PRESENT:
Vadney, Chairman; Sorell,
Vice-Chairman; Bayard, Secretary; Finer; Bliss; Worsman; Flanders; Edgar, Town Planner; Tivnan, Clerk
Chairman Vadney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Finer moved, Bliss
seconded, THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2006 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. Voted unanimously.
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
1. HORATIO AND CYNTHIA MELO –
Proposed major subdivision of Tax Map R11,
Lot 4,
into five (5) lots (10.5 ac. – 80.9 ac.) located on Chase Road in the
Forestry
and Rural District.
Edgar –The applicant proposes to
subdivide 144 acres into 5 lots ranging is size from 10.5 ac. to 80.9 ac. Applicant met with the Planning Board
under Pre-application review on 6/27/06.
The site is undeveloped and borders a designated prime wetland and a
designated brook. Application, subdivision plan and abutters list are on file.
Filing Fees have been paid. This is a major subdivision due to the # of lots,
that application must be accepted at one meeting and the hearing held at a
subsequent meeting. Therefore, I recommend (1) the application be accepted as
complete for purposes of proceeding to public hearing, (2) the Board conduct a
site inspection prior to the public hearing, and (3) the hearing be scheduled
for a mutually agreeable date allowing sufficient time for the site
inspection. I would like to advise
the Board should they decide to do a site inspection that they request that the
proposed driveway locations should be staked in the field to facilitate the
field review. Bayard – Mr.
Chairman, I will not be voting on this as I am an abutter. Johnson – We are ready and we would like
to proceed at the Boards earliest convenience. A site walk was scheduled for September
23, 2006 @ 8:30AM.
Finer moved, Bliss seconded, THAT
WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF HORATIO
AND CYNTHIA MELO FOR A Proposed major subdivision AND THAT THE
PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR September 26, 2006. Voted 6-0 in favor.
2.
CHRISTOPHER DUPONT d/b/a DUPONT PAINTING
CO. – Proposed Site Plan
Amendment
for a change of use to establish office for a commercial business with
related
signage, Tax Map S02, Lot 18, located at
274 NH
Route 25 in the
Forestry/Rural District.
Applicant proposes to establish a
painting contractor’s office within an existing vacant building on NH Route
25. The site is 2.85 ac. in size.
Application, site plan and abutters list are on file. Filing Fees have been
paid. I recommend the application be accepted as complete for purposes of
proceeding to public hearing for tonight
.
Bliss
moved, Finer seconded, THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF
CHRISTOPHER DUPONT d/b/a DUPONT PAINTING CO.
FOR A Proposed
Site Plan. Voted unanimously.
3.
LINDSEY LU, INC. AND MICHAEL GORDON
– Proposed Boundary Line
Adjustments
between Tax Map R09, Lots 19 and 19A, located on Corliss Hill
Road
in the Residential District.
Edgar – The applicants propose to
transfer 5 small parcels between the two lots of record. The two lots were subdivided in
2004. Both lots are part of the
recently approved Corliss Hill Farm subdivision. Lot 19A being the vacant lot/field that
would include the subdivision road and Lot 19
which includes the gray ranch. It
is my understanding that subsequent to the filing of the Blake Farm (now Corliss
Hill Farm) subdivision application, owner/applicant Leighton conveyed Lot 19 to Gordon, meaning at the time of the approvals,
Leighton did not own all of the lots that constituted the proposed
subdivision. In order to accomplish
an after-the-fact correction of this awkward situation, Leighton and Gordon
propose a BLA that would reconfigure the Gordon lot to mimic the non-cluster lot
approved as part of the subdivision. In the event the Blake Farm subdivisions
were never advanced, the two lots would stand-alone and comply with the current
zoning. Application, boundary line
adjustment plan and abutters list are on file. Filing Fees have been paid. I recommend the application be accepted
as complete for purposes of proceeding to public hearing this evening.
Finer
moved, Bayard seconded, THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF
LINDSEY LU, INC. AND MICHAEL GORDON FOR A
Proposed Boundary
Line Adjustment. Voted unanimously.
4. DONALD R. HOULE – Proposed Site Plan
Amendment to establish a Bed &
Breakfast
on Tax Map S22, Lot 23, located at 53 Parade Road in
the
Residential District.
Edgar – The applicant proposes to
convert an existing residential dwelling to a 7 unit Bed and Breakfast (plus a 3
BR apartment) in the Residential District.
The proposed site on Parade
Road has commercial history and was before the
Planning Board on a pre-application basis on 3/28/06. Application, site plan and
abutters list are on file. Filing fees have been paid. I recommend the
application be accepted as complete for purposes of proceeding to public hearing
this evening.
Bliss
moved, Finer seconded, THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF
DONALD
R. HOULE FOR A Proposed Site Plan Amendment to
establish a Bed & Breakfast. Voted
unanimously.
5.
JANICE SEUFERT – Proposed Minor
Subdivision of Tax Map R35, Lot 1, into
three
(3) lots (11.05666 ac., 10.057277 ac. and 11.28636 ac.) located on Edgerly
School
Road in the Forestry/Conservation District.
Roger
Sorell stepped down.
Edgar – I ask the Board to
consider two separate votes. The first one is the subdivision. The second is the
BLA. The applicant proposes to subdivide 32.4 ac. into three lots. The lot includes two existing dwellings.
The subdivision necessitates a Boundary Line Adjustment with R-34, Lot 6 in order to achieve the 32 ac. The BLA is scheduled for review
concurrently with the subdivision.
Application, subdivision plan and abutters list are on file. Filing fees
have been paid. I recommend the application be accepted as complete for purposes
of proceeding to public hearing this evening.
Finer
moved, Bliss seconded, THAT WE ACCEPT
THE APPLICATION
OF JANICE SEUFERT FOR A Proposed Minor
Subdivision. Voted 6-0 in
favor.
6. JANICE SEUFERT AND ANNE MCKEE CHASE –
Proposed Boundary Line Adjustment between Tax Map R35, Lot 1 and Tax Map R34,
Lot 6, located on Edgerly School Road in the Forestry/Conservation District.
Finer
moved, Bliss seconded, THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF JANICE
SEUFERT AND ANNE MCKEE CHASE FOR A Proposed
Boundary Line Adjustment. Voted 6-0 in favor
PUBLIC
HEARING
1.
CHRISTOPHER DUPONT d/b/a DUPONT PAINTING CO.( Rep. Carl Johnson)
Johnson – This site was formally
called Midway
Gulf and Country Store. It
has had several incarnations over the years and mostly have been commercial but
it is not commercially zoned. When the last incarnation was terminated, the
previously existing non-conforming use terminated with it. The DuPont’s went before the Zoning Board
of Adjustment and were granted a
variance for the use that is being proposed this evening. There is not much
going on at this site because the use is very limited. They plan to just have an
office with a sign. This is a
painting contractor business so most of the work is done off-site as are most of
the meetings with potential customers.
There are no proposed changes to the outside of the building, none to the
configuration of the parking. They intend to do a little landscaping in front.
Right now there is an in and out for the driveways. The nhdot has requested that the most
easterly entrance be closed.
Some of Johns staff review comments are minor that have dealt with plan
notes and some questions to be answered. The overall property is under 3
ac. in size. There is no proposed
change to lot coverage and setbacks are indicated. John would like some location of the
existing septic system on the site with a cross reference to the DES permit and
to locate the on site well. We can
do that. The NHDOT driveway permit
will be required and then we can cross reference that on the plan as well. We don’t know about any proposed changes
to the lighting. There may be some limited additional lights for security. We will label existing snow
storage. The fuel supply will be in
coordination with Chief Palm. We do not anticipate a dumpster at this time. The number of employees will be listed
as three on the plan. Bliss – I
think the driveway should stay as it is.
If you are stuck in traffic on a Sunday afternoon and you are looking for
a safe place to turnaround to head back the other way because you have changed
your mind; this allows for a turn around. This is dangerous all the way through
there. This is a good pull in place. Johnson – This was brought forth by the
nhdot, not by the applicant. Bliss – Is it in our jurisdiction to
request that we would like the driveway to stay? Johnson- We can express to NHDOT, if the
Board is in agreement, and ask NHDOT to leave it open. The applicant is open to
whatever the Board would see fit.
Edgar- We don’t have jurisdiction over the driveway. We want to avoid NHDOT issuing a permit
under their jurisdiction and the Board refusing to approve the site plan. This is a shared driveway with the other
property. Do we have easements?
Johnson – The applicant is leasing and the owners own both of the properties. In
the event that the property is conveyed that is when it would be benefited by an
easement. Edgar – We need clarification in the event that either property is
sold. Johnson – We could have a
plan note to that affect. Vadney –
I don’t feel we should blindly accept any recommendation from NHDOT but I don’t
want to slow the applicant down. If
they give it up now, they will never get it back. Johnson – The applicants would like to
get in as quickly as possible. We could express the Board’s concern to
NHDOT. Edgar – This could be
handled administratively.
Flanders – I agree that the driveway
should stay open. I think we should include in the motion, direction from the
Board, to have the chairman write a letter to NHDOT expressing our
concerns. Edgar – The 4
stipulations from the Zoning Board of Adjustments decision should be referenced
on the final plans. That approval
runs with the property. I would like to see some extra thought with the security
lighting, so we are not creating an issue out there as far as the rural
character of the highway. If the
sign is located in the State ROW, I would like something from the State for the
file. Johnson – It is not in the
State ROW. Edgar – From a staff
point of view, we have no objection to go the temporary CO route while we are
waiting plan signatures.
Bliss
moved, Bayard seconded, Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant conditional approval for
CHRISTOPHER DUPONT d/b/a DUPONT PAINTING CO. FOR a site Plan Amendment for a
change of use to establish office for a commercial BUSINESS WITH related
signage, Tax Map S02, Lot 18, located at 274 NH Route 25 in the Forestry/Rural DISTRICT WITH the
following conditions:
1. FINAL plans
SHALL cross reference the ZBA decision
# 2752, 7/13/06) making specific
reference to the
conditions contained
therein;
2. The building SHALL be
used for office use only; NO
commercial deliveries of
product;
3. No more than one work
vehicle BE stored on site;
4. Any change in use,
unless permitted by the ordinance,
will void the
variance;
5. On-site septic is proposed. Final plans
shALL locate
existing septic system and cross reference to
NHDES permitting as
applicable;
6. FINAL PLANS SHALL LOCATE EXISTING WELL;
7. THE BOARD WOULD LIKE
TO HAVE tHE nhdot DRIVEWAY
REMAIN OPEN AND NOT HAVE IT
CLOSED AND HAVE THE
APPLICANTS NEGOTIATE WITH
nhDOT TO WORK FOR THAT;
sIGNED OFF AS FAR AS STAFF
ON THE nhdot DRIVEWAY
PERMIT;
8. tHE CHAIRMAN OF THE
PLANNING BOARD WILL WRITE A
LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE
PLANNING BOARD, APPLICANT
AND THE TOWN OF MEREDITH ASKING TO LEAVE
THE
DRIVEWAY OPEN;
9. FINAL plans SHALL
label snow storage AREAS;
10. Final plans SHALL be clarified with
respect to
sign
location. If it is to be in the
ROW, some
confirmation
from NHDOT is required;
11. Final plans SHALL NOTE the fuel supply
location;
iF it is outside of
the building with a sign off from
The Fire
Chief;
13. aPPLICANT MAY CONTINUE WITH A TEMPORARY
CO. while
WORKING WITH nhdot; AND
14. SUBJECT TO THE USUAL right to review and
amend
any approval as provided for in site Plan
Review
Regulations Nos. 7 &
17.
Voted 7-0 in favor of the
motion.
2. LINDSEY LU, INC. AND MICHAEL GORDON –
(Rep. Carl Johnson)
Johnson – The
Board is going to recognize the plan that I have up here. This is not the plan you have before
you. This is the Corliss Hill Farm
which is the cluster subdivision that the Board approved. That approval consisted of cluster lots
serviced by a road and consisted of one conventional lot that we had originally
intended to have as part of the cluster but because of the proximity of the
house to the buffer zone it was changed so there were two types of lots being
approved. The cluster lot and the
conventional lot. A portion
of the conventional lot was encumbered by a 50’ buffer so that the perimeter of
the cluster subdivision would be surrounded by a 50’ buffer per the Zoning
Ordinance. That plan was
conditionally approved by the Planning Board. I got to what I thought was the
last condition of the approval which was a lot merger. There are three lots involved in the
approval by the Board. The
two lots approved by the Planning Board as a prior subdivision that were in the
5 ac. field lot 1 and lot 2 . Two
separately approved, plan recorded in the Registry of deeds and saleable lots,
which is surrounded by a 13 ac. parcel also owned by Lindsey Lu that consisted
of the balance of the proposal.
That is the three lots. When
I went to fill in the lot merger form and typed in the Tax Map and Lot number for this lot, Lindsey Lu did not pop up. The name Michael Gordon popped
up. Subsequent to the Boards
approval, Lindsey Lu Inc. conveyed the lot on the prior subdivision plan to
Michael Gordon. That lot is of a
slightly different configuration and not encumbered by any of the restrictions
that Lot A1 on the cluster subdivision plan would have been. The first fix would be to convey
it back, but because of the nature of the conveyance, Lindsey Lu Inc.
essentially gifted the property to Mr. Gordon. So, what we have come up with is a new
plan that you have before you that conveys these little pieces of land either
from Lindsey Lu to Michael Gordon or Michael Gordon to Lindsey Lu., so when this
is all done and recorded, you end up with Lot A1 the same as it was on the
cluster plan that you approved. So
the cluster plan that you approved will say Michael Gordon instead of Lot A1.
The only change would be that Lot A1 would not be a lot on the plan; it would be
an abutter because of the boundary line adjustment that we are hoping to get
approved tonight. There will be a
draft deed which encumbers the new lot that is created by the Boundary Line
Adjustment to be owned by Michael Gordon to be subject to the 50’ buffer. We end up at the same place. This plan is technically correct. Johnson showed a plan to the Board that
shows the cluster after the line is changed. Edgar – The cluster subdivision after
this adjustment will look just the same as the way you approved it. Edgar – The deed restriction on the
Gordon property relative to the 50’ buffer is critically important. That needs to be carried forward. Bliss – I know this is nobody’s fault
but within the past two years we have heard from you and other applicants coming
in with major mistakes. As a Board
member, this concerns me. I wonder
what kind of precedence we are setting when a mistake is made like that and it
affects the whole project. Johnson
–It’s not a mistake in the sense that anything was done illegally. Bliss – It’s an oversight because we
didn’t find out sooner. At some
point we need to say the subdivision is off and he needs to come back in. Johnson – If you remember the original
proposal, we wanted the lot that has the existing house on it to be a part of
the cluster subdivision. There was
an objection by the Board because
the 50’ buffer zone went around the perimeter and the existing house was in the
buffer zone, there was a violation of the buffer portion of the Zoning
Ordinance. We had to make Lot A1 a
conventional lot. This was a
technical oversight in that the lot we created as a conventional lot was
slightly different than what was previously approved. Bliss - I am not saying it was a
gross oversight but I am saying it is an oversight. When do you say no? Johnson – I don’t think anything that
has happened here rises to that level of concern. Flanders – I agree with Pam to a large degree. The applicant is the one who through a
monkey wrench into it and now the burden is being placed back on the Board. Johnson – Mr. Chairman, I seriously fail
to see how the Board is being burdened by this application. Flanders –The only way the Board is being burdened is the
fact that we are going thru this hearing tonight and it would be unnecessary
otherwise and before this, it consumed a bunch of staff time. Johnson – This was a philanthropic
effort that failed on a technical level.
Bliss moved, Finer seconded, Mr. chairman, i MOVE THAT
we
grant approval to LINDSEY
LU, INC. AND MICHAEL GORDON FOR proposed Boundary Line Adjustments between Tax
Map R09, Lots 19 and 19A, located on Corliss Hill Road in the Residential
District with the following CONDITIONS:
1. Draft Conveyance deeds
shALL be submitted for staff review.
Executed deeds shALL be recorded with the mylar. Applicant’s attorney shall verify in
writing whether there exists a mortgage or similar encumbrance on either
property. To the extent there ARE
one or MORE mortgages involved, releases shall be recorded with the subdivision
plan. Applicant shall be
responsible for all recording fees associated with the proposed Boundary Line
Adjustment.
2. Draft deed
restrictions SHALL be submitted for staff review.
Voted 7-0 in favor of the motion.
DONALD R. HOULE –(Rep. Harry Wood)
Wood
– Mr. Houle owns the residence on Parade Road. This is a large dwelling. At
this time they would like to convert this to a Bed & Breakfast. There will
be no significant changes to the site for this application. The only external
change that might occur is with regard to the utilities. There is a leachfield at the present
time but a possible replacement system has been designed and approved. The water supply is located across from
Parade
Road from a surface well that supplies a number of people in that
general vicinity and has been in use for years. As far as we know, it is still
perfectly acceptable. We are providing the parking required within the existing
parking areas on the property. John
has asked for snow storage to be marked on the plan. The lot coverage is very low. We have a
NHDOT driveway permit which results with the access onto Parade Road being
restricted to the best location on the site. A berm and fence will be located
along the frontage and the access point will be very near the highest point on
the road.. We intend to have a
couple of external lights and a very small sign. The fuel supply will be oil. No dumpsters are intended. Flanders – Is there some land there that is owned by
Townie Thorndike? Edgar – That is
to the east of this. Wood – There
is no separate ownership. Worsman – This is a 7-bedroom unit
with a 3-bedroom apartment? Wood – There are seven units total. Houle – We designed the septic system for
the three bedroom apartment in the barn so if later we decide to do that we
would not have to come back for a hearing.
Vadney –The main building? Houle -There are 6 rentals and one innkeepers
unit. Worsman – I am looking at the summary of the proposal and it says dwelling
to a 7 unit bed & breakfast plus a 3-bedroom apartment. Edgar – That is what is indicated on the
construction approval for the septic. Worsman – So you are looking for our
approval for a 6 unit Bed & Breakfast or a 7 unit? Houle -There are 6 units plus (
inaudible) Edgar – There are 6 bedrooms for the B & B and one owner occupied
residence. One thing we did clarify at the last
meeting is that the definition of a B & B does require owner occupancy. So there needs to be owner’s quarters
somewhere. So if the apartment is
not developed, you have space in the house for owner’s quarters. . So it is 6
rental rooms plus owner’s quarters and if you were to create a 3 bedroom
apartment in the barn it would still be six rental rooms. Braxton – The
7th unit off the kitchen would not be a rental unit. If we are
expanding above and beyond the equivalent of what is there today that would
trigger the need to put the new septic system in up front. The likelihood that this new system will
go in up front is pretty significant. In talking to Bill, my understanding is
that this would be an occupancy requirement for the B&B. Worsman – How many bedrooms was this home
originally? Houle – There where 9
bedrooms. Worsman - My concern is
for that community well. If you have that number of people coming and going,
drawing on a community well, is there a true commitment to drill another well?
Houle – If we didn’t have enough
water, we would have to drill a well.
Worsman – But if you drain it, then a neighbor is out. Vadney – What is the flow on this
well? Braxton – This is a gravity
fed well with a large spring. The
gravity feeds into a 274 gallon holding tank. Nancy Parrott (Abutter) – We share the
well. My issue is not the Bed &
Breakfast; it is the issue with the well. One winter it froze running under the
road between Tracy
Way and the Bed & Breakfast. If the well runs out with two people in
the cottage, it is going to run out with a Bed & Breakfast. Vadney – With a Bed & Breakfast
there certainly is going to have a lot of water use. Flanders – The approval for construction is for 1760
gallons a day. Vadney – This could
be a problem. Could this well
produce this much water?
Bliss – Freezing under the road and running are two different things.
I would think if you have a Bed
& Breakfast you would want to be proactive and put the well in. Flanders – I would like to make a suggestion that the
plans show a proposed future well. Houle – I don’t have a problem putting in a
new well. Bliss – I think we should
have them put in a new well before it fails. Worsman – Are we comfortable with 10
parking spaces for 7 units? Edgar –
There is overflow parking at grade at the site to the rear. Edgar – There is a
letter in the file from abutter Capron in support of the Bed & Breakfast.
Vadney - I hesitate to have them dig a
new well right now. Worsman – I am
in favor of what Pam proposed.
Vadney – We have two votes for a new well. Braxton – In the deed to this property,
there is a right to maintain that spring. Maintenance of that spring has not
occurred for some time. The lack of maintenance to the spring may have affected
the supply. Houle – Can we just
make it a condition that I put in a well?
I believe the State is going to make me do it anyway.
Bayard
moved, Finer seconded, I MOVE THAT WE
CONDITIONALLY APPROVE
DONALD R. HOULE’S Proposed Site Plan Amendment
to establish a
BED & Breakfast on Tax Map S22, Lot 23, located at 53 Parade
Road in the Residential District SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1.
Final plans shall MENTION
the 3-BR apartment AS PROPOSED, but not OBLIGATED to build a 3-BEDROOM in the
barn, and is not to be a rental unit;
2.
Final plans shALL mention
the owner occupied requirement;
3.
A
NEW WELL SHALL BE provided for this site;
4.
final
plans shall indicate Snow storage areas;
5.
final
plans shall note fuel supply; and
6.
subject to the right to
review and amend any approval as provided for in site Plan Review Regulations
No’s 7 & 17.
Voted 7-0 in favor
of the motion.
3. JANICE SEUFERT –(Rep. Harry Wood)
Roger Sorell stepped down.
Wood – This is a two-part
application. I would assume the
Board would address them together.
The objective is to create a 3-lot subdivision. There are two dwellings on the property
now and those would fall on lots 1 & 2. The third lot would be deeded to Daniel
Seufert. They are in current use
with the entire property but they lack sufficient acreage to create the three
10- acre lots. They have gone to an
abutter who has 120 acres for a Boundary Line Adjustment. Parcel A would be conveyed from Mrs.
Chase to Mrs. Seufert. The second
step would be obtaining the approval for the 3-lots as shown on the plan, each
of which is over 10 acres in size and would remain in current use in all
probability. A question might
arise as to whether the lots meet the 4:1 ratio. I did compute lot #2 which is the
critical one. A note on the plan
indicates it is not a 4:1. It is
close. We delineated wetlands on
the site where they would affect the building on the property. We have had a septic system designed for
lot # 3. There are utility poles on
Edgerly School
Road. We
can highlight those. We are hoping for a conditional approval for the Boundary
Line Adjustment and with regard to the subdivision, we would have to set the
pins. Worsman –
(Inaudible) Wood – As long as Mrs.
Seufert retains title to lots 1 and 2, they can be added together for the
purpose of current use. The house
cannot be. Edgar – The subdivision plan indicates that partial mapping for
topography has been done in order to demonstrate compliance with our soils and
slopes requirements. We have not
received that. Wood – That is my
oversight. I thought it had printed
on the plans. I will provide that.
I am not asking the Board to act on that this evening. I hope they will on the Boundary line
Adjustment. We have to set the pins
anyway. Edgar – Final plans need to
indicate who did the delineation, their certification number, when the field
work was conducted and to what standard. We also need to identify existing
conditions that are relevant to the proposal. That would include locating existing
dwellings, drives, and wells. We need to show existing OH utility information.
We don’t have test pit data. If you
look at the building envelope on lot 1, that is all the more reason to document
what is already there. With
respect to the Boundary Line Adjustment, this is a straightforward
application.
Finer moved, Flanders seconded, that we continue this
(subdivision only) to the first meeting in october,
10/10/06).
Voted 6-0 in favor.
4. JANICE SEUFERT AND ANNE MCKEE CHASE
( Rep Harry Wood) –
Wood - John
mentioned that you would have the typical conditional on that and that the
executed deed be delivered. It is
our anticipation that the plan will be the same for both the Boundary Line
Adjustment and the Subdivision. If
they don’t get the approval for the subdivision, it is not going to happen. Vadney – You do want to go ahead
with the Boundary Line Adjustment?
Wood – It would be conditional.
Flanders moved, Finer seconded,
Mr. Chairman, I
move that we approve the Boundary Line Adjustment of JANICE SEUFERT AND ANNE
MCKEE CHASE between Tax Map R35, Lot 1 and Tax Map R34, Lot 6, located on Edgerly School Road in the
Forestry/Conservation District with the conditions that the draft Conveyance
deed shall be submitted for staff review.
An executed deed shall be recorded with the mylar. Applicant’s attorney shall verify in
writing whether there exists a mortgage or similar encumbrance on R-34,
Lot 6.
To the extent there are one or more mortgages involved, releases shall be
recorded with the subdivision plan.
Applicant shall be responsible for all recording fees associated with the
proposed Boundary Line Adjustment.
Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.
TOWN PLANNER’S
REPORT
Edgar – We do have some training opportunities that Chris has handed
out. One is
the annual Fall Conference.
ZONING WORK
SESSION
We left off with providing you a
copy of the prior proposal and uses.
The Board had talked about making a couple of different amendments. At the last meeting we provided the
comparison tables. There were
concerns whether some things were being zoned out or not. Lou prepared a memo that was sent out to
everybody. The hope was between the
old proposal, the comparison tables and the explanation on the definitions that
we could formulate some consensus as to what the Board would like to do with the
proposals. I haven’t heard from anybody.
We ultimately need to decide on what we would like to take to Public
Hearing. Worsman – I would like to
not see the change for Cluster Developments (inaudible) Edgar – It would still
come before you as a subdivision.
We now have a two step process.
They go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for special exceptions and then
subdivision. If it was a permitted
use, it would just come to you as a cluster. If it is the Board’s desire to keep
it as a special exception, that’s fine. Vadney- When we first put this in there
it was under the general thought that cluster’s were good. It has become more apparent that
clusters in the mind of a good person can be good and in the mind of an evil
person can be bad. Until we figure
how we want to write the cluster part, it might be good to leave another
roadblock. Edgar- We have talked in
length about not having something that will drag us down and that could be one
of those. Vadney – I think we should let this one lie. Edgar – I agree. Vadney - The change of zoning for
Philbrook and Jenness Hill? John,
where are the boundaries now, what zone are they in and what is the proposal?
Edgar – The Central Business
District extends up Rte 3. When it gets up to Philbrook Ave, the Commercial Zoning
includes the property on the right hand side of Phillbrook Ave. and
the left side is residential. One
side of Philbrook
Avenue would be zoned Residential to match the other
side of that street. Portions of
Jenness Hill
Road zoning would change from Central Business to
Forestry and Rural which it abuts. Bliss – I was under the assumption that
at the last meeting we decided to go fairly simple to the voters. This is not fairly simple. I am
concerned we are going to get shot down again. Edgar – The discussion on simple
was not adding things like wetland data, Ralph’s request to rezone Meredith
Neck, the Wickwas request, and with signage or cluster. We wanted to keep it
simple by breaking it into pieces that were manageable. Kahn – A big piece
missing is the Village Residential.
That is what drew the most fire. Edgar - We had decided to omit the
Village Residential District and to put it into four components and articulate
what those components could be.
Vadney – If I had nothing to do with the Planning Board and read that the
Planning Board was recommending turning Philbrook Ave. and Jenness Hill into
Residential, I would say they’re looney, there is a dump up there. Kahn – Why make parts of Jenness Hill
residential, because there are some great views up the hill, far from the dump.
Is this essential, no. This is a simple item. Vadney – I think it’s an item that may
bring in 35 angry voters. Bliss – I
would rather do one or two this year and one or two next year instead of one,
two, three, or four and be turned down because they are so confused. Worsman – There was a development that
came before the Board behind Waterworks and another one potentially behind
Harley Davidson. Is this going to
be considered Village? Edgar – No.
The Village stops at the railroad tracks. Worsman – So south of the railroad
track? Edgar- Would be the
Rte 3 District. Worsman – What
about south of the railroad tracks on the Waukewan side? Edgar–The sidelines to the Rte 3
corridor in terms of where the Commercial Zoning is remains unchanged. Bliss - Under the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendments –Amendment #1 talks about VIII to add a number of new and
changed use-related definitions (deleting certain others) relating to Permitted
Uses and Special Exceptions in all Zoning Districts. I think we are cleaning up a lot of
things and I would like to see that
one go forward. With a short
discussion on the definition of Bed & Breakfast, the Board decided to leave
it as is. Vadney – The bigger
question for tonight is which of these four basic proposed changes do we want to
go forward with. I can see people turning out to vote against the
Philbrook-Jenness one but not turning out to vote for it. Let it stay the way it
is. As far as the Village goes, we
just can’t get good traction on it.
Is there some way we could get the Village District in and have a section
that defines what could go on in that district and make that the first part of
the rewrite this year and then add this proposed one next year and slowly add
them on. Kahn - Herb, your
suggestion that we create a Village District and not do anything with the
Central Business District and Rte 3 South District is where madness lies. We are
trying to coordinate things. Kahn –
The main changes in the Village District are service stations and auto
dealers. Worsman – And the reduced
size of the lot. Edgar –The Village
core would not be density neutral.
The density would be driven by lot coverage, building height, driveway
permits, site plan approval, wetland and all the other constraints that we
have. Worsman - This is not going
to create affordable housing. This
is going to create a piece where a developer is going to come in and turn a big
house into condos. We are not going to achieve our goal. Edgar –The footprint of the Village
District is our Commercial core. We
looked at logical ways to determine the boundaries of the Village District. Walkability was part of it, as was the
location of Public facilities etc.
Vadney – Is the Village going to go beyond the Police Station? Is the Police Station going to make that
seem like part of the Town?
Flanders – I think it probably is but we
need to get something that will actually pass. So if you want to create a Village
District all the way to the Center Harbor line that will be perceived by the
average person as a larger change than what we have here now. Edgar – If we carve out the Village
District and leave Central Business remnants, we would have a Village District
that speaks to the Commercial core and a Central Business District that has
nothing to do with the reality of the Commercial core. Bliss – This already feels like us
against you. This is a Board of
seven people and you have to convince how many voters. I am not sold on it. Vadney – If we are having second
thoughts, what does that say? Kahn – In order to get this to the voters you have
to give us some direction. You are
giving us a lot of negative but no direction. Bliss – We asked for simple and
this is not. Edgar. – This is the
underlining text. The article that
goes on the warrant is not all of that. Vadney – The other one we should
jettison is the Accessory Apartment one. You either love or hate that term and
most don’t understand it so they hate it.
Edgar – Is it that confusing to have an Article on Accessory Apartments?
Vadney – I think some people who don’t want their neighbor to have one will vote
no on everything. Edgar – If you
follow that logic to its conclusion you would never have more than one article
on the warrant. Vadney – That’s
right. What is the change we
are making with Accessory Apartments this year? Edgar – Eliminating the Special
Exception. We have a rental housing
issue in this community. The change
of the density relative to the Village and the Accessory Apartment was an
opportunity to improve rental opportunities and blend in with the
community. Finer – I think the
Board needs one or two. The Accessory Apartment is a simple one for people to
grasp. Get one or two passed so we
are back on the winning track and then next year come in with something more
complex. Vadney – I agree.
Flanders – The Accessory Apartment on a scale
of importance to try and move the ordinance in the proper direction is
peanuts. We need to pick one or two
that are pivotal but not so controversial.
Vadney – I wanted to go in with a freebee. I think the Accessory
Apartment is one of those. There is
too much baggage with the Village District.
Bayard- I think we should go with
proposal one and four. Edgar –
Proposal four is the free one. Kahn
–If you are only comfortable with the Accessory Apartment one then end of
discussion. Bayard – My second one
was let’s redo the definitions.
Kahn – That is not easy. The
definitions are tied to changes and uses.
The changes and uses involve moving uses from one district to
another. Worsman – Is it possible
to word the warrant article such that, for example, we choose the Village or
whatever we choose, that we word the use change proposal such that we will adopt
it with the idea that the Town will support the use change of the current bill
that passes but understand that we have use changes that are conflicting in the
other districts. So by passing
this, for example, when and if we change the use where there are three different
names for campgrounds, it will change that title. Edgar – If I understand your question,
you are saying, adopt all thirty nine definitions’ and as we piece meal the
District by District updates, the definitions will be waiting for us? Worsman –
Yes. Edgar- What I am saying is
that you will have definitions that have no applicability and you will continue
to have conflicting language. This
will create more confusion. At the
end of the day you have to have a chart of uses that match the definitions. Flanders –We are debating what comes first, the chicken or
the egg. It seems like we are
spinning our wheels and going no where.
We need to start the PR campaign by December and we need to come to some
kind of decision on what we are going to do. Bayard – Pam, are you comfortable with
the first and fourth proposal? Proposal one says “make a
number of technical changes and clarifications in the Zoning Ordinance,
including updating and improving the purpose statements of most existing
districts, revising tables of permitted uses and uses subject to special
exception and adding new and changed definitions relating to the tables of
uses. The proposal creates more
flexibility in the Business and Industry District and in the Route 3 corridor to
increase business opportunities.”
You may have to modify that slightly because we are not going forward
with two and three. Flanders – I think we all agree if we go with the four
that is risky. Is that what I am
hearing? Bayard. I would just
as soon go with all four but I am willing to go with one and two. Vadney –The more I look at this the
harder it is to have a positive attitude on it. Finer – The biggest challenge we face is
telling the individual voter, what is in it for me? So much of this doesn’t apply to any of
them that it is hard to make the argument to all of them. Vadney – Bill has recommended the one
and four proposals. The first proposal “technical changes and clarifications in
the Zoning Ordinance, including updating and improving the purpose statements of
most existing districts” is to a large degree where we started four years
ago. Bliss – What is your
proposal Bill? To choose one and
four and to add in to change the definitions and uses to what we already
have? Flanders – Do Lou and John think this is doable? Kahn – I have been here 16 hours and I
am not about to make a decision whether or not that is doable.
Signatures/Adjourn –
- Eric Christensen –
Subdivision Plan
- Richard & Gail
Freeman – Subdivision – Site Plan
Meeting
adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Tivnan
Planning/Zoning Clerk
The above minutes were read and
approved by the Meredith Planning Board at a regular meeting on
________________________.
Meredith Planning Board