Washington Planning Board
Washington Planning Board
Working Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
August 11, 2016
0.0 Assembly: 9 AM
0.1 Members present: Crandall, Kluk, Schwartz Williams and Dulac
0.2 Alternates present: Hatch
0.3 Members and Alternates Absent: Terani and Russell
0.4 Visitors: None
Crandall opened the meeting at 9 AM, at Town Hall
1.0 Eastman Subdivision:
Crandall opened the meeting and asked if we had all read the letter from the Town Attorney. He asked for discussion. Dulac said he read it and wanted to discuss it, he thinks that ambiguity should favor the property owner and he thinks the prevailing thought is “either”. He feels that Serge overlooked this and penalized the landowner and that is not good. He thinks it can be looked at two ways so we should consider in their favor. Crandall said that Serge was clear that after looking at RSA’s he decided that to see it any other way would lead to absurd results. Schwartz said that in light of what we know of the original intent from Sheehy we should uphold that intent. Crandall said that they could always appeal to the ZBA. Williams agreed that they have choices. Kluk said that the last subdivision on water had 200’ of water frontage. Williams said that Sheehy asked if we had looked at old LUO’s and said the frontage wording changed in 2002. Williams reads the passage as “Any frontage, whether on road or water is must not be less than 200 feet. He thinks Serge gave a good explanation for how he got to his decision. Dulac agrees but the way the Assessors were interpreting it was as “either”. Schwartz said the Assessors don’t interpret they just assess things for taxes as they exist. Dulac said we have a decision to make. Williams understands what he is saying, but feels that just because we always did it in a certain way isn’t a good excuse, if it has been misinterpreted we can’t perpetuate that. We have to decide how to move forward. Hatch asked about precedence. Schwartz said that no subdivision on water has been done with this LUO wording, people have made assumptions but no decisions have been made. Crandall said we decided to go with the Attorney’s decision. He asked for a motion. Williams made a motion to go with Serge’s decision and require 200 feet of frontage on both road and water, Schwartz seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
Crandall handed out copies of a letter ha drafted to the Eastman’s. We made a few changes and approved for sending. Kluk passed out copies of suggested wording changes for the LUO to be more specific and clear for us to consider.
2.0 Next meeting, purpose and date/time: We are meeting with Milestone at their office in Concord on August 11th at 10:30AM. We will set another meeting after that.
3.0 Adjournment: 9:20 AM
Williams made a motion to adjourn, Hatch seconded the motion and all voted in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nan Schwartz