Washington Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2014
0.0 Assembly: 6:30PM
0.1
Members
present: Cook, Crandall, Dagesse, Marshall, Schwartz
0.2 Alternates
present: None
0.3
Members and
Alternates Absent: Kluk, Terani
0.4
Visitors: Phil Barker,
Gwen Gaskell, Jim Gaskell
1.0 Minutes:
Minutes from January 7, 2014, Crandall had a minor change and suggested that we
remove the words Òat 6:30PMÓ when Dan Reidy came in to join the MPUC meeting.
All agreed and Schwartz will make the change. Marshall motioned to approve, Crandall
seconded and all voted in favor.
2.0 Old Business:
2.1 Business permits –Snell
Construction & Excavation sent in a business permit application in response
to our request. Cook read through the permit application. The application is
for a towing, snowplowing and construction business. Crandall asked if Snell
was going to store towed vehicles on his property and Dagesse said that he said
he keeps these vehicles off-site at a yard near PatÕs Peak, if they are kept
overnight. The business is based at his motherÕs home on Valley Road and has no
employees. Schwartz read through the ordinance so we could classify his
business because we were not sure he meets the Òcottage businessÓ requirements.
Marshall suggested we go take an unofficial look at the property to see how
many vehicles are on the lot. We planned 11AM on Thursday to drive by the
property. Barker asked why Snell hasnÕt had to finish the siding on the house.
Marshall said it is complicated.
2.2 RV ordinance discussion –
Crandall made a motion to make the change discussed earlier; change the word
ÒconstructionÓ to ÒofficeÓ in section 306.1, Dagesse seconded and all voted in
favor. Schwartz will make the change and contact Premier Printing about the
revised section of the ballot.
2.3 Ethical questions – Marshall
wanted to request that both Schwartz and Dagesse take minutes for this section
of the meeting. He stated this is not a witch-hunt but he wants to clarify the
Planning BoardÕs Rules of Procedure and the Ethical Principals sent out to all
town employees and committee members in the past. He said that in the minutes
of our August 2013 Planning Board meeting there was a discussion of Planning
Board members being on committees, Schwartz and Kluk were asked to be on the
Safety Complex committee and they said yes. They were not officially appointed
or given permission to represent the Planning Board on this committee. Marshall
brought up the issue and we discussed it saying that they couldnÕt represent
the PB on the committee but could bring their expertise as residents or
concerned citizens. Cook asked what committee he was talking about and Marshall
said the Safety Complex committee. He said the discussion at the time was
whether we wanted to have a vote or whether they would represent as citizens.
Schwartz said at the time that she didnÕt think a vote was necessary. Marshall
said he attended an earlier meeting of the Safety Complex committee and we were
all introduced to John Deloia from Eckman Construction and Schwartz and Kluk
both mentioned they were representatives of the Planning Board. Marshall had an issue
because he didnÕt feel that they should be representing the Planning Board
without a vote of the Planning Board. He said an article came out in the
Villager stating that members were representing the Planning Board, Selectmen,
etc. His first point is all other committees are under authorization of the
Planning Board and blessed by us and the Safety Complex committee is an ad hoc
committee. Cook asked who formed the Safety Complex committee? Marshall said it
was formed by them. He said that the only way the Selectmen are represented to
the Safety Committee is as agents to expend the money raised at Town Meeting
for the committee. Schwartz commented that the Selectmen were doing more than
that, the committee wanted their input. Marshall said that as Selectmen they
voted to join the committee, there was no such request from the Planning Board,
it just happened. He said other members of the committee are affiliated with
other boards – ZBA, Parks & Rec, Conservation Commission but none of
them said they were representing their other affiliations. That said the Master
Plan, CIP and Task Force are not part of this phase of the project; it is
conceptual. His dilemma is that the current plan that Eckman has come up with
for this piece of land will require no less than three variances; frontage on
both Old Marlow Road and Lempster Mountain Road and a height variance because
the peak of the vehicle barn is 47 feet. As Planning Board members he doesnÕt
feel that we should support any variances from the Land Use Ordinance (LUO). He
recognizes that municipalities are exempt from needing a variance. He thinks it
is a conflict of interest if it is recommending a building that needs three
variances because it is a Land Use Ordinance (LUO) issue. He said that if a guy
comes in with a site plan and it doesnÕt meet the LUO how could we turn him
down. Schwartz said that the Planning Board doesnÕt deal with variances, the person
comes in to the Selectmen for a building permit and if they turn him down
because he doesnÕt meet the LUO they send him to the ZBA for a variance or
variances. We donÕt deal with variances at all, people are always free to
request a variance from the LUO and if they have good reason, they are granted.
His point is that municipalities should not have the right to say - we can do
whatever we want, he canÕt answer that personÕs question as to why he needs a
variance but the town doesnÕt. His concern is that the Planning Board has a
mandate to protect the LUO and protect the RSAs and written law.
Marshall
wants to make a motion to add to the Planning BoardÕs Rules of Procedure that
Planning Board members who want to represent the board on a committee or board
outside of the jurisdiction of the Planning Board receive a favorable vote at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the board. He feels a member at large is OK, but
he wants to control what happens outside of the board. Marshall said that an
example of this was at the last Safety Complex meeting a member of the Select
Board said the town would pay for a mailing and he wasnÕt authorized to do so.
Dagesse seconded the motion. Cook asked for other comments. Crandall said that
at the time he thought they should have gotten permission. Cook called for the
vote on Marshall motion and all voted in favor.
Marshall
had a second motion to make; that the board writes an article of clarification
to send to the Safety Complex committee chair and the newspapers that printed
their article, as a letter to the editor. This would say that the Planning
Board is not officially represented, as indicated by the Safety Complex committee;
our members are volunteers to the committee. Cook asked for further comments on
MarshallÕs motion. There being none, Crandall seconded the motion and all voted
in favor. Crandall asked if it was proper to add KlukÕs comments to the minutes
as she requested, he feels she should have to be attending the meeting to have
her comments included. Dagesse said that we have done this before and she is OK
with it. Cook said that she doesnÕt want any meetings held by email and when
emails start circulating it becomes a problem.
KlukÕs emailed
comments are as follows:
Tom (and all), although I do not know what your
specific concerns are regarding this requested agenda item for the PB meeting,
I can only speculate that it is directed at some of us who are serving on
committees such as the Master Plan, the Meeting House and/or the Safety
Complex.
If indeed this is your concern (which it may
not be), I would like to comment that none of these committees have any
authority to enact ordinances, sign contracts or spend money that has not
already been approved by either the voters, the Planning Board or the
Selectmen. Thus I feel there is no personal gain that occurs by Planning
Board members serving on committees.
On the other hand, the knowledge that PB
members may bring to some committees can be beneficial.
Finding folks to volunteer these days is no
easy task, thus I struggle to understand your possible concerns that would
prevent folks from being involved.
I just wanted to share these comments prior to
the meeting since I will not be able to attend.
Thanks,
Jean
3.0 New Business:
3.1 Sign Permit application from Dale Moser for Lemon Tree Pastries and Desserts on Rte. 31. Schwartz said that at this point we have her as a cottage business and we need to look at whether we need to bump her up to home business at this point. She is hoping to now have customerÕs visit her home to buy her pastries and desserts. Dagesse said she wants to get this done soon. Schwartz said she is requesting a sign for the building and two directional signs, that all conform to the LUO. Cook asked if we need to table the sign application until Moser applies for a home business and goes through a site plan review? Schwartz read through the qualifications for exemption to the site plan review and Moser didnÕt meet the exemption. Dagesse will send Moser the Site Plan review application and regulations and we will table the sign application until we receive her paperwork.
Barker said that he wanted to speak as a concerned citizen, a few years ago the Planning Board had a list of people that didnÕt have a business permit but were doing business in town. He said that Robbie Ostertag said he wasnÕt doing business in town but he still is. He feels we need to send him a letter. Dagesse will draft a letter to Ostertag.
Schwartz asked Dagesse about Cullen (Thunder Mountain Construction), she had sent him a letter requesting his paperwork long ago and he hasnÕt replied as yet. Dagesse will send him a certified letter requesting that he show up at our March meeting to speak with us.
4.0 Driveway permits: None
4.0 Mergers: None
6.0 Communications:
6.1 Intent to Cut - Cranston,
Kingsbury Hill Rd., TM 17-28
6.2 Intent to Cut – DiCaprio,
Halfmoon Pond Road, TM 12-38
6.3 Intent to Cut – Sagalyn,
Rt. 31, TM 1-1
6.4 Copy of Dredge and Fill application
for NH DOT for E. Washington Pond project
6.5 Copy of plan for George Cook,
Bailey Road, from Peter Mellen, given to Cook for
AssessorÕs files.
7.0 Date for next Planning Board meeting, March 4, 2014, at 6:30PM.
8.0 Adjournment: Time 8:21PM
Motioned by Dagesse, seconded by Crandall, all voted in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nan Schwartz