 |
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENTS
APRIL 26, 2007
The meeting opened at 7:02pm with the following members in attendance: Helmut Busack, Chairman; Don Bormes, Vice Chair; Dick Gardner, Member; Andrew Livernois, Selectmen’s Representative; Cindy Merchant, Alternate; Carmine Cioffi, Alternate and Bob Ward, Town Planner.
1. Role Call
As listed above. Absent: Ralph Carter, Member and Peter Dascoulias, Alternate
2. Seating of Alternates
Carmine Cioffi was seated for Ralph Carter.
3. New Business
a. Public Hearing on Proposed Subdivision Regulation Amendments
Chair Busack opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 pm and explained the purpose of the hearing and the reasons for amending the Subdivision Regulations. He stated that the current Subdivision Regulations have not been updated since 1997. At Town Meeting in 1957 the Town voted to give the Planning Board the authority to adopt and amend Subdivision Regulations. Chair Busack then advised the public in attendance that a sign in sheet was located at the back of the room and people wishing to speak needed to sign the sheet for the purpose of the public record. He further stated that each person in attendance had a maximum of 5 minutes in which to speak to each topic.
Bob Ward explained that there were several amendments proposed to the Subdivision Regulations which are only grammatical in nature and that only the substantive changes would be reviewed. He further stated that any questions other than that of sustentative changes could be posed to the Board. The proposed amendments would be looked at section by section with questions and comments being held until the end of the section or sub-section for larger items.
Mr. Ward stated that there were no changes to Section 1.0, Authority or 2.0 Title. In Section 3.0, Purpose, the words “outdoor recreation” were added to #5 and “land” was added to #6. Also “safe and efficient” were added to #6. Mr. VanValkenberg asked if the Police or Highway Departments were consulted as to the change in #6. Chair Busack stated that they were not as there is no pre-requisite for the Planning Board to consult for this. Bob Ward stated that this is a very broad set of purposes and not regulatory, but rather that it is a preamble to the Regulations.
Bob Ward explained that in Section 4.0, Definitions, several housekeeping and grammatical changes were made for clarification purposes. Dick Gardner called a point of order and stated that each item did not need to be read, he suggested that only substantive changes be read and explained followed by questions from the assembly. Dick Gardner made a motion for a more open ended discussion which refrained from reading each change, seconded by Andrew Livernois. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Livernois suggested that the floor be open to the assembly for questions. John Grobman asked why the definition for building lot had been eliminated. Bob Ward stated that all references to building lot throughout the Regulations have been changed to lot. Tom Salatiello stated that he
feels that the substantive changes should go before the voters to be changed. Bob Ward explained that Zoning Ordinance changes go to the voters and that changes to the Subdivision Regulations do not change Zoning. Joseph Plonski asked why there is a difference between the definition of road in the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance and that the Zoning Ordinance states that lot frontage shall be on a public right-of-way. The new definition of #26, Road, it has been stricken out that it be Town maintained which seems to conflict with Zoning. Bob Ward stated that the definition given in #26 states that road shall mean any highway, road or street lawfully existing by the State, Town or privately. This definition is more expansive and more inclusive than what was previously given. Andrew Livernois stated that there are also definitions of public and private roads. Mr. Plonski stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that frontage shall be on a public road and
also states that a road is a public right-of- way, his concern is to who is in charge, Zoning or Subdivision Regulations. Chair Busack stated that public means for the public, it does not specify “Town”. Mr. Grobman asked if changing the definition of road in the Subdivision Regulations changes the definition in the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Busack responded that this item will be taken under advisement and will be further researched.
Chair Busack recessed the Public Hearing on Subdivision Regulation amendments at 7:35 pm in order to begin the Public Hearing scheduled for 7:30pm concerning a Boundary Line Adjustment for Gerard and Ruth Breton.
b. Public Hearing: Breton Family Revocable Trust: Boundary Line Adjustment
Bob Ward explained that this hearing is for a boundary line adjustment is for driveway access across the land of an abutter (Mills). The Tax Map/Lots are 10-118-1 & 10-118-2 on 3 Davis Road. Six waivers have been requested by the applicants as they do not apply in this case. Waivers for #16, topographical contour mapping, #17, location of structures, #18, location of existing and proposed roads, #19, location of natural and manmade resources, #20, location of existing and proposed utilities and #22, location of perc and pit tests. Bob Ward recommended that the Board grant these waivers. Dick Gardner made a motion to grant the waivers requested by the applicant, seconded by Andrew Livernois. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Dean Clark from DMC Surveyors appeared
representing the applicants. Mr. Clark briefly explained the reasoning for this request and asked the Board for any questions. Being that there were no questions from the Board Chair Busack opened the hearing to the assembly for comment. No public comment or input. Carmine Cioffi made a motion to grant the Boundary Line Adjustment as requested by the applicant, seconded by Andrew Livernois. All in favor, motion passed. The Boundary Line Adjustment plat will be signed by the Planning Board Chair and filed at the Belknap County Registry of Deeds after the applicant pays the appropriate fees and installs a granite bound at the new lot corner.
Chair Busack reconvened the Public Hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations at 7:45 pm.
a. Public Hearing on Proposed Subdivision Amendments Cont’d.
Andrew Livernois pointed out that in the definitions section #23, Private Road, has been further amended so as to not limit lots. Bob Ward stated that the hearing would continue with Section 5.0, Subdivision Review Procedure. Section 5.1, Pre-application Review had only a minor change for clarification purposes, no public comment. Section 5.2, Formal Application also had only minor changes for clarification, no public comment. Section 5.3, Procedure for Boundary Line Adjustments, Section 5.4, Procedure for Minor Subdivisions and Section 5.5, Procedure for Voluntary Merger also only had changes for clarification and had no public comment. Section 6.0, Subdivision Plan also had no public comment or input.
Section 7.0, General Requirements, sub-sections A, B and C also had no public comments. Section 7.0, D, Building Lot Design Access, added private road as acceptable for road frontage. John Grobman stated that private roads do not have a good history in Town and are a problem as there is no way to force maintenance and generally turn into public safety problems. He further stated that he feels it is a bad move as the Town will eventually have to take over maintenance anyways. Joseph Plonski stated that private roads force land owners who have no reason for association to have to get together for maintenance reasons when they would not normally have to do so. Dick Gardner pointed out that Section D. 1 is new and is not identified as being an amendment. Bob Ward stated that he
will research this as it may be a typographical ommission and that the Board can not act on it if it was not part of what was advertised. Tom Salatiello requested that the Board rescind the provision of private roads and take a look at it over the next year before making any changes. He further stated that if an individual has a back parcel of land on a private road then it forces that land owner to negotiate with a private individual to develop their property in the future. Andy Sanborn stated that he would like to register his opposition to this section and feels that there is overwhelming opposition to this. John Grobman pointed out that lots on private roads will not be taxed at the same rate as those on public roads because the Town can not tax for maintenance of those roads. Chair Busack stated that the standards which are being proposed for private roads are better than the current standards.
Section D, 3 and Sections E & F had no public comment or input.
Section 8.0, Design Standards subsection A & B had no public input or comment. For Section 8.0, C, Road Layout and Design Standards, John Grobman stated that this section is a significant departure from current standards. In some ways the standards are being diminished and dead-end roads and cul-de-sacs are being eliminated which is not a good idea. Loop roads requires more pavement and the standards are being lowered as the highest standard proposed is the current standard with travel surfaces down to 16 feet in width being proposed. Jim Wells stated that pick-up trucks are 8’6” in width and two pick-ups can not pass safely on a 16’ road. Wayne Elliott stated that there is not enough support on the edge of the road with a 1 foot shoulder. He feels that
a shoulder of 2 feet with a 20 foot travel surface is safer. He further stated that just because a lot of roads are not up to standard now does not mean that future roads should not be. Jim Wells stated that he feels that shoulders should be paved on new roads to be used for exercise and recreation, this can not be accomplished on a 16 foot road. Wayne Elliott stated that a 16 foot road is not safe if it is curved. Andy Sanborn stated that the elimination of dead-end roads significantly undermines cluster development. He stated that cluster development is the recommended method of guiding growth and by changing subdivision regulations it is changing zoning because this change makes cluster development almost impossible. Chair Busack stated that most cluster developments have through roads which enable more building lots and enhances cluster development. Don Bormes pointed out that last July on Doctor Truman Road, an emergency call could not be answered because the road had been
washed out and that this amendment is for the health, safety and welfare of the community. Andy Sanborn stated that this provision virtually eliminates small cluster development and feels that it is not a good idea.
Bob Ward explained that the issue is safety and access. The Board is charged with the responsibility of looking out for the public interest in the subdivision of land, both for the neighbors, the Town, and future land owners. The Planning Board’s three guidelines are public health, safety and welfare and the Board has a major concern and responsibility for the safety and welfare of people living in a dead-end road situation where in an emergency there may not be access by first responders. In some cases that inability to provide first responders in or people exiting could be for an extended period of time. New Hampshire has a range of severe whether conditions and in any one of those instances one of those conditions could exist. Most public establishments such as
restaurants, schools and even school buses have two exits for emergency circumstances. This is a major issue and if the Board allows roads to be built with only one way in and one way out, it could be a very bad situation for the residents involved. Currently, town road standards adopted by NH DOT specify that dead-end roads can not go in for more than 1,000 feet. The reasoning behind this is to reduce the exposure to the risk of being trapped in an emergency situation. Doug Rollins stated that he does not feel that the issue is with cul-de-sacs, he feels that the problem is with older ones and the Board should be looking at making them safer by widening roads not eliminating them all together. Wayne Elliott stated that there should be no blanket policies, each instance should be reviewed on its own merits. John Sanborn, retired Fire Chief, stated that the 1,000 foot limit on dead-end roads is due to fire trucks having 1,000 foot hoses. He further stated that it has never been a
problem as long as specs and grades are OK.
In Section 8.0, D, Lot Drainage, Jim Wells stated that he felt that a non-climbable fence should be required for storm water retention ponds. Andrew Livernois responded that this would fall under risk assessment and could be decided on a case by case basis. Doug Rollins asked who makes the decision. Chair Busack reiterated that it will be on a case by case basis by the Sanbornton Planning Board.
For Section 8.0, E, Erosion and Sediment Control, Jim Wells questioned who will enforce this. Bob Ward stated that the Planning Board is a regulatory board and that the enforcement would fall with the Board of Selectmen. Andrew Livernois stated that a possibility would be to hold bonds until completion. Linda Salatiello asked if sub-section (a) would be required for every subdivision. Bob Ward responded that it is only mandatory when needed. Wayne Elliott stated that there will need to be some procedure for enforcement in place if this is accepted.
In Section 8.0, J. 2, Land Conservation Area Standards, Configuration, Jim Wells stated that recreation should be considered. Andy Sanborn questioned sub-section (b) concerning land not be required to be dedicated to the Town of Sanbornton asking if there is an RSA pertaining to this. Andrew Livernois stated that not only is it in the U.S. Constitution but there is also significant case law substantiating it.
For Section 9.0, Required Improvements/Performance Guarantee, there was no public input or comment. Section 10.0, Waivers, there was discussion concerning the use of the word abutters being added. It was felt that this gives extra weight to the abutters concerned and could complicate matters if there was any bad blood between neighbors.
Sections 11.0, Revocation of Planning Board Approval, Section 12.0, Administration and Enforcement and Section 13.0, Amendments had no public input or comment. Bob Ward explained that Appendix A, Fee Schedule, did not require a public hearing. For Appendix B, Town Road Design Standards and Appendix C, Private Road Standards there was no public input or comment.
Chair Busack closed the hearing to public input at 9:25 pm. Carmine Cioffi made a motion to close the public hearing , seconded by Dick Gardner, all in favor, motion passed. Chair Busack stated that the Subdivision Regulation amendments need to be further reviewed before adoption and requested that it be placed on the agenda for the May 3, 2007 workshop.
4. Adjournment
Andrew Livernois made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Carmine Cioffi. All in favor, motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:37 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carole Chase
Recording Secretary
| |
