Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 10, 2018
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Jamie Bruton, Sarah Finch, Daniel Lewis (Alternate), Bill Doucet (Alternate), Gretchen Kast (Town Council ex officio)
Absent: Michal Zahorik (Alternate), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio Alternate)-both excused
Called to order: 7:04 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:34 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 02/13/18 & 03/20/18
02/13/18
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the February 13, 2018 Planning Board minutes
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
03/20/18
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the minutes of March 20, 2018
Second: Val Shelton
Bill Doucet stated under Agenda Item #4 in the vote it should state Bill Doucet recused. This is on page 3, line 33.
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Planner’s Report
Eric Botterman stated Diane Hardy will be recusing herself on the last agenda item and will be leaving the meeting. He would like her to give her Planner’s Report, under “New/Old Business” now.
Diane Hardy stated registration Is still open for the Spring Planning Conference on April 28.
Organizational Meeting
Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman
Janice Rosa nominated Eric Botterman for Chairman. Val Shelton seconded. There were no other nominees. All were in favor.
Janice Rosa nominated Valerie Shelton for Vice Chairman. Jamie Bruton seconded. All were in favor.
Regular Business
Jonathan Smith & Caitlin Smith – Continuation of a request for a Waiver of Impact Fees for an accessory apartment at 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the request for Waiver of Impact Fees, 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone, to May 8, 2018
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Maplewood and Vaughn Holding Co., LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for site plan at 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7, B2 Zone. The proposal is for a 24,000 sq. ft. stand-alone industrial building, with municipal water and sewer. The application previously approved will not be constructed
Diane Hardy stated, at the February meeting, there was extensive discussion and the Board voted to postpone taking action on the application until the Technical Review Committee (TRC) was able to work with the applicant on some of the outstanding issues. Primarily, it pertained to the design of the sewer system and there were some questions that came up about vesting and the time frame and phasing of the development. They did have a TRC meeting and they were able to come to an agreement. The engineers from Underwood were concerned, because there was not a whole lot of information about the sewer design and they were satisfied with the ultimate outcome with respect to the additional information that was provided on the sewer design. They revised some of the language in the vesting section and clarified that it was not tied to the completion of the various phases. This will be addressed as part of the performance guarantee. They have also received final approval from the NH DOT on the highway access permit. They are still waiting on the NH Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) approval for the Alteration of Terrain permit. At this point, she would recommend the Planning Board conditionally approve the application.
There is a section that needs a waiver, because the parking area is within ten feet of the property line. This is a B2 zone and the setback for parking is 30 feet. The applicant has presented a request for a waiver.
The only difference from the previous presentation is on Item G, “The applicant will provide a final sewer design for Lot 7”. This is something to be reviewed and approved by the Town’s consulting engineer and the Town’s Water & Sewer Superintendent prior to the issuance of a building permit. In order to achieve the final design, it is necessary for them to do television inspections to verify the condition of the existing sewer and they have agreed to do that as part of the conditions of approval. There are some engineering details on the forced main that is proposed. That is something that would be coordinated as part of the final design. Underwood Engineers were satisfied that they had met the original intent. The other change has to do with the estimated construction timeline and phasing. She asked Mr. Graham to explain.
Rob Graham, Maplewood & Vaughn Holdings LLC, stated they have set up a sequence of construction, excavation, working on the slope, the stabilization of the slope, the plantings and re-stabilization of vegetation. They sequenced them in a way that is practical for the process of the removal of the material. The start is in Phase 1. What they tried to do is look at getting the slope stabilized as early as possible and try to make some investment in the buffer area early on. Once they reach a grade, they will install the section of guard rail on their side of the property along the DOT right of way. They will do the plant installation along the boundary as he indicated on the plan. They will begin to cut a slope down to the deck, which is the elevation of the building pad. Spring through November is Phase 1, when they will install the guard rail and the plantings and excavate the site. They will be re-stabilizing the slope, as they go. Stabilization of the slope has to happen as you come down the slope. They would come down ten feet, do the slope for whatever the reach of the equipment is and keep going down. By the fall of 2018, they expect to reach about half of the total quantity and they will have stabilized the top of the slope, with the plantings, loam and seed. In Phase 3, by spring 2019 or a little bit sooner, they will have reached 100% of the excavation on this site to reach their slopes and stabilization of the slopes will be complete. They will be completed as the AOT requires them to do within 14 days of reaching the grade. Phase 4 would be the pad site grading and that is when the rest of the construction efforts will begin.
Val Shelton asked what the difference was in the current conditions that are being recommended and the previous ones. Diane Hardy stated, previously they did not have a real detailed plan. It was not clear how the construction, stabilization and excavation would be sequenced throughout the construction process. The original condition said “substantial” would be tied to excavation and stabilization of the banks within a twelve month period and completion of the project within 24 months. That was something of concern to the developer. There had also been an extensive discussion about vesting. There was a lot of confusion between a project that becomes vested and the timeframe for that vs. the timeframe for completion that is tied to the performance bond that the Town will have in place to ensure the work is completed according to the site plan. They immediately separated the two and they now have the vesting section that clarifies when vesting occurs. She explained what vesting was.
Rob Graham stated he thought the language they agreed on was “substantial excavation”. Diane Hardy stated there was one change to that. The Town’s legal counsel suggested that they tie that to something definitive and they are tying it to Phases 1, 2, and 3 as shown on “Estimated Construction Timeline and Phasing” plan. The other part of it is the performance guarantee, which now is Phases 1, 2, and 3, which is shown on the plan, and that will be completed by July 1, 2019. She stated Mr. Graham has agreed to that timeframe.
Diane Hardy stated they received a request from the applicant for a parking waiver to allow parking within the setback, shown on the plan to be 10 feet from the property line. She recommends the Board grant that waiver. Jamie Bruton asked for the basis for that recommendation. Diane Hardy stated given that it is an industrial site, it is not adjacent to a residential area, it is all being developed by the same developer and they will continue to own the lots and lease them out as they currently do, the uses are compatible. What is more important is the buffer around the perimeter and they have provided that. From a planning perspective, it makes sense. It is, after all, an industrial park. If the building or parking is a little close to the neighbor, that should not be adversarial.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments.
Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing.
Bill Doucet asked, on the phases and grading, did the applicant say they will finish the top first before going down lower. Mr. Graham stated yes. Bill Doucet stated it looked like the opposite on the plan. Mr. Graham stated there is a continued excavation and there is also a continued completion of these slopes. It was noted that the Legend showed the reverse of what it should have shown.
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion to grant the waiver request
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the site plan for Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co, LLC, at 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7, B2 Zone, for a 24,000 sq. ft. stand-alone industrial building with municipal water and sewer subject to the conditions outlined in the Town Planner’s memo dated February 12, 2018 and revised on March 20, 2018 and for the applicant to correct the legends on the Phase 3 section page one
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co, LLC - Public hearing for an application for site plan, requested by Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co, LLC, at 175 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 6, B2 Zone. The proposal is for a 22,000 sq. ft. industrial building with municipal water & sewer.
Eric Botterman stated they needed to accept the application. Diane Hardy stated she has reviewed the application against the checklist and there are a couple of items to be addressed. The applicant has indicated they are able to provide the additional information.
One of the items is elevations of the proposed building. The applicant will present those this evening. The other item is a waiver of scale, 1”=20’ is required and the plans have 1”=30’. She recommends the Board grant this waiver. There is a concern about the pavement going right up to the property line. She felt it was necessary to have some kind of separation. Maybe not 30’, but 10’ would be reasonable, as was shown on the previous application. The applicant has agreed to comply with that, if the Board is in agreement. That would be another waiver request. The plan is substantially complete and can be accepted for technical review by the TRC (Technical Review Committee).
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion to accept the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Rob Graham, Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co, Inc., stated they have been in front of the Board for this site already.
Page Libby, Jones & Beach Engineers, stated this site plan was before the Board in May 2016. They have not changed the plan much. The building is 22,000 sq. ft. now. It was 20,000 sq. ft. previously. They have a parking lot to the north of the building and a loading zone to the south. They will extend the guardrail along Route 108 on the applicant’s property, as they proposed on Lot 7. They will pull the pavement back away from the property line 10’, so there is some separation. They have a landscaping and lighting plan in the set. All of that is the same as the last approval.
Michael Keane, Michael Keane Architects, showed the revised renderings of the building. He stated it is pretty close to what they presented the last time. The major difference is the front section. It was originally shown as a one story structure, with 15’ to the roofline. They have now brought the height up to match the warehouse section. They also have added some mechanical screening for the HVAC units. This is a little more visible from the public right-of-way than the back building. They are going to try to screen those units at the roofline.
He showed the elevations. They have insulation structural panels on the outside that are flush, with joints every four to five feet. They try to use two different colors to break up the mass. This building will be set 10’ lower than the intersection at Forbes Road. The back section is behind the slope and is not very visible. They will do a drive by like they did in 2016, so everyone can see what it will look like from Exeter Road. They went up with the front section, because the building is set down and they didn’t want people looking down onto the roof. As you are coming south on Exeter Road, the building will disappear behind the berm, at least the front section. They used ribbon windows similar to the rest of the buildings in the park. They bumped up some areas in front to give some relief to the parapet line.
Eric Botterman stated the last time they went over this, there was a lot of discussion about screening on the roof. Michael Keene stated this new elevation shows fencing around, same as before. They can’t determine the height of it until they know exactly what equipment is going up there. The concept is to screen those units.
Rob Graham stated they have imported the exact landscaping plan from the last approval into this plan set.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Ralph Longa, an abutter at 176 Exeter Road, asked when the homes would be demolished. Rob Graham stated they were asked by the Fire Chief at the TRC meeting if they could be used for training. They have authorized the Fire Department to do that. They have some insurance paperwork to do in the next few weeks and that should all happen very quickly. He will find out from the Fire Chief when they would like to do that and he will let Ralph know when that will happen.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Jane Ford, Sarah Finch, and Eric Botterman will be the TRC members for this application. Bill Doucet will be an alternate member.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application for Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co LLC, for site plan at 175 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 6, B2 zone, for a proposed 22,000 sq. ft. industrial building with municipal water and sewer to the May 8, 2018 meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Brandt Development Co. of NH, LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for subdivision, at 10-20 Spring Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 71, M2 Zone. The proposal is to convert the six existing apartment units into condominiums.
This item was continued to the May 8, 2018 at the previous Planning Board meeting at the request of the applicant.
Zion Hill, LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for site plan, at 5 Granite Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 5, M2 Zone. The proposal is for a change of use within the M2 Zone, to utilize the second floor of the Stone Church, currently used for storage, as a multi-function room.
Diane Hardy recused herself from this item and exited the meeting.
Mike Hoffman, owner of the Stone Church, stated there is an existing second floor to the Stone Church. It was added when it became a Catholic school. After it was a school, it was a VFW hall, where the upstairs was used as a multi-purpose room. The building transitioned into being Newmarket Heel Factory. In 1968, they had a fire and, since then, a good portion of the second floor really hasn’t been used for much of anything, but storage. This would be the area known as “The Ballroom”. They would like to return that space to a functional use. It is a good opportunity for them to have events such as bridal showers, birthday parties, and celebrations of life. It would basically be for weekend daytime functions, but they would also like to open it up in the evenings from Monday to Thursday, when it’s not that busy. Fridays and Saturdays, is when it is really hopping downstairs, and the second floor really isn’t usable. The noise comes through and everything is vibrating, so it is not conducive to being used when there is a major event.
Val Shelton asked if he had submitted an application for site plan review. Mike Hoffman stated he did at the Planner’s request. Val Shelton asked if the abutters were notified. Mike Hoffman stated yes. They went overboard and covered more abutters than required by law. Val Shelton asked if the application was for minor site plan. Mike Hoffman stated that was correct.
He stated he has two waiver requests. Val Shelton stated a minor site plan review would be allowed if the site has 2000 sq. ft. or less of gross floor area. Under 1.05(A) there are four items that do not require site plan review, where an applicant can just proceed. Because this is over 500 sq. ft., this application goes to minor site plan. To apply for a minor site plan, the site has to have 2000 sq. ft. or less of gross floor area. Mike Hoffman stated the change of use portion is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. Val Shelton stated the gross floor area is over 2000 sq. ft. Mike Hoffman stated he is not requesting a change of use for the other portion. Val Shelton stated 1.05(B)(1) is for a change of use of a non-residential site for which no change in floor area is proposed or for a site with 2,000 feet or less of gross floor space. Mike Hoffman stated it is a change of use, but there is no change in floor area. No construction is going to occur. Val Shelton she understood, but is reading over what triggers a minor site plan vs. major site plan. She is trying to determine if the type of application is correct. Mike Hoffman stated the Town Planner had guided him that this would fall under Minor Site Plan, because the change of use is under 2000 sq. ft.
Val Shelton stated they have an issue with wording in the regulations relative to these types of applications. Eric Botterman agreed. Val Shelton stated, when you read the regulations, it looks like it should have gone to major. Eric Botterman stated he is not changing the floor area. This is floor area that is already there. The use is changing. Val Shelton stated he is changing the use from storage to some type of public assembly use. The gross floor area of the entire building is over 2000 sq. ft. In paragraph (2), it applies to expansion of non-residential floor area by 500’ sq. ft. or less. We know that does not apply and he has asked for a waiver, because of that. She was not sure that the Planner had directed him to the right section of the ordinance. Under major, they could look at the waivers that are required under major. There should be some ability to determine this. As you go further back in the regulations, they are not supposed to waive anything under Section 1, under 5.01 Waivers.
Val Shelton asked Mike Hoffman if he was requesting a waiver from site plan review. Mike Hoffman stated that was what he originally requested and he was advised that he should not ask for a waiver of Major Site Plan. Val Shelton stated he could ask for a waiver of major site plan to a minor. She stated he has a change of use happening. No change in floor area is proposed, which either maintains or decreases the intensity or use of the site with respect to parking and traffic or for a site with 2000 sq. ft. or less of gross floor area. Eric Botterman stated this fits with the first part of the description for minor. Val Shelton stated the question was can they make a waiver to keep it under minor. Eric Botterman stated they can waive anything. Val Shelton stated yes and particularly given what the circumstances are. They want to make sure, before accepting the application, they are accepting the correct type of application and then rendering a decision for that application.
Mike Hoffman asked if there were two tenant spaces involved, if they would still take the aggregate of the entire building. Val Shelton stated it is not the building, it is the site. There is a change of use within the building, for which no change in floor area is proposed, which either maintains or decreases the intensity of use of the site, with respect to parking or traffic. The applicant is proposing that those will not change or it applies to a site with less than 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Eric Botterman stated it fits the first part of that. Val Shelton stated the question is whether they can waive the 2,000 sq. ft. requirement to keep it under minor site plan. Eric Botterman stated the Planning Board can waive what they would like to waive.
Val Shelton stated there have been other applications before the Board over the years similar to this circumstance. She asked Mike Hoffman if he had done any research into those. Mike Hoffman, he believes the mills received a waiver of site plan review for uses inside the mills. Val Shelton asked if there were any relative to this property on Granite Street. Eric Botterman stated, in 2005, there was a site plan approval to add the patio outside, which added 60 seats. All of the waivers were granted and it was approved, with conditions of no serving after 10:00 p.m. and restrictions on music. Ironically, there is an approval for a minor site plan review from 1996 to renovate the upstairs, with which the owners never went forward. Val Shelton asked why this applicant could not exercise the rights under the prior approval. There may not have been a time limit. Eric Botterman stated there was no time limit on the approval that he saw and it was to renovate the whole upstairs and make it usable again. Bill Doucet stated approvals can lapse after a period of time. You would have to look at the regulations from 1996. Mike Hoffman stated both prior applications were done under minor site plan. He stated major site plans get into drainage analysis and they are not changing anything on the outside. He thought that was why those fell under minor site plan. They are not changing the site at all under this application.
Eric Botterman stated one issue that came up with the previous approvals was capacity. He asked what the legal capacity was now. Mike Hoffman stated there have been changes in the legal capacity of the building since the Rhode Island nightclub fire. It is now 100. You cannot have over 100, if you do not have a sprinkler system, but he is currently in the process of having one installed, so the capacity could increase. No matter what the Planning Board decides, he still has to meet the Life Safety Codes. Eric Botterman stated, the way he reads the applicant’s statement, this approval will not increase the capacity. Mike Hoffman stated it will not increase the capacity. This will be primarily for more rental income. The only time they can rent is when the downstairs is not being used. It will primarily not be a concurrent use, but they would like to, on slow nights, have customers use the pool table up there on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. On other nights, they envision letting the bands use it as their breakroom. It would not be open to the public at that time. When a band is playing, there are metal walls up there and they actually vibrate. It is untenable up there when a band is playing.
Val Shelton asked, relative to the parking, is there an increase in intensity. In the M2 Zone there are no specific on-site parking requirements that have to be met on-site. There are other options for meeting parking needs. For instance, you can use public parking as part of your analysis. Businesses downtown do not often have on-site parking, because they just don’t have the space for that. Mike Hoffman stated they do have parking and can easily fit 40 cars into the lot. With an attendant, they can get 48. There are nine more in the lower lot, then there is the municipal lot between the Historical Society and the Stone Church. He owns a portion of that lot. They can get 12-15 cars in that lot.
Val Shelton stated the big things in major site plan review are drainage, parking, and traffic flow. The drainage does not apply, because there is nothing changing outside and they are in an urban setting. Is the traffic really going to change, because there is more space available upstairs? Eric Botterman stated, in one of the previous applications, the owner at the time did a study of the patrons. 27% of the people who go there walk there. Mike Hoffman stated this past winter he decided to open on a snowy night. He thought it was a mistake until he got there. There was not a single car in the parking lot, but there were about 60 people inside.
Eric Botterman stated this is one of those situations where their regulations could be unduly onerous. Nothing is going to change the parking, drainage, or traffic. It is not going to increase the peak capacity. He asked what the harm was in approving this. He stated the Board should go ahead and vote on this application and not just rely on the 1996 approval for it.
Eric Botterman stated he was comfortable waiving all of the site plan requirements. This is a very unique situation. Nothing is changing. The last time they had something similar to this was when the Eagles went into the old funeral home building. They weren’t changing anything and they waived all of the site plan requirements. Mike Hoffman stated he did a minor site plan on the Durgin Block, which is the building where the Oak House is located. The second floor was a place of assembly. He came in at the time and it was an abbreviated minor site plan. He does not want to have to hire a surveyor for this application or hire an engineer for a drainage study. Nothing is changing.
Val Shelton stated she did not think the intent and purpose of the site plan regulations were relative to the change of use of this space in the M2 Zone. She asked if the Board felt they had an application before them that is substantially complete. He is asking for a waiver from minor site plan review requirements that would make the application substantially complete. Mike Hoffman stated they filled all of the requirements except for the boundary survey, drainage, bicycle and wheelchair facilities.
Val Shelton asked about abutter notification. Mike Hoffman asked if the Town Planner had left the file with them. It would show all of the abutter notifications. He gave the Board a copy of his submittal. Val Shelton asked if all of the fees were paid and the public notices sent. Mike Hoffman stated yes. Val Shelton stated the application was complete, with the exception of the items where the applicant is requesting waivers.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application for Zion Hill LLC at 5 Granite Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 5, M2 Zone for a proposed change of use in the M2 Zone, to utilize the second floor of the Stone Church, currently used for storage, as a multi-function room
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Bill Doucet asked if he was correct that the applicant had stated there would not be an increase in capacity. Mike Hoffman stated using the second floor will not change capacity by itself. The capacity will change when the sprinkler system is finished. This property used to have a capacity of 280. They do not want to go back to that. That is uncomfortable and not the kind of place they want to be. Once the sprinkler system is installed, they would like to go back to something like 150 or 160 people. When they do that, it will all be on the first floor. The second floor will be a band breakroom. They just don’t have staffing to operate both floors concurrently. It would not be that functional. Eric Botterman stated the applicant wanted to give himself the ability to do that. Mike Hoffman stated he wouldn’t want to limit it forever. He would rather leave the door open. Val Shelton stated the occupancy is regulated by the fire codes. Eric Botterman asked what the capacity would be with the sprinkler system. Mike Hoffman stated 208 people on the first floor. Unless they take tables out for dancing. It makes a difference if tables are taken out. They are a restaurant, but later in the evening they can be more like a nightclub when people are dancing. They will take tables out to make room for dancing, which opens up floor area. Eric Botterman stated none of that changes what the Board is talking about. Bill Doucet asked, if he were doubling capacity, would it trigger more review. Val Shelton stated then it would get into traffic. Eric Botterman stated, in 1996, the approval limited capacity to 225 people. Mike Hoffman stated he would be fine with that.
Val Shelton read from “5.01 WAIVERS OR SUBSTITUTIONS. The Board may waive any portion of this regulation in accordance with RSA 674:44 III (e). However, due to the probable violation of the purpose and intent of this regulation, it is unlikely that waivers for any portion of Sections 1.00, 2.00, 5.00, or 6.00 will be granted.” But, again, the purpose and intent has to do with parking, traffic, drainage, public benefit.
Mike Hoffman stated a big component in the intent is to notify abutters to allow input and he did that by filling out the application. The Town Planner and Town’s legal counsel had guided him to apply for the minor site plan.
Daniel Lewis asked if Mr. Hoffman would be monitoring the capacity. Mike Hoffman stated he wished they would have to monitor it, but he could show them right now there is about 20 people in there. Daniel Lewis stated this use would not be during peak hours on Friday or Saturday night. Mike Hoffman stated that was correct, this is so they can put the billiards table upstairs. They want to make it so people are not dropping quarters into it with music right there during the quieter week. He would like to do a shuffleboard table, too.
Eric Botterman stated traffic, drainage, etc., would be no different than what is there now. He asked the Board if they should waive site plan requirements. Val Shelton saying she was not sure about putting more burden on the applicant would give them any additional information relative to their decision.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the applicant’s waiver request from Section 2.03(B) requiring three copies of a site sketch showing drainage facilities, setbacks, bicycle and wheelchair facilities, etc.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the applicant’s waiver request from Section 2.03(4) to have a boundary survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor
Second: Gretchen Kast
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant a waiver to Section 1.05(B)(2) for minor review by the Planning Board of this application subject to the applicant providing the written waiver request
Second: Gretchen Kast
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the application of Zion Hill LLC, at 5 Granite Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 5, M2 Zone, for a change of use within the M2 Zone, to utilize the second floor of the Stone Church, currently used for storage, as a multi-function room
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Val Shelton stated this brings up revisiting this section of the ordinance. Especially for properties in the M2 Zone. It is not black and white, but there should be some other avenues available within the ordinance. This has not been updated for many years. Eric Botterman stated they should have a committee to look at these. He would like to be on it.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Appointments to Committees
CIP
Jane Ford volunteered to be the representative. Jane Ford stated, for anyone who would like to be an Alternate, it is a great learning experience. Eric Botterman stated they can revisit this, if people would like to give it some thought.
Conservation Commission
Sarah Finch volunteered to be the representative.
Economic Development Committee
Val Shelton volunteered to continue as the representative.
Stormwater Committee
Daniel Lewis and Val Shelton volunteered to be on the committee.
Energy & Environment Advisory Committee
No one volunteered. Eric Botterman stated, if anyone changed their mind, let the Board know.
Val Shelton stated the CIP Alternate was a critical position.
Committee Reports
Gretchen Kast gave the Town Council report. The audio on the DVD was not audible. Val Shelton asked if they had discussed a joint meeting. Gretchen Kast stated she thought that came up. The DVD was not audible again starting here.
Agenda Item #6 - Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:34 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor