Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Rose-Anne Kwaks, Jane Ford, Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio alternate), Peter Nelson (Alternate), Glen Wilkinson (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio), Diane Hardy (Town Planner)
Absent: Janice Rosa, Ezra Temko – both excused
Agenda Item #1 - Pledge of Allegiance
Eric Botterman appointed Peter Nelson and Glen Wilkinson to replace Janice Rosa and Ezra Temko.
Agenda Item #2 - Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 - Review & Approval of Minutes: 12/13/16 & 01/10/17
Action
Motion: Glen Wilkinson made a motion to approve the minutes of 12/13/16
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the minutes of 01/10/17
Second: Amy Burns
Val Shelton had one correction on page 8, line 42. It should read “she”.
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 - Regular Business
There will be a public hearing to amend Chapter 32 Zoning, Appendix A Subdivisions and Appendix B Site Plans of the Municipal Code of the Town of Newmarket, New Hampshire, in accordance with RSA 675:2, RSA 675:6, and RSA 675:7. The purpose of these amendments are to: (1) make modifications to permitted uses in the M2 and B3 zones to promote economic development; (2) clarify language pertaining to the continuation of non-conforming uses; (3) modify provisions pertaining to accessory apartments to comply with Senate Bill 146, New Hampshire’s new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law which is found in RSA 674:71 through RSA 674:73; and (4) modify application submission requirement for subdivisions and site plan by changing the application deadline from 15 to 21 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the application will be considered for acceptance.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications for Economic Development
Diane Hardy mentioned there was a set of changes and a one page update on the back table, which pertains to accessory dwellings.
Gerald “Gerry” Martin, 212 South Main Street, stated the notice refers to the M3 zone. Diane Hardy stated the second paragraph refers to M3. Mr. Martin had a question regarding the item “research & development” being added to the M3 zoning. Val Shelton stated the proposal would add “research & development” to the M3 zone, as a use permitted by right. It is currently not allowed there. Mr. Martin asked why add it there and remove it from B3. Val Shelton stated the Economic Development Committee recommended that it be removed from the B3 zone primarily because of the aquifer protection zoning that overlays that district.
David Melanson, 32 Riverbend Road, stated he also owns property at 454 Wadleigh Falls Road, in the B3 Zone. He stated he was not sure of the Town’s reasoning in rezoning it. Diane Hardy stated they are not rezoning, they are changing the Table of Permitted Uses in that are allowed in that zone. The zoning district would be the same, they are just modifying uses. David Melanson stated they purchased that property with the intentions of warehousing. They came to a conceptual hearing when they bought the property, then the economy slowed down and they decided to wait on doing anything with it. The new uses are not what they intended for the property. It seems like spot rezoning. He doesn’t know much about this. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if he was going to do warehousing or put in storage units. Mr. Melanson stated it would actually have been a shop, warehousing with trucking and an office. He stated the B3 zoning also allows for secondary structures, so they were going to possibly build a house on top of the hill. They had the plans all done up for that. They own a trucking company that hauls gasoline tankers. He is grandfathered on Riverbend Road, but no one wants ten tractor trailers there. Their intention was to do this on Wadleigh Falls Road, but when the economy slowed down, they didn’t really need to. He stores the trailers now in Epping on a rented lot. They intended eventually to move them to Newmarket. He has three acres.
Val Shelton stated she wanted to clarify the current zoning does not allow residential use in the B3 zone. Mr. Melanson stated they went through this with the (former) Code Enforcement Officer who said it was allowed as secondary (accessory) structure. Val Shelton and Diane Hardy, both stated that would require a variance for any residential structure. Mr. Melanson stated the “zoning guy” said there was an allowance for a secondary structure on a B3 lot. Val Shelton stated, if it is not a permitted use within the zone, it doesn’t matter if it is a primary or secondary use. It is any use. Eric Botterman asked how long ago he had the conversation with the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Melanson stated when he bought the property in 2007. That would have involved a previous Code Enforcement Officer.
Val Shelton stated the future intention for this B3 district is to create an overlay zone for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC). That was the recommendation of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and that is what the Planning Board will be moving toward. This would be an allowed use in the B3, as long as they met the requirements. Mr. Melanson stated his property would then be limited to the five listed items, including educational facility, office complex, retail, health club or fraternal organization. Val Shelton stated those are in addition to what is already permitted. Diane Hardy gave him a Table of Permitted Uses to look at. Diane Hardy read the list of permitted uses for the B3 Zone. Those included hotels, conference centers, indoor/outdoor recreation facilities, health clubs, retail uses, wholesale, warehousing, light manufacturing, manufacturing, research/development, educational facilities, fraternal organizations, flexible use developments, which are permitted by Conditional Use Permit, and office complexes.
Skip Manseau, 33 Kimball Way, asked where the continuing care retirement use appears on the list. Diane Hardy stated it is not there yet. The Planning Board subcommittee is still working on the language. Once it is drafted, there will be more meetings. They will be notified as abutters and affected parties.
Mr. Manseau stated his daughter, Jennifer, and her husband, Nate, asked him to speak for them. If the Town does not want to buy their property, they would be happy to have it zoned as residential.
Val Shelton stated the EDC did recommend that once the area is developed with a CCRC the area would be re-zoned for residential uses.
Mr. Manseau also commented that he has nineteen acres of land in that zone he has owned since 1993. When he purchased the property, it was residentially zoned. Shortly after that, the Town convinced them that going to B3 would be a great thing to do and they would bring water and sewer to the properties in the zone, right up Route 152. Needless to say, they have never seen water and sewer or any attempt made to extend it. As soon as the B3 zone was approved, their taxes were doubled, exactly 100% more. And there they sit. He is the only person who has had a substantial site plan approved in the zone. He spent $75,000 on engineering, had a plan approved for a series of offices and warehouses, a combination of uses so that contractors and their like could have a place from which to operate. The economy is a moving target and by the time they were able to do enough site work to get prepared for buildings, the economy was gone and has remained down for that type of use for a long time.
He stated he also subdivided the property into two different lots, a five acre lot and a twelve acre lot, which is now a fourteen acre lot. He tried to sell that five acre lot as a B3 lot for five years. Every realtor in the Seacoast knew that lot was for sale and it was substantially below what the Town was taxing it for. He had exactly one showing on the property in five years in the B3 zone. He calls it a failed zone. He hopes the Planning Board’s hard work will bring that around.
Mr. Melanson asked if the B3 would be residential eventually. Val Shelton stated the EDC, which evaluated all of the current business and mixed-use zones in town, concluded that the B3 zone was just not a successful rezoning of that area. The recommendation was to develop the area with CCRCs, because there is a need for that, as an overlay within that area. The specific location meets what they believe is the criteria those kinds of businesses would be looking to create. There is ample land, water and sewer would have to be brought out, perhaps by the developer in conjunction with the Town, but that would be required. There has been no development. They do not want the land to be zoned such that it renders the property as being useless and with minimal value. There are no promises, it is just a recommendation. Mr. Melanson stated he has a small lot. If that kind of development was done in the area, it would be good to build a home up there. He would like to build a retirement home for himself up there to live in.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked when they have further meetings, she thought it would be helpful to have someone like Skip Manseau to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the property, how it’s laid out, its access and so forth. She said if they could keep an eye on the postings and attend some of the meetings, their input would be appreciated. Skip Manseau stated he would be happy to help.
Mr. Paige stated he has come in and talked to Diane Hardy about this before. He wondered how they came about zoning it B3 in the beginning where there are so many properties out there. There are existing gravel pits out there in the middle. It doesn’t look good to a developer that one person doesn’t own it all. Another concern is where most of those gravel pits have been taken down is the aquifer. Right in the center of the aquifer there is ledge that is not restricted. The level is far beyond the roads. The biggest concern is, if someone does not own it all, how someone would develop any part of it and have adequate drainage. Diane Hardy stated the hope is someone would buy up and consolidate the parcels and do a larger scale development. Mr. Paige stated housing was more desirable for that area than manufacturing.
Skip Manseau stated it has been a long time. It has been seventeen years of doubled taxes. He has tried to move it along, but it was not to be. Try to rezone the land into something that is feasible that a developer would come along and negotiate the sale of the land for the Beaulieus, Rosas, Filions, Newmarket Sand & Gravel, the Paiges, his own properties, and the other folks’ properties. Those tax bills keep coming every year. If this land was rezoned to residential, the taxes should go down, too. He has done his best not to complain. He has gone for abatement and was successful with a small abatement with part of the property. He also said, when he went for site plan approval, he asked for a residential accessory building on the five acre lot, which has frontage on Ash Swamp Road, as well as an entrance from there. He was denied that option. That was the second time he was turned down for residential use. There is property is on the periphery of that zone that is residential. There are homes all along Ash Swamp Road. The traffic goes out on Route 152. The homes continue down Norton Lane. Some consideration should be given to re-zoning this periphery for residential. Val Shelton asked which board denied him. Mr. Manseau stated it was the Planning Board. He presented housing as part of his site plan.
There being no further comments, Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications: Continuation of Non-Conforming Use
Diane Hardy stated this has to do with the grandfather clause in the zoning ordinance. You have grandfathered rights to continue uses that are no longer allowed due to zoning changes. After a period of time, if that use has been abandoned, those rights are no longer available to you as a property owner. Currently in the ordinance it says, “Any lawful nonconforming use may continue indefinitely. In the event that use is abandoned for any period of time, its establishment shall not be permitted.” They have had several cases come before the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine whether the use was abandoned. There has been a lot of discussion about this as there is no clear direction in the zoning ordinance. There was a case on Route 152 for a use abandoned for thirty years. It was clear that did not qualify. The Zoning Board thought we needed some clarity here by provide a specific timeframe.
Many communities have ordinances that say after a year or two years, if a non-conforming use is abandoned and not resurrected, it shall not be permitted. So, the subcommittee would like to add some language to the ordinance, so it is clear what the time period is. The subcommittee is recommending a one year time period. They have also some new language to add. She read the language, “Any nonconforming use may be continued except that if any such nonconforming use is abandoned, desisted either voluntarily or by legal action or caused to be discontinued for a period of one year then any subsequent use of the building, structures or use of the land shall be required to be in conformity with the Town’s zoning regulations.” So, that clarifies the period of abandonment as being a one year time frame.
Eric Botterman asked if anyone in the public audience had any questions on the abandoned use discussion. There were no comments.
Glen Wilkinson asked if there was any reason to go with a one year versus a two year time frame. Val Shelton stated it may be better to do two years. She gave the example of someone having a residential house in a commercial zone that burns down. There may be an issue of getting the insurance in time to reconstruct before the year is over. Everyone was fine with changing it to two years.
Skip Manseau stated this regulation talks only about structures on the property. His use has no structure. It is a grandfathered gravel pit. Gravel pit owners attempt to haul at least 200 yards out of their pits in a year so they won’t lose their grandfathered status. Val Shelton stated this refers to land uses rather than gravel pits which have their own statute under RSA 155 E. Mr. Manseau stated he was fine with two years. If you have a fire and are in an argument with your insurance company, it could easily go through a year. Peter Nelson stated if something burns down it doesn’t come under “voluntary” or “legal action”. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they could put a subparagraph about it. Diane Hardy stated the Planning Board could have the discretion of increasing it to two years under extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Paige stated he and his wife live on Norton Lane. They have 24 acres and their house was built around 1970. There was an existing two story structure, the Norton House, which had been there forever, but is not there anymore. They paid eight years of taxes on that house that was uninhabitable, on a $100,000 assessment. The only reason he had kept it was because of the circumstance with the zoning and aquifer and the house was in the middle of a business zone and it was grandfathered. He kept it in case he wanted to build a second house. When he looked into it further, because it is on an aquifer, instead of a two acre lot, he would need three acres. Between the taxes and subdividing three acres, he let it go. He took it down. Now they may change the zoning possibly back to residential. Maybe having a two year time would be good. He took it down last year. The lowest he could get the house assessment was $30,000 for a house that had not been lived in for 25 years.
Val Shelton stated they should insert “or” after “desisted”.
The Board agreed it should be a two year timeframe.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications to Section 7.03: Accessory Apartments
Diane Hardy stated accessory apartments are permitted under Section 7.03, which was last amended by the Town in 2004. An accessory apartment is an apartment that is part of a single family home and there are certain conditions under which they are allowed. An applicant has to go to the Zoning Board and receive a Special Exception in order to get an accessory apartment. The State has recently made some revisions to the State law. It was amended in 2015 and 2016 and under the new law the Town needs to make some modifications to make the Town regulations consistent with the State law. The subcommittee is recommending eight changes to the current zoning.
She stated the first is identify that accessory apartments are allowed in all residential zones that permit single family residential uses. There are eight zones where these are allowed. They are also suggesting that, under the “Purpose” statement, there is a section that states “The purpose is to allow the provision of small, affordable residential units for segments of the population to help homeowners utilize excess space to generate revenue to help offset the cost of home ownership and to encourage adaptive reuse of historic homes.”
Next, there is a sentence that might be subject to legal challenge. That sentence is, “To balance this, the number of bedrooms in accessory apartments are severely limited to prevent excess growth in the number of school age children.” She stated they recognize that they cannot discriminate against school age children, so it would be appropriate to remove that sentence from the ordinance.
The third change is that, under the new law, you cannot just have an accessory apartment within the confines of the existing single family home. You have to provide an opportunity for an applicant to build an attachment or addition to their home to accommodate the accessory apartment. They will add the language “…or attached to” to clarify that it is in compliance.
The next change has to do with minimum and maximum sizes. Under the new law, you can provide some restrictions on the size of accessory apartments, however, the maximum cannot be less than 700 sq. ft. The Planning Board had discussed this and one of the new requirements is you have to provide an opportunity for not just one bedroom or a studio, but for two bedrooms. By increasing the square footage on the maximum by 200’, as is recommended you would be making that space more usable by the occupant. It is recommended that it is changed from a maximum of 800 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft.
The fifth change is to insert language “…or two bedroom apartment…” so it is consistent with State law.
The next item pertains to exterior changes to the building. Currently, the ordinance reads, “No exterior changes shall be made, which significantly alters the appearance of the structure from the street.” They are suggesting changing the language to what is in State law, which says, “No exterior changes shall be made unless they maintain the aesthetic continuity of the accessory dwelling unit with the principal dwelling unit as a single family dwelling.” This is so it fits into the character of the neighborhood.
The seventh change has to do with interior doors. This comes right of the State law. It says, “An interior door shall be provided between the principal dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling, however, it shall not be required to be unlocked.”
The eighth change is clarification on what an accessory dwelling is verses what is a principal dwelling. They have added some language to the ordinance” “The principle dwelling unit is one that is the predominant use of the property and the accessory is a use which is subordinate to the principal dwelling.”
They also need to added language to the very last line of “Accessory Dwelling” to say, “A studio, a one bedroom apartment or a two bedroom apartment.”
Eric Botterman asked if anyone in the public audience had any comment on the proposed changes. There were no comments.
Jane Ford asked when people are looking at accessory apartments, did anything else have to be done like parking and traffic flow. Diane Hardy stated there is a requirement in the Special Exception criteria, item 4, that says, “There shall be a minimum of two parking spaces per unit” and parking is not permitted within setbacks of the property.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked about the apartment being internal or attached. She stated the law states that it requires municipalities to allow internal or attached accessory apartments. The law also gives municipalities the option of permitting detached accessory apartments. That gives the town the option to not allow detached apartments. Diane Hardy stated that was in the current zoning language and the committee did not recommend changing that. You can attach or add the unit to the house. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated most towns in NH this size have 15% of its housing stock as multi-unit dwellings and we have over 50%. By doing something like this, especially if detached units were allowed, they would just be creating many more multi-family dwellings. Amy Burns asked why detached was not allowed. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated ZBA has allowed it under certain circumstances. Diane Hardy stated it is an option. Val Shelton stated the committee back then actually recommended detached. It was the Town Council, who agreed with Rose-Anne Kwaks’ position, feeling it would encourage more multi-family units. Dale Pike stated one of the things they have to weigh is what the right density for the community is. It is a balance between private land owner rights and the type of community people want to live in.
Subdivision and Site Review Regulations Revisions: Applications Submitted to the Planning Board
Diane Hardy stated there was a State law passed in 2016 regarding the application deadlines for materials submitted to the Planning Board. It was fifteen days prior to the next scheduled meeting, this was changed to twenty one days to give the staff more time to process applications before the Planning Board meeting. She stated the local regulations need to be changed to reflect the State law. This would be for Site Plan and Subdivision regulations. This is intended just for the initial application. This Planning Board has a standing policy that materials for additional meetings in the process after the initial meeting be submitted ten days prior to the Planning Board meeting.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they amend the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations as proposed
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to recommend to the Town Council to amend Section 7.03 of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory apartments as proposed
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the Newmarket Town Council to amend Section 1.05 Nonconformity in our Zoning Ordinance as proposed and amended as follows:
1. Any nonconforming use may be continued except that if any such nonconforming use is abandoned, desisted or voluntarily or by legal action caused to be discontinued, for a period of two (2) years. Any subsequent use of the building or the structure or use of the land shall be required to be in conformity with these revisions of these regulations.
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Val Shelton stated she would like to hear from the Board if any more discussion needs to be held on the changes for Economic Development. It makes sense to do a zoning map change on Ash Swamp Road. That could be part of the CCRC proposal. The committee is working on it. Eric Botterman stated he would like to do all of the changes for this at once. Val Shelton stated it would be good to get Town Council input at the joint meeting to be held on March 1, 2017.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to continue the consideration by the Planning Board of zoning modifications for economic development to the February 14, 2017, or later, meeting
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 - New/Old Business
Eric Botterman mentioned he had received an email from Ezra Temko resigning from the Planning Board. He read the email.
Diane Hardy stated she had recently spoken to someone interested in being on the Board.
Diane Hardy stated she made the signage amendments suggested at the last meeting. She edited the sign ordinance based on the work session and handed out new copies to the Board. She went over the changes. There had been a lot of discussion about subdivision signs. She drafted some language on it to include in the zoning ordinance.
Diane Hardy stated regarding the subdivision signs, they could tie the ordinance for this to the landscaping section.
Val Shelton stated they keep using the term “non-invasive species”. She asked if there were enough native species available, from a water perspective, which could be utilized in these landscaping areas. She asked if it would be too limiting to specify native species. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she would not specify native, because most of the native ones are not great. There are some that would be invasive.
Diane Hardy stated the second part of this was pieced together from their discussion. Eric Botterman stated he was fine with the wording. It gives the latitude for the Planning Board to put up a second sign, as part of the subdivision entrance.
Diane Hardy stated there had been a discussion regarding signage on a stone wall. She worded it so it states the Planning Board may approve a two sided sign or a second sign on a monument, stone wall or within a landscaped setting. Val Shelton asked if it was legal to have two sided signs if it is not in the ordinance. Diane Hardy stated they could tweak that part. Val Shelton stated they could move all of the requirements for this into subdivision regulations and make subdivision identification signs exempt in the zoning ordinance, as long as it has been approved by the Planning Board as part of the subdivision process. Then in subdivision regulations say those restrictions apply.
Peter Nelson asked about neon-styled signs, on page 2, page 3, and then on page 6. Weren’t they going to say illuminated instead of neon. Diane Hardy stated she did not change definitions. Dale Pike stated Mike Hoffman, Building Official, stated they were neon-style and some were LED. Diane Hardy stated she changed it to read “one neon/LED-style.” Val Shelton stated it was changed from neon to neon-style throughout.
Dale Pike stated if a neon sign was written out in script, it was not a solid area. Four square feet is small for a neon sign. Eric Botterman stated they should define it more. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated there is a definition to the message area and it is to be incidental to the sign itself. The message area shall be measured by a single continuous rectangular perimeter drawn to enclose the extreme limits of the sign elements.
Diane Hardy stated there was discussion of placement of sandwich boards. Val Shelton stated it would be permitted as long as it met all of the requirements.
Diane Hardy stated there was a lot of discussion on whether to allow balloons, flags, illumination and decorations to be placed on signs. The consensus was no.
She stated there was also a conversation about signs with interchangeable letters. She took that out of the section for illumination.
She stated for neon-style signage, they do not want them to blink or flash. She added language about animated signs. For flashing/blinking she took out the temperature aspect so they don’t need to go there and she added electronic message centers.
She took out the section on flags and prohibited feather flags and pennants in the next section.
On the table of sizes, she changed the dimension from 8’ to 12 sq. ft. in the R1 zone.
She stated Mike Hoffman had taken some great photos and added some dimensional information. She and Mike Hoffman had talked about it and they felt that 3% fit really well into the scale of the downtown. There was discussion of allowing a larger sign of 5% of the wall area by Special Use Permit by the Planning Board. If they want a larger sign, they could go to ZBA.
She said Peter Nelson had some suggestions on presenting this as a final document. Peter Nelson stated Mike Hoffman’s photos would be helpful and some other drawings depicting the dimensions for examples to illustrate.
Discussion - Attorney Ratigan’s letter regarding Architectural Design Standards
Diane Hardy stated Attorney Ratigan suggested a basic change to the zoning. She was referring to his January 10 letter. He said he would recommend adding the following language as Section 1.02(I) “To advance aesthetic values through design and architecture, because the preservation or enhancement of the visual environment may promote prosperity and the general welfare.” Everyone on the Board was in agreement with that change.
Diane Hardy stated he also gave them some standards to consider. She asked if the Planning Board wanted these in Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations, so they have the authority over it the granting of waiver relative to them. Val Shelton asked if they were looking to do it as an ordinance. Easily there is nothing prohibiting everyone from putting vinyl over stucco. Diane Hardy stated if there are specific standards for New Village shouldn’t they have them for all other areas. Val Shelton stated even if this was throughout all of the zones, would it apply to everyone equally in the zones or just the ones who have not developed yet. Diane Hardy stated this is not designed to be zoning but guidelines. Eric Botterman stated they are not holding everyone to the same standard. There are other neighborhoods in town that are historic. It’s not right to apply these just to New Village.
Eric Botterman stated he was hearing they do not want to develop design standards for just New Village. Dale Pike stated they already have Route 108 language specifically. Diane Hardy stated they could take out the reference to Route 108 and just apply it town wide.
Diane Hardy will draft materials for discussion.
Chairman’s Report
Eric Botterman stated he wanted to remind everyone they are here as a Planning Board and their job did not include editorial comments on what other Boards do.
Town Council
Amy Burns stated the Town Council had a public hearing for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for housing renovations in the Great Hill Terrace area. They also updated the Town’s Housing and Community Development Plan. It had been quite a while since the last update. There was a discussion of CDBGs.
Dale Pike stated they authorized the Town Administrator to purchase land for the Tucker Well. It will be about four years to when the wells will come online. There was a discussion of blending water from different wells to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
SRPC
Peter Nelson stated Diane Hardy, Steve Fournier (Town Administrator), and himself met with the staff of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission about the upcoming transportation projects. They had a list of priority projects. They went through it and made a revised list with project areas and funds. They talked about the need to update the Transportation chapter of the Master Plan.
Joint Meeting with Town Council
Rose-Anne Kwaks if Mike Hoffman would be there for the junkyard and property maintenance discussions. Diane has spoken to him about joining us for that discussion.
Eric Botterman stated they need to talk about the Master Plan. Diane Hardy stated there was interest in a smart growth discussion.
Dale Pike stated they could have a goal of draft agenda items for the next meeting.
Planner's Report
Diane Hardy wants to set up another work session on the CCRC with the subcommittee.
Agenda Item #6 - Adjourn
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne made a motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor