WASHINGTON PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
January 23, 2007
1.0 Assembly:
1.1 Members Present: Charlie Fields, Tom Taylor, and Lynne Cook
1.2 Alternates Present: None
1.3 Members & Alternates absent: Jack Sheehy, Frank Musmanno and Dennis Kelly
1.4 Visitors: Donna Cilley, Gerard Desorcy, Laurie Dube, Phil Barker, Jim Bissonnette, Bob Thompson, Sue Hofstetter, Bob Hofstetter, Gwen Gaskell Jim Gaskell, Laura Rizzi, Al Krygeris, Ken Eastman, Charlene Eastman, John Burton, Jim and Marianne Garvin, David Hunt, Jed Schwartz, Steve Terani, Gayle Terani, Mark Cummings, G. Butler, and Tom Marshall
2.0 Public Hearing:
2.1 Fields opened the meeting at 7 PM advising that Chairman Sheehy would not be able to attend the hearing. Fields advised those in attendance that this was a Public Hearing regarding a petition received by the Planning Board. This petition requested the Planning Board to make the following changes to the Washington Land Use Ordinance.
Fields turned the meeting to Laurie Dube to present her petition.
Dube started out by stating that last year she attended the building inspector meeting and agreed that the Town did not need a building inspector.
Dube stated she had concerns of where the Town was going and wanted to keep the Town of Washington's rural character. Dube advised those in attendance of her proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance. – see attachment
Dube read the definition of a wetland.
Dube advised that in her proposed changes a wetland would not satisfy the acreage to subdivide and that the 2-acre minimum would have to support the building box.
Dube advised that the proposed wetland setbacks would have to be the same as the shore land setbacks to prevent wetland pollution.
Dube advised that any structure and utilities would be prohibited in a wetland.
Bob Hofstetter asked if there were maps in Town that show the wetlands.
Bob Thompson stated that the petition brought before the Board tonight does not address subdivisions and asked if it would be updated to the current lots as of 2007.
Fields stated that the grandfathered lots would have to meet health regulations from the State or the Town and there are very few exceptions to the rule.
Larry Gaskell stated that this is very broad and was speaking of pre-existing lots. Gaskell felt that this could be pushed upon current lots.
Bob Hofstetter addressed the issue of the proposed wetlands setback from the Board of Adjustment point of view.
John Burton made several comments regarding the State's setback requirements.
Barker asked to read from RSA 482A: 2 X. Barker stated this RSA would cover all of Washington.
Barker questioned the word contiguous.
Dube defined.
Barker advised that this would mean if you had a wetland going down the middle of the lot it could be very narrow but could make a 5 acre lot useless to subdivide.
Barker stated that this petition is so flawed because of what goes into defining a wetland.
Jim Bissonnette advised that he was in favor of the petition because it would only address future subdivisions.
Bob Thompson questioned who would be defining the wetlands. Cook advised that as part of the Subdivision Application wetlands are addressed.
Dube stated that she felt the wetlands are extremely valuable to the Townspeople and that she was not criticizing anyone's subdivision.
Jed Schwartz stated he supported the petition and asked those in attendance to look at why they like to live here and to think about of our neighbors.
Carol Andrews stated that we need to look at how our Town is growing and there are 1,000 lots already available to build on and can we handle more growth. Andrews advised that she felt our Town needs to have a serious conversation on growth.
Thompson stated that 1/3 of those lots are in LAE and not 2 acres lots. How many lots are sitting on the South side of Ashuelot Pond probably half of those 1,000 lots are sitting on Ashuelot Pond which are not able to be subdivided.
Barker stated he felt that the Planning Board makes suggestion to proposed subdivider's and felt that this was the best way to address the wetlands.
Tom Marshall stated that he supports the petition as well. Marshall stated he saw what happened to Chatham, MA and can see it blooming in our community.
The question was raised if the petitioned LUO changes would be on the ballot.
Taylor stated voters have the right to petition the Planning Board and the petition must go to the ballot as written and if the voters approved the changes then administrative language would have to be added.
Dave Hunt stated he felt that this was a poor attempt for growth control. This change to the Land Use Ordinance would deprive the future lively hood of landowners who plan on subdividing their property for retirement.
The Board took a 5 minute recess before presenting the Planning Board's proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance.
Fields opened the second Public Hearing at 8:02 PM
Fields read the proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance. – see attachment
Barker asked the Board if the announcement in the paper should read percentage or degrees.
Fields stated that it should read degrees.
Dube asked is this listed as four separate issues or individual. Taylor advised it would be two different.
Cook advised that the change would give a developer more flexibility and it would be more beneficial to increase the common area. This would benefit the Town allowing a developer to present to the Board a more thought out plan and one that is more visually pleasing to the Town.
Taylor advised that cluster development are single family dwellings.
Several comments by those in attendance regarding the percent or degrees.
Taylor advised that we may stand corrected and it may be percent.
Taylor advised that the only proposed change would be that all owners would have access to the common land.
Carolyn Russell asked about the establishment of a cluster development and how are the Board's decisions recorded for future owners.
Taylor advised all conditions are placed on the mylar.
Ken Tanner asked currently who is responsible for the taxes of a common land.
Cook advised.
Fields stated this hearing was to get the feel of the Townspeople and address any of the concerns or thoughts that may come up.
Larry Gaskell asked why would you want to let a developer build smaller than one acre lot.
Cook advised that there would be no more homes on the lot and the Planning Board would require all septic system, wells and driveways.
Cook advised.
.Eastman asked for the language to the 35 foot septic setback requirement be specific of where the measurement is to begin.
Barker asked if a cluster can be on a town road or a private road.
Taylor advised that it is not in the Land Use Ordinance.
Fields advised that the Board would be discussing the proposed changes further on the February 6, 2007 meeting.
Fields motioned that the hearing was adjourned. Cook seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Time: 9:00PM
Respectfully,
Michelle Dagesse
Recording Secretary
Washington Planning Board