.jpg)
|
Meeting Minutes |
|
| Planning Board | |
| 2007 |
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
December 17, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Kristin Claire, Vice-Chair; Kellie Dyjak; Scott Osgood; Terry Stamps; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio; Gary Guzouskas
Others Present: Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Edward Miner; Mike Pacheco; Mr. and Mrs. Tullis; Roland Soucy, Peter Flynn, Town Administrator
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2008 Town Meeting Proposed Zoning Amendments
1) Educational District (Article II and VIII), Aricle II, ad definitions for “fraternity/sorority”, “fraternity/sorority house”, “classroom”, “dining hall”, “library”, “health care facility”, “maintenance and storage building”, “auditorium/assembly hall”, “theater”, “sport arena and building”, and “house of worship”, change “student housing” to “dormitory”, Article VIII, require a Special Exception for “Fraternities and Sororities”; change “churches” to “houses of worship”; and specify the parking requirements for “agricultural uses”, “sports arenas and buildings”, and “accessory uses”.
Laura Scott, Planning Consultant, described the proposed amendment. This refers to definitions that were in the zoning ordinance as permitted uses but had not been defined. “Houses of Worship” was proposed instead of “churches” to make it more inclusionary. “Student housing” was changed to “dormitory.” This makes fraternities and sororities permitted by special exception instead of by right and adds a level of protection for surrounding neighbors. Parking requirements were specified. Ms. Scott stated that one comment from legal counsel had to do with dormitories being housing without cooking facilities. There was discussion about that and removing the word “dwelling.”
Ms. Scott stated that she found a mistake in that it specifically named “New England College.” She stated that this should be edited to a generic form of “college or university.”
Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio, stated that this proposed ordinance is in place to clean up definitions.
Terry Stamps asked questions about Section 133-33E regarding parking and accessory uses and the needed parking requirements. If not needed, an applicant can go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Gary Guzouskas requested that language be added to the fraternity/sorority section to specify that it is an organization sanctioned, credentialed or approved by the college.
He stated that there are fraternities and sororities that are not recognized by a national charter, and if a group wanted to start a local chapter, he thinks local college approval is more critical. Suggested wording was for the fraternity/sorority “to have a national charter and/or be approved by the college.”
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:11 pm and asked for questions from the public.
Mrs. Tullis, residents of Pearl Street, stated that they are concerned neighbors who want to have an understanding of the zone. They were interested and attended meetings last fall when the college applied to put dormitories in. She asked if any of these proposed changes would allow that to happen. Chairman McElroy stated that activity would still require an area variance from the ZBA in that specific area. There was discussion about changes to single-family homes in areas where there are proposed changes to district boundaries.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Board is not considering any changes to boundary lines tonight. The public hearing is only to decide whether or not to advance the section about changes to the definitions to the ballot for Town vote in March.
The public hearing was closed at 7:20 pm.
Ms. Scott reviewed the actions which the Board may take: 1) approve the proposed ordinance as written; 2) withdraw it; 3) make changes and hold another hearing in January 2008.
Terry Stamps moved to approve the definitions as presented with the edits to the section regarding fraternities and sororities, and have another hearing on January 9, 2008. Ron Taylor seconded the motion.
Discussion: Chairman McElroy stated that the edit of …“dwelling and/or”…to “structures owned and operated by an educational entity”… do not change the meaning and can be handled simply as an edit. Also, the Board decided that changing “New England College” to “State-chartered college or university” is not substantive and is also just an edit.
Terry Stamps amended the motion to include the definitions as edited, and the allowed uses and parking regulations as presented. Ron Taylor agreed with the amended motion.
Vote: In Favor: 7 Against: 0
2) Floodplain Development Ordinance (Article XXI). Revise the definitions for “area of special flood hazard”, “development”, “manufactured home”, “regulatory floodway”, and “special flood hazard area”; add definitions for “new construction” and “violation”; and delete definitions for “area of shallow flooding”, “breakwawy wall”, “coastal high-hazard area”, “flood boundary and floodway map”, “flood hazard boundary map”, and “v-zone”. Clarify and add language to section 133-106 A, B, C, D, E, F (Alteration and relocation of watercourses); section 133-107 (Determination of one-hundred-year flood elevation); and 133-108 C & D (Variances and appeals).
Ms. Scott stated that the version showing the tracked changes was in the Board members’ packet for review. She stated that the changes to the ordinance have to do with complying with State requirements. The Board discussed an email from Jennifer Gilbert of the State agency whom drafted the language of this ordinance. Ms. Scott stated that residents could lose flood insurance status and would not be eligible to purchase flood insurance; she encouraged the Board to accept the suggested changes made by the State.
Ms. Stamps asked about the correct flood insurance rate map. Ms. Scott stated that the change has to be made on the flood map as some of the zones have changed, and the current reference does not show those changes.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:31 pm. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Kristin Claire moved to accept the suggested changes and put this on the ballot for Town meeting 2008. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Scott Osgood stated that he appreciated the work done to include the State regulations.
Vote: In Favor: 7 Against: 0
Proposed zoning amendments:
1) Educational District (Article VIII)
Ms. Scott noted that this is not a public hearing and is only open for discussion.
There have been no other updates to the proposed changes to the boundary lines or to the section on Planned Developments.
Ron Taylor stated that the Planned Development portion should be postponed until next year when there can be more time invested in it.
Ms. Stamps stated that the proposal raises questions, especially within the educational district.
Ms. Claire stated that the buffers are to protect open space. The planned development idea is a land-use tool to protect open space and promote cluster planning in the downtown area which would allow for a designed and well-planned walking community. She stated that the planned development concept would be restricted from residential districts, although it is commonly used for residential planning in other areas. This would encourage good planning for lots greater than 5 acres and would eliminate building in phases.
The Board discussed the significant implications of such a change and the need to educate the public to the benefits of such an ordinance. The OEP website lists towns using this type of land use tool.
Kristin Claire moved to send the Planned Development item back to the subcommittee and review it again with the Planning Board in 2008. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and it passed, 7-0.
Modification to zoning boundaries
Ms. Claire showed the proposed changes to the Education District boundaries on the map. She stated that this was primarily done to eliminate spot zoning and to create boundaries which clearly follow roads instead of lot ownership. While there is the possibility that allowed property uses may change, current uses would be grandfathered. The benefit to the Planning Board is to have clearly defined areas of town in an educational district. If lots are combined, they will be in one zone. Abutting properties were discussed. She stated that the subcommittee was not trying to expand the zone. It is difficult to wisely plan uses when there is so much spot zoning within an area.
There was discussion about how this change may affect what people may do with their property. The Board discussed the importance of informing the public about planning issues which may directly affect the residents. Ms. Claire stated that a registered letter was mailed to the property owners when this item first appeared on the agenda. She stated that the subcommittee has tried very hard to notify everyone about what is being discussed, but it is the public’s responsibility to be involved in the process. Mr. and Mrs. Tullis stated that they have come to the public meetings as a result of receiving that letter.
There was discussion about the effectiveness of the Educational District in its entirety.
Gary Guzouskas moved that the Board not advance the proposed modifications of the educational district boundaries to the Town ballot. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Vote: In Favor: 5 (Ms. Dyjak; Mr. Osgood; Ms. Stamps; Mr. McElroy; Mr. Guzouskas)
Against: 2 (Ms. Claire; Mr. Taylor)
At 8:10 pm, Mr. Taylor suggested that the Board skip to item #5 on the agenda to avoid having guests wait to speak.
5) Building Code/Permit (Article XIII)
Ms. Scott stated that the State adopted building code for 1 and 2 family homes, and it is now in the State Law. She stated that the $5,000 limit is no longer valid. Towns cannot have less stringent codes than the State. Legal Counsel suggested that this could be a ballot item or could go as a warrant item; however, a decision must be made since the Board of Selectmen does not meet until tomorrow night. The Board discussed the need to publicize this issue very clearly, explaining that that ordinance must be changed to comply with the State codes.
Chairman McElroy stated that he feels it is the Planning Board’s job to advance this amendment to Town meeting.
Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, asked Town Counsel to interpret the State ordinance. The residential building inspection is in place on a voluntary basis. He stated that most people do call for inspections. The official code is what the State passed, but it is still voluntary. He stated that this ordinance definitely has to pass through Town meeting. He stated that there are two ways this can be accomplished: 1) silent ballot vote or 2) public hearings and vote at Town meeting. He said that it had to be discussed and decided tonight in order to cover proper time notifications for either option. The Board decided to invite Town Counsel to be present at the public hearing. It is the consensus of the Board to forward the revisions as written to sections 133-51 and 133-52 and delete sections 133-53 and 133-55.
Roland Soucy, Building Inspector, stated that it is better to adopt the description rather than listing specific items within the motion as it is already specifically covered in the State Building Code.
After extended discussion, the Board understands that if the Town agrees to enforce the State building code, building permits are required for all construction. If the Town does not agree to enforce the building code, then the State Fire Marshall handles all building code enforcement except for 1 and 2 family dwellings.
Kellie Dyjak moved to carry this amendment to public hearing on January 9, 2008, including such language that Town Counsel deems necessary to enforce the State Building code per RSA 155-A. Terry Stamps seconded the motion, and the motion passed, 7-0.
2) Excavation (Article IV, VII, VIII)
Intensive use should be allowed by special exception not by right.
Ms. Stamps asked how these proposals relate to the priority map generated by the Conservation Commission. She stated that she would like to see in which zones excavation is allowed by special exception, and she is particularly concerned with the region of Route 114 north. Ms. Stamps also suggested close review of the Town’s master plan. The Rural Residential district is to be kept rural, and this use is not conducive to that. Chairman McElroy stated that it appears that this removes a use from 1000 feet of land from property owners. Ms. Scott stated that requirement is only in the Rural Residential district, traveling 1000 feet on secondary roads.
Kristin Claire moved to advance this amendment, with the minor edits, to public hearing. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion, and it passed, 7-0.
The Board discussed protocol for maintaining professional and civil decorum during the public hearing process. Legitimate concerns will be heard, however, personal attacks on Board members will not be tolerated. The process will be explained at the beginning of the next public hearing.
3) Institutional
These definitions exist elsewhere in zoning. Scott Osgood moved to delete “Institutional” from zoning and advance the proposed document as written. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and the motion passed, 7-0.
4) Manufactured Housing
Ms. Scott explained that most of the changes are strikeouts as it has to do with campground uses and other issues not dealt with by the Planning Board.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Board of Selectmen should be made aware that this is being removed from zoning.
The Board discussed differences between “parks” and “individual lots” as it relates to manufactured housing which are allowed in most areas of town. There is an edit on
page 4 (H) to show 40 feet from any other housing unit.
Mr. Taylor explained changing frontage to 70 feet giving room for a double-wide home.
The 2002 Town Master Plan and RSA’s governing manufactured housing parks were discussed. Mr. Taylor also explained that no new parks have been built in the last 30 years due to economics and strict water requirements.
Manufactured Housing Subdivisions are not an allowed use.
Mr. Taylor moved to accept the Manufactured Housing proposed zoning changes for the public hearing on January 9, 2008 with minor changes as proposed. Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Ridgetop Lane Bond Release
Chairman McElroy stated that there were conditions to be met for the Ridgetop Lane approval and a bond was issued. There was extensive work done on Davison Road and all but $40,000 of the bond was released. Ms. Stamps conducted a review of minutes, NOD’s, and bond documents and determined that striping of Davison Road was one of the conditions to be met. The road was accepted by provisional acceptance with outstanding items. The Board discussed the various actions which could be taken.
Terry Stamps moved for the Planning Board to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen recommending that the financial guaranty that was posted not be released until the outstanding conditions have been completed. The Board encourages the Board of Selectman to act quickly as the money could be lost if the bond is held at a bank and no action is taken. Ron Taylor seconded the motion.
Mr. Osgood stated that the bond could be called and the Town could finish the work to meet the conditions. Chairman McElroy stated that the Board of Selectmen is to handle the money.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously.
Alternate Planning Board Member
Edward Miner has applied to be an Alternate Member to the Planning Board. He brings 30+ years of civil engineering background in site development. Ron Taylor moved to accept Mr. Miner as an Alternate Member to the Planning Board effectively starting at the next meeting. Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miner will be sworn in at the Town offices, and his appointment is for three years.
Board Member Binder Update
Ms. Scott updated the Member Binder Information with the Capital Improvement Plan and the 2008 Meeting Dates.
Adjournment
Mr. Guzouskas moved to adjourn at 10:10 pm; Ms. Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes
December 12, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Kristin Claire; Terry Stamps; Ron Taylor, Selectman ex-officio; Gary Guzouskas; Scott Osgood arrived at 7:06 pm.
Others Present: Laura Scott, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Edward Miner; Ron Talbot; Lance Moulton; Ian Johnson; Joseph Morette; Jennifer McCourt; KB Patenaude; Gigi Laberge; Rik Humboldt; Scott Dias; Elizabeth Shulson; Timothy Lamphere; Rebecca Weber; Katherine Weber; John Weber; Eric Hauptman; Leo Aucoin; Denis McComish; Eaton Tarbell; Dale Jennings; Dan Paul; Michele Rogers; Paul Mulcahey; Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC
It is noted that there are other attendees whose signatures are not legible on the sign-in sheet.
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. He noted for the record that Kellie Dyjak, member, will not be in attendance tonight.
The minutes of the November 28, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as edited. Kristin Claire seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Chairman McElroy reviewed the procedure that will be used for hearing the zoning amendments.
1) Article XXII Wetlands Conservation. 133-115 Special Provisions. To create a 50 foot wetlands buffer in which no structures will be located and no land disturbance will be allowed.
Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant, explained that the items that are written in bold and underlined are proposed additions, and those items that are written in bold with strikeouts are proposed eliminated language. Ms. Scott stated that legal counsel has reviewed the amendment two times. Also, Ms. Scott explained that any structure that is currently closer than 50 feet would be grandfathered; this amendment relates only to new structures.
Terry Stamps, on behalf of the Conservation Commission, explained the intent of the 50-foot buffer around wetlands. Ms. Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission compared Henniker’s ordinances with other towns in the State and found that many towns require setbacks of 25-125 feet.
Kristin Claire stated that she understood the intent is to keep the area free from grading but was not clear how this would apply to forestry, mowing, removing rocks, trees and stumps, etc.
Gary Guzouskas stated that the term “land disturbance” could be interpreted differently. He stated that he has seen other towns be inundated by zoning variance requests as the intent can be unclear.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:49 pm.
Jennifer McCourt stated that the term “no disturbance” means just that. She stated that legislation has tripled to clarify the Shoreline Protection Act, and this will be very similar. Ms. McCourt stated that there is a difference between measuring from the corner of a building or from the footer; depending on the requirements, this could actually turn out to be a 75-100 foot setback.
Scott Dias stated that Henniker does not need to be compared to other towns. He asked if there were any representatives from the Conservation Commission in attendance. Ms. Stamps stated that she is the representative of the Conservation Commission to the Planning Board.
Denis McComish stated that saying this amendment only applies to new structures and does not affect existing structures is not that simple. He stated that people will still build and put in driveways. He asked how much land will be used to accommodate this buffer. He also stated that this change could actually cause more land to be developed.
Ms. Claire stated that the 50 feet around the wetlands is desired to be protected, though it is possible that more land could be used to put in driveways, etc.
Joe Norton stated that there are times where land disturbance is desirable, such as planting vegetation for wildlife and erosion control measures.
Rik Humboldt asked if there was any other way to achieve the desired effect without having to create the buffer. Ms. Stamps stated that there may be another way, but the Conservation Commission is not aware of anything else to protect the wetlands.
Scott Dias asked what would happen if someone were granted a wetlands crossing permit. Laura Scott stated that this ordinance is more restrictive than the State Regulations and would require an application for a variance. Mr. Dias stated that any expansion to a Town or State road would be halted as a result of this action. Chairman McElroy stated that a variance would be required if the road abuts wetlands. Mr. Dias asked how many lots would be deemed unbuildable if this is passed.
Paul Mulcahey asked what prompted this action. He asked if there have been significant erosion issues in Henniker that precipitated this. Ms. Stamps stated that there has not been just one significant problem; they are trying to help guide growth in Henniker. She stated that this is really a more proactive action than a reactive one.
Denis McComish stated that washouts are only a problem with the State roads and highways. He stated that this doesn’t seem to help the real issues that affect Henniker.
Joseph Morette stated that he has been more involved with the Town’s leadership boards this year, and it seems that one has to be a business graduate to understand all of the regulations imposed on residents. He stated that they are not a bunch of cows willing to follow the board over a cliff. He asked if additional regulation was really necessary.
Chairman McElroy stated that the Conservation Commission asked the Planning Board to consider putting forward this proposed ordinance that extends the protection that is provided in zoning.
Scott Dias asked if this passes 1) who will enforce it; 2) if one applies for a variance, is there any real chance of it being granted. Ms. Scott stated that the building inspector would be responsible for enforcing the ordinance as it related to structures. She explained that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is the authority in evaluating the five criteria used for a variance.
The question was asked if a wetlands scientist will be required to delineate all of the wetlands this will affect.
Leo Aucoin asked why Henniker needs more government than what the State requires. He stated that we need less regulation and more common sense.
(It is noted that Scott Osgood arrived at 7:06 pm.)
Chairman McElroy stated that more people are continuing to move to Henniker, and the Planning Board is trying to help establish a plan for growth.
Jenn McCourt stated that she appreciated the work done by the Conservation Commission, but she felt that this proposed ordinance does affect existing lots of record.
Dan Paul asked for the practical input of the ordinance and wanted to know how many existing lots would be affected. He asked how many lots would not be able to be built upon. He stated this is important information for voters to know before casting their votes.
Kristin Claire stated that according to the 1998 Merrimack County Soil Survey, 7.6% of Henniker land is considered in the range of “poorly drained to marsh.”
Tim McComish stated that if the Town is making this requirement, they should be willing to compensate landowners for the land that is being taken from them.
Scott Dias stated that he felt that other members of the Conservation Commission should have been at the public hearing to hear the resident’s concerns as Ms. Stamps should not have had to field all of the questions and criticism by herself. He asked how much it will cost to make longer driveways on many lots. He also stated that this ordinance constitutes taking land from residents. He stated that proper silt fences and erosion control measures should be adequate protection for the wetlands. He stated that he would like to see this removed from the ballot.
Ms. Stamps stated that no one else on the Conservation Commission would be able to answer how many lots may be deemed undevelopable. She referred to the 2002 Master Plan which stated that issues of conservation, open space and development within wetlands were identified as primary concerns.
Mr. Humboldt stated that no one thinks it’s a good idea to purposely destroy the wetlands. He stated that most Henniker residents responsibly care for their land.
Ms. McCourt stated that the USGS maps are not completely accurate as they do not show the smaller areas of wetlands. Mr. Dias stated that the affected area is probably closer to 20%. Ms. McCourt stated that a building setback from wetlands can be helpful at times, but it definitely depends on what type of structure is being proposed. She stated that the Shoreline Protection Act is extremely difficult to read. She also stated that there is new technology developed which offers better protection for wetlands than natural forest or other natural features. She stated that she understands the intent of the Conservation Commission, but this ordinance is critical to building in Henniker. Ms. McCourt stated that there is a lot of Federal land as well as a lot of difficult land to build on in Henniker. This will make even more lots unbuildable.
Ms. McCourt stated that the ordinance needs to be more practical and created so that people don’t feel like the Town is taking their land. There are techniques that are permanent and will do more to protect the wetlands. Corkscrew driveways will eventually disturb much more land area.
Mr. Dias stated that the building inspector does not have the expertise to enforce this requirement when applying for building permits. This will increase time and expense to get a simple permit.
Mr. Humboldt stated that there should be specific scientific basis for creating a law that tries to preserve the wetlands. Chairman McElroy stated that there is a lot of information about the necessity of this, and is the reason for many State laws.
Tim McComish stated that he is aware of someone spending more than $3 million buying land and putting it into conservation easements. The land is bought privately and taken care of. Maybe allowing tax credits for this is an idea. Chairman McElroy stated that there are people beginning to do that, and he appreciates the comments. He stated that there must be balance in determining how much of a town should be conserved. For example, Manhattan has 45% green space, because it was given to the city for conservation.
Leo Aucoin stated that difference is that the land was donated to the city of Manhattan. This ordinance effectively takes 50 feet of land around wet spots.
Denis McComish stated that he feels a little bit of what the Indians must have felt when the white people took their land.
Katherine Patenaude stated that she came tonight because she felt troubled about the Town stealing their land. She stated that whoever wrote this must not live in Henniker. She stated that she is disappointed that no one from the Conservation Commission was there to hear them. She stated that this is all about money. She stated that if anyone votes for this, they are not thinking of others.
Paul Mulcahey stated that he does not want to beat up the members of the Conservation Commission. He stated that he believes they had a good intention but were misguided.
Denis McComish stated that there are many people who vote at Town Meeting who do not always understand what they’re actually voting for. This does not say that land is being taken from landowners. He stated that there have been times that he has felt duped by the wording on a ballot.
Chairman McElroy closed the public hearing at 7:44 pm. He thanked everyone for their input and stated that it is helpful to the process.
Ms. Scott explained three actions that can be taken by the Board: 1) approve the proposed ordinance as is; 2) make changes and hold a third hearing; 3) kill the amendment tonight.
Terry Stamps moved to take the ordinance back to the Conservation Commission with questions and comments from the public and request a proposed revision. Kristin Claire seconded the motion.
Scott Osgood stated that this amendment needs more time and discussion. Mr. Guzouskas agreed that it should not move forward this year.
Ms. Claire stated that it was proposed by the Conservation Commission and believes it should be their decision to revise or kill it. She stated that if the Board is not comfortable with the revisions, they still have the opportunity to vote it down.
Mr. Guzouskas asked how they would hear all of the input since no one else was in attendance. Ms. Stamps stated that she would review her notes and the minutes with them. Mr. Guzouskas stated that while the facts may be accurate, there is a difference between reading notes and hearing direct public reaction.
Ron Taylor moved to amend the motion and send it back to the Conservation Commission. Scott Osgood stated that he would like to have the Conservation Commission work on it and bring it back to review in April 2008. Ron Taylor withdrew the amended motion.
Ms. Stamps stated that it does not send a very good message to the Conservation Commission to kill the proposed ordinance without their input.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote to returning the proposed ordinance to the Conservation Commission for revision and return to the Planning Board.
In Favor: 3 (Ms. Stamps, Chairman McElroy, Ms. Claire)
Against: 3 (Scott Osgood, Ron Taylor, Gary Guzouskas)
Ron Taylor moved to remove the proposed ordinance from the 2008 Warrant and send it back to the Conservation Commission for further study with results to the Planning Board in April or May 2008. Scott Osgood seconded.
In Favor: 4 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Guzouskas)
Against: 2 (Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire)
2) Article II Definitions. To clarify that all types of fences are not to be considered structures and that the aprons and related construction around pools are to be considered structures.
Laura Scott explained that the original change was to remove “fences” as a structure. A suggestion was proposed since swimming pools are considered structures that related construction around pools be considered structures.
Ron Taylor stated that aprons & related construction was put in; agricultural and safety fences fall under different regulations.
Chairman McElroy stated that complete text will be posted on the wall at Town Hall.
Terry Stamps stated that related construction includes pool houses, patios, and anything else around and related to swimming pools. Ms. Scott stated that people have been building pools that meet the setback requirements, but the surrounding construction falls into the setback. The building inspector made the request to add pool aprons to the definition.
At 8:00 pm, Chairman McElroy opened the hearing to public comment.
Jennifer McCourt asked if related construction would include berms and patios.
The intent of removing “fences” was to allow people to put a fence up on their property line.
Ian Johnson asked if a fence greater than three feet high was a structure. He stated that there is an ongoing issue concerning an eight-foot high chainlink, spiked fence placed directly next to the driveway. He specifically asked that this be included in the minutes for the record. He also gave a copy of a letter dated August 9, 2007, from Roland Soucy to the Board and asked that this be included in the minutes. The letter states that a “fence greater than three feet in height is not considered a structure.” He stated that Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, approved it. He stated that it is an unsightly monstrosity which affects light into the building and is a safety hazard. He stated that the building inspector got this case wrong. Mr. Johnson stated that there are multi-family buildings in town without additional setbacks.
Chairman McElroy stated that the setbacks were put in place by the Fire Department to allow a place for safety equipment as well as to increase the quality of life and keep people from building right on top of their neighbor.
Mr. Johnson stated that this fence poses a life safety issue as a ladder cannot be erected to the bedroom windows three feet from the property line.
There was discussion about fences needing to be approved by the Fire Department on the building permit application. Mr. Johnson stated that he lacks confidence in the agency based on the errors made in his case. Mr. Johnson stated that it is his opinion that it is a strange coincidence that the rules are now being changed when he is dealing with a 2000 square foot fence being erected one foot away from the driveway. He stated that you could still put a ladder over a three-foot high fence and save a life. He stated that this cannot be done in this circumstance. He suggested that an exception be created that a 10’ setback be required when a fence is erected next to a driveway.
Mr. Johnson stated that his documents prove that he was lied to, and the building inspector and Town Administrator are essential components to the breakdown of the process in this case.
Chairman McElroy stated that he understands Mr. Johnson’s concerns and sees that changing the definition can create a problem. Chairman McElroy stated that the rules are to be clearly understood by the people. He stated that people may read the zoning ordinance and conclude that they do not need a permit.
The public hearing was closed at 8:25 pm.
For discussion purposes, Terry Stamps moved that the Board put forward Article II Definitions as presented for the 2008 vote. Ron Taylor seconded.
Kristin Claire asked what can be added to help the life safety issue. Mr. Taylor stated that the Fire Department is responsible for final approval. Mr. Taylor suggested the concerns about the process should be referred to the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Claire stated that there is still town-wide confusion as to when a building permit is needed.
Mr. Osgood stated that this is a more complex problem, and a fence really is a structure. He stated that he thought the Board of Selectmen acted on building permits for fences.
Mr. Osgood recommended that this not be approved.
Mr. Johnson stated that the building permit for the objectionable fence was signed by Nicole Gage of the Town office.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that he is also concerned about this. He stated that most people will consider a fence to be a minor installation. He stated that change first appeared to be a minor correction to a definition, but after this discussion, he realizes there is more to it.
Ms. Scott stated that there will be more discussion about building permits at the next Planning Board meeting to be held on December 17, 2007 and the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on December 18, 2007.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote.
In Favor: 1 (Ron Taylor)
Against: 5 (Mr. Osgood, Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas, Chairman McElroy)
Scott Osgood moved to amend the current definition as written but exclude “such as fences” and include “less than three feet high, agricultural and safety fences;” and to hold the next hearing in January. Mr. Guzouskas seconded the motion.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that this issue first seemed to be pretty simple; however, it appears to have a larger impact. He stated that it will take more time to draft the warrant properly.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote.
In Favor: 1 (Ms. Stamps)
Against: 5 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Ms. Claire, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Guzouskas)
Gary Guzouskas moved to remove this article form the 2008 warrant. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. In Favor: 5 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas, Ms. Stamps) Against: 1 (Mr. Taylor)
Mr. Osgood stated that he would like to have the Planning Board review this in 2008. He stated that it also sounds like a resident was wronged in this case. Ms. Scott stated that since it is past the 30-day appeal period, it will have to be discussed with the Board of Selectmen.
3) Article XIV and XV Zoning Board of Adjustment. To list the areas where the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) has jurisdiction; to clarify how to appeal a decision made by an administrative official; to include the criteria used by the ZBA when reviewing an application for a Variance; to explain the conditions under which an equitable waiver of dimensional requirement can be sought; to add language about ZBA procedures; and to provide information on motions for rehearing and appeals from decisions on motions for rehearing.
Ms. Scott stated that the members of the ZBA have reviewed this and support the proposed changes. Doreen Connor, Vice-Chair of the ZBA, was present.
Ms. Connor stated that she is responding to the concerns that the ZBA is bound by the provisions of this ordinance. She stated that they have summarized the changes rather than putting them in word for word. Mr. Connor stated that the ZBA’s Rules of Procedure relates to how cases are heard. This ordinance relates to the procedures which the ZBA follows to comply with case law, etc.
Mr. Osgood stated that even Town Counsel is concerned about the abbreviated version. The concern is in trying to convert the RSA to more reader-friendly version, something may be left out. The average person will look at our ordinance and could be misled since the entire wording is not there.
Ron Taylor stated that the ZBA acts in a judicial role, and there is no real preliminary hearing for the public like there is with the Planning Board. The Planning Board can meet with someone and explain things to them. This provides some help and can be made available with the RSA’s.
There was more discussion about how the ZBA must react to changes in case law made by the Supreme Court.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 8:55 pm.
Ms. Scott stated that she can make complete references to the RSA’s. It is noted that legal counsel suggested only referencing RSA’s.
Jenn McCourt stated that she has seen other towns attach the complete RSA’s to the ZBA applications for Special Exceptions and Area Variances for easier reference.
The public hearing was closed at 9:04 pm.
Ron Taylor moved to accept the ordinance as modified, with no substantive changes, to be put on the 2008 warrant. Kristin Claire seconded the motion.
Mr. Osgood stated that he felt there were a lot of changes, and he thinks it could take time to understand them. He stated that he does not feel prepared to approve this tonight.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote.
In Favor: 5 (Mr. Taylor, Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Chairman McElroy, Mr. Guzouskas)
Against: 1 (Mr. Osgood)
A 5-minute recess was declared. The meeting resumed at 9:14 pm.
Site Plan Application. Case #2007-019. Map 2 Lot 486 located at 116 Main Street in the Village Commerce (CV) Zoning District. The applicants, John and Rebecca Weber, are proposing a 3-story 3,390 sqft addition to expand the retail space for the existing Quilted Threads business. In addition, the application proposes to modify the landscaping, signage, lighting, and to add a second driveway for deliveries.
Ms. Scott distributed a memo from Henniker Fire & Rescue to the Board. She stated that there has been no response from the water department or police department to date.
Rebecca Weber made the presentation of their plans for expanding the Quilted Threads business. She stated that the business is at a crossroads, and they have decided to sell and repair sewing machines and build their inventory. The lower level will be to sell and service machines and a delivery entrance will be installed. There was discussion about the additional sign for the delivery entrance.
Sediment and erosion control has not been specified. Mr. and Mrs. Weber stated that there is excellent drainage on the property, and they have never observed any erosion, standing water or water in the basement, even during the heavy rains over the last two years. The applicants stated that they will pursue plans for erosion control and drainage in a most professional way. It was noted that the applicants cannot pull a building permit without conditions being met.
There was discussion about the fire department’s comments on egresses. The applicant stated that he spoke with Mick Costello about the regulations; he said an updated letter from the Fire Department is forthcoming as a formal response.
The applicants explained their plans for selling sewing machines, retail space, a gallery to hang quilts and an office. The number of employees is planned to gradually increase to the equivalent of 2.9 full-time employees. They anticipate adding 1.5 full-time employees to accomplish this. The have 30 parking spaces which is far above the required 18 spaces.
Gary Guzouskas moved to accept the application as complete. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. Mr. Taylor amended the motion to add conditions: a) details on the proposed signage for the site; b) details on the proposed landscaping for the site; c) detailed information about erosion and sediment control plan and the proposed retaining wall; d) updated letter from the fire department. The amendment was acceptable to Mr. Guzouskas who made the original motion.
Mr. Osgood asked why the Board is requiring this information at this phase as it will have to be provided anyway.
Ms. Scott stated that a conditional approval is valid for one year.
Gary Guzouskas asked to withdraw the amendment and second Ron Taylor agreed. The motion to accept the application as complete passed unanimously.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 9:52 pm.
Jennifer McCourt stated that she was confused by the description about signage, drainage and erosion control and landscaping. She stated that increasing impervious area will naturally change the drainage patterns and asked for specific information about erosion control.
Chairman McElroy stated that the plan must ensure that no more water will come off of the land than what currently does.
At this point in the discussion, an unidentified resident asked the Planning Board if the Town has ever considered putting a public swimming pool at the entrance to Henniker. Chairman McElroy responded by saying that there may be people in town interested in pursuing that, but this is not the case being heard right now. The resident thanked him and left.
Leo Aucoin stated that he is familiar with the property and that the water drains into a bowl. He stated that he does not believe that there would be an issue with stormwater even with the proposed construction and driveway.
The public hearing was closed at 10:00 pm.
Scott Osgood moved to approve the application with no conditions. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that he appreciates the quality of their business and the work on the property to date; however, he stated that there is a process in place. Mr. Osgood stated that they have required more information on other site plans due to specific circumstances. He does not feel that any more is required.
Ms. Claire asked if they wanted to have the bowl outlined on the plan.
Chairman McElroy stated that they will have to address the expectation for “best management practices for erosion control.” He stated that he would like to know what they are planning for landscaping, although detailed plans are not necessary at this time.
Mr. Osgood stated that the contractor will show detailed plans for construction, and we may be requiring redundant information. He stated that the applicants will be in violation of State law if the information is not provided.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote.
In Favor: 3 (Mr. Osgood, Chairman McElroy, Mr. Taylor)
Against: 3 (Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas)
Kristin Claire moved that the site plan be approved with the two conditions of erosion control measures and final grading information be provided. Mr. Guzouskas seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
1) Educational District (Article II and VIII). Article II, add definitions for “fraternity/sorority”, “fraternity/sorority house”, “classroom”, “dining hall”, “library”, “health care facility”, “maintenance and storage building”, “auditorium/assembly hall”. “theater”, “sport arena and building”, and “house of worship”; change “student housing” to “dormitory”. Article VIII, require a Special Exception for “Fraternities and Sororities”; change “churches” to “houses of worship”; and specify the parking requirements for “agricultural uses”, “sports arenas and buildings”, and “accessory uses”.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 10:20 pm. He moved to continue the public hearing until December 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
2) Floodplain Development Ordinance (Article XXI). Revise the definitions for “are of special flood hazard”, “development”, “manufactured home”, “regulatory floodway”, and “special flood hazard area”; add definitions for “new construction” and “violation”; and delete definitions for “area of shallow flooding”, “breakaway wall”, “coastal high-hazard area”, “flood boundary and floodway map”, “flood hazard boundary map”, and “v-zone”. Clarify and add language to section 133-106 A, B, C, D, E, F (Alteration and relocation of watercourses); section 133-107 (Determination of one-hundred-year flood elevation); and 133-108 C &D (Variances and appeals).
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 10:21 pm. He moved to continue the public hearing until December 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm. Gary Guzouskas seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Case 2006-013. A Revised Open Space Residential Development Major Subdivision application for 14 lots to include a Lot Line Adjustment has been submitted by Landmark Planning & Development, LLC on behalf of owners Ronald Talbot on Map 1, Lot 354-C at 394 Bacon Road and Hamilton and Merrilee Dodge on Map 1, Lot 354-C1 at 396 Bacon Road in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District.
Ron Taylor recused himself from the panel at 10:21 pm. Cheryl Morse, alternate Selectman ex-officio, joined the panel. Laura Scott also left the meeting as she is not the Planner handling this case.
Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant with CNHRPC, requested that Todd Clarke and Steve Goddard, representing the engineering firm employed by the Town, address the Board. Mr. Goddard stated that they just had a productive meeting with the applicant, and Ms. Alexander recorded the details of their discussion. Mr. Goddard stated that anomalies were found when reviewing the plans. He stated that the computer model did not have the same assumptions for the exact details as the plans.
Ms. Claire stated that she requested a HISS map a long time ago. Chris Stewart responded that there is ample data from the test pits taken from the site. He asked the Town engineers if a HISS map would be required to satisfy their questions. Mr. Goddard stated that HTA would review the information after reviewing the response from DES about the alteration of terrain issue.
Mr. Goddard stated that overlapping well radii will be looked at during the building permit process.
Mr. Osgood questioned the long-term viability of this road. He asked what the construction will do to the condition of the road over a period of 20-30 years. Mr. Goddard stated that almost any place can be built with enough money and engineering.
Todd Clarke, from HTA, stated that as long as the road is properly constructed and maintained, it could almost be considered a standard practice.
Mr. Guzouskas stated that there appears to be a need for significant hillside work and fill. He asked if the top of the hill would be moved in as fill or would the fill be comprised of new material. Mr. Goddard stated that was a good point, and if the Board wants clarification of what the embankment will consist of, it should be required on the plans.
Cheryl Morse, alternate Selectman ex-officio, asked if changing the width of the travel lanes and shoulders would alter the integrity of the road. Mr. Goddard stated that the road widths would have to be an internal Board decision, but expressed his personal opinion of being uncomfortable travelling on too narrow of a road. Mr. Clarke stated that the difference between 2’ or 3’ shoulders will not disturb the integrity of the road.
Mr. Goddard and Mr. Clarke left the meeting at 10:41 pm.
It is noted that a letter from Gigi Laberge, an abutter, was presented to the Board tonight.
Stephanie Alexander reviewed the Consultant’s Report and reviewed the letter from the Town Engineer dated November 14, 2007.
Chairman McElroy asked Ms. Alexander to update the Consult’s Report to show actions taken tonight. Chairman McElroy asked if the time spent with the Town Engineer was helpful. The applicant stated that the meeting was productive and helpful.
Atty. Eaton Tarbell asked for continuance to the January 2008 meeting.
Kristin Claire moved to grant the extension of the case to the January 23, 2008 meeting. Cheryl Morse seconded the motion.
Mr. Osgood asked when this process ends. Chairman McElroy stated that while this process has been long, the landowners have asked to use their land in a particular way and the Board has a duty to go through the process. He stated that progress has been made with the engineering details. Mr. Osgood stated that there have been too many engineering and zoning issues to keep this ongoing.
Chairman McElroy called for the vote on granting the continuance of the hearing.
In Favor: 5 (Chairman McElroy, Ms. Stamps, Ms. Claire, Mr. Guzouskas, Ms. Morse)
Against: 1 (Mr. Osgood)
The design of the hammerhead turn-around vs. a cul-de-sac was discussed. Mr. Tarbell asked for clear direction from the Board as to how they should pursue road planning.
Ms. Claire stated that the meeting that the subcommittee had with the Fire Chief about road design was productive. The Fire Chief expressed that a 24’ wide road would be safer for pedestrian traffic with guardrails and the steep dropoff. Ms. Claire stated that she would not typically agree with that but would like to discuss the need for sidewalks in the future.
Cheryl Morse moved that the Board adopt the following three items recommended by the subcommittee into the plans: 1) RP-1A (8) & RP7D (15) & HTA #7, no level pad/platform at Hauptman Way cul-de-sac; 2) RP-1B (8) & HTA #5, road width at 24 feet and shoulder width at 2 feet; 3) Rp-7C (14), cul-de-sac radius on Hauptman Way designed at 60’. Gary Guzouskas seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Stewart asked if they may communicate directly with the Town Engineer. Chairman McElroy granted permission, but asked for documentation of any communication that takes place. Ms. Alexander is to be included in any meetings between the applicant and HTA.
The public hearing is continued to January 23, 2008.
- Revised 2008 Town Meeting Schedule
The Board reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2007.
Gary Guzouskas moved to adjourn at 11:25 pm. Ms. Claire seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Planning Board
November 28, 2007
Members Present: Jim McElroy, Chairman; Terry Stamps; Kristin Claire; Kellie Dyjak; Scott Osgood; Ron Taylor, Selectman, ex-officio.
Gary Guzouskas called to say that he would not be in attendance as he was called out of state for an emergency.
Others Present: Laura Scott, Planning Consultant; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; residents: Jillian Schenck; Kerri Pacheco; Michael Pacheco; Edward Miner; Leon Parker; Mark Henniger; Susan and David Tullis
Chairman McElroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
The minutes of the November 14, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Terry Stamps moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Kristin Claire seconded the motion. Motion passed, 5-0-1 (Ron Taylor abstained).
2008 Town Meeting Public Hearing
Chairman McElroy explained the procedure that the Board would follow for conducting the public hearings on the proposed zoning amendments. The sponsor of the amendment will make his/her statement; the Planning Consultant may comment; there will be time for brief discussion by the Board members. After that, Chairman McElroy will open the public hearing for questions from the audience, and then a time will be given for the public to state any comments. The Chairman will call for a motion; after the motion is seconded, the Board will continue discussion and a vote will be taken.
1) Article XIV and XV Zoning Board of Adjustment. To list the areas where the ZBA has jurisdiction; to clarify how to appeal a decision made by an administrative official; to include the criteria used by the ZBA when reviewing an application for a Variance; to explain the conditions under which an equitable waiver of dimensional requirement can be sought; to add language about ZBA procedures; and to provide information on motions for rehearing and appeals from decisions on motions for rehearing.
Leon Parker, ZBA Chairman, presented this amendment on behalf of the Zoning Board members. He stated that ZBA applications were modified more than a year ago, and this brings the regulations in line with Superior Court guidelines which the ZBA follows. He stated that this change should have been made a couple of years ago.
Laura Scott stated that copies are available for the public to review and show the detailed changes to the document marked with strikeouts and additions. Ms. Scott stated that this outlines the procedures and practices that the ZBA follows and ensures that the Town regulations comply. Ms. Scott reviewed changes made by Town Counsel after their review of the document. A second public hearing will be required if this is to move forward.
Chairman McElroy asked if this document more clearly defines the procedures which must be followed, and the conditions the ZBA is to consider, when hearing applications for area variances, special exceptions and equitable waivers.
Ms. Stamps asked if the procedural section 133-66 is standard language found in other documents. Ms. Scott stated that it is.
Ron Taylor stated that this would have been a useful document to have had during his years as a ZBA member.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:16 pm for questions from the public. There were none. He then called for any comment from the public. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
Ron Taylor moved for the Planning Board to support this warrant article with the proposed changes and hold a second public hearing on December 12, 2007. Kristin Claire seconded the motion.
Chairman McElroy called for discussion by the Board members. Scott Osgood asked if the Planning Consultant wrote this document and from what sources the additional language was derived. Ms. Scott stated that she referenced Case Law, Superior Court Cases and the handbooks from the Office of Energy and Planning and the Zoning Board of Adjustment, as well as zoning ordinances from three other towns to update the document. Mr. Osgood stated that the RSA’s are documented, but there is not clear reference to other citations of sources. He stated that he is concerned about too narrowly defining the activities of the ZBA. Mr. Osgood referred to a comment from Town Counsel, from their response memo dated November 20, 2007, which stated that “even a single word may have greater importance than at first perceived.” Mr. Osgood stated that it may be best to not guide the ZBA to this degree.
Chairman McElroy asked Leon Parker to give his thoughts in his position as the Chairman of the ZBA. Mr. Parker stated that he did not really understand the comment made by legal counsel as the proposed ordinance establishes how the ZBA works and gives the basis for their actions. He stated that it is entirely probable that the Supreme Court guidelines will change and they may have to update the proposed ordinance again next year. He stated that all of the ZBA members are supportive of the proposed ordinance.
Chairman McElroy asked if there is some rationale for dividing the sections of procedures from that of guidance. Mr. Parker stated that the ZBA application forms have been following this model for a long time, and this simply corrects the ordinance to match. He stated that if the position taken by Town Counsel is taken to the extreme, then there is essentially no Town guidance for variances.
Chairman McElroy called for a vote on the motion to advance the article proposed by the ZBA. Vote: 5 For – 1 Against
2) Article XXII Wetlands Conservation. 133-115 Special Provisions. To create 50 foot wetlands buffer in which no structures will be located; to require wetland buffer markers to be placed every 25 feet along the 50 foot buffer.
Terry Stamps stated that she is submitting this warrant article to the Planning Board on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Stamps stated that this relates to both zoning and the Subdivision Regulations. She stated that currently nothing specific states what can or cannot be done next to the wetland areas. The Conservation Commission has done research and has reviewed ordinances from other towns which state a building restriction within the wetlands buffer. Buffers in other towns vary from 25 feet to 100 feet; most are 50-75 foot buffers. The Conservation Commission is proposing no structures within 50 feet of the wetlands. Ms. Stamps stated that the Conservation Commission supports the comments made by Town Counsel regarding clarification that this would apply only to new construction; existing structures would be grandfathered under this article.
Laura Scott stated that any structures currently in place would be grandfathered, and this ordinance would only limit new construction within the wetlands buffer. She also acknowledge comments made by Town Counsel, stating that boundary markers are not intended for existing lots but would only be required for new subdivisions.
Kristin Claire asked how this would apply to lots with large acreage and only a small section would be subdivided. She asked if all wetlands on the property have to be delineated and marked as this could be quite cumbersome. She stated that the intent is good, but she does not want the Board to create an unnecessary burden.
Ms. Claire asked if boathouses and decks fall under guidelines of the Shoreline Protection Act and are not applicable to the wetlands buffer.
Discussion continued about the placement of the ordinance in zoning and/or subdivision regulations.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:36 pm. A resident asked what boundary markers are. Ms. Claire explained that they are metal discs imprinted with a wetlands marking which would be nailed to a tree or post along the border of the wetlands area.
Leon Parker, resident, stated that his property has a field of grass sloping down to an area of wetlands; he asked where markers would be required. It was stated that posts would be placed every 25 feet along the buffer and would be expected to be kept permanently.
Another resident asked about the cost of these markers. Ms. Scott stated that depending on bulk ordering, they are usually 50 cents to $1.00. She stated that markers are usually installed by the surveyor at the time of the subdivision. She reiterated that this would only apply to new subdivisions and not existing lots.
Chairman McElroy called for any public comment. Mr. Miner, a retired civil engineer, stated that a 50 foot buffer is about the smallest area that would result in no disturbance to the wetlands. He suggested that the phrase “no disturbance” may better state their intentions (instead of “no structures”).
Mr. Parker stated that he agrees with the suggestion of the “no disturbance” terminology but is still concerned with posts sticking up every 25 feet.
The public hearing was closed at 7:42 pm.
Kristin Claire moved to change the 50 foot wetlands buffer to include “no ground disturbance” and proposed taking the boundary marker section out of the warrant article and place it into the Subdivision Regulations; the second public hearing for this zoning amendment will be held on December 12, 2007. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. The motion passed, 6-0.
3) Article II Definitions. To clarify that all types of fences are not to be considered structures.
Ron Taylor stated that the ordinance currently states that a 10 foot setback is required on property lines and that fences are “structures.” He stated that a fence is not a “structure” and making this change would allow people to erect a fence on their property line.
Ms. Scott stated that when the Code Enforcement Officer reviewed this, he requested that the Board also correct the definition of “swimming pool” to include the area of the apron around the pool as well.
Chairman McElroy opened the public hearing at 7:50 pm. Hearing no questions or comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Ron Taylor moved that the Planning Board accept this warrant article as presented and include the definition of “aprons and related construction” around swimming pools to be reheard on December 12, 2007. Terry Stamps seconded the motion.
Motion passed, 6-0.
Chairman McElroy declared a five-minute recess.
The meeting was called back to order at 7:56 pm.
2008 Town Meeting Items for Discussion
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Schedule: An additional meeting of the
Planning Board was scheduled for December 17, 2007.
2. Review Proposed Changes
a. Educational District: Kristin Claire explained the proposed changes to the
Educational (ED) District. She stated that the area should be looked at for overall planning of the town, not just for one entity like New England College. The proposed changes would make the area more cohesive and would benefit the Town whether the properties continue to be used by the college or other uses. Ms. Claire stated that definitions first needed to be reviewed and corrected. Ms. Scott stated that the list of new definitions were terminology that was used within documents but were not defined anywhere.
Ms. Claire explained that the entire district was looked at comprehensively; uses allowed by right and uses allowed by special exception were considered. The subcommittee has made recommendations to redraw boundary lines to eliminate the potential pitfalls of spot zoning. The new lines follow streets and not individual properties. She showed a small section where the zone went around a building which NEC no longer owns. This property would revert to Residential Neighborhood which is consistent with what is around it. Mr. Taylor described the center part of the district being within the Historic Overlay District.
The Board discussed the idea of eliminating the Education District altogether. The areas of Keene and Hanover were discussed for comparison as they have colleges but do not have a separate Educational district.
Mr. Osgood suggested that representatives from the college be included in discussion. Ms. Claire stated that they are aware of discussions and someone from the college did attend one meeting.
Ms. Claire stated that there are many concerns to consider about the use of the area if the college should ever cease to exist there. If the Board wants to keep the ED district active, she proposes that the boundaries should be cleaned up and definitions must be included/revised.
Chairman McElroy asked to consider the consequences of removing the district. Ms. Claire stated that there are some other innovative land uses which could be effectively established in that area. The Town must decide what kind of use they would like in downtown Henniker.
Mr. Osgood stated that the ED district was created to give the college the right to apply for what they wanted to do. He stated that it is worthwhile to consider eliminating the district and creating an overlay district, although it is his opinion that this is too much to prepare for this Town Meeting.
Chairman McElroy asked for the subcommittee’s thoughts on Planned Developments (PD) since zoning established around 1986 was specifically put in place to restrict development to one building per lot. Ms. Claire stated that Planned Development could apply to the tracts of land greater than 5 acres, granting the ability to develop the concept of a completely thought-out walking community development. She stated that single-family homes and home-based businesses would not be allowed in the Planned Development area. She stated that anything that is already allowed in the Educational district could be allowed, except for those two things.
Ron Taylor stated that the concept and intent of Planned Development may be confusing to some, although the uses are already currently allowed under a different mechanism.
Ron Taylor moved that the Planning Board support the first two pages of the document dated November 19, 2007 (Article II Definitions, Article VIII Commercial District Regulations including 133-33A Allowed Uses; 133-33E Parking Regulations) to be heard at the December 12, 2007, and continue Board discussion of the last two pages concerning District Boundaries and Planned Developments at the December 17, 2007 meeting. Terry Stamps seconded the motion. Motion passed, 6-0.
b. Watershed Overlay District
Ms. Stamps reported that the Conservation Commission decided to withdraw plans for this district while they take a comprehensive look at other water issues.
c. Floodplain Development Ordinance
Laura Scott stated that every town that is eligible for flood insurance needs this Floodplain Development Ordinance. Ms. Scott presented the changes as written by the New Hampshire Office of Energy. She recommended that the Board revise the current ordinance and take it to Town meeting. Ms. Scott offered to track changes between the old document and the proposed revised ordinance for review at the public hearing. Ms. Scott stated that new floodplain maps and their adoption has been discussed with Peter Flynn, the Town Administrator.
There was some discussion about the possible impact to the duties handled by the Town building inspector. Ms. Scott stated that the building inspector has met with Mr. Flynn and the Office of Energy and Planning already.
Terry Stamps moved to hold a public hearing about the Floodplain Development Ordinance as submitted, on December 12, 2007. Kellie Dyjak seconded the motion. Chairman McElroy called for any Board discussion. Scott Osgood stated that the amount of revision to the ordinance calls for careful review and feels that it is premature to rush to a public hearing. Ron Taylor stated that this cannot wait and is simply a document which is required to stay within FEMA guidelines. Ms. Stamps stated that the document would be carefully reviewed when they are able to compare the tracked changes. At that time, she said a decision could be made as to whether they want to support it or not. Chairman McElroy called for a vote. The motion passed, 5-1.
Kristin Claire asked what the consequences would be in the case that this revised ordinance does not get adopted. Ms. Scott stated that she will check with the Office of Energy and Planning.
Other Business
1) Report on Fire Chief and Road Agent meeting re: Case 2006-013
Kristin Claire stated that she and Gary Guzouskas attended a meeting with Fire Chief Gilbert and the Town Road Agent, John Margeson, to discuss plans of the Bacon Road subdivision. She stated that they had intended to write a formal summary, but with Mr. Guzouskas being called out of town, this did not occur, although she has the minutes of the meeting to give an oral summary.
(Ron Taylor recused himself at 8:50 pm.)
Ms. Claire stated that the first issue that was discussed concerned the diameter of the road turnaround. The Subdivision Regulations require a 100-foot diameter; however, Chief Gilbert and Mr. Margeson approved the 60 feet requested on the plans. The T-turnaround originally proposed is not allowed by NFPA guidelines; therefore, Chief Gilbert suggested the lollipop turnaround with the diameter reduced to 60 feet. The grade of the turnaround was also discussed. Ms. Claire stated that Chief Gilbert and Mr. Margeson were not concerned about the 5% - 6% grade of the turnaround. Ms. Claire stated that the road width was discussed. She stated that Chief Gilbert felt that 24 feet would be a better width for the travelway since there are guardrails, steep dropoffs and people walking within the neighborhood. The Subdivision Regulations call for 20 foot road width. (She stated as a side note that this discussion has caused her to consider a section on sidewalks in the Subdivision Regulations.)
Ms. Claire reported that Chief Gilbert was very open to assessing plans in the early stages of the application process. Ms. Stamps suggested that they invite the highway agent to comment at meetings about road plans. Ms. Claire stated that she would hesitate to request that he attend the Planning Board meetings, but suggested that the Board’s subcommittee schedule meetings with the Fire Chief and Road Agent to discuss applications as they are presented. Mr. Osgood stated that this process is already allowed in the Design Review section of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Scott stated that all applications are sent to the different department heads for their comment; she could act as the liaison to schedule the meetings.
Ms. Claire will summarize the contents of the meeting for Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, and asked that it be clear that it not be construed by the developer as any type of decision by the Board.
(Ron Taylor rejoined the Board.)
2) Legal Response to Planning Board question re: Planning Consultant Log
The memo from Town Counsel regarding the legalities of keeping a work log was discussed. Mr. Osgood stated that there have been times in the past when the consultant’s log was useful, and he suggested that the Planning Consultant be required to keep one. Ms. Claire stated that she has not decided if the advantages outnumber the disadvantages. Mr. Taylor stated that he does not feel that the log is necessary.
Ms. Stamps suggested that there be a standing place on the meeting agenda to have the Planning Consultant report on her activities.
Scott Osgood moved that the Board require the Planning Consultant to keep a log of her activities and types of meeting she has with the public. Hearing no second, the motion failed.
3) Inclusionary Zoning Grant Information
Ms. Scott gave the Board information about an innovative land use grant that is available. Inclusionary Zoning was discussed. Ms. Claire spoke about the vast difference between “workforce housing” and “affordable housing” which is administered by a Federal third party.
Mr. Osgood requested an electronic copy of the proposed ZBA changes that were approved tonight. Ms. Scott will email that to him.
The next meeting is scheduled for December 12, 2007 at 6:30 pm.
Kellie Dyjak moved to adjourn at 9:20 pm. Terry Stamps seconded and it passed, 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Planning Board
Approved Minutes