed the board an example of a spreadsheet.
Jim McElroy stated that the attorney concurs that the money generated by these impact fees may be used to pay off the school bonds.
Mr. McElroy expressed concern of growth management plan, impact fees and road exactions. He stated that it will not take too much more growth before an impact is felt in the fire and rescue department. He asked to consider revisiting the decision of fire and rescue impact fees.
Consultant’s Report
Ms. Alexander stated that she is working on the agenda for the June 28, 2006 Work Session Meeting. She stated that someone from the Regional Planning Commission will come and speak to the developments on the street regulations and the determination of road classifications.
The subdivision regulations document will continue to be reviewed. Kellie Dyjak will have research results of the official town maps.
Other Business
Chairman Osgood asked for alternates to the planning board.
Discussion ensued about the availability of getting flood insurance if you are in a flood plain. The town has had flood ordinances in effect since 1973. Ms. Alexander stated that according to the national flood insurance programs, anyone can get flood insurance if the town has the proper ordinances (which Henniker has).
Tom Watman asked about the proper establishment of the zoning subcommittee that is to meet on June 15, 2006. The purpose is to consider ideas specifically for Rte. 114. Advertising was in the newspapers and several people were called to recruit members.
Kellie Dyjak stated that Jennifer McCourt plans to return at the next planning board business meeting to formally approve this subcommittee and its charter.
Terry Stamps will write the advertisement recruiting members for the other zoning subcommittee that prepares for the town meeting.
Chairman Osgood asked that discussion of this zoning subcommittee be placed on the agenda for the next work session meeting.
Kristin Claire asked if there is a specified maximum length of cul-de-sac roads and dead-end streets. It should be in the subdivision street regulations. This will be addressed in the work session meeting.
Kellie Dyjak moved to close the meeting at 9:40 pm; Kristin Claire seconded and the motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
Work Session
Draft Minutes
May 24, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood; Jim McElroy; Tom Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Kellie Dyjak, Gary Guzouskas; Kristin Claire
Non-members and guests: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Mary Pinkham-Langer; Joan O’Connor; Ging Blanchard; Dennis McComish; Jennifer McCourt; Cynthia Marsland; Caleb Robbins; Mark Mitch
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Joan O’Connor, resident of Hemlock Corner Loop, asked permission to address the board. She stated that the Tanner property that has been discussed for subdivision now has three signs advertising its sale. She has made a formal request for the town to look into purchasing the property. She stated that in addition to the original 4-H’s motto, she would like to submit these “4-H’s” when considering this piece of land: “Habitat, Headwaters, Historic schoolhouse and it’s a Hell of a location.”
Chairman Osgood stated that the conservation commission has a list of properties to review.
Kristin Claire stated that there is about $30,000 in town funds, but that the town needs to bond for money.
The board encouraged Ms. O’Connor to participate in the process and come to the conservation commission meeting.
1. The minutes of the 5/10/06 planning board meeting were reviewed and corrected. Jim McElroy motioned to approve the minutes as corrected; Kristin Claire seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
2. The minutes of the 5/10/06 Site Walk of the Bennett-Mt. Hunger property were reviewed. Chairman Osgood moved to approve the minutes; Jim McElroy seconded, and the motion carried.
3. An Official Street Map Update was presented by Ging Blanchard. She showed where the maps were marked. They are not defined as to public vs. private roads. This map is for nomenclature to state the names of the streets. Updated road names include Diamond Drive, Pine Hill, Ridgetop Lane and Quarry Hill Court. Ms. Blanchard stated that the last update was done in June 2003.
The board discussed whether there had to be a posted public hearing to accept the maps. Previous maps were accepted in 1970, 1991, 1997 and 2003. Kellie Dyjak, Kristin Claire and Cynthia Marsland will research whether the planning board can accept the maps or whether it needs a public hearing before they are able to be accepted. Stephanie Alexander will put it on the agenda if necessary.
Cynthia Marsland took possession of the maps and will care for them in Ms. Blanchard’s absence.
4. Mary Pinkham-Langer, State of NH Gravel Assessor, presented “Planning Board Gravel Pit Responsibilities.”
7:30 pm: Cynthia Marsland introduced the program by stated that the last time the board looked at this topic was several years ago. This program is to educate the board about the excavation processes and the responsibilities involved. Mary Pinkham-Langer stated that she is not an attorney and cannot provide legal answers. The main focus of her discussion concerned RSA 155-E, site specific permitting, EPA regulations and the RSA 72-B Excavation Tax. She encouraged questions from the board and those present in the audience during her presentation. Ms. Pinkham-Langer provided the board with written information to refer to specifically.
Jennifer McCourt stated that during her term on the planning board, the excavation records were reviewed and a summary of all permits and those who were grandfathered in is available.
Mary Pinkham-Langer stated that excavation tax came about in 1998, and it is the planning board’s responsibility to ensure compliance. She stated that there are minimum standards which must be maintained. She stated that the town cannot go below the statutory requirements.
The planning board is to do inventory of all excavation sites of stationary manufacturing plants, abandoned pits, reclaimed pits and active excavations. Kristin Claire asked if the planning board can get state help in reviewing all of the excavation records, and Ms. Pinkham-Langer stated that her office can assist the town in reviewing permits.
The board discussed the planning board’s role in the enforcement functions and that town meeting stated the planning board as the regulator. Chairman Osgood stated that he believes that this process is a town administration function.
Jim McElroy expressed the need for a checklist of the sites, environmental services, applications made, granted and updated, etc.
Chairman Osgood stated that this evening’s presentation had gone a long way towards learning what is required of the planning board. There are state rules and the board is trying to stay ahead of any problems that may occur.
Mary Pinkham-Langer stated that there is a handbook of NH Land Use Planning and Zoning to refer to for help and that the DES website is helpful. She also stated that she is willing to help as the board goes through the process.
This discussion ended at 8:34 pm.
5. Chairman Osgood introduced guest speaker, Mark Mitch from the conservation commission.
Mr. Mitch stated that questions have arisen over the issues of erosion and drainage and the basis for the board’s recent deviation under hardship. He stated that the commission’s concern is with the hill slopes stability. He stated that part of these concerns stem from the Bennett property. He questioned the meaning of the hardship rule.
Jim McElroy stated that when the board approves clearing a lot, they require that there be area on the lot which can be built. The board is saying is that there is the potential for building but does not require specifics such as foundations to be staked as the board does not issue building permits.
Chairman Osgood stated that the Bennett property had two acres available but they were not contiguous.
Jim McElory asked for his concept of a contiguous building area.
Mr. Mitch stated an area connected together with land in that area less than 20% slope so that any digging would not have any major impact on the area. He stated that these are common standards used by other towns.
Jennifer McCourt stated that there is so much new erosion control technology available. It is necessary to consider that a house can sometimes be built better at a higher grade with the new erosion controls than on a lesser grade without those controls.
Mr. Mitch asked if this decision sets a precedent.
Jim McElroy stated that this is a land use board. We determine if it looks like a house and driveway could be built there. Land can be bought and sold many times before house is actually built.
The board further discussed that the board can make denials based on two acres of continuous acreage and the criteria for granting waivers.
Mr. Mitch questioned the need to use slopes as a criteria for identifying conservation parcels. Mr. McElroy stated that 20% is a reasonable slope for Henniker.
6. Subdivision Regulation Changes
Stephanie Alexander explained that this document includes technical changes identified at other meetings. New sections are included. She stated that this is a work in progress and needs to be discussed. Formatting clearly and consistently makes is more readable. Some things have been deleted and additions are italicized and bolded. Others have remained the same in other language. She began a page by page review and discussion
The board changed Article III to “Pre-Application Review” with three sections for information conference, conceptual consultation and design review.
Jennifer McCourt stated that pre-application is nonbonding and no applicant will want to spend money on design review unless it is binding. Pre-application procedure is for applicant and their engineer to come in to discuss before it’s put down on paper.
Jim McElroy stated design review should be done later.
Jennifer McCourt stated that preliminary action to work out specific issues should be done.
Stephanie Alexander stated design review includes notes to abutters.
Kristin Claire stated design review is sill pretty loose.
Jennifer McCourt asked if it the process had to be done in three phases. Can an applicant skip “conceptual” phase and go right to design review? Discussion by the board continued and it was decided that one has to go through design review but the conceptual review is optional for major subdivisions. Nothing is required for minor subdivisions.
Informational conference shall be scheduled for all subdivisions.
Meeting with planning consultant for informational conference shall be placed on the schedule and flow chart.
Jennifer McCourt began discussion of page 11, B.2.a.vii as it could be perceived as taking of land. She stated that she would like to see the town vote this in.
Stephanie Alexander stated that this is typically found in zoning under general provisions or wetlands conservation.
Jennifer McCourt stated wetlands under a certain size should not have a buffer to them and a lot of towns have conditional approval.
Chairman Osgood stated that RSA 133-114 (D) has special zoning provisions.
After review and discussion, the board decided that they would like more time to read the document and discuss it more fully at the next work session. Chairman Osgood asked everyone to bring the document to the next meeting.
Jim McElroy expressed concern over how involved the planning board is to be in the gravel assessment process.
Scott Osgood stated that he does not think that it is the planning board’s job. He will talk to the town administrator to clarify their place. He stated that he does not wish to spend any more time working on this issue tonight.
7. At 9:52 pm, Chairman Osgood asked Jennifer McCourt to speak about the zoning commission.
Jennifer McCourt stated that the area of Rte. 114 towards Weare is underutilized. She proposed the idea of some sort of “55 and older district” as a phenomenal asset to the tax base. She stated that newer communities are selling quickly. Fire and rescue are a little more in those areas.
Discussion by the board re-emphasized the need to look at rezoning of Rte. 114 S and its potential uses.
Tom Watman suggested looking at rezoning Rte. 114 in the Bradford direction also.
The board discussed staking areas along the major routes before it all becomes residential. Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to review the whole town.
Jim McElroy supports investigating rezoning of Rte.114 as the identifiable focus.
Jennifer McCourt stated that continuous development calls are coming in to her office. She suggested reviewing the rezoning in smaller sections.
Tom Watman stated the need for a written charge with a broader statement for the purpose of this committee.
Chairman Osgood suggested that the rezoning deal solely with commercial and light industry. Discussion continued about the board’s reputation for being against commercial and industry. He stated that others in the community should be invited to a zoning subcommittee meeting.
Jennifer McCourt stated that involvement in the rezoning subcommittee would include site walks, mailers, informational meetings and public hearings, etc.
Chairman Osgood stated that the charter should include finding viable commercial properties on major routes of Rtes. 114 and 202.
Jim McElroy asked if there was any money in the budget to help this committee do studies, etc. Have to focus on what we want it to look like in 20 years.
The first meeting of the rezoning subcommittee is set for Thursday, June 15, 2006 at
6:30 pm. Kellie Dyjak will talk to Peter about where meeting will be held.
Gary Guzouskas suggested having some of the more vocal people in town on the committee at the beginning. People to invite include Chris Blomback from the Henniker Business Association, the Patenaudes, Arthur Kendrick and Spencer Bennett. Chairman Osgood will ask Peter Flynn for people from the Rotary.
Public notice of the meeting will be put in the three local newspapers.
8. Correspondence: A letter form the American Planning Association was mentioned.
At 10:26 pm, Jim McElroy motioned not to entertain any new business; Gary Guzouskas seconded, and all approved.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the other item to inform the planning board of are the Mt. Hunger modification to approval.
Gary Guzouskas stated that he will not be attending the next meeting on June 14, and Kristin Claire stated that she will not be at any meetings in August.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 pm.
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
May 16, 2006
Bennet -Mt Hunger
Conceptual Discussion Relocated Driveway
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chair
Guests Present:
Spencer Bennet, owner and applicant
Stephen Forster, Ted Parkins, Marty Davis
The meeting began at 6:00.
The purpose of the meeting was to view a proposed double driveway location at the westerly lots for the subdivision.
The new drive is located about 10 ft from the property line of the two most western lots.
The applicant has flagged the area of the new driveway. The flagging shows the entry at the road as well as the drives into the new lots.
Spencer noted he will leave the flagging up until the hearing for the application is held.
Spencer produced plan showing a vertical profile of the existing roadway. The plan shows the elevation of the roadway, and includes a line of site, taken from a point at the crest of the hill, at a height approximately 3-1/2 ft above the road. This plan shows a site distance of 226 ft. This distance was measured and walked by those in attendance. Scott noted the representation seemed to be reflected in the field observation. The applicant will present the plan with the application. The board will forward it to the Town Consultant for comment.
Discussion was held as to other possible options for gaining access to the lots. A drive though the middle of the lot was mentioned. The applicant noted a new road would become a Town expense.
The site walk ended at 6: 25
Respectfully submitted
D Scott Osgood
PLANNING BOARD
Approved Minutes
May 10, 2006
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood, Chairman; James McElroy; Terry Stamps; Thomas Watman (Selectman, ex-officio); Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Joan O’Connor; Stephen Bennett; Bradford and Sally Tanner; Dan Philbrick; Art Siciliano; Paul Apple, Esq.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:59 pm.
1) Minutes from the 4/26/06 work session were read and corrected. Jim McElroy moved to accept the minutes as corrected; Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
2) Case #2006-06: A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Bradford and Sally Tanner for a two-lot subdivision on 62.54 acres at Hemlock Corner Loop on Map 1, Lot 54C in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the status of this application and noted that it is in the completion phase of the process. A site walk had been performed on April 18, 2006, and a revised plan has been submitted. The conservation committee did a site walk and found no issues. It was noted that an improvement of the septic design had been made on Lot 54D but was not really required by the board. Chairman Osgood what the changes in the revised plan are.
Art Siciliano stated that there were minor changes, such as adding a revised brook on the map based on the board’s recommendations. There was discussion as to the flow of the stream now added to the map.
Jim McElroy asked for an update on what components are still missing.
Art Siciliano stated that the whole property has been surveyed. She stated that they are expecting to receive the NH Natural Heritage Inventory letter next week. No permits have been applied for yet. Mr. Tanner asked the planning board to show where it is necessary to have a driveway permit.
Chairman Osgood stated that the natural driveway locations are fine, and it should not be a problem to get the permit. The board agreed that this would not be an issue to approval.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the Tanner’s application as complete contingent upon receiving the NH Natural Heritage Inventory letter. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 5-0.
Moving to the acceptance phase, Chairman Osgood commenced the public hearing and invited the public to speak to this subdivision plan.
Joan O’Connor, in attendance and resident of Hemlock Corner Loop, stated a case for the protection and conservation of above-mentioned property. She stated that she is familiar with the land as she had permission from the previous owner to walk into that land. She has personally seen beaver, otter, birds, great heron nesting sites; other people have spotted bear and moose. She explained that this parcel of land is an important source of water as the headwaters for Upper Pond, Middle Pond and Long Pond. It is also part of the Minks, one of largest, continuous protected pieces of land in New Hampshire. She stated that Warner is making efforts to protect the Minks, and she asked what Henniker is doing towards that end.
She stated that she would like this application denied and would like for the town of Henniker to buy the land. She stated that she would be willing to help secure money for this purpose. She stated that it “breaks her heart to see this land chopped up;” and even though this subdivision comprises only two houses, people tend to landscape, sending fertilizer and other contaminants into the wetlands. She also noted the relatively dry spring this year and how wet the land still is there. Ms. O’Connor noted a newsletter from the UNH Cooperative Extension center citing the necessity of communities fighting for the protection of trees, wetlands, watersheds and water quality, thereby improving the quality of life.
Chairman Osgood stated that it may be important for the conservation commission to be present at a meeting to share the efforts they have been making. There is now a town budget as the real estate transfer taxes are in a fund to purchase such areas. He stated that because land is subdivided does not mean that it cannot be conserved; people that buy the land can be sensitive to the area’s issues. He noted that as a planning board, there is nothing that can be done as it is zoned as a residential area.
Terry Stamps stated the conservation commission does now have money available.
She stated that the conservation commission has constructed an inventory of land within Henniker and prioritized them on several different criteria. She explained that now when land becomes available there is a process for determining protection by the town.
She stated that she would take the information to the conservation commission and see whether that area is on their inventory of properties.
Chairman Osgood stated that the town is always trying to generate interest in protecting the land and invited suggestions for improving the process.
Jim McElroy stated that the existing process asks the conservation commission to do a site walk and no concerns were found with this proposed site.
Tom Watman asked why the planning board would even consider going beyond the scope of their authority. This application has met the town’s standards for this type of property. He stated that it is the responsibility of the conservation commission to consider the protection issues, but the planning board should not risk alienation by going outside the regulations as they currently stand.
Chairman Osgood stated that the whole approval process includes the ability to influence the decision for certain size of a subdivision; the applicant is required to present a conceptual. At that point is when everyone gives their opinions as to how it could be made better. He stated that discussion with the applicant is desired by everyone and helps to make the best ideas work.
Tom Watman stated his concern that the planning board stay within the scope of their own regulations. He noted that discussions are helpful to all parties, but the various groups, such as the conservation commission, the historical society, and the historical district commission, have their place in commenting on particular pieces of land that they have studied.
Jim McElroy stated that it is true that there is no framework in town for neither nature conservation nor historical distinctions; there are no regulations or ordinances specifically for these issues. These can be discussed and brought forward if enough people in the town want them. He stated that other towns have heritage commissions which have a far broader scope than the conservation commission.
Chairman Osgood invited Ms. O’Connor to come to the subcommittee meetings.
Chairman Osgood closed the public session at 7:38 pm. He then asked for any board deliberation.
Chairman Osgood moved to approve this plan with the one condition to include:
1. Submit a letter from the NH Natural Heritage Inventory identifying rare plants, animals, and communities in and near the subdivision.
Tom Watman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
It was noted that active and substantial development was defined and will be stated on the NOD. The applicant will notify the Town when the final bounds are set. As the applicant has stated that single family detached homes will be built on the lots, school impact fees have been assessed by the Planning Board at $5,518 per housing unit on Lot 54-D.
3) Subdivision Regulations Amendment—Active and Substantial Development definition.
Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 pm for the Henniker, NH Definition for “Active and Substantial Development.” Stephanie Alexander introduced revised language for the document.
Discussion between the board members noted the information in items (i) and (ii) being put at the bottom of the page with denoted single and double asterisks for easier reading.
Gary Guzouskas explained that there is slightly more extensive language for clarity in the paragraph stating, “Plans approved in phases shall be subject to this definition for the phase currently being developed.”
At 7:49 pm, Chairman Osgood asked for public comment and further board discussion. There was none and the public hearing was closed.
Stephanie Alexander suggested that the word “should” be changed to “shall” in the third paragraph from the bottom reading, “Plans approved with phasing plans in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article XXIX, Growth Management, shall have this definition applied to the first phase of the project.”
Further discussion stated that this language will go into the subdivision regulations and will include a bracket indicating that this was added May 10, 2006.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the revised language of “Active and Substantial Development”. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was accepted 5-0.
Chairman Osgood and the board thanked Gary Guzouskas for his work on making the document clearer and easier to read.
4) Case #2004-018: A conceptual consultation for a modification of approval. The modification is to the driveways on the approved subdivision of Lots 723 and 723A on Mt. Hunger Road in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Paul Apple, Esq., reviewed the reasons for requesting a modification of the driveways at this property. He stated that there were concerns regarding safety, and one of the conditions of approval was improvements to the road. He stated that there has been some hesitancy by the board of selectmen to approve those changes to the road. It was noted in a preliminary discussion that if changes were made to the driveways, then the changes in the road would not be necessary. Other changes, Mr. Apple noted, have been fulfilled. He stated that they are here for conceptual consultation to allay safety concerns and asking to modify the conditions of approval.
Jim McElroy stated that shared driveways have been done before, and it appears that the contours of the road easily accommodate a shared driveway. He asked if this has been passed by the town engineer.
Paul Apple, Esq., stated that has not yet been done. He stated that their surveyor submitted the plans, but because this board raised the safety concerns, they are requesting if the shared driveway plan meets their expectations.
Jim McElroy asked the board if this proposed plan should go to Hoyle, Tanner to see if this approach satisfies the safety situation.
Discussion about the placement of the entrance of the shared driveway was held between the board members, Paul Apple, Esq., and Art Siciliano. It was stated that the proposed shared driveway would be placed where the previously accepted driveway plan was already established on Lot 723, thereby adding 80 feet to the site distance.
Chairman Osgood stated that there is now different information to consider, and should be considered in a new light. This plan moves the driveway 80 feet from the peak of the hill. He restated the applicant’s request for a “modification of approval” regarding the driveway placement in order to move forward in a timely manner.
Jim McElroy stated that since other shared driveway plans have been approved for traffic control, he recommends that Hoyle, Tanner be asked for their review of this plan as it relates to the site distance. He stated that this should be done quickly for the applicant, and Terry Stamps voiced her agreement with this scenario.
Chairman Osgood asked for the proposed driveway to be staked, the planning board perform a new site walk and have it announced for public hearing at the June meeting.
The site walk is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 6:00 pm. Board members will meet at the site of the proposed driveway. A notice of meeting will be sent to all planning board members and the members of the conservation commission.
Chairman Osgood stated that he will call Hoyle, Tanner to explain the latest developments in reviewing the driveway alteration as this may be the simplest way to resolve the matter.
5) Consultant’s Report
Stephanie Alexander distributed her consultant’s log to show what she has done and who has come in to see her on a monthly basis. Discussion was generated about the lack of the public’s awareness of this record being kept, its purpose and the fact that it could be subpoenaed in court.
Ms. Alexander noted that two guests are on the agenda for the May 24, 2006 work session. Ging Blanchard will be at the meeting to discuss the updated street maps and reclassification of the streets in Henniker. Ging has also been invited to the next roads policy meeting. She is only scheduled for 15 minutes.
Mary Pinkham Langer, the state gravel inspector, will be at the meeting to give a one-hour presentation on gravel maintenance.
Chairman Osgood stated that the excavation presentation could make the board and the town aware of responsibilities. As there are large excavations in town, it may be helpful to make sure that all parties that may be affected by these laws are aware of this presentation. He stated that even though the public will be notified, it may be wise to personally invite the Michie, Patenaude, McComish and Aucoin businesses, as well as the highway department, so that they may sure to be involved at the beginning of this process. He stated that there are no concerns at the present time, but the town and the excavators may need to be updated on the requirements.
Ms. Alexander stated that also on the May 24, 2006 agenda is discussion of the subdivision site plan regulations.
Stephanie Alexander stated that a new circuit rider contract was provided to Peter Flynn. She stated that this year’s budget will end December 31, 2006, and then will be budgeted annually beginning in January 2007. Ms. Alexander stated that the $27,000 budgeted at $45.00 per hour represents 46 hours per month for normal planning board business. Staff reports and staff reviews are paid out of escrow accounts.
Ms. Alexander stated that she had been asked to write an article for the Outlook and to be posted on the Town of Henniker website to inform the public of her services and availability. The board reviewed the article. She will make the recommended changes and submit the article
6) Correspondence
It was noted that another letter was received from Terra Map.
7) Other Business
The board discussed GIS and Arcsoft which is used by the state planning commission. Chairman Osgood stated that adequate software can be purchased for under $2,000. He stated that it is important to build a staff that has the expertise to manage the software.
Coordinating the information for town growth as a planning board tool, looking at conservation issues, where the roads are, etc, to develop a true master plan is what needs to be addressed.
Jim McElroy stated that the color-coded maps showing conservation, roads, tax maps, property lines and other features such as animal migration trails could be put on the maps, layer by layer. Those features would help the board judge impacts and create a build-out exercise to see where things would be as Henniker grows.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to have communication with DOT to get their plans as there will be transitions with the zoning and major highways in Henniker.
Chairman Osgood stated that he holds the seat on the DOT planning function. He suggested planning a meeting once or twice per year with neighboring towns such as Weare, Hillsboro and Bradford to discuss issues facing each town.
Jim McElroy stated that if the board is going to be able declare a development of regional impact, the board has to have the permission of the town. A warrant article may have to be in place to grant authority.
7) New Business
Terry Stamps stated that conservation commission reviewed the ordinance lists and had a similar discussion to the planning board’s discussion about how many items to pursue. She stated that they believe that going forward with fewer things is a good strategy with these items at the top: 1) Ridgetop ordinance; 2) groundwater protection; 3) shoreline protection. The conservation commission would like to go forward with the Ridgetop ordinance first.
Ms. Stamps stated that in answer to the planning board’s question of the conservation commission owning the verbiage and pursuing the Ridgetop ordinance, they reported that they would do so.
Ms. Stamps also stated that Martha Sunderland expressed interest in becoming a member of the road subcommittee. Stephanie Alexander will let the planning commission staff know about her request and they will contact her with the meeting schedule.
Ms. Stamps stated that she confirmed the Outlook schedule as having a deadline of
June 13, 2006 for the July issue.
Other new business
Stephanie Alexander stated that the town council should be questioned about what would be subject to impact fees? Chairman Osgood stated that every building permit that is pulled is assessed impact fees. Discussion took place about determining the board’s involvement in assessing fees if every permit is assessed.
Terry Stamps questioned reviewing the potential lists and inviting the conservation commission to the June 28 meeting. She stated that she will ask if Martha, or someone else, can come and share information.
Chairman Osgood moved to adjourn at 8:58 pm; Terry Stamps seconded; it was approved 4-0 with one absent from the vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer A. Astholz
April 26, 2006
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
WORK SESSION
Approved Minutes
April 26, 2006
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Board Members: Kellie Dyjak, Jim McElroy, Terry Stamps, Cheryl Morse (Selectman-exofficio), Gary Guzouskas.
Others Present: Nicholas Alexander, CNHRPC; Lucy St. John, CNHRPC; Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Leon Parker; Cordell Johnston, Selectman; Bob Stamps, Conservation Committee; Ron Taylor, ZBA; Holly Green, Conservation Committee.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
1. Meeting minutes of April12, 2006, were reviewed and corrected. Kellie Dyjak commented on the alteration of the written format of the minutes between a narrative style and the bulleted-type of style. Discussion followed, and Chairman Osgood mentioned that readability is the most important thing. It is noted that the narrative style will prevail, but there may be times when the bullet format would assist in clarity. Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the minutes as amended; Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0.
Chairman Osgood asked if everyone had received the e-mailed minutes of the site walk that had been done. Corrections were noted, and Chairman Osgood stated that he would make the corrections on these minutes since they are on his computer. Gary Guzouskas MOVED to accept the site walk minutes as corrected; Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Nicholas Alexander explained that they had been asked to look for an exactions policy for the Roads Standards for the town of Henniker. Chairman Osgood called attention to the spreadsheet that had been prepared by the Road Committee.
Mr. Alexander stated that they first reviewed road standards for the town regarding code and town regulations. Road policy will have a large impact to be on par with what the town wanted. A subcommittee was formed with members from the planning board, fire department, highway maintenance and citizens keen on keeping the scenic roads in town. They met three times with good attendance each time. He explained to the committee how other towns reached their standards and followed the approach that Bow and Loudon did by breaking roads down into tiers by their function. Classification of the roads is essential. Each one of the categories was for a designed volume.
He referred to the spreadsheet for the committee’s findings. Essentially, one residential unit equals 10 trips per day. Local roads are for subdivisions; arterials would be routes 202 and 114. Speed changes must be designed in to the roads; 25 MPH is the lowest speed limit allowed per State statute.. A road is designed to the speed limit and other criteria depending on the standards for the type of road. The bulk of standards meet what Henniker has previously planned.
Mr. Alexander noted that the largest discussion from the committee concerned gravel roads. Their point of view, based on the discussions and master plan, is that the town likes gravel roads. He noted that John from the highway department doesn’t like the gravel roads from a standpoint that they require more regular maintenance such as grading, drainage, etc. Minor local roads are for small subdivisions. The requirements of requiring the construction of gravel or paved roads was discussed.
Chairman Osgood asked the cost of paving a road versus the cost of maintaining a gravel road.
Lucy St. John stated that it is not always possible to simply pave over an existing paved road. She did not have the actual numbers but was willing to investigate. She stated that there was much healthy discussion amongst the committee about conserving rural scenic roads, costs, etc.
Nicholas Alexander stated that gravel tends to be a little cheaper if constructed well. Usually, the existing roads don’t end up having been constructed that well so it depends on what is necessary.
Discussion between the Board and the representatives continued on matters of lane widths, shoulders, drainage and pavement. The fire department likes 10-foot lanes and 3-foot shoulders. Lucy St. John stated that there are some communities that will not take certain fire equipment on gravel roads. She suggested that the board make sure any planned roads can handle any equipment that may be necessary. If they are constructed well to DOT specifications for their designed use, there are no issues.
Gary Guzouskas stated that he is familiar with areas where school buses will not run because dirt roads cannot carry the weight. He also mentioned the safety factor involved with icing on gravel and dirt roads as the traction control is not there. He explained that different surfaces act differently, even at the same temperature, creating a safety issue to the general public who is not aware of turning off of a paved road onto a gravel road.
The board discussed that setting aside money from capital funds would be necessary for these projects. Drainage standards need to be clarified, and there are issues with the existing roads. Are they all subject to same drainage requirements?
Lucy St. John stated that drainage needs have to be considered individually due to all of the variables such as grading. Engineers need to design those aspects.
Nicholas Alexander reiterated that curves, slopes, wetlands, etc. make drainage site- specific.
Kellie Dyjak stated that the maximum gradation is 10%.
Discussion followed as to whether the road policies would be placed in town codes, subdivision regulations or zoning regulations?
Lucy St. John stated that it could be in town code.
Nicholas Alexander stated that he was hoping to incorporate it into subdivision language. Clarification of classification of existing roads needs to be done, and they will look at the transportation improvement plan from the town. “Local” is a highway term used all over the country. “Minor local” tries to bring that character through Henniker’s master plan into something more tangible. He explained that “collector roads” are like Western Avenue. It is a functional class.
Jim McElroy commended them on spending time on the importance of the minor local roads as this is important to the people who live on these roads and achieves the local flavor.
Chairman Osgood stated that he hears that people like the gravel roads in town and that the local sentiment is to keep the roads not paved. He asked if there is an option for residents to petition selectmen to keep the gravel roads instead of paving.
Nicholas Alexander stated that fire department doesn’t really have an issue with the gravel road. Only one policeman and the highway maintenance representative had more of an issue with the gravel roads.
Lucy St. John stated that the planning board needs to make clear the policy for standards. She stated that with more development coming to the area, it will be easier for everyone to clarify the standards for existing roads and new subdivisions and to make sure that money is available for maintenance. She commented that neighborhoods petition for paved roads on a regular basis.
Chairman Osgood thanked the representatives for their work. He stated that it is necessary to identify action and create policy.
Nicholas Alexander stated that the next road committee meeting had not yet been scheduled, as they were waiting until after this meeting. He anticipates meeting within the next three weeks.
Nicholas Alexander and Lucy St. John departed at the conclusion of the discussion.
3. At 8:00 pm, Cordell Johnston, Selectman and Government Affairs Attorney for the Local Government Center, presented an abridged lecture titled “Ethics for Land Use Board Members”. This seminar was originally presented last fall for the New Hampshire Municipal Association. He explained that while there have been no serious problems with the land use Board in Henniker, Stephanie Alexander (CNHRPC) thought it would be a good idea to review procedures. Mr. Johnston invited participation and questions from both the board and the audience during his talk. Mr. Johnston asked members why they should care about ethical standards. Answers from the Board included legality and avoiding litigation. Mr. Johnston stated that when we do something that is not consistent with ethical standards, we create problems for towns, boards, etc. When a board makes a decision and someone participated in a vote that should not have been involved due to bias, the decision will be reversed and remanded even if that member’s vote did not affect the outcome, so reviewing where problems can occur is helpful in avoiding them. A 23-page handout was presented to the Planning Board members explaining the “Procedural Safeguards Against Ethical Problems” which covered most of the topics in the presentation.
Cordell Johnston stated that land use boards serve both legislative and judicial functions. He explained that zoning boards almost always act in a judicial capacity; a planning board acts as both. When a person or business goes before a board to have their personal rights adjudicated, they can assume that they will be heard as unbiased as possible
Mr. Johnston presented the four stages involved when a board is acting in a judicial capacity: 1) presentation and acceptance of the application; 2) public hearing; 3) board deliberation; 4) decision. When sitting on the judicial capacity, it is not only conflict of interest but the issue of bias or prejudging a case that is concerned. Follow the process of disqualification as early in the stages as it becomes clear that there is an issue. The decision for a board member to be disqualified from participating in a case can only be decided by the member him/herself. The board cannot force you to step down from the matter. If questions are raised about a member’s involvement, the board can vote if they think a member should disqualify him/herself.
Chairman Osgood stated that there was recently a similar issue that came up at meeting when a member of the public voiced that one of the selectmen should be disqualified from a proceeding. Mr. Osgood clarified that it is up to the selectman as to whether he thought he should do so or not. The question was raised as to whether other official roles in a town can disqualify a member. It was felt that solely holding another official role is not grounds for conflict of interest.
Kellie Dyjak asked when would be the time to disqualify one’s self.
Cordell Johnston said that you should remove yourself as soon as you realize that there is a problem. It is not fair to participate in all of the activities leading up to a vote, including discussion, then to abstain from the vote.
In response to a question, it was clarified that when a conflicted application is presented, one should just remove themselves to the audience.
Leon Parker, ZBA and audience member, stated that you should disqualify yourself at the beginning of the process so that the application gets full participation of the board. You do not have to disqualify yourself from the entire meeting, only that specific application.
Ron Taylor, zoning board member, commented on the set number of planning board members needed for the hearing presented so that there is a quorum.
Mr. Johnston continued the discussion with several hypothetical examples that described breaches of ethical standards in all of the four stages of the judicial capacity. The use of Non-Public Sessions was also addressed. Mr. Johnston stated that land use board meetings are public with very few exceptions. Mr. Parker clarified the “non-public session” terminology in that “non-public session” means that the public has to leave a meeting. Sometimes incorrect nomenclature has been used to state that it is a time when the public cannot speak during a meeting. Mr. Johnston confirmed that The Right-to-Know Law never means that the public has the right to speak. Only a public hearing means that they can talk during the meeting.
Other topics covered during the hypothetical scenario included discussions with other board members, chance social encounters with the general public or other board members, email protocol and site reviews. Mr. Johnston stated that discussions on issues before the board outside of the board meetings are a bad idea and you should try to avoid them. Specific guidelines for ethical behavior in these conditions are included in Mr. Johnston’s handout.
Holly Green, Conservation Committee and audience member, stated that it is always a good idea to disclose any private discussions that may have been had at the next official meeting.
Chairman Osgood stated that procedural information could be passed on via email as long as there was no discussion about it. If emails were sent, a copy should be brought to the next meeting so that it could be put into the records. He also mentioned that emails are treated as written documentation in a court setting.
Cheryl Morse discussed the need for written procedures to be generated so that new board members would be familiar with policy; i.e. if they ran into the landowner during a site walk and had a discussion. Board members discussed that all information of discussions should be brought up at the next meeting and would be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.
Gary Guzouskas asked if the Local Government Center had an executive summary document to give to the board members who were not here to hear this presentation.
Mr. Johnston stated that it is in the presentation packet but not in a summarized format.
Leon Parker said that he is a proponent of people on boards going to OEP meetings offered twice a year.
Jim McElroy stated that it has been good to hear from those practicing this every day to hear what is happening.
Mr. Johnston stated that his organization has a lecture series in the fall on land use issues. They have covered ethics, variances, offsite improvements, exactions and impact fees.
He also noted that the town can call the Local Government Center with any questions as part of their membership.
Chairman Osgood asked if the planning board, selectmen or town administrator should contact the LGC office. Mr. Johnston stated that if it specifically affects the planning board, one of their representatives can call. He also stated that a legislative update is sent or emailed each week and can be obtained from the town administrator.
This presentation ended at 9:25 pm.
The board took a short break. Kellie Dyjak left at 9:29 pm.
4. Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulation Changes List
Chairman Osgood noted there are three new items on the list: 1) Ridgetop ordinance; 2) Sourcewater protection ordinance; 3) Local shoreland protection ordinance
Terry Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission was creating a list to work on. They began work on the Ridgetop ordinance last year and did some research, but not much was done with it. The sourcewater protection and local shoreland protection ordinances will need to be addressed by the Conservation Committee.
Chairman Osgood asked if the Conservation Committee should come to a meeting and talk about these issues.
Terry Stamps asked for clarification of approach on all of these items.
Chairman Osgood stated that his understanding was that most of these are technical corrections; however, the three items already mentioned items are not technical corrections. He stated that Stephanie needs to work on the verbiage of the technical corrections while the others will require more meetings and public comment.
The board discussed having another zoning subcommittee and its functions. It was decided to include the conservation committee.
Chairman Osgood would like to invite Cogswell Springs Waterworks to give their input.
They will be put on the agenda for a future meeting and have either a public hearing at regular meeting or officially establish a subcommittee to do this work.
Jim McElroy agreed that it is of the scope that a subcommittee could do work before goes before the public as a public hearing is necessary anyway.
Gary Guzouskas stated that these are large enough issues that deserve their own action.
Terry Stamps stated the need for the board to discuss what happened with last year’s proposals from the zoning subcommittee.
Jim McElroy stated that a zoning subcommittee, per se, would be appropriate as there are still things that need to be fixed. The Ridgetop issue is a regional impact issue. He brought up open space ordinances which allow innovative land use ideas and bonuses; however, clarification is necessary as to what the board already has permission to do and what requires permission from the town.
Chairman Osgood noted that the 133-110, Wetlands buffer doesn’t need any special attention and would be non-controversial. There is currently no buffer.
Gary Guzouskas suggested asking Stephanie to go through the legislation and clarify what things require town approval and then to determine if we have town approval.
Chairman Osgood noted that it was known that any changes concerning zoning had to be approved by town meeting. He also stated to be cautious of Stephanie’s time and to look for other sources within the Local Government Center for this type of information.
Terry Stamps stated that public hearings are required for subdivision regulations but they do not have to go to town meeting. She also clarified Mr. McElroy’s proposal that there could be things at town meeting that needs to be voted on that is really an authority granting vote, not a specific ordinance.
Chairman Osgood reminded the board that Jennifer (McCourt) was at the last meeting and wanted to give her input to the zoning subcommittee. He inquired about any other action needed tonight other than the need to establish a zoning subcommittee and a schedule for the rest of the list.
Jim McElroy stated that the procedure of publicly notifying the decision to establish the zoning subcommittee and asking for volunteers is still a good way of advertising.
He stated that while not knowing how effective it is, it should be noted in the Town Hall and town newspapers that a committee is being formed.
Gary Guzouskas commented on the perceptual issue of notifying the public.
Chairman Osgood stated that on the next agenda item it should be stated that the board will be soliciting membership for the 2006-07 zoning subcommittee in the May Outlook.
Cheryl Morse initiated discussion as to the Selectmen-level need for committee members and sharing what committees have shortages.
Terry Stamps stated that she would contact Peter Flynn about advertising the solicitation of volunteer members to the zoning subcommittee in the May Outlook.
Discussion ensued about notice for a conservation-related zoning subcommittee or whether it should fall under the conservation committee. Ms. Stamps will check with the conservation committee to see if they are willing to tackle these items.
Terry Stamps raised the question as to the timing of the master plan being updated. She stated that timing could be important in using the master plan as the foundation for future plans. Discussion as to the shortage of volunteers, internal inconsistencies and the process related to specific action items were addressed. She also stated that it was Don who had initially raised the question of the master plan as it related to the road committee.
Cheryl Morse asked if there is protocol for reviewing the master plan.
Jim McElroy stated that there is a recommended practice.
Terry Stamps noted that revisions to the master plan are recommended every 5-10 years.
Gary Guzouskas stated that there is a recommended 8-step process for reviewing the master plan in the handbook. It also states that there is a master plan handbook developed by the Southern Regional Planning Commission in 2004 which could be referenced.
Jim McElroy noted that it is not too early to be thinking of zoning actions for the next town meeting.
Chairman Osgood stated that he would like to review the list and take care of things in the right way.
Cheryl Morse stated that her daughter (and others) commented that voting on so many warrant articles is overwhelming and the recommendation is to have the planning board work on fewer issues which are better explained to the public in order to have a better chance of succeeding.
Chairman Osgood stated that budget and efficient use of time are always key issues, and he would like to focus on items on which the board can be successful.
Terry Stamps suggested that this not be considered as a final list; however, revisiting last year’s list may cause too many items to deal with.
Chairman Osgood asked for discussion on the topic of failure. He raised the question of fairness to the community to take what wasn’t approved last year and repackage it in the next year. He stated that it may be wise not to push some of the same issues again this year.
Discussion ensued about gathering information as to why many of the items failed.
Community members don’t like key elements, but have not been satisfied with the solutions offered. Because many of the land use issues are complex, people don’t know what they like until they are presented with options. Ms. Stamps stated that the community has made it clear that altering the acreage and frontage didn’t work, but maybe there are other possibilities.
Jim McElroy related two comments from the public: 1) …”if it were 300 feet rather than 400 feet, I would have voted for it”; 2) the other said …”if not 25,000 square feet but 50,000 square feet, I would have gone for it.” He stated that people read and understood the basic concepts but didn’t like the details.
Terry Stamps and Gary Guzouskas discussed the options of looking at those items where the votes were very close, noting the 40 votes separating the retail commercial space. Perhaps hold some public hearings to give the community a time to be heard.
Chairman Osgood stated that the board should look forward to the new issues that have come up and not look back at the issues that have already been discussed and voted.
He noted that issues concerning frontages and lot sizes are dramatically different than they were before these studies, explaining that these open space subdivisions with tiny lots and lots of open space show that the town is already reaping the benefit of it, even without succeeding. He noted that people are accepting the ideas, and developers see what works in this town
Cheryl Morse stated that she agrees that the acreage issue will not succeed as the community views it as an elitist image. She noted that, for some people, that was a carry over to the road frontage issue; however, now people are beginning to understand this open space concept, avoiding the “bowling alley lot.” She stated that there may be a better chance the next time around to succeed on some of the previous issues.
Jim McElroy stated that it can take three years for some of the ideas to succeed.
Terry Stamps stated that urging attendance at public hearings would be helpful to the community’s understanding of many of the issues.
Chairman Osgood noted that the planning board needs to do two things better: 1) get people to the meetings for discussion; 2) do something to be present on Election Day.
He would like to see coordination of a plan for next year
Jim McElroy and Gary Guzouskas asked for clarification of legal status of elected officials campaigning for a particular vote at town meeting. If board members are visibly present at election time, how does it fit to be out with signs, mailing fact sheets and spending tax-payer money for advocacy so as not to appear to be lobbying?
Chairman Osgood stated that the action items to be addressed are: 1) Stephanie is addressing the subdivision and site plan changes. 2) Terry Stamps will contact Mr. Flynn about putting notice in the May Outlook for volunteers for a zoning subcommittee or conservation-related subcommittee. She will also check with the conservation committee for their input.
Correspondence: OEP has Technical Land Use #17 (and 15 other items here which may be very handy). Stephanie has left a note to keep this here in the office for the file. Also, GIS, Company from Lebanon, NH, sent a letter to Chairman Osgood and to Cynthia about software that the state uses. They seem to think that we have $7,500 to use on mapping; Peter stated that it was more like $5,000.
Other Business: Clarification was discussed about the “Active and Substantial Development” material in tonight’s packet. This had been taken care of at the last meeting. Mr. Guzouskas stated that it was difficult to read because of all of the parenthetical phrases throughout the document. He had suggestions for clarifying the format to make easier reading. He will make some changes and email them to Stephanie for her opinion.
Jim McElroy MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 pm; Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and all APPROVED.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer A. Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Site walk
Subdivision for Bradford and Sally Tanner
Ray Road
Application # 2006-006 Map 1 Lot 054
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chair; Kristin Claire, Vice Chair, Terry Stamps, Board member, Gary Guazouskas, Board member, Bob Stamps, member conservation commission,
Guests Present:
Brad and Sally Tanner, owners and applicant
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 6:10 pm.
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a walk to view the site of the proposed 2 lot Subdivision application on Ray Road.
The attendees met at the intersection of the east end of Hemlock Corner Loop and Ray Road.
The weather was overcast and mild, with no snow cover.
The attendees discussed the aspects of the two lots from the road. Locations for driveways had not been established.
The group walked on to the easterly lot; along a path created by the equipment used to dig the test pits for Lot 54D. The test pit locations were visible. The area noted for the new house lot was seen as well as the limits for the wetlands.
The group walked to the wetland boundary.
The owners report the wetland contains beaver dams, and were most likely once a farm field. Beaver activity in the Brook may possibly have most likely created the wet condition.
The group then walked back to the road and along the road to proposed Lot 54-C.
Remnants of stone walls are visible. Buried telephone cable for power lines was noted.
The Group walked on to Lot 54C, along an existing logging road. Areas of less than 20% slope were viewed.
The group walked to the border of the wetland. The applicant pointed out the stand of pines beyond the wetland which contains substantial dry land.
Potential locations for house lots were viewed.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55.
Respectfully submitted
D Scott Osgood
PLANNING BOARD
Approved
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Vice Chairman Kristin Claire, Board Members: Gary Guzouskas, Terry Stamps, Jim McElroy, Kellie Dyjak, Don Armstrong (alternate nonvoting member) (arrived 7:08), Tom Watman (ex officio) (arrived 7:05).
Others Present: Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant; Christine Anderson, Recording Secretary; Spencer Bennett, Dan Higginson, Jennifer McCourt, Earl Kalil, Leon Parker, Brad and Sally Tanner, Peter Flynn, Marshall Connor, Linda McGrier, Mike Martin, Joan O’Connor, Brenda Connor and Jim Connor, Tony Caplan.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
1. Meeting minutes of March 22, 2006, were reviewed and amended. Jim McElroy MOVED to approve minutes as amended; Chairman Osgood seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood commented that the meeting was being taped to assist in recording the minutes; and that after the minutes are prepared, the tape will be destroyed. It will not be kept for record purposes.
2. 7:04 p.m. Case #2005-032: a minor subdivision application submitted by Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown for a three-lot subdivision on Map 1, Lot 540-X9 on Route 114 and Flanders Road.
This is a revised application that has previously come before the board. A site walk has been done, and a waiver has been requested and approved previously. Spencer Bennett, representing the applicants, presented the revised plan to the board.
Dan Higginson, representing Art Siciliano’s firm, noted that the boundary was supposed to be on the back line, and there was a need for a monument there.
The board discussed the Hoyle, Tanner memo received 4/12/06.
Chairman Osgood noted in the Hoyle memo that the –2% slope of the driveway grades of Section 1 do not exceed the NH DOT’s recommended maximums for slope and platform grades from the travel way. He was concerned that the Flanders Road has a 26’ unobstructed sight distance; the recommended range is 171’ to 281’, which is far below an AASHTO standards.
Mr. Bennett offered to cut some trees and reduce the grade as the driveway enters the road to improve sight distance. He renewed the driveway permit and renewed the permits on the state highway. He will respond to Hoyle, Tanner’s drainage recommendations.
Terry Stamp asked if any of the lot lines had been changed.
Mr. Bennett responded that some details were added by the surveyor at the board’s request, but the location of the structures and the wells did not change from the original.
Stephanie Alexander noted that the lot line did change to accommodate the waiver that was granted at the last meeting.
Dan Higginson stated that it moved slightly to the west.
Chairman Osgood reviewed the planning consultant’s review, New Submissions Since 3/8/06.
Stephanie Alexander noted under Missing Components all requirements have been received except the one plat detail of the monument on the northwestern lot line of 540-X9.
Mr. Bennett noted the lot line is totally defined by the stonewall. He said the board is asking that a nail point be established within the stonewall, which is easy to do.
Terry Stamps asked the planning consultant if the driveway deed has been reviewed by town counsel.
Stephanie Alexander stated it has not been reviewed by town counsel.
Chairman Osgood asked how Mr. Bennett would address the fire chief’s concerns.
Mr. Bennett said they would install sprinkler systems for the individual homes there. Across the road they are putting in a cistern. They’ve met with and have approval from the fire chief and police chief. They are working with the fire chief on all those issues. They are still waiting to contact the road agent.
Chairman Osgood wanted a note added to the plan about the sprinkler systems. He noted the driveway application has been approved and signed off by the road agent.
There was discussion with Mr. Bennett about the deed of the proposed shared driveway.
There was a discussion about the two acres of buildable land with the proper regulated slopes, that the board waived the contiguous requirement, as long as the arithmetic was shown.
The board agreed after review that the new plan is complete and the applicant has addressed the issues of the board. The application moved into the acceptance phase.
Chairman Osgood noted that the comments from the consulting engineer are pretty dramatic with respect to the impact of the driveway on Rt. 114.
There was a discussion about the driveway entering Rte. 114 and the sight distance.
Mr. Bennett said his family has placed restricted covenants on this land.
Chairman Osgood noted that the commercial uses would be subject to site plan review as well.
Kristin Claire said if it were going to have commercial use, she’d rather see the driveway come off of 114.
Don Armstrong said because it’s such a steep drop-off there, the state probably wouldn’t let him fill it in. The other thing to remember is just on the other side of the rock wall is the driveway for the apartments. There’s already a driveway that’s real close there.
Chairman Osgood voiced his concern for the slope of the driveway at 15%, but there’s actually a negative slope coming to the highway.
Mr. Bennett responded he can’t control how the driveway is actually constructed on a piece of land when it’s developed for a single family home. We just wanted to show the board that a driveway can easily be placed on that property.
Chairman Osgood: This driveway plan is part of the approved plan, it is a land use plan. If what you’re saying is true, then they could just basically make a beeline heading right up the hill, and we don’t want to see that. We don’t want someone to slide right down the hill onto the highway. That’s why having the proper drainage, with the proper grading, curves, and plus be at the proper slopes was important, and that’s why we asked for this plan. We want to make sure this is not creating a dangerous condition.
Kristin Claire: If we approve the driveways going in, in a certain location, then that’s where they have to go.
Chairman Osgood: There are some culvert and drainage issues addressed too.
Mr. Bennett: We agree with putting in the culverts at Todd Clark’s direction.
7: 35 p.m. Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing.
Chairman Osgood: My concern is the driveway at Flanders Road. It is an existing access that’s been there for a long time. There are existing driveways around it. Even though there’s a lot of traffic at certain times of the year, it’s not related to this lot. I think it’s dramatically less than any proposed highway engineering would ever have, so I would think a low impact use would not have an adverse affect.
Jim McElroy: As long as there could be some mitigation that could be done within reason to try to approach what Hoyle, Tanner has mentioned regarding the sight distance.
Don Armstrong stated, “But you can’t see up Flanders Road; there’s a rock wall there.
Mr. Bennett offered he would be willing to do tree work there and put up a sign with the proper town approval.
There was discussion about the shared driveway and limiting the language that -X9A and -X9B are for single family residential units, and the third lot is in a commercial zone. It was decided that a 6th condition would be added, requiring the existing restricted covenants be re- recorded on each lot.
Chairman Osgood made a MOTION to approve the plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. Address the drainage issues identified by Hoyle, Tanner and Associates (HTA) to the satisfaction of HTA;
2. Erect a cautionary driveway sign on Flanders Road for Lot 540-X9;
3. Set and display on the plan a monument on the northwestern lot line of Lot 540-X9;
4. The proposed common driveway deed will be subject to satisfactory review by Town Counsel;
5. Add a note to the plan stating that residential sprinkler systems as approved by the Town Fire Chief will be installed; and
6. Add a note to the plan stating that existing restrictive covenants currently pertaining to Lot 540-X9 will be extended to the new lots of 540-X9A and 540-X9B.
3. 7:45 p.m. Case # 2005-019: The representative for Chase Brook Settlement, which was previously approved for 20 open space residential development lots, plus one open space lot, on Map 1, Lot 583 at Flanders and Craney Hill Roads, has requested a discussion regarding Active and Substantial Development.
Mr. Kalil, representing Chase Brook, showed the approved plan and explained their phasing plan to develop the lots (shown on map) before developing the roadway lots. He asked the board to clarify the definition “active and substantial” and whether or not it requires putting in all of the erosion control and the drainage for the proposed 1100’ road or just for one house lot.
Mr. Kalil was concerned about the potential impact on their development of future changes in zoning and growth ordinances, if they did not meet the “active and substantial” definition.
Mr. Kalil stated he didn’t know the meaning of the last sentence, “plans approved in phases shall be subject to this definition for the phase currently being developed.”
Kristin Claire stated her understanding of the last sentence as it applies to Mr. Kahlil’s plan, to mean that they would have to put in drainage and roadways only for the first five lots, the first section of the phase.
Mr. Kalil stated that there is a distinction between their plan under the GMO, and a truly phased subdivision, which is what the language in the last sentence refers to.
Jim McElroy suggested that the last sentence be made more precise.
Ms. McCourt (in attendance): It does say “in accordance with the approved plans.” But I want to make sure it was clear that if his first phase of five lots is frontage lots and if he does one of those in accordance with this, then we’re all set. And if that’s on the record and future planning boards see that, then we’ll be all set. The way the phases are defined, the approved plan would still be the five lots, it would not be the entire subdivision.
Chairman Osgood: Let the minutes reflect that the “active and substantial” element of the definition can stand, but with the understanding that the phasing as driven by the GMO is referred to in here.
Discussion continued about the definition “active and substantial” requirements.
Mr. Kalil asked the board if he put in one foundation and built one house in the first 12 months, if he would then meet the “active and substantial” requirement.
Terry Stamps: With the erosion control and everything that’s on here (the plan) for those five lots.
A discussion followed about whether all the driveways for the first five lots had to be built to meet the requirement.
Jim McElroy: If you have a construction site and you’re going to work on a building, I don’t see anything in here that says if the GMO phasing plan says five lots, you have to do it for all five lots. It just says you have to start on one.
There was a discussion about the definitions of roadway and access way, and the fact that drainage work has to be done to receive driveway approval.
A discussion then followed on changing the problematic language to give Mr. Kalil a clear indication to fulfill the requirements of the definition.
Chairman Osgood was concerned that if changes were made, then essentially the board would be throwing out the whole definition and giving Mr. Kalil the same definition they would give a minor subdivision; and this is a major subdivision.
Tom Watman stated his view that Sections 1 and 2 of the definition refer to a certain number of things being done, and they refer to the development as approved in the plans. The plan included phasing it in with five lots the first time, so he reads that as meaning the builder would have to take care of the drainage, improvements, and so forth for that part of the development, the five lots.
Ms. McCourt (in attendance) responded that unless they were building something on that lot (indicating on plan) there is no drainage to put in on a frontage lot. As in any other subdivision, the planning board would not require that the driveway be put in until there was a buyer for the lot. And this is different than most subdivisions because it’s a combination of frontage lots and a shared roadway, so that’s why clarification is needed.
Chairman Osgood stated that if because of this definition the developers build that road and let it sit for five years, that would be a very bad thing. But he is not in favor of changing the wording because it isn’t meant to be an impediment or a driver for the developer, but only a protection against some unknown future issue.
Ms. McCourt (in attendance) responded that she is not asking the board to change the definition; she is asking for clarification, if the definition, as it applies to this subdivision, means that if they construct one lot the definition has been met.
There were further discussions about the phasing issue under the GMO as it relates to the definition of “active and substantial” development, and Chairman Osgood commented that this definition gives the board the ability to see what the developer’s obligations are going to be.
Mr. Kalil: Is my obligation to build a road in the first 12 months?
The board stated no.
Chairman Osgood: We’ve talked about the reasons for the phasing and what you want to do and why it makes sense. Why build and disturb an area that is not going to be finished for four or five years. It doesn’t make sense for any reason, whatsoever. You’ve got the definition. You’re going to use the definition in accordance with your phasing plan. It’s something to protect us against issues that might come up that haven’t come up with this subdivision at all.
The board agreed that the definition does not at all imply that Mr. Kalil needs to build roads to fulfill the “active and substantial” requirement.
The board discussed the necessity of the document requiring a signature.
Mr. Kalil described his view of the subdivision and his sense of the board’s treatment of the developers in this last issue and suggested the board look at the language they are using to see if it really applies.
Chairman Osgood thanked Mr. Kalil.
The discussion ended.
4. 8:20 p.m. Case # 2006-002: modification of the minor subdivision application approved on 3/8/06, by Leon Parker to adjust the lot lines between Lots 138 and 138-B on Map 1 on Liberty Hill Road.
Mr. Parker presented the modified plan to the board. He did not have the wetlands scientist’s signature. He noted that Jennifer McCourt, one of the abutters, raised the issue of erroneous placement of Emery Hill Road and Colby Hill Road and the omission of Ezekiel Smith Town Road on the vicinity plan and each of the locus plans. The boundary line (between Lot 138 and 138B), will be moved to the stonewall, adding two acres to Lot 138B. He noted the out building that is currently on that two-acre parcel will be razed.
Terry Stamps noted the fire and highway departments had reviewed the proposed modification without comment; the conservation commission had looked at the plans earlier and had commented on driveway placements to minimize the impact on wetlands.
Stephanie Alexander stated that the commission provided the memo 4/12/06, and they have no concerns in the file.
Mr. Parker asked if, since the plan is a modification of a recent approval, the process simply consists of changing a plan, and all of the other conditions that have been met previously pertain.
The board agreed.
Chairman Osgood referred to the planning consultant’s review and application updates, noting that the two conditions for approval, the well easement language and the letter from the NH Natural Heritage inventory had both been received.
Mr. Parker asked the board if the modifications made to the plan required a new application or if the plan was complete.
Stephanie Alexander stated that technically it is a modification of an approved plan, and the abutters were noticed, so the plan is complete because it has already been approved, but the public hearing still needed to be held.
The board agreed.
8:30 p.m. Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing.
Stephanie Alexander noted that Mr. Parker also needed to fulfill the condition regarding the water easement deed.
Chairman Osgood outlined the outstanding conditions: 1. The original condition No. 1,
2. Correct the locus plan, and 3. To affix soils scientist stamp.
A MOTION to approve the modification to the Application 2006-002 was made by Jim McElroy, subject to the conditions of approval:
1. Modify the well easement language as directed by Town Counsel;
2. Provide the original engineer’s, surveyor’s, and wetland scientist’s seals and signatures on the plans; and
3. Modify the road labels on the index sheet for Ezekiel Smith Road, Emery Hill Road, and Colby Hill Road.
The motion was seconded by Kristin Claire and was approved, 7-0.
5. 8:33 p.m. Case #2006-006: a minor subdivision application submitted by Bradford and Sally Tanner for a two-lot subdivision on 62.54 acres at Hemlock Corner Loop on Map 1, Lot 54C.
Brad Tanner and Dan Higginson, representing Art Siciliano’s firm, presented the subdivision plan. Mr. Tanner noted that the two subdivided lots meet the ten acre, 125’ frontage requirements. He stated he had an approved septic design for Lot 54-C.
Chairman Osgood noted the board had received the following: the subdivision application, the subdivision plan, the summary of recommendations, the response from the fire department with no comments, the response from the highway department with no comments, the narrative, and comments from the conservation commission.
Stephanie Alexander noted the conservation commission recommended a site visit due to steep slope and extensive wetlands.
Terry Stamps noted Lot 54-C is 2.18 acres and Lot 54-D, 2.53 acres with under 20%, and this meets the two-acre contiguous buildable area subdivision regulations.
The board reviewed the planning consultant’s report.
Chairman Osgood noted the septic system is shown to be 50’ from the wetlands and should be a minimum of 75’ from wetlands.
Mr. Tanner stated those wetlands are poorly drained soils, as opposed to very poorly drained soils, so the minimum distance can be 50’. He stated the septic system could be moved uphill to meet the 75’ minimum requirement. He stated the driveways for 54-C and 54-D are staked out at the existing breaks in the wall. He discussed the brook flow and its drainage.
The board agreed that the following items were needed before the application can be considered for completeness:
1. Missing details on the plan
2. Best practices on erosion control
3. Driveway permit
4. Application copies
5. A letter from the NH Natural History Heritage inventory.
Chairman Osgood noted that the road agent has looked at the driveways but has not been asked to approve the driveway locations. He noted that the brook was located for only 100’on the plan.
Mr. Tanner said the brook is a distinct channel for 100’, then branches off and becomes part of the wetland.
A site walk was scheduled with the applicant for Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 6:10 p.m. Stephanie Alexander will notify the conservation commission of the scheduled site walk.
There was a discussion about a public notice error of an incorrect address for the lots named.
The board agreed to re-notice the application and re-notice the abutters.
The board agreed not to vote on completeness.
6. 9:03 p.m. Case #2005-022: a minor subdivision application submitted by the Town of Henniker for a two-lot subdivision on 0.64 acres on 9 Crescent Street on Map 2, Lot 240.
Peter Flynn, representing the applicant, reviewed the application. He addressed the comments of the planning consultant:
· Errors under General Plat Requirements
· Selectmen’s intent is for the property to be sold as a single-family residence.
· The variance from the zoning board should have been requested and granted for a lot size of less than 20,000’ sq.
· Presently no water or sewer on the lot.
· Purchaser will be responsible for tying into town water/sewer, to be so noted on the purchase and sale.
· School impact fees of $5,518 will be assessed.
· Request for waivers for Item 202-9, items J, O and Y.
· Zoning board approval of a two-car place for cars to park. The driveway is behind the building, coming off the town owned parking lot, the right of way.
Mr. Flynn said the conditions on the deed will stipulate that the buyer has rights of access.
Chairman Osgood noted there was no requirement in the deed that the building would remain after being sold.
Mr. Flynn agreed, stating the selectmen want to sell the property; the buyer can do what he wants with it.
Mr. Flynn reviewed the summary of recommendations and discussion followed:
· Issues to Consider (pg. 5, b) the question as to who will maintain the small amount of pavement remaining on Crescent Street. The town is doing it now.
· Issue of easements.
· Dan Higginson addressed Missing Components--items are easily completed.
· Town driveway permit--Jim McElroy noted that the town does not grant driveway permits also for parking lots.
There was a discussion of the following topics:
· The historical and architectural value of the building
· Requirements for the footprint on an undersized lot
· Setback requirements if the buyer were to raze the building and rebuild.
Chairman Osgood asked why the application is asking approval for only a single family home use when zoning allows by special exceptions commercial and professional use also.
Mr. Flynn stated that is the intention of the selectmen in selling the property, but is not a condition of sale.
There was a discussion about the use of the property under zoning by special exceptions.
There was a discussion about the sewer/water lines on Crescent Street.
Chairman Osgood voiced his concern that the buyer be duly informed of the water/sewer line issues of the property.
Mr. Flynn stated the buyers will be made aware of it by disclaimers on the purchase and sale; the realtor is aware of it.
Jim McElroy stated that the water/sewer lines on Crescent Street should be shown on the plans.
Chairman Osgood suggested that a note be added that the water/sewer lines are substandard size.
Chairman Osgood made a MOTION to accept the requests for waivers of Plat Detail Item 202-9, Sections J and M, Kristin Claire seconded; the waivers were granted, 7-0.
The issue of the historical importance of the building was tabled.
Kristin Claire made a MOTION to approve the plan as complete, with conditions to include:
1. The easement for the parking access; and
2. To show sewer and utilities on the plan; and
3. To show the general plat requirements per the consultant’s report, pg. 2; and
4. To show the setbacks;
Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Gary Guzouskas noted the town warrant article for this particular piece indicates that “the municipal lot parcel under such terms and conditions as the Board of Selectmen deem to be in the best interest of the town,” was voted on and approved by the whole town at town meeting. He asked what influence that has on the planning board making a different decision.
Mr. Flynn said it’s the selectmen’s call. He would argue against it.
There was a discussion about the following topics:
· The historical importance and structural integrity of the building
· Developing uniform standards to determine historical importance for property, buildings, etc.
· No town debate or requests from citizens for selectmen to save the building for its historical importance
Chairman Osgood opened the discussion to the public
Jennifer McCourt: According to state law, if the municipal sewer is within 300’ of a property, they do have to connect into it; the water, they don’t.
Chairman Osgood: What if the sewer line is substandard?
Jennifer McCourt: Then they have to upgrade it and put in a sewer main. If that main is going to service more than the single-family house, then it has to be brought up to current standards. That’s state law. It has to be an eight-inch main. Mr. Flynn responded that was for public utilities, but this is not a public utility.
Jennifer McCourt: But what I’m saying is if that line is now going to carry both the duplex and this property then it is a public main because it’s two separate properties.
Mr. Flynn: If it chokes up that line they are going to have to predetermine whatever is going in there. I think the sewer commission, the selectmen, and the superintendent would have to make a decision. That’s a separate issue.
Jennifer McCourt: One other issue is about that piece of pavement, as little as that piece of pavement is, to make it cleaner to be able to sell it, either get rid of it or put an easement on it. Either have it on that property or not on that property. It’s a bone of contention that could come up not now but in the future.
Public comments closed.
Jim McElroy asked how impact fees would be managed on this piece of property, given how zoning works in our town; it could be a residence, a two-family residence, a multi-family residence, a business. Impact fees don’t quite map onto that flexibility.
Chairman Osgood commented that impact fees are assessed based on what the board thinks the use is for. When they apply for a building permit if that permit doesn’t match what the board approved it for, then the impact fee doesn’t apply and it has to be changed.
The board assessed the school impact fees of $5,518 for a single-family dwelling, to be collected upon the issuance of building permits.
Gary Guzouskas made a MOTION to approve the application with the conditions to include:
1. Provide easement language regarding the rights of access to Lot 240-A by the Town which is satisfactory to Town Counsel review;
2. Display the existing water and sewer lines in the Crescent Street area on the plan, and add a note to the plan stating that they may be substandard and may require upgrading at the expense of the property owner;
3. Display the setbacks on the plan; and
4. Correct plat details such as “hazard” and “class” and “subdivision” misspellings, and adding New England College land displaying the geographic relationship to the driveway access.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
7. 9:58 p.m. Approval of the Building Permit Annual Limitation per Article XXIX, Section 133-146.
Chairman Osgood stated the board has a memo based on the public hearing of 4/12/06 which
Kristin Claire asked if the board had determined how long the board was holding those seven permits aside, the 25% for the single lots. 25% of 27 available permits will be reserved for owners of single lots that were required for two-lot subdivisions.
The board agreed that the 25% were set aside until Dec. 1st.
There was a discussion about surplus permits.
Jim McElroy made a MOTION to approve the Building Permit Limitation for 2006 as 37; Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood outlined the issues:
Stephanie Alexander outlined her duties, functions, and special projects. She stated that she had worked 65 hours in March alone and needs to reduce her number of hours. Various options to reduce her work hours were considered.
Town administrative staff’s planning board duties were discussed.
Jim McElroy suggested that her participation in the planning board meetings should not be cut from her duties.
There was a discussion by the board.
It was decided that she will cut back 1 ½ hours a week on Weds.- 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Appointment blocks would be set in twenty-minute blocks between 9:00 and 11:40.
It was suggested that notice of Stephanie’s new hours should be noted in the Outlook and on the town website.
Stephanie Alexander reported that there have been no zoning board applications so far this year. She reviewed the agenda for the April 19 work session.
Chairman Osgood reported on a Central NH Planning Regional Commission Transportation Advisory Committee meeting he attended. Jim McElroy reported he is a volunteer on the executive committee of the CNHRPC and that there was an additional position available for Henniker representation.
There was a discussion about other hearings on roads and regional planning, future yearly meetings with Bradford, Warner groups, Hillsboro and Weare.
Zoning ordinances will be discussed in future.
There was a MOTION to adjourn by Jim McElroy at 10:58 p.m.; Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and all APPROVED.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Anderson
Henniker Planning Board
Henniker Town Hall
March 22, 2006, 7:00p.m.
Approved
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Vice Chairman Kristin Claire, Jim McElroy, Don Armstrong and Kellie Dyjak
Others Present: Planning Consultant Stephanie Alexander, Julie Morris (recording secretary)
Chairman Osgood called the work session to order at 7:03 p.m.
Minutes from the March 8th meeting were reviewed and changes were moved to be accepted as amended. Jim McElroy made the motion and Kristin Claire seconded, it was approved 5-0.
Review of GMO’s Annual Building Permit Limitation and Rationale:
There was a discussion regarding the Growth Management Ordinances and how many building permits will be allowed for this year. The total number will be 37 with 10 of those being left over from last year and rolled into the 27 approved for this year.
Draft Active and Substantial Development Definition for Subdivisions Approved 7/27/01 to 7/27/05:
The members discussed the definition as it reads and decided not to make any changes to it.
List of Potential Subdivision Regulation Changes:
The list of potential changes are as follows:
- Stonewall protection in section 202 7D
- Condo definition to match zoning and site plan
- State what is a completed application in section 202-8
- Road Standards (from Roads Policy Committee)
- Require that final paper 11x17’s be provided (now it is just 22x34 and mylars)
- Revise conceptual consultation to match application
- Active and substantial development (using our new definition)
- Add new definition to page 15 of Subdivision Rights
- Add design review as Article 4
- Add 50 foot wetland buffer to checklist and build-able area in section 202 7B2
List of Potential Site Plan Regulation Changes:
- Revise conceptual consultation to match application
- Active and substantial development-add same language as 202-7D
- Add stonewall protection, same as 202-7D
List of Potential Zoning Changes for 2007:
- Add 50 foot wetlands buffer under wetlands conservation
Develop Job Advertisement for Minute-Taking Secretary:
This item was tabled by Chairman Osgood.
Correspondence:
Of the correspondence received was:
1. The current budget and it looks like the Planning Board is right on target with expenses.
2. Selectmen’s Meeting Information
3. Government Center Workshop information for local officials to attend basic and advanced workshops.
Digital Tax Mapping Report on Findings:
Chairman Osgood stated that he received information from three different companies and the Board will research further those services. It was mentioned that possibly New England College could assist in the set-up and training of this program. Kellie will present it to NEC once more information is gathered by the Board.
Consultant’s Report:
Stephanie mentioned that the April 12 meeting is filling up. Items on the agenda are:
1. Chase-Brook active and substantial development question
2. Leon Parker is coming back for an appeal for modification
Also mentioned:
Bennett Brown is returning and will be revising his plans for next Weds.
St. Theresa’s Church has a minor subdivision.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Chairman Osgood seconded the motion and all approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Morris
Approved
Minutes of a Regular Meeting held
March 8, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Henniker Town Hall
Members Present: Chairman Scott Osgood, Vice Chairman Kristin Claire, Gail Abramowicz, Jim McElroy, Terry Stamps, Cordell Johnston (selectman ex officio), Don Armstrong (alternate) (arrived 7:03).
Others Present: Planning Consultant Stephanie Alexander, Kellie Dyjak, Art Siciliano, Leon Parker, Tony Lamarine, Tom True, William Goss, Don and Margaret Glover, Dennis McComish, Scott Dias, Jacques Belanger, Lawrence White, Don Goss.
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He MOVED to table discussion of the minutes of February 22, 2006. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0.
Alternate member Don Armstrong arrived at 7:03 p.m. In the absence of a regular member, he was designated a voting member of the board.
Case # 2005-031: minor subdivision application submitted by Donald and Margaret Glover for a three-lot subdivision on Map 2, Lot 399 on Western Avenue.
This was a continuation of an application previously presented to the board, but not yet accepted as complete. Art Siciliano, representing the applicants, presented a revised plan to the board.
There was a discussion of the locations of proposed utility lines, which were not shown on the plan. Mr. Siciliano stated that all utilities would run up the driveways. The board discussed the possibility of requiring that utility lines be buried. It was agreed that this would be left to the applicant. Mr. Siciliano stated that the plan showed the locations for proposed driveways, but that driveway permits had not yet been applied for.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 7-0.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Chairman Osgood closed the public hearing.
Chairman Osgood stated that the development would be subject to school impact fees of $5,518 per residential unit, to be assessed upon approval and collected upon the issuance of building permits.
Stephanie Alexander mentioned that the fire chief had no comments on the plan.
There was a discussion of the definition of “active and substantial development” for purposes of this plan and RSA 674:39. The board agreed that “active and substantial development” would be defined for the project as:
1. Construction of and/or installation of at least one building foundation wall/footing; and
2. All erosion control measures (as specified on the approved plans) must be in place and maintained on the site; and
3. Items 1 and 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Department or designated agent.
Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant would add a note to the plan stating that best management practices for erosion control during construction will be utilized; and
2. The applicant would add the missing plat details of: address, seal, and signature of the wetlands scientist per 202-9C and three certifications per 202-9U.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 7-0.
Case # 2005-032: minor subdivision application submitted by Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown for a three-lot subdivision on Map 1, Lot 540-X9 on Route 114 and Flanders Road.
Art Siciliano presented a subdivision plan on behalf of the applicant. He noted the requirement in the subdivision regulations that new lots have at least two contiguous acres of buildable land with a slope of less than 20%, and stated that the lots in this plan could not satisfy that requirement. He therefore requested a waiver of the 20% limitation. He stated that the State of New Hampshire allows slopes up to 33% for septic approval, and that many towns define slopes up to 25% as buildable.
Chairman Osgood noted that the Conservation Commission had recommended that the board not approve the application.
Kristin Claire said she was concerned about granting the waiver, because the lot was buildable without being subdivided. Therefore, there was no undue hardship, and granting a waiver would be contrary to the intent of the regulations.
Chairman Osgood said he was concerned about other issues in addition to the slopes—in particular, the proximity of the northernmost lot to the intersection of Flanders Road and Route 114.
Cordell Johnston noted that Mr. Siciliano had not presented any reason for granting a waiver other than the belief that the 20% slope limitation is too strict. Thus, if the board granted the waiver for this application, it would be acknowledging that the rule is too strict, and probably would be compelled to grant a similar waiver for other applications.
Jim McElroy MOVED to deny the request for a waiver of the 20% slope limitation. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0, with Gail Abramowicz abstaining.
Art Siciliano requested a waiver of the two-acre contiguous buildable area requirement.
Jim McElroy then MOVED to waive the requirement that the two acres of buildable land be contiguous. Gail Abramowicz seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-3, with Jim McElroy, Gail Abramowicz, Cordell Johnston, and Don Armstrong voting in favor and Chairman Osgood, Kristin Claire, and Terry Stamps voting against.
Mr. Siciliano said he would change the lot lines to allow two buildable acres on each lot.
Chairman Osgood said he would like to get input from the town engineers regarding the impact of a driveway for Lot 540-X9 so close to the Flanders Road-Rout 114 intersection.
The board discussed the need for a high-intensity soils report from a certified soil scientist, and concluded such a report was not necessary.
It was agreed that the following items were needed before the application can be accepted:
--notarized authorization for Mr. Siciliano to represent the applicants;
--driveway plan;
--delineation of 25-foot setbacks around smaller wetlands and 50-foot setbacks around large wetland;
--response to issues raised by fire chief;
--address, seal, and signature of wetlands scientist;
--depiction of stream at boundary of lots 540-X9 and 540-X9A;
--three missing certifications.
Mr. Siciliano said he would prepare a revised plan including the items indicated. It was agreed that the application would be continued until the board’s regular meeting on April 12.
Case #2006-001: site plan application submitted by Donald Goss, Jr., on behalf of Goss Lumber Company for the construction of a 7,000-square foot sawmill building at 45 Flanders Road.
Donald Goss presented the application. He explained that the sawmill operation is currently on Bennett Road, and sawed lumber is trucked from the sawmill to the lumber company site. With the change, they will be trucking logs directly to the site and sawing them there.
He stated that there will be no exterior lighting. The board concluded that no additional parking or designation of parking spaces was required.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to accept the application as complete. Don Armstrong seconded the motion. After further discussion about the existing facility and the site plan, the motion was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood noted that the fire chief had stated he had no comments on the application.
Kristin Claire asked about noise from the sawmill. Mr. Goss said he did not think the sawmill would be any louder than the existing planer on the site, and having it inside should minimize the noise. He noted that HHP and Patenaude Lumber both have outside sawmills.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing.
Dennis McComish spoke in favor of the application.
Chairman Osgood read a letter from abutter Mary Schumm, supporting the application.
There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Osgood MOVED to approve the application, subject to the addition of a note to the plan that the building would be insulated to inhibit noise. Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Case #2006-002: minor subdivision application submitted by Leon Parker for a three-lot subdivision at 49 Liberty Hill Road on Map 1, Lot 138.
The applicant, with Tom True from True Engineering, presented the application. The board discussed issues previously identified by the planning consultant. It was agreed that all issues had been addressed.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to accept the application as complete. Don Armstrong seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Osgood stated that there was a letter from the fire chief indicating inadequate water supply for water protection. Mr. Parker pointed out that there was a note on the plan indicating that all proposed homes will have residential sprinkler systems.
The board noted that school impact fees in the amount of $5,518 per unit will be assessed at the time of approval, to be collected upon the issuance of building permits.
Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. Language for the well easement will be submitted, and will be subject to review and approval by the town’s legal counsel.
2. A letter from the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory will be submitted, identifying rare plants, animals, and communities in and near the subdivision.
Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0. The board agreed that “active and substantial development” for purposes of this plan and RSA 674:39 would mean:
1. Construction of and/or installation of at least one building foundation wall/footing; and
2. All erosion control measures (as specified on the approved plans) must be in place and maintained on the site; and
3. Items 1 and 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Department or designated agent.
Case #2006-003: site plan application submitted by D&J Storage for the construction of a 6,000-square foot metal boat storage building at Bradford Road/Route 114 on Map 1, Lot 102-A1.
Tony Lamarine presented the application on behalf of D&J Storage. He explained that there is an existing 4,000-square foot storage building on the site, and approval for an additional 4,000-square foot building had been granted in 1999, but the second building was never built.
Mr. Lamarine addressed the comments that had been raised by the planning consultant. He presented a building façade plan and a photograph of a similar building. He stated that the building would not have individual bays—just one large storage area.
Mr. Lamarine further explained that the plan allows for 12 parking spaces, as required under the zoning ordinance, even though the nature of the business renders parking requirements meaningless. He stated that there would be no solid waste receptacles. Exterior lights will be placed only on the north and west walls, and will be activated automatically at dark. They will be “tip-down” lights. He stated that best management practices will be used for erosion control during construction.
Jim McElroy MOVED to accept the application as complete. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Chairman Osgood opened the public hearing.
Dennis McComish stated that he would like the applicant to take steps to minimize the lighting impact, and he was satisfied from the presentation that this was being done.
There was no further public comment.
Gail Abramowicz MOVED to approve the application. Jim McElroy seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Case #2006-004: voluntary merger application submitted by Julia Khorana on behalf of the Esther E. Khorana Trust and the H. Gobind Family Realty Trust on 2 Tower Road for the merger of Map 1, Lots 654-MM and 654-Y.
Jim McElroy MOVED to approve the voluntary merger application. Kristin Claire seconded the motion, and it was approved, 7-0.
Case #2006-005: conceptual consultation for possible 2-lot subdivision by Cathy Dias on Map 1, Lot 651 on Craney Hill Road.
Scott Dias and Jacques Belanger presented a conceptual design for a 2-lot subdivision on behalf of Cathy Dias. The existing lot is 13.64 acres; the subdivided lots would be approximately 7.10 and 6.54 acres. They stated that there may be an issue of buildable area on one of the lots as currently proposed, but this could be accommodated by moving the proposed lot line if necessary.
No other significant issues were identified.
Other Business.
The planning consultant reviewed the agenda for the March 22 work session.
The board discussed a pending lawsuit.
Jim McElroy MOVED to adjourn. Gail Abramowicz seconded the motion; the motion was approved, 7-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cordell Johnston
Acting recording secretary
Henniker Planning Board
February 22, 2006
Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Kristin Claire – Vice Chair, Don Armstrong, Gail Abramowicz, James McElroy, Cordell Johnston – Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant, Lisa Demers – Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: Dennis Hamel
Scott Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
Dennis Hamel - expressed his concerns regarding a proposed amendment that will be on the ballot.
7:23 p.m. Item 1 – Review of the planning board meeting minutes of February 8, 2006.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to approve the minutes of February 8, 2006 as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and approved unanimously.
9:00 p.m. Item 2 – Review of the site walk minutes of February 10, 2006.
Motion: Cordell Johnston moved to approve the minutes of the Bennett walk through as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Motion: Jim McElroy moved to approve the minutes of the Glover walk through as edited. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
9:05 p.m. Item 3 – Define active and substantial development.
a. Case #2005-019, Chase Brook Settlement
Motion: Cordell Johnston moved to propose the definition of active and substantial development for Chase Brook. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
b. Case #2005-031, Glover Subdivision
c. Case #2005-032, Bennett/Bennett-Brown Subdivision
Motion: Cordell Johnston moved to propose the changes as discussed and edited to the active and substantial development definition. Approved by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
9:20 p.m. Item 4 – Gravel Excavation
a. Potential application forthcoming.
b. Review of process, regulations, and fees.
There was a general discuss with no action taken.
9: 45 p.m. Item 5 – NH DOT Dredge and Fill Permit
For information purposes only.
9:46 p.m. Item 6 – January 18, 2006 Zoning Board Agenda – Stephanie Alexander
Discussed and reviewed.
9:48 p.m. Item 8 – Digital Tax Mapping Report on Findings.
Nothing new to report.
9:50 p.m. Item 9 – Consultant’s Report – Stephanie Alexander
Discussed the agenda for the March 8, 2006 planning board meeting.
Scott Osgood adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
TOWN OF HENNIKER
PLANNING BOARD
Site walk
Subdivision for Stephen E. Bennett & Judy Bennett Brown
West Side of Route 114 and South Side of Flanders Road
Application # 2005-032 Tax Lot 540-X9
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps, Board member, Don Armstrong, alternate Board member, Bob Stamps, member conservation commission, Denise Rico, member conservation commission, Art Siciliano, Registered Land Surveyor and owner’s agent
Guests Present:
None
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 11:45
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a walk to view the site of the proposed 3 lot Subdivision application along Route 114
The attendees parked and met at the Pancake House parking lot across Flanders road from the northern tip of the lot.
The weather was clear and cold, with a frozen 6 “snow cover.
The group walked on to the property along the existing pathway. The lot is narrow at the beginning, bordered by a stone wall and open field to the west and Route 114 to the east. It was noted this is a relatively long lot, with some severe slopes and gullys within it.
The vegetation was fairly densely wooded, mostly hardwood.
The group walked south to the beginning of the slope to the indicated northerly wetland.
The group then decided to access the site from 114 at the location of the proposed new property line. All members retuned to their cars, Bob and Terry Stamps left the site walk.
Remaining attendees and Mr. Siciliano drove to the pathway which is located at the proposed property line. The group walked into the site, following the path into the southern most lot.
This area is heavily vegetated, with large trees, a mix of soft and hardwood. Slopes exceeding 25% were prevalent. The land along the upper, westerly property line shows a flatter slope.
The location of the 2 acre buildable was noted for the south lot
Discussion was held as to the requested variance from the 20 % slope requirement. Mr. Siciliano has prepared a plan showing the locations of the various slope conditions of the land. This plan was viewed and discussed.
The wetland and steep slope on the site were viewed and discussed.
Wetland buffers were discussed. It was noted Henniker regulations do not require Wetland buffers.
The group walked back to Route 144. The meeting adjourned at 12:30.
Respectfully submitted
Scott Osgood
TOWN OF HENNIKER
February 10, 2006
Site walk
Subdivision for Donald and Margaret Glover
North side of Western Ave and West side of the Oaks
Application # 2005-031 Map 2 Lot 399
Members Present:
Scott Osgood, Chairman; Terry Stamps, Board member, Don Armstrong, alternate Board member, Bob Stamps, member conservation commission, Denise Rico, member conservation commission, Art Siciliano, Registered Land Surveyor and owners agent
Guests Present:
None
Chairman Osgood called the meeting to order at 11:00 am.
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a walk to view the site of the proposed 3 lot Subdivision application along Western Ave.
The attendees parked and met at the Southwest corner of the lot. The plan was reviewed and relative locations of the west property line viewed.
The weather was clear and cold, with a frozen 6 “snow cover.
The location of the wetlands was viewed from the parking area.
The group then walked the property line along Western Ave, heading east to the location of the easterly proposed property line. The relative location of the new middle property line was noted and viewed.
The South property line was seen to be bounded by a sidewalk and granite curb. An actual curb cut and sidewalk modification will be necessary for a new driveway on to this lot.
The group then entered the property along the easterly property line. This line follows an existing stone wall. Art stated this wall would stay with the easterly most lot, the one containing the house.
The lot line then makes an angle, to the north east, passing through an opening in the stone wall, and ending at the property at the Colby Hill Inn.
The wall portion left on the idle lot, is composed of large granite stone, and looks to be a part of an old foundation. Discussion was held regarding this wall. Hope was expressed that the new owners would not remove this wall. It was noted this land has some Historical significance, in that the first barn in Henniker is said to have been built on it.
The rest of the middle lot was seen to be dry, gently sloping to the east, with some tall trees and light brush cover along the North.
The easterly lot contained all the existing buildings. The lot line location looked to supply the required setbacks.
The walk continued into the easterly lot. A large portion of this lot is open. with good south western exposure, and an open, sunny view. It was noted that when foliage is present, the Police Station would not be visible. Noise from 202/9 was evident.
The wetlands were seen along the east side. The vegetation was mostly open, with tall, but thin cover on the north, and some briars scattered throughout.
The walk continued south, back to the road.
The site walk ended at 11:40.
Respectfully submitted
D Scott Osgood
Town of Henniker
February 8, 2006
Town Hall
Town of Henniker
Planning Board
February 8, 2006
Town Hall
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Terry Stamps, Don Armstrong, Gail Abramowicz – Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant.
Guests Present: Paul Apple – Upton & Hatfield, Spencer Bennett
Linda McGuire, Donald & Margaret Glover, Jennifer McCourt, Paul McInnis, Earl Kalil, Doug Dimes, Arthur Siciliano, Jim Berger, Kellie Dyjak, John & Bette Sargent, Sally & Brad Tanner, Cathy Mann, Nancy Foley, Richard St. George, Robert Reynolds.
Scott Osgood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Scott Osgood stated the meeting would be taped solely for the purpose of having the minutes recorded since there was no secretary available to take notes. He also stated that once the tapes were transcribed they would be destroyed.
7:12 p.m. Scott Osgood moved, seconded by Terry Stamps, to go into a non-public meeting.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to seal the meeting minutes of the non-public session. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
7:20 p.m. Returned to public session.
Item 1 – Review of the minutes from the February 1, 2006 Zoning Amendment Meeting.
This item has been tabled till the end of the meeting.
Item 2 – Case #2004-018 Applicant update on the approved major subdivision on Mount Hunger Road on Map 1, Lot 723 in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Paul Apple, from Upton & Hatfield, introduced himself to the board on behalf of Spencer Bennett. Mr. Apple stated the development had been approved with conditions and he was here this evening to submit that the following conditions that have been met;
Soil Scientist Stamp, Incorporate Hoyle-Tanner Road specifications, Input from the Road Agent, and Road easement deeds. Mr. Apple stated all these conditions have been met and the Mylar is now before you for signature. He requested that the Mylar be signed by the board, so that it can be recorded so that the improvements of the road can be undertaken and the subdivision plan become effective.
Scott Osgood – How do you see the process of this going through? You did mention you would undertake rebuilding of the road. As you are probably aware, the planning board does not have the authority to let you go out and rebuild the road, so I would ask what your expectation of future steps would be under that set of conditions.
Paul Apple – I understand the planning board is without jurisdiction to mandate both the timing and the undertaking of these improvements. We have a permit from the selectmen’s office that was issued. It was signed and approved by all the administrative agencies; the police and what not. I’m not unaware of the board of selectmen’s most recent meeting about these improvements and understand that’s an issue, but believe that’s a selectmen’s issue. At this point, the selectmen have issued a trench permit. I understand that there are a number of issues raised by that, but again, I don’t believe they are planning board issues. I think the conditions that were imposed on the applicant have been met and as a result, the process should begin with your signature of the Mylar so that it can be recorded.
Gail Abramowicz – The trench permit has been issued, but it’s for the driveway, I understand that’s the safe site you needed that’s why you plan to straighten out the road. If the selectmen prohibit the straightening of the road, what is your recourse for that lot?
Paul Apple – The driveway permit has been issued for that lot.
Gail Abramowicz – It’s issued, but not approved.
Paul Apple – No, it’s my understanding that it has been approved and it’s not an issue at this point.
Scott Osgood – Without the road being undertaken, it fails the basis of approval from the planning board.
Paul Apple – One, that assumes the road work would not be undertaken. I think that is not a correct assumption. Two, the conditions that you have imposed on the applicant were quit specific and I think I read them fairly accurately and each of those conditions have been met. Again, I think this is a function of the selectmen. If the selectmen prohibit it then we have a more interesting case, but as far as signing the Mylar, I think that’s something you should do because the conditions you imposed on this applicant as a requirement for an approval, which you granted that approval, those have been met. So, there would be no proper reason for withholding your signature at this point. If an issue comes up about the driveways, why then, we’ll have to take that as it comes.
Scott Osgood – I feel that is one step in the process that is incomplete. That this process is out of our control and that we don’t have the authority to approve the road re-alignment plan. The condition of the approval was to incorporate the plan and all the rights and approvals you need to do that. It’s not complete in that regard.
Paul Apple – It would be our position that in fact because we have the trench permit; that in fact it is complete and that we are now prepared to go forward and that there is no legal impediment for us to go forward with those road improvements.
Scott Osgood – I don’t think it’s our understanding that the road and the plans have been approved by the selectmen.
Paul Apple – Well, that was not a condition imposed on the applicant by this board.
Scott Osgood – We don’t have to impose it.
Gail Abramowicz – One of our regulations state for the plan being it’s a proposed driveway permit, I think that’s all we need to stand by is the proposed driveway and because it was a proposal location for the driveway that’s hinging on the straightening of the road to make it safe, I think the next step is for them to make it safe, but they’ve met our requirements to show a proposed driveway. I think our job is done and the problem is then on the selectmen. The applicant has sufficiently shown what he needs on the plan.
Scott Osgood – My concern is that it’s already a bit of a mess and we don’t want to make it an even bigger mess. Maybe our approval was premature knowing that we don’t have the authority to approve roadwork and we thought by getting the requirements would cover that. I guess it didn’t cover it.
Paul Apple – I would suggest the argument of prematurely of the approval is a bit like the horse is out of the barn. The approval vested my client with certain rights and we are beyond the point were that issue is necessarily before us. If it’s a political process, we should leave that to the selectmen. At this point, the planning process should go forward in its usual course. Once the conditions have been met, your signatures should be forth coming on the Mylar so it can be recorded.
Don Armstrong – The trench permit states you want to do test pits and that’s the end of it.
Paul Apple – The next page is more specific. It goes over Phase I and Phase II. That’s what they signed off on.
Don Armstrong – But, it states here in preparation of work needed. It doesn’t say to do the work.
Paul Apple – I think at this point we have done everything you’ve asked us to do.
Scott Osgood – This trench permit is a very weak document. It mentions the town engineer; it doesn’t even mention the specific Hoyle-Tanner plans anywhere. It also doesn’t have any selectmen’s signatures on it. If this document is what you say it is, it would have that information on it. It would have the selectmen’s signature on it and it would have the plans in question on it too. If that was on this we would have a much different situation, but it doesn’t have it.
Gail Abramowicz – If this is a standard form that is issued from the selectmen’s office and never has the selectmen’s signatures on it, and then I don’t think we can require this applicant to have that.
Paul Apple – If the form has the town administrator’s signature on it and as agent for the selectmen, he can bind the selectmen and bind the town.
Scott Osgood – I don’t think so.
Paul Apple – It has all the necessary signatures. You are not going to find a selectmen’s signature on the average permit for something like this.
Terry Stamps – I understand what you’re saying, but if you look at what this trench permit means, I would be hard-pressed that the selectmen felt this constituted approval of the road; given the fact that at their December 2005 meeting they didn’t act on it.
Paul Apple – If I accept your argument as true; I’m not sure it gets us over the hump in terms of what needs to happen. The first point is your position places my client in a catch-22. He can’t get you to sign his subdivision plan, though he has an approved plan, and he can’t get the selectmen to approve his road improvements which are a condition, so that cannot be the intent of this board given it’s obligation to assist citizens as they move forward with the development of his land. More importantly, what the selectmen meant was, again, something a bit broader than what you are here in charge to do. Unfortunately, there might be some ambiguity from their office, but what’s before you are the specific conditions that you imposed upon my client as a condition. As a matter of law, the confusion is really the burden of the selectmen at this point. I think you should sign the plan. If the selectmen have a problem with the plan you could do one of three things. They could withdraw the permit, which they have not seemed fit to do. They could vote affirmatively to prohibit the action. They could vote affirmatively to permit the action. If the improvements begin they could certainly, by their police authority, say stop. This would be an administrative decision.
Gail Abramowicz – We need to act on what’s in front of us and what we have and then have the selectmen act on what they can do or what they need to do.
Scott Osgood – I think the board needs to decide whether it’s prudent to sign it or not. I don’t understand what you gain by having a Mylar approved and then work that’s not approved. I don’t know what you gain by having our signature except that you now have a plan that you can’t build, but you can register and you can get it recorded, but you can’t build it. To me, that’s going to create bigger problems down the road. If the document is specific to these plans and with the approval by the people who have the authority then there is nothing more to talk about, in my opinion.
Paul Apple – Very rarely does a developer undertake substantial improvements without the consummation of planning board approval. Without that no developer would take the risk of undertaking work without an approved and signed plan. We have satisfied the conditions and request your signatures so we can move forward.
Motion: Gail Abramowicz moved to accept that the applicant has met the conditions and the planning board should sign the plans, but with the understanding that the trench permit does not entitle the applicant to alter the road without clear board of selectmen approval. Seconded by Scott Osgood. Gail Abramowicz agreed with the remaining board members opposed.
Motion failed.
Item 3 – Case #2005-019 A major subdivision application has been submitted by Chase Brook Realty Trust for 20 open space residential development lots, plus one open space lot, on Map 1, Lot 583 at Flanders and Craney Hill Roads in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
Jennifer McCourt – McCourt Engineering Associates, introduced herself as representing Chase Brook Settlement. The gifting of the 61 acres will be put on the town warrant in March. In that warrant article it will state there will be a conservation easement put on the land that would be managed by an outside entity. Ms. McCourt read #1 under Roadway/Geometry on page two of the general review comments. She stated since this was going to be a privately roadway, they did not change any aspect of the curves. She felt this would keep people who do not live in the community from driving up there and keep the members of the community from speeding through the development.
#2. There would be no speed limit signs posted within the development. Since it’s a private road there is no need to.
Scott Osgood – Don’t you think it would be a good idea to post the speed limit?
Jennifer McCourt – No. If a neighbor has an issue with someone speed through the development they are apt to approach that person with their concerns.
Scott Osgood – So, does that mean there is no enforceable speed limit on that road since its private?
Jennifer McCourt – Correct.
Scott Osgood – Just for the sake of enforceability, I think it’s worth thinking about. The neighbors don’t want to be responsible for patrolling their neighbors or anyone else that might drive through there.
Gail Abramowicz – Because it’s not enforceable, I don’t know if they’re bound to put a speed limit sign up, but they could put a go slow sign up.
Jennifer McCourt - #3 Ms. McCourt stated since Hoyle-Tanner (HTA) recommends increasing the turning radii, we obliged by increasing it to 40’.
#4. Ms. McCourt stated HTA recommended using a darker line-type to show each culvert.
#5. Ms. McCourt, pointing to her plans, showed the board where the sight distances at the proposed driveways have been determined.
#6. Ms. McCourt, pointing to her plans, shows the board how she went out an additional 5’ from Flanders Road then went up a 3% divide. It does two things. It gives you a place to stop and it also makes it so any water coming down from this road will be able to go into the ditch line instead of coming out onto Flanders Road.
#7. Ms. McCourt, pointing to her plans, showed the board where the culverts are suppose to be.
#8 & #9 Ms. McCourt stated they have decided to go above ground with the utilities instead of below ground because of the cost factor.
#10 Ms. McCourt stated HTA recommended rewording the first sentence of Construction Sequence Note #7 is amended to read: “Commence construction of roadway as specified in the most RECENT edition of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”. I did not put it in that way. I put in instead “it has to be in conformance with a 2005 Henniker Subdivision Regulation”. The reason being is town subdivision regulations aren’t strictly DOT standards and there are some variations from it, but also your subdivision regulations does reference those specifications plus a whole bunch of other ones.
#11 Ms. McCourt stated the 20’ wide driveway has been changed to a 16’ wide common driveway.
#12 Ms. McCourt stated she added Sta. 4-50 – right to the cross-sections.
#13 Ms. McCourt explained why she would not use the jute mat and instead would use riprap.
#14 Ms. McCourt stated the size and condition was verified and there was no change required.
#15 Ms. McCourt stated she did not foresee having to install under drains.
#16 Ms. McCourt stated they are not 4,000 SF septic areas. They are 4,000 SF reseeding areas.
#17 Ms. McCourt stated they are not using any of those, so they are not putting them on the plan.
#18 Ms. McCourt stated she handed the traffic study to Stephanie Alexander earlier in the meeting.
#19 No further comment was regarded for lot sizes.
Terry Stamps – Above ground versus below ground utilities…About how many poles would you guess there would be?
Jennifer McCourt – They go approximately every 200’. Four or five poles, I guess.
Don Armstrong – Regarding the septic systems…All the wells that protect the radius is going to stay within the boundaries of the property. They are not going to overlap, right?
Jennifer McCourt – Correct.
Terry Stamps – Could you walk us through the buffer and the distance from the buffer?
Jennifer McCourt – Pointing to her plans – Basically along Flanders Road and Craney Hill Road in the exterior line there will be a 50’ buffer no cut zone except for the private road and the common driveways. We’ve moved all the driveways to be common driveways instead of having individual ones off the existing roads. All of them have the 50’ buffer, the 50’ no cut zone.
Don Armstrong – Will this be restricted within the deed stating you cannot cut the first 50’.
Jennifer McCourt – Yes, I believe that’s what Earl Kalil submitted.
Jennifer McCourt – Pointed out the letter she handed to the board from the Fire Department stating they are all set with the 20’ private road and using sprinkler systems in each home.
Scott Osgood – Where do you make that a condition of the sale of the property?
Earl Kalil – We’ll put it where ever you want.
Scott Osgood – Put it on the plans.
Jennifer McCourt – We’ll put it on one of the plans that’s getting recorded.
Scott Osgood opened the floor to the public for general discussion.
Cathy Mann – My property is across one of the properties that has a shared driveway. I have to say, overall, I am for this plan. I like the open space concept. I walk the land all the time and I’m glad it’s not going to be all divided up. I do have a concern regarding traffic. It’s very narrow and has a very sharp curve. Also, the speed limit of 35 mph, in my opinion, is very high for that road and you may want to look into it especially since there are more houses going in there. Lighting….What are your plans for lights?
Nancy Foley – I live on Craney Hill Road. I have a concern about the increased traffic on Craney Hill Road; logging trucks, increased traffic for Pat’s Peak, apple picking, school buses. I do approve the open space idea.
Jennifer McCourt – There are other houses across the street now from them. (Referring to the school bus stopping) If the bus is stopping there now, it’s going to stop there when the new development is in.
John Sargent – I live across the middle driveway on Craney Hill Road. I guess it’s inevitable that someone is going to build over there. I don’t see five acres on this. So, I don’t understand why we are even entertaining this idea. If they want to exit into a private development down there, I don’t think that’s wrong if they want to run their driveways down the private road, but if you’re going to go onto to Craney Hill Road they should have 5 acres. Why should we approve this?
Scott Osgood – We could answer that by saying the zoning regulations do allow alternative forms of development. One of the major components of it is if the land owner or developer is offering something to the town; which the town feels is invaluable in return.
John Sargent – One the private end that’s called bribery.
Scott Osgood – It’s in our regulations for us to consider. We don’t have to accept it. There are limits to how much they can do. Established by how much land they have and how much they could develop.
John Sargent – There looks like there is enough land behind here (pointing) to make it 5 acres.
Scott Osgood – This is an alternative. It allows the developer to put the homes on smaller lots in return for some benefit. This developer came to us with something very close to this plan and it was looked at by the Conservation Commission and some of the abutters, who did attend a site walk and conceptual consultation. With that and the boards open space regulations, the board hasn’t seen any reason to deny this. The application has come to us as complete and now we are looking at it and are now in the acceptance phase. We are in the public session and need to hear and need to know if it’s a bad idea and need to know if it’s something we shouldn’t accept. There are benefits there (the land/trails.)
Don Armstrong – Just so you understand, at the beginning they give us two sets of plans as a requirement. In their conventional plans, they were going to put in 17 duplexes, each one of them 125’ apart.
Scott Osgood – We are trying to encourage some type of creative land use that protects things that we find valuable. (We the town, not the board.)
Bette Sargent – We don’t even know if the town is going to accept this land the developer is willing to give us. So, if we issue this before the town gets to vote on it would seem against what we plan. Plus, the town would be liable for this land unless this will be run by outsiders. Who’s guaranteeing that? If someone gets hurt up there who’s going to be liable?
Scott Osgood – That was a question that went before the selectmen. They did talk about it and did decide that those liabilities could be covered properly. There is no guarantee that the town would vote to accept this land. There are other options for the owners to provide deeded easements for conservation. It doesn’t have to be the town. It can be
other entities. Even if that fails, there are other options.
Bette Sargent – I know we came before the board before with one of our neighbors. He wanted to subdivide his land and they wouldn’t let him subdivide and he had several acres. It could have been done, but they wouldn’t let him because of the 5 acre limit. I still feel strong about this. They have minimal acres of land, not the 5 acres.
Scott Osgood – There is a requirement for a minimal parcel requirement. It’s 20 or 30 acres that would be in this open space category.
Jennifer McCourt – We came here with a plan with a 125’ frontage and spaghetti lots back through here (pointing to her plans). To be able to get areas to were you wanted to get a house you wouldn’t have them all up here (pointing to her plans), you’d have them back across here (pointing to her plans). You wouldn’t have an ATV trail, you wouldn’t have a hiking trail, and you wouldn’t be maintaining any of that. Basically we’d be doing spaghetti lots through this whole thing and basically chop up the whole land. There wouldn’t be 50’ buffers to maintain. What we wanted to do was to preserve the best part of this land in perpetuity so that it would be preserved. The school has looked at this as far as being able to service these lots and they were concerned about the intersection at Craney Hill Road also. We have put these driveways is to get them away from these steep areas (pointing to her plans). We can minimize the cuts we have and keep them away from the steep areas. Yes, we could have 5 acre lots, but we were trying to preserve the area. The Conservation Commission walked through the area and thought it was a phenomenal area to try and preserve.
Bette Sargent – What if the town doesn’t accept that land?
Jennifer McCourt – Five Rivers and Piscataqua, to name a few, which we would approach to take the land.
Scott Osgood – It doesn’t make any difference if they own 1 acre or 5 acres, it’s like the land is in current use. The public is allowed to use. It’s a non issue for the users of the land.
Bette Sargent – What’s the difference on our side of the street then? We have 5 acres.
Jennifer McCourt – You can go and clear cut that. You can post it. You have rights and these people won’t have rights to do on that land.
Terry Stamps – What would happen if one of those agencies didn’t take the land?
Jennifer McCourt – The individual land owners would get a 20th interest in that and then there would be a covenant on top of it that can’t be developed.
Bette Sargent – That’s a liability. Who’s responsible for the liability? Is it a liability on the land owners?
Jennifer McCourt – Yes.
Bette Sargent – So if someone goes on their property and gets hurt; it’s the land owners responsibility?
Cathy Mann – I would like to see one less house. Then it wouldn’t seem to be so cluttered. It’s a percentage growth per year, right?
Scott Osgood – There will be a phasing plan. We will know what parts are going to be developed first.
Kelly Dyjak – So based on the phase plan, it will take about four years for it to be completed?
Earl Kalil – No. That’s not true. Each subdivision can only get 5 building permits per year.
Jim Eilenberger – I think the open concept idea is probably the best idea. If you look at the plan and how they did their five acres you would just have everyone own 125’ of that stream. Try and put roads back there and cross the stream, it would just ruin the area. They have done about as good a job to preserve that area as they could. This is the best alternative. I’d rather not see any houses there, but that’s reality.
Robert Reynolds – I would recommend the speed limit be reduced and have it more frequently patrolled. There’s no enforcement on Flanders Road. Posted or not posted, with the increase in traffic we’ll be running around in circles.
Jennifer McCourt – If you want to change the speed limit out there, you’d have to go to the selectmen and make a request to the Safety Committee because they are the ones that control the speed limits in the town.
Scott Osgood – Given that, I don’t think they have the authority to let it go below 30 MPH.
Jennifer McCourt – There are actually a couple roads in town that are 25 MPH. They have to do a speed safety study before they do.
Scott Osgood – We have now closed the public hearing session at this time. Given there is no further public comments to the board.
Scott Osgood – The highway engineering has not seen this report yet. There’s also a question of the phasing plan and accessing the impact fees. Are these going to be single family detached homes?
Earl Kalil – Yes.
Scott Osgood – So, the impact fee is $5,518.00 for each single family dwelling unit. The other issue is the phasing plan. We would ask for the phasing plan. Send a letter when the bounds are set before the town registers the plans. Has that been set yet?
Jennifer McCourt – No. We need to construct the private road before the bounds are set.
Earl Kalil – What we would like to do is go to the State and get our State subdivision permit. We haven’t done that yet. We’ve been waiting for some type of conditional approval. What we were hoping tonight was we could get a conditional approval based upon certain conditions.
Scott Osgood – We can talk about a conditional approval. Conditions: 1. Show the sprinkler requirement on the plans. 2. Provide a phasing plan. 3. Supply the definition for active and substantial development. 4. Final review by the town engineer. 5. Submission of the DES application. 6. Have town counsel make sure the wording is correct.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to conditionally approve this subdivision. Conditions being:
1. Add a note on the recorded plan stating that residential sprinklers will be installed in the new homes.
2. Provide a phasing plan on the recorded plan.
3. The planning board will define “active and substantial development” for this project as agreed upon by both the board and the applicant.
4. Approval is subject to a satisfactory review of the final plans and storm water report by the Town Engineer.
5. Submit a copy of the State Subdivision Application for the appropriate lot(s).
6. Approval is subject to a satisfactory review of the covenant and two deeds by Town Counsel.
Arthur Siciliano representing Donald and Margaret Glover – Requesting a three lot subdivision, 2.91 acres on Western Avenue. There is an existing house which is 24,000 sq.ft.; the second house would be 30,000 sq.ft. on lot 399A, the third house would be 71,000 sq.ft. on lot 399B (“SIC”). All three lots will be serviced by town water/sewer.
Gail Abramowicz – What is the distance from the boundary line to the Police Station?
Arthur Siciliano – 19’
Scott Osgood – What about the driveway on 399B?
Arthur Siciliano – We left enough room to get by.
Scott Osgood – When wet lands are involved, it’s a good idea for the planning board to see the site. We will do a site walk on Friday, February 17, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.
Scott Osgood – Another concern is impact fees. Are these going to be single family homes?
Arthur Siciliano – Yes.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to continue the application until the March 8, 2006 planning board meeting. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Item 5 – Case 3005-032 A Minor Subdivision application has been submitted by Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown for a three-lot subdivision on Map 1, Lot 540-X9 on Route 114 and Flanders Road in the Commercial Recreation (CR) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts.
Art Siciliano representing Stephen Bennett and Judy Bennett-Brown – To subdivide tax lot 540-X9 into three lots. The lots will be serviced by on-site septic systems and on-site wells. They are requesting a waiver of the required 20% slopes and allow up to 25%. The requirement of 20% will not allow subdivision of this 22.77 acre lot, but using the 25% slope allows for a subdivision as presented.
Scott Osgood – What will the use of the lots be once they are subdivided?
Art Siciliano – We’ve place restricted covenants on the lands so they can be used for residences with the exception of this land (pointing to his plans) at the intersection of Flanders Road and 114. This can be used for limited commercial use with the approval of brother and sister.
Gail Abramowicz – I feel we should act on the waiver.
Scott Osgood – We need to schedule a site walk. We will schedule a site walk for Friday, February 17, 2006 at 11:30 a.m.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to continue the application until the planning board does their site walk-through. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Scott Osgood – Has asked the guests present if they objected to moving the public hearing of subdivision application form and site plan application form until after the conceptual consultation. No objections heard.
Conceptual form consultation
Item 8 – Goss Lumber 6,740 sq.ft. new construction, 25 Flanders Road, Map 1, Lot 589D
Donald Goss – Requesting to build a 50’ x 140’ single story building, a 50’ x 120’ heated, 50’ x 20’ open shed. There will be an 8’ concrete foundation, 4’ above grade, wooded frame with metal siding and roof. No septic. There will be electricity.
Gail Abramowicz – What part of this is an existing building?
Donald Goss – None of it.
Scott Osgood – Will this be for storage?
Donald Goss – For my mill. The end of it will be chipping/saw-dust storage.
Scott Osgood – Do you foresee this being loud?
Donald Goss – Hopefully not to loud since it’s going to be inside. It’s going to have 6” studded walls and insulation. The biggest noise would be the blowers. There’s a 30’ sandbank there, so I’m hoping it will buffer into that.
Don Armstrong – What about drainage issues?
Donald Goss – We’re planning on tipping the whole plateau back towards the bank and let it go off this way (pointing to his plans).
Scott Osgood – Has decided to go over the site plan review application so as to give Mr. Goss a better understanding of how the process works and what is required of him.
Scott Osgood – Has suggested Mr. Goss write a narrative description of the proposed project, touch up the noise issue (how he’s identified it and how he is going to take care of it). I don’t foresee you having to obtain any additional wetlands and soil scientists, or land surveyors stamps. You need to show where you’re going to have the utilities. Make a note of any outdoor lights. Supply a topographic plan and any buffers on the property. Lastly, show where the drainage will be and contact the abutters.
Item 6 – New Subdivision Application forms Public Hearing – Stephanie Alexander
Item 7 – New Site Plan Review Application forms Public Hearing – Stephanie Alexander
Motion: Terry Stamps moved to approve the subdivision and site plan review applications. Seconded by Don Armstrong and unanimously approved.
Item 9 – Tax Mapping Project, with $5,000.00 Warrant Article for 2006.
Scott Osgood – I have a meeting with Stephanie Alexander and Denise Rico about the software. I’m expecting some information from them. We’ll meet again, if I have the information, on pricing and the scope of what’s available.
Item 10 – Consultant’s Report – Stephanie Alexander
Stephanie Alexander – Read over her report.
Item 1 – Review of the Minutes from the February 1, 2006 Zoning Amendment Meeting (tabled earlier in the meeting until now.)
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to approve the February 1, 2006 planning board minutes as revised and edited. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and unanimously approved.
Item 11 – Correspondence – Scott Osgood
Scott Osgood – A letter from PSNH regarding transmission line easements.
Motion: Gail Abramowicz moved to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. Seconded by Scott Osgood and unanimously approved.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
Town of Henniker
February 1, 2006
Community Center
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Kristin Claire – Vice Chair, James McElroy, Cordell Johnston, Terry Stamps, Don Armstrong, Gail Abramowicz – Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant, and Lisa Demers – Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: Rik Humboldt, Jennifer McCourt, DB Patenaude, Joan O’Connor, Aureus Humboldt.
Meeting called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Scott Osgood.
Items 1 & 2 (minutes of the December 14, 2005 & January 18, 2006 meeting minutes) have been tabled until later in the meeting.
Amendment No. 5 – Amend Sections 133-116, 133-117, 133-119 under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development to clarify the ordinance.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Jennifer McCourt – (Regarding Amendment 133-116) suggests you add an addendum to the end of the phrase stating you will use the most current soils survey interpretation.
Terry Stamps – Suggested taking out all the dates and add “most current.”
Jennifer McCourt - Who determined that 20% slopes are un-buildable? It seems extremely limiting.
Kristin Claire - We passed the 20% slope last year.
Jennifer McCourt - State law is up to 33%. How is it that Henniker is 20%?
Don Armstrong – The difference has never been brought up before. If someone wants to argue it they can. It’s something we passed.
Cordell Johnston - We have two options. We can leave it or nix the amendment.
Kristin Claire - If we change it we should change it consistently everywhere.
Don Armstrong - We can always do that next year.
Cordell Johnston - Lets go with this and change it next year.
Scott Osgood - It does help create more buildable lots. I suggest we meet in the coming year to see what’s out there for the pros and cons. We are trying to streamline it so it’s an easier understandable document.
Amendment No. 5 133-116 has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
Amend Section 133-116 as follows under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development: Change name of the definition “developable land area” to “buildable land area” and replace the definition to read as follows: That portion of the tract remaining after deducting areas in wetlands conservation as defined in Article XXIII, flood plains, areas of slope equal to or greater than 20% and soils with severe limitation as defined by the current US Department of Agriculture Soils Survey Interpretation Sheets. (the dates 1973, 1975, or 1976 were omitted.)
Mr. Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Sections 133-117
Terry Stamps – It’s not as clear as I would have liked it.
Cordell Johnston - It would be obvious that the determination of the land be by the planning board.
Rik Humboldt - What would constitute your criteria for approving or disallowing a bonus?
Terry Stamps - It may come out in a conceptual consultation.
Kristin Claire - We don’t have the process right now. I still think we need to spell it out.
Scott Osgood - The problem we have is its site specific. It can’t be specific.
Rik Humboldt - As a member of the public I’d like it to be more defined.
Terry Stamps - More defined or more examples?
Rik Humboldt - More defined.
Kristin Claire - If we defined it we would be limiting the developer and us.
Jennifer McCourt - I don’t see were you can use mitigation. I think you need to have specifics of what you’re looking for. It’s very well defined. It leaves a huge hole for legal suits.
Kristin Claire - We wanted to tackle this, this year, but we just didn’t have enough time. We should spell it out more next year.
Scott Osgood - We’re stuck with this no matter what we do.
Gail Abramowicz - As it stands now its open for negotiation and interpretation.
Amendment No. 5 133-117 has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
Amend Section 133-117 “density change” as follows under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development:
Replace the title “Density Change” to “Lot size and Quantity” and add the following to the end of paragraph A:
The maximum number of dwelling unit permitted in an open space subdivision shall be determined by the conventional subdivision plan, unless the planning board determines that the increased quantity of proposed lots provides some additional overall benefit to the town such as public recreation or affordable housing and will not impair the integrity or character of the area.
Mr. Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
133-119
Rik Humboldt – What’s the purpose of having both.
Kristin Claire – It’s spelled out.
Jennifer McCourt - It doesn’t define what you need to submit for a conventional subdivision. It’s not clear what you’re looking for. Isn’t it really a two step process?
Kristin Claire - We can define the two step process next year.
Jennifer McCourt - Can you take out the word design?
Joan O’Connor - Will you accept a conceptual plan from a lay-person?
Jim McElroy - We would like to see stamps in the file.
Rik Humboldt - Why would the planning board need to look at one and not the other? Does the planning board feel they have the authority to determine which option they will choose? (open space or subdivision)
Gail Abramowicz - Should we take out the word “designed” from number 2?
Scott Osgood - Yes. Take out the word design.
Paragraph C
Mr. Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Jennifer McCourt - I don’t the like wording of “buildable” anything I see in open space regarding that is confusing. Keep it simple. I feel you should take out the word buildable.
Joan O’Connor - Why can’t we go by what the rest of the world is going by?
Scott Osgood - Each town is different.
Joan O’Connor – You’re taking advice from an outsider (Jennifer McCourt) who works for an engineer, it sends up flags.
Cordell Johnston – We’re not following it blindly.
Jennifer McCourt - I am a member of this community.
Jim McElroy – It’s very helpful to have someone who sits on the other side of the fence to help us make things clearer.
Joan O’Connor - If you think open space is important then why doesn’t the planning board hire a professional to write these?
Kristin Claire – It’s not in our budget. It cost $15,000.00 to come up with the impact fees.
Amendment No. 5 133-119 Paragraph C has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
Replace Paragraph C with the following:
Minimum Tract Area. The minimum tract area for an open space residential development shall be on a single or adjacent tracts of contiguous land, under one ownership, or to be brought under one ownership, which have a net tract area of no less than 20 (take out “buildable”) acres in the RV and RN Zones, and 30 (take out “buildable”) acres in the RR Zone.
Paragraph I 1
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Rik Humboldt - Since you have so many other definitions and restrictions you seem to already dictate what an open space development consists of, what is the necessity of having a percentage?
Kristin Claire - We have to say what needs to be kept open.
Jennifer McCourt - It would be nice if the word “contiguous” was included in the definition. Shouldn’t you also define easements as “utility”?
Amendment No. 5 133-119 Paragraph I (1) has been changed as follow: (note the bold/italic changes)
The (take out “amount of”) land designated as permanent common open space exclusive of road rights-of-way, utility easements and common parking areas shall be a contiguous area equal to at least 40% of the total area of the tract.
Paragraph I (2)
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and opened the discussion to the public.
Scott Osgood – Stated this paragraph will be eliminated from the amendment since it was redundant.
Cordell Johnston - I don’t think we should have eliminated it.
Kristin Claire - Concurs. I think we should add something to this next year that has to do with our buildable definition.
Jim McElroy moved to accept the modifications of the amendment as written. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Cordell Johnston - Suggests the zoning board subcommittee write how these amendments will be on the ballot and in the Henniker Herald; giving a brief explanation of each.
One, two, and four are already summarized. Bob Stamps has been volunteered to write number three, and Cordell Johnston will take care of number 5.
9:15 p.m. Approve the minutes of December 14, 2005.
Cordell Johnston moved to approve the minutes of December 24, 2005 as edited. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Approve the minutes of January 18, 2006.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the Minutes of January 18, 2006 as edited. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
9:55 p.m. Consultants Report - Stephanie Alexander
Jim McElroy and Cordell Johnston stated they will not be here for next weeks meeting (February 8, 2006.)
10:00 p.m. Other Business - Scott Osgood
Scott Osgood – Stated the town was looking further into GIS.
Rik Humboldt – Formally requested there be an exact tape of all public meetings.
Scott Osgood – By law, we don’t have to do that. You can bring in your own device but you must tell everyone that you are recording it.
Rik Humboldt - Disputes the “potential for abuse is huge” in the January 18, 2006 minutes which was stated by Scott Osgood. Mr. Humboldt doesn’t feel the potential for abuse is there. The benefit for the town as a whole is huge. More taxes are coming in, more business for the local businesses. More health care business, pharmacy, landscape, plowing, home decorating, etc. The elderly of Henniker could downsize their homes and move into this community to be able to stay in Henniker.
Scott Osgood - Rik, if you want to put together a plan that’s complete we’d be happy to review it.
Don Armstrong – Suggested Mr. Humboldt put that information in the local paper to the editor.
Jim McElroy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Seconded by Scott Osgood and unanimously approved.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
Town of Henniker
Planning board
Zoning Amendment Public Hearing
Community Center
Members Present: Scott Osgood – Chairman, Kristin Claire – Vice Chairman, Terry Stamps, Gail Abramowicz, Don Armstrong, Jim McElroy - Board Members, Stephanie Alexander – Planning Consultant, Lisa Demers – Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: Judith Englander, Bob Stamps, Tom Kuck, Rik Humboldt, Joan O’Connor, Gene Brown, Joe & Terri Trier, Ted Parkins, Marty Davis, Roni Hardy, Sarah Hirsch, Don Goss, Peter & Gail Beckett.
Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Scott Osgood.
Zoning Amendment Public Hearings
7: 05 p.m. Amendment No. 1 – Add definition of condominium under Article II – Definitions.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud. There was no discussion from the board or the guests present.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to accept the warrant article as written. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 2 – Add commercial/retail building size restrictions as Paragraph H in Section 133-29 under Article VII – Commercial District Regulations.
Scott Osgood read the amendment/definition aloud.
Discussion of the board – Mr. Osgood stated this amendment gives the town the ability to decide what type of commercial/retail buildings they want in their town.
Don Armstrong stated these are all stand alone buildings. They preclude strip malls.
Scott Osgood stated the town wants to keep its small town appearance and country setting. If a retailer should open up a box store such as Wal-mart (as an example) the town would like the parking lot put in the back and sides of the building for aesthetic purposes.
Terry Stamps stated this amendment will not limit a current business owner from expanding. They would be able to do that under the proposed ordinances but could not exceed the new 25,000 sq. ft. limit.
Scott Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Roni Hardy – I would like to see the building footprint at 20,000 square feet, but I do like this idea. This is good for the town and it limits its growth. If we want to go to the big stores we can go to Hillsboro or Concord.
Bob Stamps – Large commercial retail tends to run the local companies out of business. It hurts tax wise. They often incur higher cost in services than the taxes they generate. It tends to lower real estate values. With the loss of local businesses to the larger businesses we end up with empty buildings that deteriorate the main street and in the end, wind up with dilapidated buildings. Local jobs are lost. There is a reduction of support for the local community. It also ruins the aesthetics of the town. It isn’t the way Henniker should be.
Motion: Gail Abramowicz moved to accept the warrant article as written. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 3 – Amend lot frontages for RR and RN zones in Section 133-41 under Article X – Lot Size Regulations.
Scott Osgood read the definition aloud.
Scott Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Marty Davis – If these frontages are adopted will we still have the minimum acreage zoning?
Terry Stamps – The configuration change means that a lot would be wider and less deep.
Gene Brown - Any developer will maximize the use of the land and will try to divide any property they have. People would like to see the town of Henniker stay as a country village and part of that description envisions an area that is rural.
Motion: Kristin Claire moved to accept the warrant article as written. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
Judi Englander – Wanted to thank the subcommittee for all their efforts.
Amendment No. 4 – Repeal amendment #3 of the March 2002 Town Meeting relating to building permit exemptions and revise fee and permit qualifications in Section 133-56 under Article XIII – Administration.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud.
Gail Abramowicz – Suggests since a permit is required, but there is no fee, this should be made bold in the amendment so it stands out.
Scott Osgood - This does not address the building code. Residents have a right to have their building inspected, it is not required. This amendment just relates to the permit. We want to make sure the town and the people in charge know what’s going on. We want to make sure everyone is following the same rules. There is an exemption for smaller projects so you don’t have to pay a permit fee.
Gail Abramowicz - The mistake the board made a couple years ago was that we never got the word out to the public about how this worked. A permit is not required for jobs up to $5000.00 worth of materials. The problem with that was people would do the job in increments and would not get a permit. The petition gave it a big brother watching attitude, but it’s not for that reason. It’s about someone changing their property value and not paying their taxes on the new building/addition.
Gail Abramowicz - If you put a shed on your property (as an example), there are setbacks that need to be followed. If a person does not go through the proper channels, there could be recourse. Everyone is required to apply for a building permit so everyone knows what’s going on.
Jim McElroy – There are recent changes in State Law for fire safety. We are covering a hole that’s in our fire safety rules to have this change done.
Judi Englander - Currently it would be the cost of materials? It would limit everything to $5,000.00 and under? That’s a substantial change.
Gene Brown - You are not just requiring a permit, but lowering the amount that permit would require for some people?
Scott Osgood – At the selectmen’s meeting last night (January 17, 2006) the Planning board’s fee schedule was discussed. We have to pay for special advice and it’s valuable to do that. In light of the budget and the taxes, they agreed to approve the rate increase. If someone has the need of a service then they should pay for that service.
Marty Davis – The building inspector oversees this?
Scott Osgood – Yes.
Marty Davis – Who makes the determination if it goes over $5000.00?
Gail Abramowicz - It’s based on the information the applicant supplies when they apply for the building permit.
Scott Osgood – It’s possible that no one is going to ask to see the bills. The building inspector can tell what the job costs.
Joe Trier –The way the amendment is worded, if the material is $5000.00 or less you still need a permit.
Don Armstrong – But, you don’t have to pay for it.
Tom Kuck – Shouldn’t the payment of the building inspection come out of the impact fees?
Scott Osgood - The impact fees go into the general fund and are solely for school business.
Tom Kuck – Each time an inspector comes out he comes out for the series of inspections. How can one person be held accountable and another not for a code that doesn’t exist in this town.
Kristin Claire – The code has been revised and the only thing I can say is residents have the right to check off to request an inspection as a service, but the only thing I can tell you about their neighbors is hopefully they’re going through a bank that’s making sure they are having these inspections done.
Don Armstrong – Every person has to meet the state electrical and plumbing codes. The Fire Department comes in and looks at those things. Regarding building codes, the state is looking at that. They want to set up one set of codes for the entire state. There is a commercial code but not residential code.
Terri Trier – What happens if the inspector finds something out of code such as a variance on a step, for example, is he going to enforce it?
Kristin Claire – No. He’s there as a courtesy.
Scott Osgood – But, he won’t sign off on your permit if you do not meet code.
Marty Davis – What happens if people are too slow in getting the project done? Does it matter?
Don Armstrong – Permits are good for three years.
Joan O’Connor – Will you post an article in the local paper explaining people are required to obtain a building permit?
Scott Osgood – No.
Joan O’Connor - It’s very vague. I’ve seen people add car ports and such and there is no enforcement.
Judi Englander – We had an enforcer about four years ago. The town doesn’t allow much time in the budget for enforcement.
Scott Osgood - There is a process you can go through to report a complaint. (Directed to Ms. O’Connor’s concern.)
Motion: Jim McElroy moved to accept the amendment. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 5 – Amend Sections 133-116, 133-117, 133-119 under Article XXIV – Open Space Residential Development to clarify the ordinance.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud.
Jim McElroy and Ms. Stamps voiced their concern about the wording of “density” and “number of lots.”
Kristin Claire – State most of these changes are “clean up changes.” They’re to spell out the process and to help clarify the language.
Scott. Osgood opened the discussion to the public.
Gene Brown – Giving the opportunity to increase the number of residents on a property, do you have specified formulas determining what these conditions would be?
Scott Osgood – No.
Gene Brown - Did the lawyer have any problem with you taking on this burden yourself?
Kristin. Claire – No.
Bob Stamps – Why don’t you put a limit on it?
Scott Osgood - The land itself is self-limiting.
Bob Stamps – You need to set expectations upfront so the developer knows what can be done.
Gene Brown – I still have a concern about the board making a subjective decision.
Bob Stamps - We need to put a limit on bonuses.
Rik Humboldt – This can always get changed next year.
Kristin Claire - This is just a proposed change. The town’s people have to approve it.
Judi Englander – It should be defined.
Don Armstrong – If we set a percentile it doesn’t mean they can’t go to the zoning board and ask for something greater.
Bob Stamps – It can’t hurt to put a limit on it.
Rik Humboldt – Are we taking into account the states restrictions?
Kristin Claire – We could do a percentage, but how do we prove this in a court of law.
Terry Stamps – You could address it as a set percentage as approved by the planning board.
Judi Englander – Do you have to run this change by counsel?
Kristin Claire – Yes, but we never discussed “percentiles.”
Jim McElroy - I’m hesitant to put a percentage or upper limit on the bonus. If this is approved, then this will make it clear about what we have the right to do.
Scott Osgood - If a percentage is put in, we will be a target for all developers. With nothing there it would be easier for us to say no.
Marty Davis – Once these open space criteria are put in place, who’s in charge of the open space?
Kristin Claire – It depends. It’s up to the person who owns it. They can donate it to a local land trust or a homeowner’s association.
Marty Davis – It starts out as a good idea, but if you’re talking about trails you’re in trouble. Who takes care of them?
Rik Humboldt – What is the general consensus? What is the real intention of the open space residential development?
Kristin Claire - The intention of open space development is to encourage flexibility, land usage, and more creative land use and better development down the road.
Amend Section 133-117 “density change” as follows under article XXIV – open space residential development: replace the title “density” with lot size and quality in the title and add the following to paragraph A (indicated in bold/italic):
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in an open space subdivision shall be determined by the conventional subdivision plan, unless the increased quantity of proposed lots provide some additional overall benefit to the town such as public recreation or affordable housing and will not impair the integrity or character of the area.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved to approve the changes. Seconded by Kristin Claire and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 6 – Submitted by citizen petition. Amend the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and Article XIV – Open Space Residential Development to include provisions for an Active Mature Adult Community.
Scott Osgood read the amendment aloud and allowed Rik Humboldt to respond, since it was he who submitted the petition.
Rik Humboldt - Since there is no ordinance for an over 55 community I proposed this because the planning board, under the current zoning regulations, are constrained to not approve it.
Marty Davis – What is the definition of “active”?
Rik Humboldt - It’s not an assisted living facility.
Marty Davis – Is it exclusive?
Kristin Claire – Yes.
Bob Stamps – I am opposed to the amendment. The density is too high.
Marty Davis – Will all these units be built identically?
Kristin – That would be up to the developer.
Rik Humboldt – I would like to address Mr. Stamps’ comment regarding his concern about the increase in density. There isn’t any increase in density except in one certain circumstance.
Gene Brown – I think cluster housing is a good thing. I think mature housing is a good thing. The density is not excessive however, I would vote against the proposal since someone else might come in and do it differently. This amendment is based on Mr. Humboldt’s current needs. On what basis would you not approve it?
Scott Osgood - It doesn’t fit into the zoning as it’s presented. This amendment is tailored towards a specific proposal. The potential for abuse is huge.
Motion: Jim McElroy moved not to support this amendment. Seconded by Terry Stamps and unanimously approved.
Amendment No. 7 – Submitted by citizen petition. Amend the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and Article XXIX – Growth Management to allow up to 14 building permits per year for Active Mature Adult Communities.
Kristin Claire read the amendment aloud.
After a short discussion and since this item pertains to the previous amendment, the board moved to make a motion. Prior to doing so, Joan O’Connor wanted to state that we need to open our minds up to this type of community.
Motion: Scott Osgood moved the Planning board not to support this amendment. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved.
10:20 p.m. – Planning board Elections 2006