Planning Board
June 5, 2012
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Tom Vannatta, Vice-Chair; Travis Dezotell; Bill Weiler, Russell Smith, Members; Jim Powell, Ex-Officio; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 1, 2012 and made corrections. Mr. Dezotell made a motion to approve the minutes of May 1, 2012 as corrected. Mr. Vannatta seconded the motion. All in favor.
Zoning Ordinance – Steep Slope Definition
The Board continued the discussion on the amendment to the steep slopes definition as contained in Article II Definitions. Ms. Ruppel stated that she discussed this proposed definition with a co-worker and this associate thought the definition is being over thought. Mr. Powell asked Mr. Weiler about the figure of 25% use of measured slope rather than 15%. Mr. Weiler said that his reasoning was to make things easier in the future as to what a steep slope would be. Mr. Weiler said that he just wants to set a minimum for people to use as a reference. Mr. Healey asked Ms. Ruppel what the associate found confusing. Ms. Ruppel replied her associate thought the numerous measurements within the definition got confusing. Ms. Ruppel suggested images should be included with the definition to
help simplify the information for applicants.
Mr. Weiler sent the proposed definition to Lou Caron, engineer, and received some feedback from him. Caron thought the definition should include a two-foot contour rather than a five-foot contour. Mr. Caron also suggested changing the last sentence to read, “If there is more than one area of steep slope of any size in a section of vertical drop determined by the path that water would flow, then the slope shall be measured from the top of the highest steep slope to the bottom of the lowest steep slope, which would result in an average slope in question”.
Mr. Healey suggested discussing the first topic which would be the size of the contours in question. Discussion followed on whether the use of five-foot or two-foot contours should be used. It was decided that the five-foot contours should remain, rather than two-foot contours.
Mr. Healey asked Mr. Weiler about the reading of the definition of the last suggested sentence. He suggested it should read “slope breaks” rather than “the top of the highest steep slope to the bottom of the lowest steep slope”. Mr. Vannatta stated that there should be some definition as to the size of a steep slope. Mr. Powell agreed with Ms. Ruppel that the definition is being too thought out. He feels that it should be more basic. Mr. Vannatta said that we should use the suggested definition with an attached image and try it out. Mr. Dezotell asked why we can’t use a square footage amount to describe a steep slope just as the planning board uses to define wetlands. Mr. Weiler said that measuring in this fashion could alter the height and
width of the steepness of these proposed slopes.
Ms. Ruppel suggested measuring the horizontal runs when measuring the steep slopes.
It was decided that a diagram should accompany the definition. Ms. Ruppel will work on some diagrams and bring them to the next meeting.
Mr. Healey recommended that if the Board doesn’t get close to a definition by the third meeting that perhaps a sub-committee should be formed to work on this. The Board agreed to this suggestion.
Policy for Submission of Written Public Comment
Ms. Ruppel suggested that public notices should include the statement: “Signed written comments will be accepted during business hours at least one (1) business day prior to the meeting at the Land Use Office”.
It was decided that a signed letter needs to be submitted rather than an email or anonymous letter. Ms. Ruppel said that if people attend the meeting they are required to identify themselves, therefore, written comments should have the same requirements.
The general consensus agreed to this change. Mr. Healey will inform the Land Use Coordinator to include this in the future.
Departmental Review Sign-Off Sheets
The Board would like the Land Use Coordinator to include a departmental review sign-off sheet for all other departments to review. This form will include the due date for the boards/departments to return the sign-off sheet(s) to the Land Use Coordinator. If the department cannot respond in this time, they must check off that they are requesting a 30-day extension. The Board agreed to adopt the new proposed form.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve this new sign-off sheet and procedure as proposed on June 5, 2012. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Cost Analysis for Planning Board Fees
Mr. Vannatta has been working with the Land Use Coordinator with a fee structure for all hearings that require notification. Mr. Vannatta mentioned that the last land use application fee schedule was approved in July of 2007. He explained that the process is the same as before, but the fees involved now are higher because secretarial and administrative costs must be included. He suggested that the preliminary review for a major subdivision should change from $4 for each abutter notice to $6 per notice and a $3 charge for an abutter re-notice. Mr. Vannatta stated that the re-notice should be less costly because the original notice has been already set up, so fewer costs are involved in creating the re-notice. Mr. Powell stated that the new land use application fee schedule distributed by
Mr. Vannatta did not have the Conditional Use Permit fees. Mr. Vannatta will make sure the Land Use Coordinator adds this information. Mr. Dezotell stated that it should read “per abutter” rather than just “per notice fee”. Mr. Healey questioned why the Zoning Board would have different rates than the Planning Board. He feels they should be the same. Mr. Vannatta said each Board has the right to set their own fee schedule.
Mr. Vannatta agreed to discuss the new fees with the Zoning Board Chair to suggest they change their rates to match the Planning Board’s fees. The Board will revisit this fee structure at the July meeting.
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC)
Ms. Ruppel asked if there was any feedback on the May 21st meeting on the housing needs assessment and regional plan. Mr. Weiler said he would like a copy of the regional plan. Ms. Ruppel will ask Christine Walker for a copy of that plan. Mr. Vannatta said he was surprised there was no presentation at this meeting, adding that it was more of a discussion. Mr. Powell said that it was a difficult meeting in the end because the Board of Selectmen (BOS) thought the UVLSRPC was going to talk to the BOS about some subjects. The other boards thought there would be more communication. The BOS did not understand the purpose of the meeting going into the evening. Mr. Powell thought the information was interesting.
Site Plan Review Regulation
Mr. Dezotell stated that he would like to see local businesses to take part in this review. Mr. Weiler said that the state requires a public hearing if changes to the site plan review regulations are being proposed.
Mr. Dezotel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Long
Acting Recording Secretary
| 
