Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Recorded by Angélique Moon
December 30, 2013
Members present: RMarshall, KO'Connell, SChicoine, PRenaud, AMoon, JFletcher
7:07 p.m. Meeting Minutes
PRenaud began reading the December 23rd meeting minutes. No substantive changes were made. KO'Connell moved to accept the minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
7:14 p.m. Industrial Overlay Language
PRenaud presented the proposed amendment language for the industrial zone expansion. The buffer from the Lake and Village District was discussed to ensure that 300 ft is a sufficient buffer to protect both.
SChicoine expressed concern that there's no current path to restrict driveway access to Rte 31. Team agreed that "All access to these lots shall be from Route 31." will be added to the bottom of the zone description to specifically restrict all driveway access in the zone to Rte 31.
The new language will be inserted at the bottom of the current industrial district language in the zoning ordinance. RMarshall said that he will send the proposed language to MSerge for legal review before we put forth the language to the town.
KO'Connell moved to accept the language as described for zoning amendment public hearing. PRenaud seconded. SChicoine, AMoon, PRenaud, KO'Connell voted in favor. JFletcher abstained.
7:37 p.m. Neighborhood Heritage District Questions
RMarshall brought back responses to the questions posed in the last planning board meeting from LMurphy:
1. Can the Planning Board administer this Ordinance without an Advisory Committee?
PB could do this without an advisory committee, but it's not recommended. Having an advisory committee provides additional oversight from the public and residents of the district, provides a secondary opinion for Planning Board consideration.
2. Does having a PB member on the Advisory Committee bias/prejudice either the deliberation of the Advisory Committee or deliberations of the PB following an Advisory Committee recommendation?
LMurphy doesn't believe that a PB member would need to recuse themselves. RSAs provide specific rules for when recusal is necessary, this is not one of those cases. Additionally, RSAs allow for PB members to serve on up to 2 other local boards.
PRenaud is concerned that RSA 673:14 (regarding recusals) and the relevant juror standards would apply as Advisory Committee members would be giving their opinions of the proposed changes publicly, including to the applicants. KO'Connell does not believe that this would apply. RMarshall proposes that we remove the instance where the Advisory Committee would hold public hearings and have the Advisory Committee just review the application and provide a recommendation to the PB.
KFletcher notes that many of the RSA 673 Local Land Use boards are recommended to have a PB member on the committee.
PRenaud asks that we ask an attorney for specific advice regarding this point and explain in detail "if we don't have a joint meeting and we're getting an opinion, would having a PB member not recuse themselves be in conflict given that they have given a public opinion outside of the PB meeting?" (This with reference to RSA 673:14 and the juror standards.). Fletcher and SChicoine believe that it's not a conflict, but agree that if there is no cost we should get a legal opinion from LGC to satisfy PRenaud's concern.
3. Can we allow application for Advisory Committee review without a fee (assuming notification costs will be borne by the PB)?
LMurphy says that the PB has the option to waive the fee as long as it is allowed for in our regulations, which it is.
PRenaud does not believe that we have the option to waive the notification fees. There is not consensus on this point and PRenaud would like a legal opinion.
KO'Connell believes that the RSAs provide for the right to have the applicant cover the costs, not that there is the obligation to do so. SChicoine brought up examples of items that have been waived.
4. Procedural question: Does the Planning Board time frame for decision (65 days) start when the application is received and sent to the Advisory Committee for study or when the Advisory Committee reports back to the PB?
Timeframe begins when the PB accepts the application as complete. NHDAC will have 30 days, which leaves the PB with 35 days, though extensions are possible.
5. When NHD application review does not require Site Plan Review, how long does the PB have to render a decision?ü LMurphy points back to our regulations: 65 days.
8:18 p.m. Neighborhood Heritage District Review
RMarshall proposes that we remove the cost of application and notification fees for Neighborhood Heritage District activities and remove the separate public hearing for the NHDAC. The notification fees would be absorbed in the Planning Board budget line item for notifications, which means that the cost would be borne across all taxpayers.
RMarshall reviewed how the changes concerning public reviews and hearings would impact the original concerns regarding fees and jurisdiction. NHDAC would act as an advisory committee similar to ConCom:
· The applicant would apply to the PB.
· PB would accept the application on completion and submit to NHDAC for review.
· At public hearing PB would call on the applicant, then hear the NHDAC input, then hear additional public input.
RMarshall proposed that we add an item to the Site Plan Review checklist to ascertain if an application falls within the NHD. JFletcher asked if we would need to notify all residents of the District. RMarshall confirmed that this would follow standard notification standards - public notification plus individual certified letters to abutters.
RMarshall asked PRenaud if these changes alleviate his concerns. PRenaud expressed that he's concerned with all taxpayers taking on the burden for village residents. AMoon, JFletcher, and SChicoine expressed that the burden should be shared across town residents rather than solely borne by the NHD residents.
Additional changes:
· Fencing – AMoon proposed that we remove the word "vinyl" from the fencing language.
· Map/Boundaries – RMarshall proposed new boundaries for the district including a 300' buffer. JFletcher proposed bringing in the boundaries of the district even further. SChicoine proposed that we review RMarshall's proposal at the next public hearing and hold JFletcher's proposal as a fallback position.
· Tree language – Agreed that 15" in circumference should be 15" in diameter. AMoon proposed that we add "visible from a public way" to the language. It was agreed to add this to the subheading "Mature Trees".
· Procedures – PRenaud noted that the procedures section needs language referring to applications being accepted by the PB.
PRenaud still wants legal advice on the following questions:
1. If a PB member sits on the NHDAC, does that present a conflict of interest or bias, necessitating recusal of that member at the subsequent PB hearing and discussions of this matter?
2. Can we waive notification fees for NHDAC or Planning Board reviews?
RMarshall offered to ask BFrost the questions, with LGC as the fallback option. PRenaud agreed that this would be sufficient for his concerns.
KO'Connell moved to accept changes as amended through tonight's discussion. JFletcher seconded. KO'Connell, SChicoine, JFletcher, and AMoon voted in favor. PRenaud voted in opposition.
RMarshall asked that the team review the draft report and offer feedback.
9:34 p.m. Adjournment
PRenaud motioned to adjourn. JFletcher seconded. Vote unanimous in favor.
| 
