Washington Planning Board

Working Meeting Minutes - DRAFT

August 8, 2016

0.0       Assembly: 9:00 AM

            0.1       Members present: Crandall, Kluk, Schwartz, Dulac and Williams

            0.2       Alternates present: Hatch

0.3       Members and Alternates Absent: Terani and Russell

0.4       Visitors: Charlie and Ken Eastman

Crandall opened the meeting at 9:00 AM, at Camp Morgan Lodge.

1.0       Minutes August 2^nd Hearing and Meeting:

Kluk and Williams had a few suggested changes, Kluk suggested removing “petition” from 4.2 and that we voted to go with only attached ADUs, Williams corrected the side set backs to 30’ and that he abstained from the votes on the minutes because he wasn’t in attendance at the meetings. Schwartz will make the corrections. Williams made a motion to approve, Kluk seconded and all voted in favor.

2.0 Eastman Subdivision, frontage question:

            The Eastman’s were here to discuss what we learned in our investigation into the LUO frontage question. Their possible simple subdivision at 494 Millen Pond Road, TM 11-42 was being planned for only 50’ of water frontage. In looking at the LUO we believed that they needed 200’ of frontage on the pond as well as 200’ of road frontage. Ken said that this is the first subdivision in 8 years. Crandall commented that there was a chain of emails with information on the LUO question after consulting past chairs of the board Jack Sheehy and Lynn Cook about it and speaking with others who had been on the board. Crandall wanted our reaction to what was said. He said Cook interpreted it as either/or but Sheehy, who had been involved with writing the ordinance in 2002, said it was supposed to be both. Dulac commented that some felt it was either/or but Sheehy said his intent in writing the LUO in 2002 was for both to be 200’. Precedent would have been set if we made decisions based on either/or or both, so he asked if a decision was made after the adoption of the LUO in 2002? Kluk said there was no decision or precedent made on a waterfront property. Crandall asked if we want to clarify the language and bring it to Town Meeting. K. Eastman said that from a historical perspective there was a standing joke about the either/or sisters. C. Eastman asked why waterfront is important and said her surveyors say that 50’ is enough. Schwartz commented that a longer waterfront protects the environment and health of the water body. Dulac said there is much confusion about how things were viewed, he would approve what the Eastman’s are proposing, the language has been interpreted many ways, so that is the problem. Schwartz didn’t agree she thinks it is important that Sheehy said what the original intent was, this section of the LUO has never been tested with a subdivision and this decision sets precedent. Williams said we need to decide, he feels what surveyors say doesn’t matter, the past two chairs do not agree, there is confusion and he suggested we get a read on it from the town attorney. Hatch said that if it was changed from an earlier LUO it would tell us something about what was changed and why. He said we are not trying to be difficult but the ordinance is trying to avoid too many access points. C. Eastman wanted to know a timeline for getting a decision from the attorney and the Board. Williams said that we need to give the attorney the background of what we have found out and get a decision from him to guide us. K. Eastman volunteered that when he was ex-officio planning was the name of the PB, they were trying to look ahead and see what the future is, and he feels this is an attempt to restrict development. He suggested that as we deliberate, we should be careful because we are setting a precedent. Kluk said that in light of the Master Plan we are trying to uphold the environmental points; larger frontage is better for the water quality. Kluk said that she knows the Eastman’s care deeply about Millen Pond because of all their work on protecting the lake from invasive plants through the Lake Host program and in other ways, and that they should want to do what will protect the lake. Crandall and Williams will call the town attorney.

            Kluk asked about corner lots and how the frontage is decided. Schwartz pointed to #302, which said the frontage is calculated on the more travelled road. Hatch commented that we need to see the future but we can’t imagine every possible scenario that can happen. Dulac said he hates to see people being penalized.

            Kluk asked about old LUOs, Schwartz said she will look for them in the PB file cabinet; she only has copies back to the 2007 on her computer.                                           

3.0       Right-to-Know Law:

            Crandall handed out a copy of NHMA’s Right-to-know information. He commented that we need to be careful with email and making recommendations through email. Williams had a flow chart from NHMA that he shared with us and will send a copy to all for their reference. He raised a concern with Crandall about this and feels we should step back, he commented that “reply all” is something that should never be used in these situations.          Dulac asked about calling someone or sitting down with someone to get their ideas, he wanted to know how to do that legally. Williams said from a legal perspective any one or two of us can meet with anyone and it is appropriate, a quorum of the board can’t do that without proper notice. Kluk added that you can disseminate the information but no one should reply or give an opinion on that.

4.0       Gibson Sign Permit:

Crandall said that he spoke with Gibson and he was fine with changing the size of the barn sign to conform to the LUO. He changed the size on his application and initialed the change. Schwartz made a motion to approve the application for the two signs, Kluk seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Crandall signed the permit and will return it to the Town Hall and let the Gibson’s know we approved it.

5.0       Selectmen’s letter to contractors:

            Crandall questioned whether the letter was mentioned in the BoS minutes. Williams said that he thought there was a reference to it in the minutes, but said that they never publish a letter in its entirety in their minutes. We discussed the meaning of what was conveyed and Dulac said he and Hatch specifically asked for authorization to speak with contractors. Williams reiterated that in the letter the BoS did not say that contractors couldn’t speak with us, just that if there were a cost attached the PB would have to take that on themselves because the BoS was not making funds available to us.

6.0       Transition issues:

Crandall said that he wanted to deal with Kluk’s list of concerns and questions on logistics, sequencing and scope. Dulac said that one of the things that is important is to be clear with costs and tax impact. He thinks we should find a way to get a verbal OK on the wetlands issue and the septic. He is going to talk to Thayer this week. He wants to get a plan for use of the existing F/R building and the DPW’s use of the Old Garage building. He thinks a marketing plan is important.

            Crandall said he needs more information on Kluk’s list, so we can identify problems we need to deal with. Dulac asked about an itemized cost list, Crandall shared one with us early on and he has a copy for Dulac. Kluk said that a detailed plan on the use of the existing F/R station needs to be made. If we build the barn with Decon and a bathroom you still have to use the existing station for administration, so it would be unavailable for other purposes. You need a timeline for finishing so you know when the space is available for other uses and the costs of the new uses. She wanted to know if the cistern was included in the costs and Schwartz said it was. Hatch said that Portable buildings have been considered for the Town offices if the F/R building is not available. This is a better idea than tying Camp Morgan Lodge. Crandall said that for sequencing it was thought that F/R would go first, but it would have been a finished building, if it is not finished a different plan needs to be considered. He also feels now that staggered building starts are not a good idea because of inflation. Dulac asked if this is our jurisdiction, maybe it is the BoS’s decision. Crandall said that people are going to ask what the plan is. Dulac said that we can recommend but implementing is their job. Kluk said she is trying to flush out the hidden costs in the projects and account for them and figure out uses so we can answer questions that come up. Kluk asked if the septic is included in the Town Hall project or not, temporary offices, welfare privacy issues, any interior work or changes on the main floor. Hatch said that these could be included but aren’t at this time. He said the changes that were made a few years ago to the main floor solved problems that existed. He remembers Marshall standing up at Town Meeting and talking about a sally port and since then they resolved the problem, we can’t predict the future but we can come up with answers that may be implemented. Kluk said she is trying to anticipate questions about whether something is included or not. Crandall agreed that we should think about questions to be asked and what the answer would be. Dulac said we need a plan for cuts to get to the $3M. Kluk wants to account for reno costs for the end use decisions for spaces and uses. Hatch said that Krygeris said we are not a growing town and we won’t need to propose uses that fill a need that isn’t there. Crandall thinks we will end up with an empty building anyway. Dulac said we can get in trouble trying to predict the future and we can’t fill a building if it isn’t fillable. Crandall said we need a plan for all buildings. Dulac commented we will leave the Schoolhouse out if it costs too much. Kluk asked Crandall if he had a plan for this. Williams said that the number for the Safety building was 1.6M and with inflation it would be 1.6 to 1.7, the number for the full rehab of the Meetinghouse was 1.7M and with inflation it would be 1.7 to 1.8 with inflation, if $3M is our number we need to cut $500K more and we need to answer the question of building uses, we need to be careful where we are going. Crandall said we are going to have the numbers. Williams said they did all this last year and squeezed things and couldn’t get there. Crandall feels the Safety building and the Meetinghouse could get to the $3M. Williams said that the BoS haven’t said we can’t talk to contractors, they said if it costs money they won’t pay. Dulac said the money is there and they won’t release it, the $3M came from a target we set around the table. Williams feels the numbers are not realistic, if you want $3M you have a lot to cut, getting $500K out of there is a lot to do. Dulac said we had a 1.4 and 1.6 and made a decision to go with a $3M figure.

            Dulac asked Williams if the BoS has a stand on a warrant article. Willams said the PB has taken a stand to take a “stuff it” action. Dulac said we wanted to do a joint effort to come up with a plan for the buildings and the BoS rejected that. We have been told we are on our own and they aren’t supporting us. We are not saying “stuff it” we are a planning board and we are trying to move forward and plan. Williams said they won’t stand in our way but they won’t support a $3M to $3.5M warrant article.

            Schwartz asked about scaling back the annex on the MH. Hatch talked about getting to a minimum where they get everything they want. He said that last year’s debacle at town meeting was because the F/R didn’t get consulted on what they were proposing and it wasn’t workable for them. He said the Schoolhouse needs to be in the mix, but we need to get to the nitty-gritty of the two projects first.

7.0       Next meeting, purpose and date/time: We are meeting with Milestone at their office in Concord on August 11^th at 10:30AM. We will set another meeting after that.

Adjournment:   Time: 10:45 AM

             Respectfully Submitted,  

Nan Schwartz