MEETING HOUSE, 2nd and 5th Tuesdays of the Month, 7:pm
BOARD MEMBERS:
Jim Snyder (Chair) 2011
Art Rose(Vice Chair) 2011
Christopher Evans 2012
Duncan McCallum 2010
Chris Blair 2013
Alice Veenstra 2012
Tyson Miller (Ex Officio, Board of Selectmen Representative)
ALTERNATES:
Seth Cohn 2013
Joshua Gordon 2013

January 24, 2012:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair., 2) Draft minutes of January 10, 2012., 3) Public Meeting #1:  Replace current Article 2.6 (SIGNS) of the Zoning Ordinance and replace it with a new Article 2.6., 4) Public Meeting #2:  Add to the Subdivision Regulations a new Section IX C, Highway Protection and Control Regulations., 5) Public Meeting #3:  Add to the Zoning Ordinance a new Article 17, Groundwater Protection., 6) Other business.
MINUTES:

January 10, 2012:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair, 2) Draft minutes of December 13, 2011, 3) Clarification of Groundwater Protection language (Tyson), 4) Final review of proposed ordinances and regulation, 5) UPWP Special Project idea – Kimball Pond Road (Doug), 6) Pre-application conceptual consultation with Luke Mahoney regarding Brookford Farms’ plans to change the existing buildings on Intervale Farm and to build two new buildings, 7) Other business.
MINUTES:

December 27, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

December 13, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair, 2) Draft minutes of November 22, 2011, 3) Confirm date to hold first public hearing on zoning and regulation amendments. 4) Groundwater Protection Ordinance final document – info for Newsletter, 5) Sign Ordinance final document – info for Newsletter, 6) Protection and Control Regulations final document – info for Newsletter, 7) Other business.
MINUTES: The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Rose, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans,
Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative.

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Jim Snyder and Seth Cohn.

Joshua was appointed to take the place of Jim Snyder.  It was determined that a quorum was present.

Draft minutes of November 22, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Tyson, to approve the minutes.  The secretary noted an error on line 55.  The date should be January 24 rather than January 12.   Motion by Christopher, seconded by Alice, to amend the minutes.  Motion to amend passed unanimously.  The minutes as amended were passed unanimously.

Determine date to hold first public hearing on zoning and regulation amendments.
The board confirmed the hearing date of January 24, 2012.  Art noted that the board can post the notice of the hearing for all three items at the same public hearing.  We will open each one and close each one as we discuss them.  He suggested taking the smallest one first and concluding with the largest one.

Groundwater Protection Ordinance final document, Sign Ordinance final document, and Protection and Control Regulations final document.  The board reviewed all three of these documents.  Chris agreed to write up short summaries of these documents that will be published in the next newsletter and as a public notice in the newspaper in January.

Art commented that it is time to review the town ordinances and regulations to make sure they are current.  We should do that every year as a housekeeping matter.  The current zoning map needs to be updated with overlays of the Groundwater Protection Ordinance and the Workforce Housing Ordinance. 

Other business.  Doug stated that he would like to get something on a future agenda regarding the Central NH Regional Planning Committee helping us obtain federal money for transportation projects.

Motion by Christopher, seconded by Joshua, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.

Nancy Lilly, Secretary

November 22, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair., 2) Draft minutes of November 8, 2011., 3) Final draft of the Aquifer Protection Ordinance., 4) Planning Board Rules of Protection and Bylaws – final revision., 5) Sign ordinance public hearing., 6) Delegation of certain duties to the road agent by the board., 7) Discussion of proposals for sale and land use of Intervale Farm., 8) CNHRPC UPWP (Uniformed Planning Work Program) Special Project Form., 8) Other business.
MINUTES:

November 8, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair., 2) Draft minutes of October 25, 2011., 3) Aquifer Protection Ordinance., 4) Final discussion of the
Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws., 5) Confirmation of the delegation of certain duties to the road agent by the board.,
6) Discussion of sign ordinance., 7) Other business.
MINUTES: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  It was determined that a quorum was present. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair; Chris Blair, Christopher Evans, Doug McCallum, Alice Veenstra, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative (joined the meeting in progress). BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:  Seth Cohn.

Draft minutes of October 25, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Art, to amend the minutes by correcting two minor clerical errors.  Motion passed unanimously.

Aquifer Protection Ordinance.   The Chair reported that he received an email from Seth stating that the Department of Agriculture said that they have no best practice recommendations for fueling of other hazardous material for agricultural or forestry vehicles.  Seth suggested saying something like “reasonable practices and precautions”, knowing that there may be one out there that we don’t know about.
He doesn’t have a problem with the vagueness, but others might.  Joshua stated that there is a difference between best management practices and what is reasonable. He would vote for most reasonable practices.  There followed a brief discussion regarding this matter.  The Chair suggested keeping this item on the agenda for the next meeting and moving it along.

Final discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws.  Alice presented the final draft and reviewed the changes with the board members. She noted that she had used Doug’s initial draft as a basis for the final document and had also used Joshua’s comments.  Christopher referred to the clarity of the wording in Item 9D4 It was agreed that it should be changed to read “Any person not a board member who desires to ask a question…” rather than “Any person who desires to ask a question…”.  The Chair stated the minutes should reflect that the board would like to vote on these amended bylaws at our next meeting.  Alice agreed to produce the final copy.

Confirmation of the delegation of certain duties to the road agent by the board.Tyson stated that he has not had a chance to write up anything for this agenda item.  The Chair commented that this item will be taken up at the next meeting.  Art commented that he thought the board was going to write a letter to the selectmen asking them to delegate it to the selectmen.  Joshua stated the statute says that it has to be a regulation. 

Discussion of a sign ordinance.  Chris distributed a document showing Canterbury’s current ordinance covering signs.  It also shows a proposed draft for a new sign ordinance, and he reviewed it with the board.  Bob had sent him examples of ordinances from three North Carolina communities that he reviewed along with the Concord Zoning Ordinance in preparing this draft sign ordinance.   A brief discussion followed.

Motion by the Chair, seconded by Doug, to schedule a public hearing to move the process along for the adoption of this change in the Zoning Ordinance.  Motion passed unanimously. 

Other business. The Chair commented that the purpose of having other business on the agenda is mainly for the disbursement of general information.  If something is to be discussed, it must be on the meeting agenda.
 
Tyson described the procedure that the selectmen have chosen regarding the sale of Intervale Farm.

Alice reported that she went to the school board meeting.  There are two things that they wanted us to know.  (1) At some point they are going to be replacing the oil line going from the oil tank going into the school.  (2) They wanted to know if we have any ordinances or anything else coming up about which they should be aware.

Tyson reported that the Safe Roads to School program has received a second grant, this one in the amount of $15,000.  They are going to meet with the selectmen on November 28 at 6:00 regarding the grant.

Tyson gave a brief update on the Cal Dunn matter.

Motion by Art, seconded by Christopher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

October 25, 2011:
AGENDA: 1)Call to order by the Chair., 2) Draft minutes of September  27, 2011., 3) Further discussion of the Aquifer Protection Ordinance.
4) Further discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws., 5) Further discussion to confirm the delegation of certain
duties to the road agent by the board. 6) Review of sign ordinance., 7) Recent legislative changes., 8) Other business.
MINUTES: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  It was determined that a quorum was present.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair; Chris Blair, Doug McCallum, Seth Cohn, Joshua Gordon,
and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Christopher Evans and Alice Veenstra.

Draft minutes of September 27, 2011.   Motion by Doug, seconded by Art, to approve the minutes as presented.  Motion passed unanimously.

Recent legislative changes.  The Chair noted that Mark Stevens, a licensed land surveyor from Canterbury, was present to give the board members a brief update about some recent legislation that was passed.  Mark noted that there are three laws that took effect this last summer, and he thought the planning board should be aware of them.   

One has to do with the restoration of involuntarily merged lots (RSA 674:39-aa).  This law undoes the involuntary merger ordinance that Canterbury adopted last year, and it requires the planning board to publish a notice in a public place no later than January 1, 2012, indicating that these merged lots can be “unmerged” if requested by the owner prior to December 31, 2016.  This notice will remain posted in a public place through December 31, 2016, and will also be published in the 2011 through 2015 annual reports.  Tyson presented a draft of a proposed change to Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding merging non-conforming lots.  It would have to come before at least one public hearing.  He also presented a draft of Section XV, an addition to the subdivision regulations covering the restoration of involuntarily merged Lots.   This will also require a public hearing.

Mark then referred to legislation regarding the location of cemeteries (RSA 289.3).  He noted that Canterbury really doesn’t have an ordinance.  There are cited setbacks, but they may not be 25 feet.  This new ordinance requires a setback around cemeteries and prohibits building and excavating near a cemetery or private graveyard.  The board may want to consider the 25-foot requirement.

The third legislative change was the addition of a paragraph under 676.4, Board’s Procedures on Plats, that reads: “ For those proposals in which any structure or proposed building site will be within 500 feet of the top of the bank of any lake, pond, river, or stream, the planning board shall also notify the department of environmental services by first class mail at the same time that notice is provided to abutters, cost to be paid in advance by the applicant consistent with subparagraph (d)(1).  The sole purpose of notification to the department shall be to provide information to the department for dam hazard classification.  This requirement shall not confer upon the department the status of an abutter.  Failure by the municipality to notify the department shall not be considered a defect of notice.”  Mark noted that this notification to DES would be the responsibility of the planning board.  Seth stated that he will research this piece of legislation to see what prompted it.

Further discussion of the Aquifer Protection Ordinance.  Tyson presented a new draft of Section 17.18, the Aquifer and Groundwater Protection District Overlay Map Boundary Dispute Resolution.  Joshua went over a number of questions/concerns that he had concerning the ordinance.  The Chair stated that he has reached a dead end regarding Section 17.9K and the reference to section 5141.2.  Seth said he will contact the Department of Agriculture to see if he can get further information. 

Further discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws.  The Chair commented that, since Alice is not present tonight, this item will be held over to the next board meeting.

Further discussion to confirm the delegation of certain duties to the road agent by the board.  Joshua handed out a document referencing the existing RSA 236:13, V. It also included a draft amendment and the Town of Hudson’s regulations.  Tyson commented that the law says the responsibility goes to the planning board.  In most towns the board passes the responsibility along to the road agent, but we don’t have any document on record that gives this authority.  The board will always have the responsibility to pass it to the road agent.  If you have an issue with how the road agent is handling the permits, you have to go to the selectmen.  He doesn’t think the selectmen would like the road agent to report to two people. 

Art commented that the board should give the road agent the power to do what he does.  We should give him the standards that we wish him to incorporate when he reviews a driveway permit request.  The Chair stated that the only question is whether we need to incorporate something into the regulations.  Tyson wondered where a regulation would go.  Art wondered why we can’t just write a letter to the selectmen.  The Chair stated that it doesn't belong in the site plan or subdivision regulations. It is not a permit; it is strictly related to taxation.  Seth suggested that, since we are going to have a hearing on the other changes, why not include this change, something vested through the selectmen to the road agent?  Tyson stated that he would put something together.

Review of sign ordinance.  Chris reported that he has talked to Bob Steenson, and Bob is concerned as a landowner in Canterbury about the possibility of unusual signs, such as electronic and digital signs.  Bob was going to give him examples of reasonable ordinances.  The Chair commented that no one should have a commercial sign unless they have been in for site plan review.  Art stated that our ordinance should say no electronic signs and no pedestal signs in excess of 12 feet.  Chris commented that he will put something together and have suggested wording for the Zoning Ordinance at the next meeting.

Other business.  Tyson noted that, in order to sell Intervale Farm, the selectmen have to come before the planning board and the conservation commission for advice.  The board members felt that the two boards should meet together with the selectmen rather than individually.

The Chair reported on a piece of property on Hancock Road that is bank owned.  It is situated on a very long Class VI road with a waiver. The road is barely drivable.  It is the poster child for what not to do on a Class VI road.  We approved an upgrade, but we didn’t have a mechanism to require ongoing maintenance.  We need to re-visit whether we are going to allow building on Class VI roads.  We need to take a further step and require posting of a bond or letter of credit.  He has recommended that the selectmen look into this.

Motion by Art, seconded by Chris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

October 11, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

September 27, 2011:
AGENDA:
MINUTES: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair;
Christopher Evans, Doug McCallum, Alice Veenstra, Seth Cohn, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative.

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Chris Blair.

Draft minutes of September 13, 2011.  Christopher moved the minutes, seconded by Tyson.   Motion by Tyson, seconded by Christopher, to amend the minutes.  In the sentence starting on Line 56 Phil’s name should be replaced by Roger’s and Tyson’s names.  Motion to amend passed unanimously.  The minutes as amended were passed unanimously.

Discussion of the Aquifer Protection Ordinance.   Tyson commented that the Planning Board had invited various organizations in town to comment on the proposed legislation.  It was noted that Ken Stern from the Conservation Commission and Wayne Mann from the Agricultural Commission were present for this discussion.  Tyson commented that there will be two public hearings before the ordinance goes to the town for ratification.  He reminded board members that Ken had sent each of them a letter expressing the importance of protecting the groundwater in Canterbury and his thoughts about the ordinance.  Ken stated that he feels a decision should be made to have this ordinance follow tax map lot lines.  Start with the blue areas and overlay them on the tax maps, then draw a line on the property boundaries so you don’t get into an argument about what is in the zone and what is out of the zone.  Make the lines definite.   He believes it would reduce the level of controversy.

Tyson noted that Matt Monahan suggested the following scenario if there were a disputed boundary:   Town zoning would indicate where it is, the applicant  disputes it and hires a professional to define the boundary, the board can either go with what the applicant’s professional says or hire their own to confirm or deny the location of the boundary.  From there it might go to court, but it probably would be resolved.

Art commented that the idea behind developing this ordinance is that, by adopting it, we would have a little more control.  The Chair said he leans toward using the property lines.  If you use property lines, you can still have someone dispute it.  Art wondered what we know that has been proposed and accepted.  People have had to accept the Zoning Ordinance.  We have wetlands around the whole state with ordinances and people seem to accept them.  Other than the zoning and the wetlands, there are always going to be gray areas.   We know we have aquifer areas within the town.  Our object would be to develop an ordinance to get some measure of control as to what happens in those areas.

Wayne stated that he has a 155-acre parcel that is bisected by this zone.  Who is going to walk that land to show him where the aquifer is located?  He agrees that it should be the town; it shouldn’t be up to the property owner.  Tyson commented that if there is a question about a property line, the property owner should come to the planning board.  Someone is going to have to spend money to show where the aquifer is.  Christopher stated that he doesn’t think it is right that the property owner has to pay. 

There followed considerable discussion, including who would be responsible for any expenses that might be incurred if there were a disputed boundary line.  The Chair commented that he believes that the instances in which a boundary is going to become an issue are going to be so remote and infrequent, we are probably worrying about it too much. 

Tyson distributed a draft Section 17.17, Aquifer and Groundwater Protection District Overlay Map Boundary Dispute Resolution, to be included in the ordinance.  (Later correctly numbered 17.18.)
 
Art commented that everything goes back to the information that Ken showed us in the USGS map.  Someone has established something.  He doesn’t think the board needs to reinvent the wheel.  He is more concerned about what can or cannot take place in a certain location.  Ken noted that we are all in an aquifer because we get our water from a well.  The places where he thinks this should have some bearing are Mr. Dunn’s property on 106, the town industrial zone at Exit 18, the gas station at Exit 18.  Exit 17 is also industrial.  Those would be the areas of concern where you might get potential development.  As far as contamination around town, the best thing is to have a household hazardous waste collection, but it is very expensive.  We did it once or twice, and it is something that he thinks we should have.

Tyson asked Wayne if the Agricultural Commission had any comments.  Wayne noted that Section 17.9K exempts forestry field equipment from refueling.  What about farm equipment when his tractor runs out of fuel and he is using it out in his fields?  Tyson noted that the board needs to find out what the SPCC says.  The Chair said he would try to come up with a better understanding of Article 17.9K. It was noted that Shaker Village is shown as an aquifer, but it is not in that category because they have transient populations.  Tyson commented that he tried to modify the map, but only the state can do that.  There will eventually be a circle around the town.  He suggested leaving the ordinance the way it is and incorporating Article 17.18.  The board has accepted this map with the lot overlay and the addition of Article 17.8. Joshua commented that there needs to be a reference to the map in the ordinance. 

Discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws.  Alice reported on some of the suggested changes that have been made in reviewing these bylaws.  She will continue to review them and report at the board’s next work meeting.

Discussion of a regulation to confirm the delegation of certain duties to the road agent by the board.  (RSA 236:13 and 14, Excavations and Driveways.  Joshua stated that he didn’t get to complete this for tonight’s meeting.  He will have something at the next work meeting.

Review of sign ordinance.  The Chair stated that, because Chris wasn’t present for tonight’s meeting, this agenda item will be taken up at the next work meeting.  Joshua reported that the NH Supreme Court has upheld a lower court decision regarding Concord signs that mimic movement.

Other business.  Doug reported that he went to a conference on the green building code that is coming out in 2012.  It addresses some sustainable zoning issues.  He has a draft copy on a CD if anyone is interested.  He believes they are meeting in November to vote on the final version of the code.

Tyson reported that the selectmen are looking for a new owner or renter for the sod farm (Intervale Farm).

He reported that the new assessments in town have gone out.

Motion by the Chair, seconded by Alice, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously. - Nancy Lilly, Secretary

September 13, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair., 2) Roll call by the Secretary., 3) Draft minutes of July 12, 2011.,
4) Further discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws., 5) Merrimack River buffer survey.,
6) Discussion on the Aquifer Protection Ordinance., 7) Review RSA 236:13 and 14, Excavations and Driveways.,
8) Invitation from Shaker Regional School Board., 9) Other business.
MINUTES: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BOARD MEMBER PRESENT: Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair; Christopher
Evans, Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug McCallum and Seth Cohn.
Draft minutes of July 12, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Alice, to amend the minutes by correcting two typographical errors.  Motion passed unanimously.

Further discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws.  It was agreed to delay the discussion until the September 27th meeting so that Doug can be present.

Merrimack River Buffer Survey.  The board filled out the survey that the Central NH Regional Planning Commission had requested.

Discussion on the Aquifer Protection Ordinance.  Tyson noted that the Conservation Commission, the Selectmen, and the Agricultural Committee have been invited to the September 27th meeting to discuss the ordinance.  He reported that he met with the Conservation Commission last night to talk about this, and he explained to them that if they had changes they should come to the meeting to talk about them.  In general they liked it, but they continued to make comments.  He mentioned some of their concerns, one of which is that the ordinance doesn’t deal with water withdrawal.   They also mentioned that Shaker Village was not included on the map.  Tyson explained to them that the map is something that really can’t be changed.  It comes down from the State.  He again suggested that they come to the meeting on the 27th.

Christopher referred to Section 17.9J of the ordinance and asked if a home business is the same as a home occupation.  Art responded that the correct term should follow the
Zoning Ordinance.  Tyson agreed that it should be changed from a home business to a home occupation to make it agree with the Zoning Ordinance.

There followed considerable discussion by the board about the ordinance.  Tyson commented that, generally speaking, the board is happy with the ordinance.  We will need to have one or two public hearings, and then it goes to the town to vote on it.
He suggested that the board may want to hold off the public hearing session(s) until January when it is closer to town meeting time.  In the meantime, he will go over all of the comments from Pierce Rigrod of NHDES and also comments from board members.  Alice commented that, once the ordinance is in place, it can be tightened up, if necessary.

Review of RSA 236:13 and 14, Excavations and Driveways.  Tyson commented that this is a technical item.  He noted that under this RSA the planning board has the authority to grant approvals for Driveways.  Currently that approval has been turned over to Phil Stone, the Road Agent.  Tyson and Roger have questioned whether or not some type of town documentation is needed to cover this regulation/authorization.  A lengthy discussion ensued.

Tyson suggested that perhaps there should be written documentation or authorization (currently non-existent) to confirm the delegation by the planning board of certain duties
to the road agent via the board of selectmen.  Joshua volunteered to look into type of regulation that are out there and try to get some simple language for the next board meeting.  The Chair suggested that Joshua should call the Local Government Center to see what they have.

Invitation from Shaker Regional School Board.  The secretary noted that the board members have been invited to attend a school board meeting on October 13 at 6:00 p.m. in the Canterbury Elementary School Library.  They are looking for the names of people who will attend.  Alice stated that she will be attending.

Other business.  Tyson reported that the Select Chair has requested an approved sign ordinance.  The Chair read the sign ordinance that is currently in the Zoning Ordinance.  Chris stated that he will look into this with Bob to see what he can find.  Joshua stated that he will also do some research.  The Chair commented that the board should not be discussing this now.  It should be an agenda item if we want to discuss it.

Tyson gave an update on the Cal Dunn matter.

Motion by Art, seconded by Christopher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

August 23, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

August 9, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

July 26th, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

July 12th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Call to order by the Chair., 2) Roll call by the Secretary., 3) Draft minutes of June 28, 2011., 4) Reports from Doug and Seth on their reviews of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws., 5) Further discussion on an Aquifer Protection Ordinance., 6) Other business.
MINUTES:

June 28th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Draft minutes of June 14, 2011., 2) Discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws., 3) Discussion on an Aquifer Protection Ordinance.,
4) Other business.
MINUTES: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and the Secretary called
the roll.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair; Chris Blair, Doug McCallum, Seth Cohn, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative.

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:     Alice Veenstra, Christopher Evans, and Joshua Gordon.

Draft minutes of June 14, 2011.  Motion by Chris, seconded by Art, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Other business.  The Chair referred to the Land Use Database Survey from the Department of Energy and Planning.  Tyson agreed to complete the form and return it.

Discussion of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws.  Doug suggested a small committee to review the bylaws and bring in Suggestions at the next board meeting.  He agreed to head up this committee.  Seth agreed to look over the accuracy of the RSAs referenced in the document.  The Chair commented that the procedure is to keep the bylaws on the agenda for the next work meeting at which time the committee can report their findings and the board can vote on any changes.

Discussion on an Aquifer Protection Ordinance.  The Chair noted that the ordinance from the Town of Freedom has been circulated to the board.  The board briefly reviewed the document.  Tyson stated that, if the board approves a similar ordinance as a draft, we would then hold two public hearings.  If we make any changes to the document at the first public hearing, then we have to have a second hearing.  Then the finished product goes to town meeting for a vote.

Motion by Tyson, seconded by Art, that we adopt the Town of Freedom’s Zoning Ordinance for groundwater protection with the modification to change the name of the town and the referenced section numbers.  The Chair spoke against the motion.  We should prepare a document that is going to be ours alone and then vote on that one.  He doesn’t think the board needs a motion at this time until we have an actual document for consideration.  Tyson withdrew his motion and Art withdrew his second.

The Chair referred to Section XIV. B. of the draft state ordinance where it talks about a designated agent.  This is something that should be addressed at some point.  It would be prudent for the selectmen to have a discussion about this matter.

The Chair noted that Tyson will prepare the document that we propose.  Then we will have a vote to bring it to a public hearing.  We need a working document first.  Then we can circulate it.  Tyson commented that he will also put together something for the town newsletter.

Other business.  Tyson gave a brief update on the sod farm.

Motion by Art, seconded by Chris, to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously.

Nancy Lilly, Secretary

June 14th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Draft minutes of May 24, 2011., 2) Public hearing on an application for a proposed three-lot subdivision of land owned by Sean K. McDonald and Brett K. Barton on Old Gilmanton Road in the agricultural/conservation zone (Tax Map 203, Lot 2)., 3) Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra, Seth Cohn, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative., BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joshua Gordon.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of May 24, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Alice, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Public hearing on an application for a proposed three-lot subdivision of land owned by Sean K. McDonald and Brett K. Barton on Old Gilmanton Road in the agricultural/conservation zone (Tax Map 203, Lot 2).  The applicants were in attendance, as were abutters Peter Bush and Genella McDonald.  Jeff Green presented for the applicants.

The Chair noted that Mr. McDonald has requested a waiver on the complete topography of this lot due to its large size.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Alice, to approve the waiver.  Motion passed unanimously.

The Chair briefly reviewed all of the requirements of a plan for a minor subdivision to determine whether an application is complete.  Art noted that the monuments aren’t shown on the plan.  He also commented on the fact that the plans are stamped PROGRESS PRINT.  If the plan is approved tonight, it can’t show that designation.  Mr. Green explained that most times he doesn’t set the pins until done with the subdivision hearing.  He won’t record a plan until it is all done.  That is why the PROGRESS PRINT is on there.  That would be eliminated on the Mylar and the monuments would be added.  Until the pins are set, it isn’t a final print.  The Chair commented that he believes the explanation and the procedure is reasonable.  If the board approves the subdivision, it would be this plan with specific changes.

Tyson noted that, at the May 10th meeting, the board voted to accept the application as complete.  The Chair then opened the public hearing.  He explained the procedure to be followed.

Mr. Green presented the plan and explained that the applicants are proposing a three-lot subdivision.  Lots 2-1 and 2-2 will each have 61.864 acres; the remaining lot will have five acres.  All of the lots meet the requirement of a minimum of 300 feet of frontage.  He noted that there is an existing barn on the middle lot with an existing driveway.  There is quite a bit of open land.  There are some wetlands in the front.  Snowshoe Hill Road goes all the way down into Old Gilmanton Road.  The back line is Gilmanton, Belmont and over to Northfield. 

The Chair then asked for questions/comments from the board. Tyson stated that each of the lots is going to require a road waiver.  Mr. Green responded that that is the way it has been done previously.  The Chair stated that he doesn’t think the board has ever required road waivers, but it might be the smart way to do it.  If it is a Class VI road, then it has to be part of the application.  The road waiver isn’t something automatic.  It is something that the Selectmen discuss, they get information from the Planning Board, the Fire and Police Departments. and then they make a decision whether to grant a waiver.  It is certainly within reason that a waiver wouldn’t be granted on certain roads in Canterbury.  Mr. Green noted that there are houses across the street from all three of these lots. 

Doug asked about access to the lots.  Mr. Green responded that they propose to use the same driveway, then break off and get an easement to the other lot.  Doug stated that he thinks the easement should be attached to that property now.  It could be changed in the future.  Christopher asked if there is a requirement in a subdivision that it should be done.  It seems to him an easement hinders that property.  That easement is not necessary for the property.

The Chair suggesting moving on and coming back to this issue later on.  He referred to the numbering system on the lots.  Those lots will get assigned a new number that will be in the assessor’s format.  Art stated that, if there are three or four lots, they are all referenced back to the original piece.

The Chair then asked for comments/questions from abutters.  Mr. Bush responded that he supports the applicants.  They are good people.

The Chair then asked for comments from concerned members of the public.  Craig and Jan Briggs stated that they were here tonight to speak in favor of
the subdivision.  They have lived at 22 Old Gilmanton Road for 34 years.
Mr. McDonald and Mr. Brett have brought nothing but good to the neighborhood.  They are a welcome addition as residents of Canterbury.

Ken Stern spoke as a concerned member of the public.  He said it focuses around Snowshoe Hill Road.  What happens, in the future, if someone wants to bring that road up to a Class V standard?  Mr. McDonald responded that, if someone wants to spend a fortune to upgrade that road, they are more than welcome.  Ken commented that it is just a question for the board to consider.  The Chair stated that the subdivision doesn’t affect that problem.  Ken mentioned a possible suggestion that may work with the access situation. He wondered if a note could be put on the plan stating that that it is subject to the right of the owners to cross Lot 2 for access and utilities.  Mr. Green responded that that could definitely be addressed. 

The Chair commented that the open issues that need to be addressed are the monuments, access, and lot numbers.  Motion by Tyson, seconded by Christopher, to approve the application subject to the following conditions:

Motion by Art, seconded by Doug, to amend the approval by stating that the monuments have to be shown on the plan submitted for recording.  Motion to amend passed unanimously.

Motion by Doug, seconded by Chris, that a note be placed on the plan that it is subject to the right of the owners of Lots 1 and 3 to cross Lot 2 for access and utilities.   Motion to amend passed unanimously.

Motion by the Chair, seconded by Tyson, to amend the approval with the condition that the lot number will be changed, if necessary, to reflect the assessor’s format.  Motion to amend passed unanimously.

Motion by Art, seconded by Doug, that the PROGRESS PRINT stamp is removed from the plan prior to recording.  Motion to amend passed unanimously.

The Chair referred back to the original motion to approve the application subject to the approved conditions.  Motion passed unanimously.

Other business.  Tyson gave an update on the Cal Dunn matter.

Tyson handed out a Proposed Aquifer & Groundwater Protection District for Canterbury as prepared by the Central NH Regional Planning Commission.

Doug gave an update on the Central NH RPC Advisory Committee.  They have formed a new organization called the Midstate Regional Council to coordinate transportation for people who don’t own cars.  They are soliciting volunteer board members if anyone wants to get involved.

Seth reported that the governor has signed a bill that puts in place the issue of the unmerging of lots.

Motion by Seth, seconded by Art, to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.  Motion passed., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

May 24th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Draft minutes of May 10, 2011., 2) Review of the bylaws., 3) Discussion on an Aquifer Protection Ordinance., 4) Old Gilmanton Road history., 5) Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Art Rose, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Doug McCallum, Alice Veenstra, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Rep.

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Jim Snyder, Chair; Chris Blair, and Seth Cohn.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Vice Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of May 10, 2011.  Christopher moved the minutes, seconded by Doug.  Tyson referred to Line 93, stating that the word “excavation” should be inserted between the last two words in that line.  Joshua referred to Line 28 and noted that the word “standards” should be added at the end of that line.

Motion by Tyson, seconded by Doug, to accept the minutes as amended.  Motion passed unanimously.

Review of the bylaws.  There was limited discussion of the bylaws.  Some of the items that were mentioned were:

• Meeting time
• Regular office hours
• Accuracy of RSAs
• Notice of meetings
• Roll call voting
• Designation of alternates 

It was decided to continue this discussion at the board’s next work meeting to allow board members to better review the document.  Art commented that the object is not to change the verbiage in the bylaws.  It is to make sure that what we are doing is being done correctly.  He suggested that everyone should take notes on any questions/comments they may have as they review the document.

Discussion on an Aquifer Protection Ordinance.  After a very limited amount of discussion, it was decided to wait until the next work meeting so that Seth can head up the discussion.  Before that meeting, it would be helpful if everyone reviews the proposed ordinance.

Jim joined the meeting at this point.  He asked Art to continue running the meeting.

Old Gilmanton Road History.  Sean McDonald was present.  Art stated that this agenda item concerns the history of bringing this Class VI road up to Class V standards.  He wasn’t at the last board meeting, but he is going to assume that someone asked a question about the history of this road.

Tyson circulated a copy of the Class VI Road Policy and a copy of the Road Design and Construction Standards for the Town of Canterbury.  Other documents that were presented and that relate to this history included a road analysis of Old Gilmanton Road and waivers for people to sign when they build on Class VI roads.  Sean McDonald presented two Town of Canterbury Road Upgrade Agreements for Old Gilmanton Road, one for the first 1400 feet of upgrade, and the second one for the remaining 400 feet.  Both agreements were signed off by the town road agent as having been completed.

Tyson noted that, in previous board minutes about this road, a motion was passed that the board members have come to the consensus to recommend limited development on Old Gilmanton Road, assuming that the improvements to Class V standards end well before Snowshoe Hill Road and assuming that the road condition can be upgraded by the owner to Class V standards.  It was noted that limited development means development with no subdivision.  Jim noted that the Planning Board may approve subdivisions on Class VI roads if a road waiver is granted.  We need to take that into consideration.  We are not bound by it.
This agenda item is just to bring the board up to snuff about Old Gilmanton Road.

Art asked if this history satisfies any questions that board members might have about Old Gilmanton Road.  Doug asked what the board’s intention is regarding development on Class VI roads.  Jim responded that the board would take them on a case-by-case basis.  That was the purpose in walking all of these Class VI roads.  If we get a request for a road waiver, we have a history of having gone out and looked it over and discussed it.  Sean McDonald noted that you have to sign a waiver when you go for a building permit.  It could be recorded on the deed at the time of subdivision. 

Art commented that the goal tonight is to look at the history of Old Gilmanton Road to give the board background information so that, when the application comes before the board next month, hopefully no one will have any questions
on the history of Old Gilmanton Road.

Other business.  Tyson reported that Mr. Dunn has made a change in the agreement between the Planning Board, the Town of Canterbury, and Cal Dunn, Jr., and a new document has to be executed.

Motion by Tyson, seconded by Christopher, that the amended agreement presented to the board between the Planning Board, the Town of Canterbury, and Cal Dunn, Jr., be approved and that we direct the Chair to sign the document on behalf of the board.  Motion passed by a vote of 5-1.

Motion by Christopher, seconded by Alice, to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously.

Nancy Lilly, Secretary

Next meeting:           June 14, 2011, 7:00 p.m., The Meeting House.  

May 10th, 2011:
AGENDA:1) Draft minutes of April 26, 2011., 2) Review for completeness the application for a 3-lot subdivision proposed by Sean McDonald and Brett Barton on property they own on Old Gilmanton Road (Tax Map 203, Lot 2)., 3) Report from Joshua regarding what is the Right-to-Know status of materials that are distributed among the members of the Planning Board by email between meetings., 4) Contents of minutes – “Meeting Minutes 101”., 5) Further discussion of an Aquifer Protection Ordinance., 6) Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Snyder, Chair; Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra, Seth Cohn, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Art Rose and Christopher Evans.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding. 

Draft minutes of April 26, 2011.  Motion by Alice, seconded by Tyson, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Review for completeness the application for a 3-lot subdivision proposed by Sean McDonald and Brett Barton on property they own on Old Gilmanton Road (Tax Map 203, Lot 2).  Sean McDonald was in attendance.  Copies of the application and the plan were distributed to the board members for their review.  It was noted that the 61-acre lot labeled Lot 2 was mislabeled on the plan; it should be labeled Lot 3.  The Chair commented that the board has to determine whether more information is needed in the application.  He noted that in 2003 the applicant filed a road waiver with the Selectmen.  There was also a road improvement agreement that the applicant carried out at that time.  Sean commented that Old Gilmanton Road is a Class VI road that has been upgraded to Class V standards.

The Chair stated that this raises the question as to whether that original road waiver agreement runs with the new lots or whether the new lots would each require a road waiver.  Sean responded that on each of the deeds there was a road waiver that had to be signed and attached to the deeds.

The Chair stated that he thought that there was some sort of restriction on further subdivision.  We should review the minutes of the Selectmen and the Planning Board.  The Planning Board had to grant a road waiver before turning it over to the Selectmen.  He read portions of the Statutory Building Permit Requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, and stated that he believes the applicant would have to meet the road requirements before subdividing.  He also read portions of the Subdivision Standards that cover when subdivisions may be approved on a Class VI or private road.  He suggested to Sean that he might want to secure the road waiver before going to any further expense.

The Chair then asked board members to review the check list attached to the application.  He noted that Sean is going to request a waiver on the topography and also a road waiver. 

Motion by Tyson, seconded by Chris, to accept the application as complete.
Tyson commented that, if there is a public hearing, we want to have the 2003 minutes of the Selectmen and the Planning Board to see if there are any limitations in those documents.  Motion passed unanimously.  It was noted that the public hearing on this application is scheduled for June 14.

Report from Joshua regarding what is the Right-to-Know status of materials that are distributed among the members of the Planning Board by email between meetings.  Joshua referred to the letter that he had distributed to all of the board members.  Basically it says that you can distribute anything you want between meetings as long as it is available at the next regularly scheduled meeting and as long as there is a copy on record with the town.

Contents of minutes – “Meeting Minutes 101”.  This article was on the agenda to let the board know that the Local Government Center has published such a document.

Further discussion of an Aquifer Protection Ordinance.  Tyson reported that he downloaded an eight-page model aquifer protection ordinance prepared by NH DES.  We need to have an ordinance and a map to create an overlay district. Seth commented that, if we create an overlay district, we will be in agreement with RSA 485.  Tyson stated that there would be two public hearings after the Planning Board votes on it, and then it would go to town meeting.  Seth stated that he would be glad to make a clean copy of the ordinance and circulate it to the board.

Other business.  Seth gave a brief update on the voluntary merger issue.  As he understands it, there is going to be an amendment to the bill.

Joshua referred to an error in Article IV of the board’s bylaws.  It should read that meetings commence at 7:00 p.m. rather than 7:30 p.m.  The Chair stated that that is a good reason to put the bylaws on the agenda for next meeting.  He asked the secretary to email them to all board members so they can look them over to see if there are any other errors or anything that needs to be changed.

Tyson reported that the town attorney will be meeting with the Gold Star attorney to work on a settlement to get the sod farm off the property.  They claim they own some of the buildings and some of the equipment.  What do we do with the sod farm after they are gone?  There are three options:  (1) a new tenant, (2) a lease with option to buy, and (3) sell it.  There is a meeting with LCHIP tomorrow, and there could be some major road blocks.  It may be that the town has the property to manage forever.
Tyson stated that he would like the board to look at a settlement letter between the Planning Board and Cal Dunn that would allow us to get some money and a promise from Mr. Dunn of no further excavation activity.

Pursuant to RSA 91-A:2 Ib, there was a motion by the Chair, seconded by Alice, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. to go into a non-meeting session to review a settlement letter regarding an ongoing legal matter.  Motion passed.  The Chair recused himself from this non-meeting, and Tyson replaced him as acting Chair. 

Motion by the acting Chair, seconded by Chris, to reconvene the meeting at 9:05 p.m.  Motion passed unanimously.  Tyson  appointed Seth to replace Art, and he appointed Joshua to replace Christopher.

Motion by the acting Chair, seconded by Seth, that the agreement presented to the board between the Planning Board, the Town of Canterbury and Cal Dunn, Jr., be approved, and that we direct the Chair to sign the document on behalf of the board.  Motion passed by a vote of 5-1.

Motion to adjourn at 9:15 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

 

April 26th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Continuation of discussion about current Merrimack River buffer setback regulations.,  2) Further discussion on minutes and scanners., 3) Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Art Rose, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Doug McCallum, Alice Veenstra, Seth Cohn, Joshua Gordon, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative.

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Chris Blair.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.  He appointed Josh to fill the vacancy created by Chris’ absence.

Draft minutes of April 12, 2011.  Christopher moved the minutes, seconded by Seth.  Joshua referred to Line 124 and moved to strike that sentence and replace it with the following sentence:  Joshua volunteered to do some research regarding how much information is appropriate to circulate prior to meetings.  Motion seconded by Christopher.

Tyson noted that there should be corrections to the two nominations on
Lines 18-20, as they do not indicate who made them.  They should read: Alice was nominated by Tyson, seconded by Christopher.  Joshua was nominated by Jim, seconded by Art.

Tyson also noted that the nomination of Christopher on Line 23 should read that it was seconded by Doug rather than Seth.

Minutes as corrected and amended passed unanimously. 

Continuation of discussion about current Merrimack River buffer setback regulations.  Tyson presented a map that shows all of the aquifers.  The Chair commented that there was discussion at the last meeting about aquifers and also about wetlands setbacks.  The question now is whether or not the board wishes to pursue any changes to the Zoning Ordinance.  Doug stated that he would like to have more substantial information as to why we should want to have deeper setbacks.  Is it the protection of water quality as it goes into the Merrimack River?   This is a complicated issue, and he doesn’t feel confident to judge it. 

The Chair commented that the State protects larger bodies of water, but we don’t have a wetlands setback.  People don’t want restrictions on their property rights.  Art stated that one of the major problems why people don’t like wetlands restrictions is because the definition of wetlands is very arbitrary.

There followed a discussion about aquifers.  Art commented that, if we have identified aquifers in clearly zoned properties, we probably should consider putting in a couple of items in the Zoning Ordinance that would give us a little tighter control.  If there aren’t any controls in place, we can’t say no easily.  It is better to have a little control – not too much, but a little.  Christopher stated that it makes sense to do something in the commercial area.

The Chair noted that anyone wanting to change the use for a piece of property would have to come to the Planning Board for site plan review.  Art stated that you need some level of control in site plan review.  You have to have something in place.  If you have nothing, you have a problem.  Joshua stated that he is surprised there is no setback. 

Art said he believes it would be prudent to consider coming up with an ordinance in the aquifer areas, and it sounds as if the board wants to do this.  Tyson urged everyone to look at the aquifer ordinance.  Go back to your email, pull it up and look at it.  Doug suggested starting with the aquifer issue and then later on go through some of the other items.  The Chair commented that this discussion will continue at the next work meeting.

Further discussion on minutes and scanners.  Joshua reported that he will have a report on minutes at the next meeting.        

Other business.  The Chair reported that we have a subdivision hearing that will come up in June.  We will have the application on the next agenda to review it for completeness.

Tyson reported that the town is moving to sever its relationship with Gold Star.  They will be looking for new tenants.

Motion to adjourn at 8:10 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

April 12th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1) Election of a Chair and a Vice Chair, 2) Draft minutes of March 8, 2011, 3) Continued pre-application conceptual consultation with Martin and Betsy Vaughn regarding their proposed disc golf course, 4) Presentation by Vanessa Goold from the CNHRPC about current Merrimack River buffer setback regulations and their findings as to how the river’s buffer can be protected, 5) Update by Doug on the work of the CNHRPC Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), including the Transportation Improvement Program (TIC), 6) Other business, including discussion on scanners.

MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra, Joshua Gordon,Seth Cohn, and Tyson Miller, Selectman Representative.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Election of a Chair and a Vice Chair.  Tyson noted that he has resigned his position on the board as a regular member and has been appointed as the Selectman Representative on the board.  The Chair noted that the board needs to elect someone to fill out the remainder of Tyson’s term on the board this year.
At the next town meeting (2012) there will be an election to fill Tyson’s one remaining year on the board.  The Chair called for nominations.  Alice was nominated by Tyson, seconded by Christopher.  Joshua was nominated by Jim, seconded by Art.  By ballot vote, Alice was elected as a member by a vote of 4-2.

Jim called for Chair nominations.  Christopher nominated Jim, seconded by Tyson.  Chris nominated Christopher, seconded by Doug.  By ballot vote, Jim was elected as Chair by a vote of 5-1.

The Chair then called for nominations of a Vice Chair.  Tyson nominated Chris, seconded by Christopher.  Christopher nominated Art, seconded by Jim.  By ballot vote there was a tie vote of 3-3.  The Chair broke the tie, and Art was elected as Vice Chair.

Draft minutes of March 8, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Doug, to move the minutes.  Christopher suggested amending the minutes so that the sentence beginning on line 134 reads as follows:  This situation existed most often in Sherwood Forest which is composed of many small lots and it is not unusual to have quarter acre lots contiguous.

Motion by Christopher, seconded by Tyson, to amend the minutes as stated.  The motion passed unanimously.  The original minutes were approved as amended.

Continued pre-application conceptual consultation with Martin and Betsy Vaughn regarding their proposed disc golf course.  Martin and Betsy were present for this discussion.  The Chair noted that at the last meeting the board had requested a letter from the Vaughns describing exactly what it is that they plan to do.  That letter has been received and forwarded to all of the board members.  He asked if anyone had any questions and there were none.  It was noted that the proposed disc golf course does not meet the threshold that would require site plan review, and they can go ahead with the project. The Chair thanked them for submitting their letter and wished them good luck.

Presentation by Vanessa Goold from the CNHRPC about current Merrimack River buffer setback regulations and their findings as to how the river’s buffer can be protected.  Vanessa and Matt Monahan were present from the CNHRPC, along with Nancy Roy from the UMRLAC (Upper Merrimack River Local Advisory Council).  Nancy explained that the council is charged with keeping an eye on the Merrimack.  There are six towns involved that touch the Merrimack.  The council meets monthly, and they keep an eye on anything that is impacting water flow into the Merrimack.  They employed the CNHRPC to be their technical arm.  They put their concerns into a report called the Buffer Protection Study, and Vanessa and Matt will be addressing a piece of that report.

Vanessa stated that the Upper Merrimack River Local Advisory Council is charged with creating a management plan for the river.  She gave an overview of what the river protection management plan does.  One goal was to do an audit of the towns along the river and look at existing land use and provide communities along the river with opportunities to strengthen local ordinances and land use regulations.  They are looking at how communities are dealing with water protection.

Matt reported on the regulatory side.  Some locations along the corridor have different regulations in place.  They are looking at how the corridor can be protected.  He went over the chart of recommended protection tools as they relate to Canterbury, and said that, if the board wants more information of any of those recommendations, they can come in with more.

Concern was expressed about the fact that Loudon does not show up on the map.  It was suggested that it could be a goal of the UMRLAC to reach out to other communities and get them involved.

Matt suggested that perhaps the board could get involved with a few of the recommended protection tools, such as the Aquifer Protection Ordinance,
the Wetland Protection Ordinance with Setbacks, and the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance, especially the first two.  The board expressed a special interest in the Aquifer Protection Ordinance, and Vanessa stated that she could do an aquifer map.  Christopher commented that it would be good to see the ordinance language. 

Jim suggested having this matter on the agenda for the board’s work meeting this month.  It would give the board a chance to think about it and read the report more thoroughly, since it is up on their website.  Then the board could try to make some decisions on what we might want to handle.  The next meeting is on the 26th, and if there is anything that the CNHRPC can get to the board for that meeting, that would be very helpful.

Update by Doug on the work of the CNHRPC Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), including the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).  Doug reported that he has been going to the TIP meetings.  Recently they have been looking at the 10-year transportation improvement plan which is a proposal to the state for improvements to the state roads.  He and Ty went to the Board of Selectmen with the results of our Master Plan to try to get some funding.  This group has put together a TIP that will be voted on next week by the CNHRPC, then it will go to the state.  Out of 27 projects in the TIP, Canterbury has three of them, Nos. 14, 15 and 16.  They are Baptist Road, Center Road, and Kimball Pond Road.  If the state ever gets any money, we are in good standing.

He reported that every year there is federal money available for transportation enhancements that meet good air quality programs.  The application is a letter of interest from the town.  One application would cover sidewalks and bike paths, and another could maybe cover a park-and-ride.  Those are two possible sources of funding that might or might not help us with our plans.  It is federal money.  There may be a change in methodology for the congestion litigation.  He will try to do better in keeping this group informed.

Other business, including discussion on scanners.  The Chair suggested that the board not take up the question of the depth of minutes tonight, but postpone it until the next meeting.  It would be nice if we could do a little research into this matter.  As far as scanners are concerned, there is a value of being able to look at documents, etc., ahead of time, but how much of that is appropriate outside of a meeting?  He stated that he would like someone to volunteer to look into the question of what is required by law on both of these issues.  One good way to do that would be to call the Local Government Center and say that we are discussing these two issues and see if they can give us some guidance on what is required.  Then decide within the law what kind of detail we want.  Joshua volunteered to do some research regarding how much information is appropriate to circulate prior to meetings. 

The Chair noted that the board has received a copy of a notice of a public hearing in Gilmanton on April 21 regarding a cell tower.

Seth reported on some legislative matters.

Motion to adjourn at 9:30 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

March 22nd, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

March 8th, 2011
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of February 8, 2011., 2. Continued review of the conditional approval of the site plan application granted to Ralph and Irene Boles on March 11, 2008, for a 60-unit manufactured housing park on Route 106 (Tax Map 17, Lot 0011-000)., 3. Pre-application conceptual consultation with Alecia Farquhar regarding her request to return a non-buildable lot (Tax Map 233, Lot 6) to a buildable lot status. 4. Pre-application conceptual consultation with Martin and Betsy Vaughn regarding their request to use their property on Southwest Road (Tax Map 263, Lot 48) to open a disc golf course. 5. Other business.
MINUTES:  BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra and Joshua Gordon. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:  Seth Cohn, Ken Stern and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of February 8, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Chris, to move the minutes. 

Tyson suggested amending the minutes starting on Line 24 to the end of the paragraph so that they read as follows:  There was a large contingent present from the North Country that opposes the Northern Pass transmission lines.  He reported that a fiscal impact study by PSNH indicated a $555,000 annual increase in tax revenue for Canterbury.  He also reported that town attorney, regardless of any proposed amendment to the state law, has advised the board to support its proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment on the automatic merger of contiguous lots, which is based on the law as it stands today.

Motion by Christopher, seconded by Chris, to amend the minutes as stated.  Motion passed unanimously.

Christopher questioned the meaning of the wording in the sentence on Lines 81 and 82.  The Chair suggested the following wording would make it clearer:  The Chair commented that, as building inspector, an application for a building permit would trigger a review of the site plan to see if conditions have been met.

Motion by the Chair, seconded by Christopher, to amend the minutes as stated.  Motion passed unanimously.  The original minutes were approved as amended.

Continued review of the conditional approval of the site plan application granted to Ralph and Irene Boles on March 11, 2008, for a 60-unit manufactured housing park on Route 106 (Tax Map 17, Lot 0011-000).  Mr. Boles was present for this discussion.  The Chair commented that this is not a public hearing.  The board just wants to know the status of the conditional approval that was granted a few years ago.  He introduced Mr. Boles and asked him to give an update of where the project stands right now.

Mr. Boles noted that Paul Darbyshire did not request an extension of his alteration of terrain permit and it expired.  Had there been a request to extend it before it expired, the extension would have been automatic.  Once it expires, you have to start over.  The rules have all changed dramatically since the original permit was granted.  He has been told that it would be a minimum of $25,000 to get this permit back.  He has no intention of letting this project go by the way, but he has no idea when they will start building.  Maybe this year, maybe next year.  He wants to see the project done.  It can’t be done right now, even if he had the permit, as no bank in the world is going to finance it. 

He stated that he knows Ken Stern is very concerned about the conservation easement.  He has no intention of giving away 65 acres of land just to give it to the Conservation Commission.  It was his understanding that it was part of the deal, but if the project doesn’t go through, he doesn’t plan to go through with the easement.  He said he knows what he needs to have done, and when he can do it, he will, but he can’t say when that will be.

The Chair commented that what the board should have done was to set a time limit on the project, and we didn’t do that.  At this point he thinks the conclusion     that the board drew is that we are probably not in a position to set a time limit on it now.  The concern is that, as time passes, the project gets pushed further and further back, and different people are on the board.  Would you say it is in your interest to let the board leave it open?  Mr. Boles asked if the board would like him to say that he will come back in a year or at some point and say what his plans are?  It is his intention to build this project.  He doesn’t want to throw away all of the money he has put into it. 

Doug commented that the rules keep changing, and we have a mandate for workforce housing.  It would be nice if you just got your terrain permit.  It is possible, as years go on, that you may want to change the use of the property.  How well would your current scheme include workforce housing?  That is something the town needs to have by mandate.  Mr. Boles responded that he didn’t think that would be a problem.

Art told Mr. Boles that he may want to look into that.  He may be better off with a project like that because you could get federal funding with that.  You may want to talk with someone about the alteration of terrain permit.  Because of the economy, they are looking at projects on a case-by-case basis.  Even though the rules have changed, there are some things that can be waived.  Mr. Boles stated that they told him that some of the fees would not have to be paid again.  It is $150 for each house, and there are 60 of them.  He wouldn’t have to pay that again.  There is always something new; that is what the engineer has told him.

Art commented that the reason the topic came up is what we could do to memorialize this approval process.  You have pretty much told us what we already knew.  It would probably be a good idea to have you come in once a year and bring us up to date.

The Chair told Mr. Boles that he will put in his calendar a note to re-invite him back for the March meeting in 2012.  In the meantime, if anything develops, we would be happy to have him come in before that time.  Mr. Boles commented that, if he gets the alteration of terrain permit done, he will let the board know.

The Chair noted that there are two pre-application conceptual consultations tonight.  He explained the parameters for these consultations.  We can help with the process.  We can’t vote on anything and we can’t get into a lot of detail.

Pre-application conceptual consultation with Alecia Farquhar regarding her request to return a non-buildable lot (Tax Map 233, Lot 6) to a buildable lot status.
Alecia stated that this lot, once owned by William Ham, is an abutting property to her lot.  She and her husband knew that there had once been a house there.  At one time it was an old schoolhouse.  She and her husband decided to clean up the property, and they just kept pulling junk out as they dug up the ground.  At that time they assumed that the building had been buried, although no one could confirm whether the house was buried or taken down.  If the building was buried, they did not consider it to be a buildable lot, and, at their request, the town changed the lot status to non-buildable with a 30% decrease in the value of the property and a decrease in their taxes.  They did a little more research, and they found out that Waste Management had professionally torn down the house in 1996.  Now that she knows that, she wants to return the lot to a buildable status.  The assessor’s office told her they would have to come before the board in order to do that.  She understands that she had a tax benefit during those years, and she would be willing to do whatever is necessary to compensate for that.  The property is now in her father’s name, and she brought a letter from him telling the board that he would like the lot to be returned to a buildable lot. 
 
The Chair asked her if she lives on Lot 7 next to this lot, and she replied that she lives on Lot 5.  The Chair asked if Lots 5 and 6 were ever in the same ownership at the same time, and she replied that they were.  The Chair stated that the reason he asked that question is that it is complicated now by action of the legislature.  There was a point in time when there was a non-conforming lot which Lot 6 is.  If you own two contiguous lots and one is non-conforming, they have to be merged.  Alecia stated that in the past it was in her name and her husband’s.  Her father took it over in November, she believes.  It was split from her ex-husband’s name in October.

The Chair stated that the Zoning Ordinance says that, under that circumstance, the lot cannot be conveyed separately.  This situation exists most often in Sherwood Forest, which is a lot of real small lots and it is not unusual to have quarter acre lots contiguous.  They are deemed to be merged.  Tyson added that
that is so even though they get separate bills.  He told Alecia that she should review Articles 4.0 and 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and also 4.2 which was just added.  He suggested that she could take land out of her lot to make this into a five-acre lot and add the necessary frontage.  The Chair commented that it looks like she is a little short on frontage. 

The Chair told Alecia she may have a problem with some of the conditions.
The lot is no longer in the same ownership.  As it stands now, if it weren’t for the language in the article about merging lots, as far as this board is concerned, that lot would be buildable for residential lots because her father doesn’t have any contiguous lots.  The only problem with that is the assessor’s office.  The only question that he would have is whether or not that sale was tainted by the fact that that lot should have been merged, according to the Zoning Ordinance.  Tyson read the ordinance to the board.

Alecia mentioned that the old Route 132 used to go behind Lot 4.  Doug commented that the lot was never merged, so it is still the original plan, probably in conformance with the zoning at the time.  The Chair asked if she knew when the road was changed, and she responded that she believes it was 1961.  The Chair commented that fundamentally the ordinance says that, if the lot was created before zoning, you can use it for residential purposes so long as you meet the zoning.  Alecia stated that she doesn’t know what will happen with this property.  If it is returned to a buildable lot, her thought is that they would put a small shed on there.  As far as selling it, she would have to have more information for the realtor who has it listed.

Tyson stated that he thinks that this lot, when she owned it, became merged.  When she sold it to her father, the town mistakenly allowed it to be sold but that means it was with building rights.  The town should have never allowed it to be conveyed, but they did.  Christopher stated that, regardless of who did what and when, he agrees that it was a new lot, the creation of a new lot.  Tyson commented that it was a new lot that wasn’t up to standard for building.

The Chair stated that this is very complicated.  The board can’t do anything for her because she isn’t the owner of record.  Alecia noted that her father’s letter says that he wants her to represent him.  Tyson said that she does have enough acreage to create a buildable lot.  Alecia stated that her father is now the owner of the lot, and the bank is taking her property.  She can’t do a subdivision on that property.  There is no clear intention of what she wants to do.  Doug stated that he believes that she needs a lawyer to look at this.  Tyson stated that the town fouled up.  He believes a lawyer will say the lot can be sold, but it doesn’t have building rights.  Doug suggested that she could go to the ZBA for a variance, and the Chair agreed.  He stated that he doesn’t believe the board has a role in this.  This happened and it was a mistake.

Art commented that he doesn’t think it ever lost its status as a lot, even though it was non-conforming, and, other than having an abatement on it, it wouldn’t lose its status.  It sounds like it was a lot that hasn’t lost its status since the beginning.  The Chair said he will be happy to run this by town counsel.  He doesn’t see any way this board can change this.  He will make a call to town counsel and also talk with the selectmen, specifically requesting their opinions on lots that have been merged but have been conveyed separately.  There is no action that the board can take that would change anything.  He told Alicia that if this isn’t clear after all of this, her best bet is to go to the ZBA to get a use for it, one way or the other.   

Pre-application conceptual consultation with Martin and Betsy Vaughn regarding their request to use their property on Southwest Road (Tax Map 263, Lot 48) to open a disc golf course.  Marty and Betsy were both present.  Marty explained that this game is played like regular golf, but, instead of hitting a ball, you throw Frisbees into a metal basket with chains on it.  There are different Frisbees for what would be different clubs in regular golf.  He explained that there will be 18 holes.  Most holes are 300 feet, some are 500.  It is the fastest growing sport in the country, and there are currently 11 courses in New Hampshire.  When they had their property logged, they came up with the idea of putting in a disc golf course.  It is pretty well laid out.  There are trails through the woods.  It is environmentally friendly.  If your Frisbee lands behind a branch, you can’t cut down the branch.  If you do, you can be thrown off the course.  It is family oriented.  There is no noise involved.  The course is about 6000 feet, and it will be the longest course in New Hampshire.  It is all within their property, and it will be a private course.  They are going to charge people.  It will cost $5.00 to play
9 holes and $8.00 to play all day.  There will be a parking lot.  He presented a diagram of the course, and he showed the board members some of the different Frisbees that are used. 

The Chair commented that the board’s role today is to decide whether this meets the threshold to require site plan review.  Theoretically we can’t make any decision.  Tyson noted that the ZBA has already granted a special exception.
In the Table of Uses, it is allowed under golf courses.  The Chair asked if they are going to have any facilities, and Betsy responded that they are thinking about putting in a port-o-potty.

Art commented that it appears that there doesn’t seem to be a noise issue, they can’t play in the dark, so there is no lighting issue, and they are not going to build any structure.  They are not going to pave any parking lots.  The Chair stated that, if we decide that it doesn’t reach the level of site plan review, the minutes should show what would trigger a need for that.  Art responded that he is saying that it doesn’t reach that level. 

Tyson mentioned that there is a parking issue and a traffic issue.  If we don’t go for site plan review, neighbors won’t get a chance to weigh in on this.

Tyson noted that the board, under Article VII, can waive a site plan review where it finds that such regulation does not apply to the proposed development.  He doesn’t see how the board can do that without an application.  The Chair suggested hypothesizing that someone comes in and wants to have a disc golf course and they are not charging anything, it is just for friends.  That just doesn’t meet the threshold for site plan review.  He agrees somewhat with what both Art and Tyson are saying here.  He is concerned about them not going before abutters.  The secretary noted that all 14 of the abutters were notified about the ZBA hearing on this matter.  Marty stated that only two abutters were at that hearing.

Art noted that, if the Vaughns were to come in for site plan review, they would be limited to what has been presented to the board on the site plan.  If they change it at any point, they would have to come back before the board.  Doug said it would be nice to have it documented that they aren’t going to put up a building.

The Chair stated that the Vaughns originally were just going to apply for site plan review, and he suggested that they come in for a conceptual consultation.  Chris commented that, if you have a commercial venture without site plan review, there is nothing to trigger it.  The Chair responded that a building would trigger site plan review.  Art said there is going to be some impact on parking; you can’t argue about that.  The Chair asked Marty if he is going to use the existing driveway, and Marty responded in the affirmative. 

The Chair stated that the reason for site plan review would be to memorialize the details of what this is going to be.  Alice suggested getting a letter from the Vaughns stating what they are going to do and noting what will not be included.  The Chair noted that what would trigger site plan review in the future is either an application for a building permit that is non-residential or a complaint from someone asking if they are allowed to do something.  Then this gets investigated and they go back in for site plan review.

Tyson stated that it would be nice if the Vaughns gave the board a letter describing what they are going to do.  Then it doesn’t require site plan review.
The Vaughns agreed to present such a letter to the board.

Other business.  Tyson reported that representatives from PSNH came to the selectmen’s meeting last week so that they could catch up on what is happening with Northern Pass.  He expects there will be future meetings.  The money would mean $555,000 a year in additional taxes.  They say the installation will follow the current right-of-way.  The poles would be moved over 75’ to 130’.  There two configurations of towers.  There could be a problem with the right-a-way going too close to the airport in Concord.

Briggs joined the meeting at this point to give the results of today’s vote.  Both Jim and Art were re-elected for three-year terms on the Planning Board.  Tyson was elected for a three-year term as Selectman.

Motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary 

February 22nd, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

February 8th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of January 11, 2011., 2. Review of the conditional approval of the site plan application granted to Ralph and Irene Boles on March 11, 2008, for a 60-unit manufactured housing park on Route 106 (Tax Map 17, Lot 011-000)., 3. Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   J. Snyder, Chair; T. Miller, Vice Chair; C. Evans, A. Rose, D. McCallum, C. Blair, K. Stern, S. Cohn, A. Veenstra and J. Gordon. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:   Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding. 

Draft minutes of January 11, 2011.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Chris, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Other business.  Tyson announced that he is running for the open position of Selectman.  He reported on yesterday’s public hearing on a bill that would change how renewable energy is classified and purchased in New Hampshire.  There was a large contingent present from the North Country that opposes the Northern Pass transmission lines.  He reported that a fiscal impact study by PSNH indicated a $555,000 annual increase in tax revenue for Canterbury.
He also reported that town attorney, regardless of the state law, has advised the board to support its proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment on the automatic merger of contiguous lots, which is based on the law as it stands today.

Review of the conditional approval of the site plan application granted to Ralph and Irene Boles on March 11, 2008, for a 60-unit manufactured housing park on Route 106 (Tax Map 17, Lot 011-000).  The Chair noted that Mr. Boles had indicated that he would attend tonight’s meeting, but perhaps the stormy weather has kept him home.  For the benefit of new board members, Ken gave a brief history of this project.  He concluded by saying that Mr. Boles does not have the state permits and doesn’t have a signed conservation easement, two of the items for conditional approval.

The Chair commented that there was a problem when Paul Darbyshire retired and some balls were dropped.  In talking with Mr. Boles recently, Mr. Boles stated that he is concerned about his state permits and, if this whole thing is going to fail, he doesn’t feel obligated to go ahead with the conservation easement.  Perhaps this is a case where the board needs to talk with town counsel or do some research to see what Mr. Boles’ options are to either go ahead with this or to set a deadline and say that, if we don’t have this matter done by then, we are going to throw it out.  If it drags on and on, we lose the institutional memory of what took place previously.

Art commented that Mr. Boles has an approval that equals nothing.  He hasn’t met the conditions.  As a board, we should go forward and establish a time frame for these approvals.  Perhaps five years from now only half of us are still on the board, and something has fallen between the cracks.  In other towns they grant an approval and say that you have a specific time to pull a permit.  If you don’t do it by then, your approval becomes null.  The state says the same thing.
As far as forcing the issue to have Mr. Boles sign, he doesn’t know that we need to crowd him on that.  He realizes that he can’t get financing for the project so he has to ride it out.  It doesn’t do any good to force him if he has nothing.  When the market starts to come back and he goes to the bank, he is going to need to have his permits in hand.

The Chair suggested setting a reasonable deadline for completion of the conditions and also include in the motion that Mr. Boles can come in and request another six-month extension.  That brings it back to the board on a periodic basis and doesn’t let it go away completely.  If we do nothing, then theoretically you have this conditional approval out there in perpetuity.  Christopher suggested putting some finality on it; why not 18 months?

Ken stated that he doesn’t like this rolling on forever.  Things will change, and it is not like the housing market is bouncing back this summer.  Give him a generous time period but go ahead and set a date.

Christopher wondered if the board has the authority to do that, having not made that a condition in the beginning.  Art stated that he agrees that something needs to be done as far as putting a time frame on it.  Let’s say we give him 18 months at which time he can either deed it over to the Conservation Commission or else walk away from the whole thing.  If we want to have something that is legally binding, we should have a hearing and then make a decision.  He doesn’t think we would be re-opening the prior approval.  We would be taking a separate action.

Christopher stated that, if he were Mr. Boles, he would be thinking that he holds all the cards now, if there is no absolute or implied date or reasonable time line.  Tyson noted that Mr. Boles can’t start construction until all of the conditions are met.  Art commented that the danger is the change-over in board members.
The Chair commented that, as building inspector, an application for a building permit would trigger a review of the site plan to see if conditions have been met.  He thinks it would be a mistake at this point to schedule a public hearing without Mr. Boles being here tonight.

Joshua asked about the agreement for building permits.  The Chair responded that he has minutes as word documents going back six or seven years ago, if Joshua would like to look at those.

The Chair stated that we are either going to move ahead or do nothing.  Tyson asked if the board could ask Mr. Boles to come in again.  Christopher stated, if they are going to ask Mr. Boles to come in again under the same circumstances, he would object to that.  Ken commented that, if we schedule a hearing, he will at least make it known that we are going to decide something.  Art stated that he thinks there should be some communication with Mr. Boles from the board.

Joshua stated that he doesn’t think Mr. Boles has all the cards.  He doesn’t think a conditional approval goes on in perpetuity.  It has some reasonable ending to it.

The Chair concluded that he would like to do nothing tonight. He would like to give Mr. Boles at least a chance to read tonight’s minutes and respond to them.  He doesn’t see any potential harm in delaying this.  Let’s have it back on the agenda for the second Tuesday in March and see if we hear from Mr. Boles.
He asked the secretary to let Mr. Boles know about the extension of tonight’s meeting and also send him a copy of tonight’s minutes. 

The secretary presented a copy of the Permit Agreement between Ralph and Irene Boles and the Town of Canterbury, and the Chair read a portion of it to the board.  It will be distributed to all of the board members.

Motion to adjourn at 8:00 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

January 25th, 2011:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items).

January 11th, 2011:
AGENDA: 1.Draft minutes of December 14, 2010., 2.Public hearing on the board’s proposed amendment to Article 4 in the Zoning Ordinance., 3.Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Seth Cohn, Alice Veenstra, Joshua Gordon, and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Art Rose and Ken Stern.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.  He noted that there was a quorum present.  He also noted that in attendance were Megan Bailey and Nina Gordon who, as a requirement of one of their ninth grade subjects, have to attend and report on a town meeting.

Draft minutes of December 14, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Tyson, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Public hearing on the board’s proposed amendment to Article 4 in the Zoning Ordinance.  The Chair explained the procedure for this public hearing.  If there are no changes to the proposed amendment, we can move it along and put it on the warrant for town meeting.  Tyson explained that this proposed amendment will bring the ordinance into conformity with RSA 674:39-a, and it would add a new Section 4.2.  He then read the proposed amendment.  He noted that this amendment was recommended by town attorney since it made it clear that the law is not retroactive; it takes place as of September 18, 2010.

The Chair asked if there was any discussion from board members.  Joshua asked what happens if we don’t adopt this?  What happens if the legislature gives this up and the town has adopted our proposed amendment?  In the event that the legislature undoes this, would it revert back?  The Chair responded that one of the options that we considered was doing nothing, but town counsel advised us to keep the status quo in place with this proposed wording.  Tyson commented that if the legislature did change it, then what we changed in ours would not be valid.  We would probably have to go back and change it in order to keep it in alignment.  This amendment keeps us in conformance with current state law.  We would want to be in conformance. Briggs stated that we will have to change it back if the legislature changes it.  The Chair said he feels it is important to keep the ordinance up to date.

The Chair asked for questions/comments from the public.  Mark Stevens stated that he thinks our ordinance should reflect the law.  He noted that there is a great deal of confusion among the towns as to how to deal with this legislation. There followed some discussion about how the ruling should be interpreted, including whether it should be retroactive.  Different attorneys have different opinions. Joshua commented that he believes the legislature will have a hard time making the ruling retroactive.  The Chair stated that, no matter what the board does, there are going to be court cases about this new legislation.

Seth commented that, given the fact that this matter is still in flux, is there any benefit in adopting the board’s amendment?  The Chair responded that this is the best advice from our town counsel.

Motion by Tyson, seconded by Doug, to present, for a vote at town meeting, the following Zoning Ordinance amendment as proposed by the board:

4.2 The provisions of Section 4.1 regarding the automatic merger of contiguous pre-existing non-conforming lots shall not apply to lots acquired by a person on or after September 18, 2010, except by consent of the owner.

There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion was passed unanimously.

Other business.  Tyson gave an update on the Cal Dunn matter, plus a brief history.

The Chair commented that the Boles subdivision and site plan have never been finalized, and it is time for the board to ask Mr. Boles to come in and show that the subdivision is complete and that he has complied with the conditions that were placed on the site plan review.  If he hasn’t met all of the conditions, we should suggest a reasonable time frame for him to meet them.

The secretary noted that there will be no meeting on January 25.

Motion to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

December 28th, 2010:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items)

December 14th, 2010:
AGENDA:  1.Draft minutes of November 23, 2010,  2.Public hearing on a proposal by Unitil Energy Systems (UES) to trim
and/or remove trees and brush on a “scenic road” known as Old Tilton Road, 3.Pre-application conceptual consultation with Rob Lawrence regarding a possible lot line adjustment of property located on Foster Road, 4.Discussion of the 2011 Planning Board budget, 5.Discussion of a warrant article proposing a property tax exemption for alternative energy, 6.Master Plan update, 7.Other business.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  J. Snyder, Chair; T. Miller, V. Chair; C. Evans, A. Rose, D. McCallum, S. Cohn, A. Veenstra, and B. Lockwood, Selectman Rep.BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Blair and Ken Stern.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.  The Chair noted that Joshua Gordon has been attending several of the board’s recent meetings, and he has indicated that he is interested in becoming an alternate on the board.  Joshua assured the board that he has no particular agenda for wanting to be on the board, and he gave a brief explanation of why he would like to be an alternate.

Motion by Christopher, seconded by Tyson, to appoint Joshua Gordon as an alternate member of the Canterbury Planning Board.  Motion passed unanimously, and Joshua was welcomed to the board.

Draft minutes of November 23, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Briggs, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Public hearing on a proposal by Unitil Energy Systems (UES) to trim and/or remove trees and brush on a “scenic road” known as Old Tilton Road.  Present for this hearing were Charles Lloyd, Manager of Operations for Unitil, and Peter Powers, General Foreperson for Asplundh Tree Expert Co.  They explained that they are seeking permission to remove hazardous trees and brush and to trim trees along Old Tilton Road, and he distributed a list indicating what trees would be involved.  Mr. Lloyd presented a list of the trees in the town that have been identified.  Those on the list that are highlighted in yellow have been identified on Old Tilton Road.  There are two trees at 43 Old Tilton Road.  One is a dying maple and the other is a dead maple.  At 8 Old Tilton Road there is a maple with a rotten trunk, and there is a decayed maple at 24 Old Tilton Road.  On that last tree they have talked to the owner, and he has given us permission to remove that tree.  They have talked with every owner on the Old Tilton Road list and   have been given permission to do that work.  These are the only trees that they will be removing to the ground on Old Tilton Road.  Unitil specifications call for removal of limbs and brush within eight feet to the side, fifteen feet above its conductors and ten feet below its lowest conductor.  Mr. Lloyd then presented a map with the areas highlighted that they tend to trim on Old Tilton Road.  He noted that the trees in green on the map is where they have had outages in the past.  They are identifying areas where they have had a lot of tree outages.

The Chair asked if they had a time frame for completing the work.  He was advised that, if they got approval tonight, they could get started tomorrow and probably finish by the holiday.  The Chair suggested a time frame through the end of January.

Motion by the Chair, seconded by Christopher, to approve the proposal from Unitil to cut brush and specified trees on Old Tilton Road, a scenic road, said work described on the list dated December 13, 2010, and provided to the Planning Board.  All work is to be completed by February 1, 2011.  Motion passed unanimously.

Pre-application conceptual consultation with Rob Lawrence regarding a possible lot line adjustment of property located on Foster Road.  Present for this consultation were Rob Lawrence and Marina Green.  Mr. Lawrence explained that he is not yet the owner of the two parcels, but they are under a purchase and sales agreement.  They are looking at purchasing Lots 10-1 and 10-2.  He indicated a page in the document that he handed out that shows the two lots and the current property line.  He noted that there is a large rock outcrop there.  They would like to put the house as close as possible to that outcrop, but the property line runs right through it.  He is looking for a way to move the lot line so that it doesn’t run through the outcrop.  Each lot would be roughly six acres. 

The Chair commented that he forgot to remind the applicant and the board that we can’t make any decisions at this meeting since it is not a public hearing.  We want to see what the proposal is and where issues might come up, but we can’t get into a lot of detail.

The Chair went on to say that, in previously talking with Mr. Lawrence he might have suggested that there are two ways to achieve his goal.  He could do a lot line adjustment, or he could go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance on the setback if this board should turn him down.  The latter might be a better solution, but it might not be the easier path.  Another possibility could be to merge the two lots.  Mr. Lawrence stated that he thinks the two lots are in current use now.  The Chair stated there would be enough acreage for current use if they are contiguous, and Mr. Lawrence would just have to pay the penalty.  He would save a lot of money if he kept them in current use.  Seth commented that at this point they are separate and they are too small for current use.  The Chair stated that, as long as they are contiguous, Mr. Lawrence can put them in current use.

Mr. Lawrence stated that there is a 3-to-1 ratio and he is not sure that he would still meet that.  Briggs noted that these are Lots 18 and 19 on Tax Map 230.  The Chair asked if he knows what the frontage is on these lots.  It was noted that one lot has barely 300 feet of frontage while the other lot has an additional 80 feet.

The board then spent some time discussing various possibilities for a lot line adjustment, and it appeared that a straight line would be the most logical.  The Chair commented that he believes that it is safe to say that no one has ever been turned down who has come in with a straight line for a lot line adjustment.
Mr. Lawrence stated that he believes that is the way to go.  Joshua asked if the purpose of the right-of-way is to give access to the road from Lot 10-2, and Mr. Lawrence stated that it so.  Joshua asked if the straight line still gives 10-2 access or does it end too soon?  Mr. Lawrence stated that he wasn’t too sure.  Joshua commented that, if the right-of-way doesn't come far enough, then it becomes an unbuildable lot.  Make sure that the right-of-way doesn’t stop before the new lot.  The Chair suggested to the applicant that he could come in with a Plan A and a Plan B for a lot line adjustment.

Discussion of the 2011 Planning Board budget.  The board recommended some proposed changes in the budget.  This new budget will be forwarded to the Selectmen.

Discussion of a warrant article proposing a property tax exemption for alternative energy.  After a brief discussion, the board agreed not to support this article.

Master Plan update.  It was reported that the final plan is currently being printed and will shortly be available for viewing at the town office and the library.  Notice of that will be put in the newsletter.

Other ­­business.  Doug reported that the Planning Commission is putting together a proposal for improvement to the state roadways.  We can submit our proposals to the commission.  From there they go to the Transportation Advisory Committee who reviews them and makes suggestions.  Doug stated that he would be willing to do a draft of an application for each of the projects.

Briggs reported that the town has not received any payments from Gold Star for a significant amount of time.  The Selectmen are still trying to work something out with them.  In the absence of that, it appears that there were a number of building lots that were taken out of current use this year, and the penalty is directed toward the Conservation Commission.  Briggs stated that they are making basically a last attempt to work out something with Gold Star.

It was noted that a public hearing will be held on January 11, 2011, on the board’s proposed amendment to Article 4 in the Zoning Ordinance.

Motion to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

November 23rd, 2010:
AGENDA: Public Hearing - Master Plan
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Doug McCallum, Ken Stern, and Seth Cohn.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Chris Blair, Alice Veenstra, and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

Also in attendance were Joshua Gordon and Lisa Carlson, residents of Canterbury.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Public hearing on proposed amendments to the Town Master Plan, a “Plan for Tomorrow 2010”.  Christopher expressed the board’s appreciation to Beth Blair for an excellent job well done.  Ken was appointed to replace Chris Blair as a voting member.  The Chair explained the process for tonight’s hearing.  The board is here to take public questions and comments.  If we decide that we need to make substantive changes on the basis of those questions and comments, we need to continue the hearing to another day.  Otherwise we can go forward with the hearing and a vote.  

The Chair then asked for comments from the board.  Tyson explained that, because the board previously had some discussion about two charts in the financial section, he updated them at pages 22 and 23.  On page 23 he broke out the payments by the type of debt service rather than putting them all together. The previous page simply updates the tax rate to 2009.

Seth noted that there should be consistency about Hildreth Field; sometimes both words are capitalized, sometimes only Hildreth is capitalized, and sometimes it is noted as Hildreth’s field.  The Chair commented that it should be treated as a place name with both words capitalized.  Seth also noted that the page numbering needs to be corrected, as there aren’t 96 pages in all. 

The Chair opened the hearing to comments and questions from the public.  Joshua Gordon stated that he had none.  Lisa Carlson expressed concern about how people keep their property.  Who oversees that?  Do we have an ordinance about that?  The Chair responded that it is briefly covered in the Zoning Ordinance.  The wording in the ordinance is very vague.  The board is aware that it is an area where we could be doing better.  The Selectmen, along with the Code Enforcement Officer, enforce the ordinance.  Unfortunately, what one person sees as trash, another person sees as treasure.  We have looked at what other towns do with regard to a nuisance ordinance, and we are not the only town that has a problem with this.

Lisa referred to page 61 where it refers to the hiring of a part time Town Administrator.  Is that a new position for Canterbury?  Have we ever had one before?  The Chair responded that we have had Roger Becker for several years.   He works mostly with the Selectmen.  He is like a business administrator.  Seth added that the Selectmen feel that they have someone to handle some of the day-to-day activities rather than waiting for them to handle everything.

Ken noted that the zoning map, which is inside the back cover, has various shades of gray and it is very difficult to read.  Seth stated that it will be in color in the final version of the plan.  The PDF version is in color.

Ken suggested that it be noted that there have been no substantive changes to the plan tonight.  He also noted that on the previous Master Plan there were photo credits, and he would like to make sure that photo credits by Beth Blair are noted on the plan.

There being no more comments by the board or the public, Tyson presented the following motion, seconded by Christopher:

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Canterbury Planning Board by the voters of the Town of Canterbury in accordance with the provisions of NH RSA 673:1 and 674:1, the Canterbury Planning Board hereby adopts the revisions and amendments to the Canterbury Master Plan entitled “Plan for Tomorrow 2010”.

Motion carried unanimously with no objections. 

Draft minutes of October 26, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Ken, to approve the minutes.  Motion massed unanimously.

Discussion of possible Zoning Ordinance amendments.  It was noted that currently the only amendment to the ordinance that has been proposed is to amend Article 4.1 by adding Section 4.2 regarding the automatic merger of contiguous, pre-existing non-conforming lots.  A public hearing on this proposed amendment will be scheduled.

Other business.  The Chair noted that he has a request for a voluntary merger that he believes does not require a hearing, but it does require a form to be filled out and signed by the owner and notarized.  He approved the notice of merger and signed it in front of the board.

There was a brief update on the Cal Dunn matter.

Tyson noted that there have been some emails regarding the Boles matter and the conservation easement.  Their lawyer has indicated that he is planning on finishing it soon.  The Chair commented that Ralph Boles is aware that nothing can go forward without that being in place.

Tyson referred to the 2011 budget.  In years past we have never really looked at our budget.  He would like to take a look at the current budget to see what items are in there and what we might want to do.  Seth noted that he has been asked to serve on the Budget Committee.  The secretary was asked to email a printout of the current budget worksheet to all board members for discussion at the next board meeting.  Ken asked if there is money in the current budget for printing the Master Plan, and Seth responded that there is more than enough money to cover them.

Tyson commented that, now that we have all of the old annual reports on the computer, we pay someone to go through and pull out ordinances that were voted on and then create a book listing all of them.  He would like to see someone go through all those town plans and make a master.  He also noted that the Central NH Regional Planning Committee would be willing to do a preliminary look at our current Zoning Ordinance and give us plusses and minuses as it now stands.

Tyson referred to a new warrant article that will allow for a proposed property tax exemption for alternate energy.  He believes there is enough interest in town to see this on the warrant.  There was some discussion.  The Chair commented that he didn’t think that this is a Planning Board issue.  We can say whether we are in favor or against.  He is not even sure there is a process.  Tyson stated that he would like to see wording on the warrant that the Planning Board supports it. 

The Chair noted that Joshua Gordon has expressed an interest in becoming an alternate on the board.  He suggested giving Josh until the next meeting to make a final decision.  If he still would like to be an alternate, the board can vote on him at that time.

Ken noted that tonight’s meeting may or may not be his last meeting.  He would still like to receive the agendas for the meetings.  The Chair expressed his appreciation to Ken who has served the board for a long time.  Ken responded that it has been 11 years.

The secretary noted that Unitil will be coming before the board at the next meeting to get permission to cut brush and trees on Old Tilton Road, one of the town’s scenic roads. - Nancy Lilly, Secretary

November 9th, 2010:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items)

October 26th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of September 28, 2010., 2. Appointment of Alice Veenstra as an alternate on the board., 3. Update by Nicholas Coates (CNHRPC) on the activities of the Canterbury Safe Routes to Schools Committee., 4. Other business., 5. Discussion of possible Zoning Ordinance amendments., 6. Further review of the Master Plan.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Tyson Miller, Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Seth Cohn, and Briggs LockwoodBOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Stern.

Also in attendance were Alice Veenstra and Joshua Gordon, residents of Canterbury.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of September 28, 2010.  Motion by Briggs, seconded by Christopher, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Appointment of Alice Veenstra as an alternate on the board.  The Chair noted that Alice has indicated that she would like to be an alternate.  Motion by Briggs, seconded by Christopher, to appoint Alice as an alternate.  There was no discussion, and the motion passed unanimously.  Alice was welcomed by the board.

Other business.  Tyson reported that he had met with the State to look at the solar panels that have been installed in the center of town.  They were very pleased with the installation.

The Chair gave a brief update on the Boles project.  There has been some communication back and forth to see what Mr. Boles has to do to get everything finalized.  He needs to come in and show that he meets the conditions of his conditional approval, including the conservation easement.  The Chair added that he had a memo from the fire chief saying that he would like to be included in any further discussions.

Discussion of possible Zoning Ordinance amendments.  Tyson referred to the amended RSA 674:39-a regarding voluntary mergers that went into effect September 20.  He also referred to the NH Municipal Association comments regarding involuntary merger of lots prohibited.  He presented a proposed amendment to Canterbury Ordinance Article 4.1 as it relates to 674:39-a.  Discussion of this matter ensued.  He read the following proposed amendment:

4.2 The provisions of Section 4.1 regarding the automatic merger of contiguous, pre-existing non-conforming lots shall not apply to lots acquired by a person on or after September 18, 2010, except by consent of the owner.

Tyson questioned whether the board wanted to put this amendment on the warrant.  The Chair commented that he doesn’t see any way around doing it, but it his guess that the legislature isn’t done with this RSA, and the board will have to do it again.  One reasonable path would be to do nothing.  We could enforce it because it is state law even if it isn’t in our Zoning Ordinance.

Motion by Tyson, seconded by Briggs, to schedule a public hearing to propose a Zoning Ordinance change to adopt the language suggested to amend Article 4.1 by adding Article 4.2.  Motion passed unanimously.  Tyson indicated that he would run it by Bart again.

The Chair reported that he looked into Chichester’s lighting ordinance to see how they feel about it.  Basically they believe it is working well, but they really feel that they need it more for their commercial areas, that it is more than needed for residential areas.  We may want to review it again in that context.  However, he believes the board’s consensus was that we pick and choose what we want for amendments and not try to do too much at one time.  The lighting amendment would probably be a fairly easy one to do if we want to do it.  If anyone leaves the meeting tonight and feels that the board didn’t do this matter justice, then we should resurrect it.  That person should look at the Chichester ordinance.  Tyson commented that Roger had brought it up originally.  Briggs stated that there are some reasons for arguing for it, but is Canterbury ready for this type of ordinance?  The Chair commented that another way to look at it is that it is better to have it in place before there is a problem.  If there is someone who wants to champion it, bring it to a future meeting.  Briggs responded that he will talk to the other Selectmen and, if they want to do it, he will head it up.  

Update by Nicholas Coates (CNHRPC) on the activities of the Canterbury Safe Routes to Schools Committee.  Mr. Coates reported on what has been going on with this committee.  The town received a grant of $4975 for the committee to do some very basic start-up work, such as developing some surveys to find out how children get to and from school, how parents get children to school, do they take the bus, the parents’ interest level in how their children get to school, then start to come up with some solutions to make it safer.  If the community wants to go forward with the information collected, the process is locally driven.  He doesn’t tell the town what to do.  Are these things what the town wants to do?  Are these solutions important or should they be stopped?  The idea is to bring people together from a wide range of perspectives to come up with solutions on what the community believes.  How do we improve walking opportunities in the community to help the kids become more active and healthier?  That is the basic premise.  The committee has had a couple of meetings at the school.  Mary Morrison is heading it up, and the committee includes Ernie, the Canterbury Police sergeant, and a group of parents.  They are planning an affair next week in which they are going to encourage kids to get off at the town center, and a town police officer will walk the last ¾ of a mile to school with the kids.  Mr. Coates then explained how the grant process goes forward.  The committee name doesn’t necessarily mean more sidewalks.  What is the community interest in this committee and what is the process?

The Chair asked if there is a distance from the school that is thought to be the range that we want to get kids to walk.  Mr. Coates responded that the program is focused on kids who live within two miles of the school.  There are 132 students, and 30% of them live within a mile to a mile and a half of the elementary school.

Briggs asked about the extent of the problem.  He stated that there is a need for information about what the real problems might be.  Christopher commented that, if we have true safety issues, it is our responsibility to take care of them. Mr. Coates responded that this is community driven.  He reported on what other towns have done to correct or improve some of these safety problems.  Christopher commented the board is not particularly interested in what other towns have done, as many of the solutions would not apply to this community.  We need to determine what the safety issues are in our community and then come up with solutions, if they make sense. 

Further review of the Master Plan.  The board then reviewed and made corrections to Draft 3 of the plan.  Tyson noted that the public hearing on the plan will be held on November 23 at 7:00 p.m. in The Meeting House.  There will be an article in the November newsletter.

Pursuant to RSA 91-A:2, there was a motion by Briggs, seconded by Art, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to go into a non-meeting session to review a letter from town counsel regarding an ongoing legal matter. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

October 12th, 2010:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items)

September 28th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of September 14, 2010. 2. Discussion of possible Zoning Ordinance amendments. 3. Other business.
MINUTES:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   J. Snyder, Chair; T. Miller, Vice Chair; C. Evans, D. McCallum, C. Blair, K. Stern, S. Cohn, and B. Lockwood, Selectman Representative. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:    Art Rose

Also in attendance were Roger Becker, Town Administrator, and Alice Veenstra and Joshua Gordon, Canterbury residents.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of September 14, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Ken, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Discussion of possible Zoning Ordinance amendments.  The Chair explained that Roger was present tonight, as he thought it might be a good time to talk about possible amendments regarding junk yards, obnoxious uses, lighting issues, and noise.

Roger stated that there are a couple of areas where the town has had numerous inquiries about our regulations.  One is where someone may see his yard as being junky, but someone else may see it as an eyesore and want it cleaned up.  There is nothing in the ordinance to make him clean it up.  We need to tighten up a definition of obnoxious uses and have some definition of what constitutes a junk yard.  Another issue is lighting.  Someone installed several telephone poles with huge lights within a compound.  A neighbor complained about the lights. 
We should address some of the lighting issues.  Those are two main issues that he thought that we could look at and perhaps tighten up.  It was noted that Chichester has a lighting ordinance and a junk yard ordinance. 

A discussion ensued regarding our regulations and possible amendments to tighten them up.

The Chair stated that the board pretty much has to concentrate on getting the Master Plan finished, but, in addition, we can be thinking about these amendments.  He suggested that everyone should re-visit what is in our Zoning Ordinance and also see what other towns are doing, then carry on this discussion at the board’s next meeting in October. 

The Chair asked if there are any other zoning changes the board wants to talk about.  Doug replied that he is interested in a mixed use zone, possibly in the commercial zone.  It accomplishes several things at once.  It can encourage development.  He would like to present something on this later.  The Chair noted that, if someone comes in with proposed language, it makes things move along much faster.

Ken suggested that the board, in the interest of moving things along, should review the Chichester lighting ordinance and discuss it at the next meeting.
It is not very controversial.

Tyson brought up the matter of merging contiguous lots.  He has changed some language in Article 4.1.  The way it stands now is, if you have two non-conforming lots next to each other, this town has been joining them together.  The state says the town has no right to do that.  A property owner may merge his lots with other contiguous lots.  His proposed amendment would be to change the portion in Article 4.1. that currently reads: 

”Such non-conforming lots shall be merged with other contiguous land and may not be separately conveyed, unless meeting both of the following criteria:”

The proposed new wording would read:

“As a precondition for development, such non-conforming lots must be merged with other contiguous land by the owner through application to the Planning Board and may not be separately conveyed, unless meeting both of the following criteria:”

The Chair stated that this is one of the things in which the courts and legislature has become involved.  He sees no harm in leaving our law the way it is because the state may not be done figuring it out yet.  Tyson stated that the state wants the town to stop merging.  The owner only has to do it if he wants to develop the lot.  Ken suggested letting this matter rest for a while. 

Other business.  The Chair presented information about the Municipal Law Lecture Series.        

Briggs reported that Norm Bowles, the Transfer Station Manager, has announced his retirement.  The Selectmen are trying to figure out the best way to move forward. 

The secretary reported that Mark Blount, Superintendent of Schools, has invited Planning Board members, among others, to meet with the School Board on October 28 at 6:00 p.m. at the Canterbury Elementary School for the purpose of discussing issues of mutual interest.  The Chair, Doug and Briggs indicated they will attend the meeting.

Review of second draft of the Master Plan.  The remainder of the meeting was taken up reviewing the draft.  The date of November 23rd was set for a public hearing on the plan.

Motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

September 14th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of August 24, 2010., 2. Discussion on Zoning Ordinance amendments., 3. Pre-application conceptual consultation with Janet Robinson regarding the possible subdivision of her property on Baptist Road in the Center Historic District (Tax Map 107, Lot 2)., 4. Pre-application conceptual consultation with Deborah Enos regarding the possible use of the Odyssey House property at 367 Shaker Road (Tax Map 225, Lot 006/007) by the Erasmus Institute of Liberal Arts.,
5. Other Business., 6. Further discussion of the Master Plan.
MINUTES:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Art Rose, and Ken Stern.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Seth Cohn, and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

Also present was Alice Veenstra, a Canterbury resident who is considering serving on the board.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of August 24, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Art, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Discussion of Zoning Ordinance amendments.  The Chair explained that Roger Becker, the Town Administrator, had been invited to come to the meeting tonight to discuss his ideas, but since he is not here yet, we will move this article toward the end of the agenda.

Pre-application conceptual consultation with Janet Robinson regarding the possible subdivision of her property on Baptist Road in the Center Historic District (Tax Map 107, Lot 2).  The Chair explained that in a pre-application conceptual consultation we can talk about things that might be necessary for a public hearing, we can answer questions in a general sense.  We cannot make any real decision or vote on anything.

Janet explained that they have four acres, and they would like to subdivide and sell a piece of that property with the large barn on it.  It has its own septic system, leach field and well on it.  They would keep their home on a small piece of property. 

The Chair asked if they had talked to any surveyors about this, and Janet responded that they haven’t yet.  The Chair commented that in the Historic District the minimum acreage is two acres but the frontage is 300 feet, and he doesn’t believe there is enough frontage for a subdivision.  Janet stated that her husband thought there would be enough frontage. 

The Chair noted that the Robinsons formerly owned the land that the town building is on.  Janet replied that it used to be all one lot before it was subdivided for the town building.

Tyson noted that there is 492 feet of frontage.  The Chair stated that, in order to subdivide, she would need 600 feet of frontage.  He added that there are some things in the subdivision regulations about which the board has a little latitude, but frontage is not one of them.  The board cannot create lots that are non-conforming.  He noted that the sketch of the subdivision that Janet presented looks like one of the lots has less than 300 feet of frontage.  Janet noted that there is a road that does down back, and the Chair commented that they can’t count that as frontage as it is not a town road.  When you have a situation where the only way you can do something is by getting relief from the Zoning Ordinance, your appeal is to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance.  He believes that getting a variance for frontage is a pretty hard thing to do because you have to show a hardship.  He suggested that Janet should talk with Joe Halla, Chair of the ZBA.  He added that, if Janet brought this to the Planning Board for a subdivision, the board would have to vote against it.  Janet commented that it looks as if her next step is to talk to the ZBA, and the Chair responded that he thinks that is her only step.  The board could only act on this if she has a variance. 

The Chair commented that, if she could enter into an agreement with the town, she could do a lot line adjustment.  It still follows the same rules as a subdivision, but as long as both lots remain conforming lots after that, the board could do it.

Janet mentioned that perhaps the town would want to buy the whole piece of property.  The leach field is already there.  The artesian well is on their property but the barn property has the use of it.  The town could buy the whole lot as long as they have an agreement that their house remains there until she and her husband die.  Then it reverts to the town.  She stated that she needs a place to stay and maintain her home and then the town could take over the property.  The Chair asked Janet if they have talked to the town about this, and Janet said she hasn’t.  The Chair stated that he believes that is the extent to which the board can advise her. 

Pre-application conceptual consultation with Deborah Enos regarding the possible use of the Odyssey House property at 367 Shaker Road (Tax Map 225, Lot 006/007) by the Erasmus Institute of Liberal Arts.  Present were Deborah Enos, Mary Mumbach, Peter Sanpo, and Mary Bonifield.  Ms. Enos handed out a package of information. 

The Chair noted that the Erasmus Institute has already been before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and was granted a special exception.  The question tonight is whether or not there is an existing site plan for Odyssey House that applies to the same property and buildings to be used by the Erasmus Institute.  He commented that the one decision the board can make is whether or not Erasmus needs a hearing for site plan review.

Ms. Enos stated that in the package she submitted she has included two maps.  One is the original site plan for Odyssey House, and an enlarged version of that plan indicating that they are either not changing the use or are using the very same buildings.  There is a small change in use of the building that was used by Odyssey House as an administration office; they are using it as a small classroom and library.  She went on to explain the use of other buildings, including the parenting center and another building that they call the little building or the shoe house.  The apartments will be used for faculty or visitors.  In essence, she doesn’t think the uses that they have right now are essentially a change of use for those buildings.  The dormitory is still the dormitory.  Of the three main buildings on the campus, the use is essentially the same for all of them.

Tyson asked how long the campus been abandoned.  Ms. Enos responded that she believes Odyssey House came in 1994 and left about a year ago.  Prior to that, it was Horizons Edge.  Tyson asked if code standards have changed since the original site plan review.  Ms. Enos responded that one year ago the dorm was fully equipped with a new sprinkler system.  They have just had a puff test on the fire system in the dining areas so all of the fire and safely codes have been updated a year or so ago.  Dave Nelson from the Canterbury Fire Department has come down three times, and he has said he will be back with the chief one of these days.  Dave has gone through and pointed out anything that might be a problem.  She doesn’t think there is anything that is not up to code.

Tyson asked if they have any future plans for the buildings they say that they are not going to use.  Ms. Enos responded that, assuming that they gain students over time without altering the external footprint, they can make more dorm space use of them.  Any buildings that are available could be converted to dorm space and brought up to code.

The Chair noted that, at the ZBA hearing, there was some discussion about the number of students.  It looks like they limited it to 45, so if they wanted to increase beyond that, he doesn’t know if they would have to go back to the ZBA, but they would have to come to the Planning Board.

Tyson asked about state requirements.  Ms. Enos responded that there has been a state health inspection for the kitchen, and the state has inspected the water quality and the septic.  They have done all of those.  She could drop off those tests at the town office.  The Chair commented that the ZBA seemed to think that the building inspector has a role here, but he is skeptical about that, as he was involved when this sprinkler went in a couple of years ago.

Mr. Sampo stated that the Erasmus Institute was previously located in Manchester, but this property came up and it fit their needs perfectly.  They have 16 students on campus.  They expect to grow about 5% a year.  This is a four-year liberal arts college.

The Chair then read from the Site Plan Review Regulations about when site plan review is required.  He commented that it appears that the only issue is whether this use is significantly different from the original use.  Christopher stated that he thinks the use is pretty consistent, and Art and Ken agreed.  The Chair said, as long as they had ZBA approval, he doesn’t feel it is necessary for them to go through site plan review.  Tyson agreed. 

The Chair directed the minutes to reflect that the board did not think there was a sufficient change of use here to warrant a revised site plan review.  The board agreed unanimously without objection.

Discussion of Zoning Ordinance amendments.  Tyson read an email from Roger Becker suggesting some possible amendments.  He also went over some legislative changes that impact our Zoning Ordinance and our bylaws.  He will summarize these and email them to the board for discussion at the September 28th meeting.

Other business.  Tyson gave an update in the Cal Dunn matter.

Ken reported that he visited the Conservation Commission meeting last night, and they want to inventory all of the properties where the town has an interest.  He noted that the Boles (Canterbury Trails) conservation easement has never been registered.  He stressed the importance of locating the easement and getting it filed.  He would like the Selectmen to handle this.  The Chair suggested that a call to Paul Darbyshire might be a good idea.

Further discussion of the Master Plan.  It was noted that a draft of the plan will be sent out prior to the next board meeting and should be downloaded by the board members for a thorough review at that meeting.  At that point we will be able to set a date for a public hearing.

Motion to adjourn at 8:30 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

August 24th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of July 27, 2010. 2. Other Business 3. Master Plan discussion.
MINUTES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Doug McCallum, and Briggs Lockwood,
Selectman Representative. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:Chris Blair, Ken Stern, and Seth Cohn.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of July 27, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Briggs, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Other business.  The Chair reported that he had received a call from the woman who is the head of a post-secondary school that is interested in occupying the site of the former Odyssey House, formerly Horizon’s Edge School.  They have been to the Selectmen, and they are going to the ZBA this week for a special exception.  The Chair told them that they might be required to come in for a site plan review, and that they needed to check to see if Horizon’s Edge or Odyssey House ever went through site plan review.  The glitch here is that they had hoped to open for classes on the 14th of September, the date of our next meeting, which is the earliest they could come before the board.  He went on to say that he cannot see how this matter is not in the town’s interest when there has already been a school on that site.  If there is no site plan review on file, then we will have to decide what we need them to do to have a site plan.  They do need a special exception.  They are going to open with 17 boarding students. 

The Chair reported that there has been some mail back and forth about the Boles project.  CLD has been unable to get any comments from the fire chief about the hammerhead design.  Christopher noted that the hammerhead design was one of the conditions of approval.  Briggs suggested that Dave Nelson, the town’s full-time fireman, be contacted for comments.  The Chair added that the alteration of terrain permit has expired.  Art commented that they can get an extension on that.  The Chair questioned whether the conservation easement had ever been recorded. 

Tyson introduced Alice Veenstra, a recent Canterbury resident, who might be interested in becoming an alternate on the board.  She works for the NH Community Development Finance Authority as the Chief Community Development Officer.  Alice gave a brief rundown on the work of the authority.  The Chair informed her that the board’s interest in alternates is that they come with an open mind and not with an agenda that they are pursuing.  The board can use all the help it can get, as long as she is not coming in with an agenda.  Alice responded that she has a general interest in giving back to the community and being involved in local government.  She plans to come to a couple of meetings and find out what it is all about.  The Chair told her to let the board know when she makes a decision.

Tyson gave a brief update on the solar project that is moving along.  Briggs commented that it is moving along because of Tyson’s efforts.  It is quite a project.  Tyson stated that the project should supply about 46% of the town’s electricity demand for those buildings.

Doug reported that the town has received a $5000 grant from the Safe Routes to School Programs.  They plan to organize a meeting to decide what to do with it.  Tyson commented that it would be good to get the Selectmen in on this.  Briggs stated that it appears, to the Selectmen, that this program is set up for an area with a higher population and would be beneficial in such an area.  It just didn’t seem as if the program is for a rural town.  Doug commented that one idea that came up in an earlier meeting was to have pedestrian paths that would connect the school and the town center and the municipal building so they could be used for educational resources.  They talked about the idea of having meetings in the library, or walking from the library to the school as part of the physical education program.

Master Plan discussion.  The board was very pleased to have received the first proof of the Master Plan as put together by Beth Blair.  The board felt that it was very well done.  The board agreed with the suggestions that Beth had made, and Christopher agreed to relate that to Beth.  Seth’s draft of the proposed summary paragraphs for Chapter 2 will also be incorporated into the document.

Motion to adjourn at 8:10 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

August 10th, 2010: Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items)

July 27th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of July 13, 2010. 2. Pre-application conceptual consultation with Jim Snyder regarding a proposal to add a small “run in” shed to better shelter their horses (Tax Map 227, Lot 10). 3. Other business. 4. Master Plan recommended actions.
MINUTES:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:    J. Snyder, Chair; T. Miller, Vice Chair; C. Evans, A. Rose, D. McCallum, C., K. Stern and S. Cohn.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:     Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of July 13, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Ken, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Pre-application conceptual consultation with Jim and Sue Snyder regarding a proposal to add a small “run-in” shed to better shelter their horses (Tax Map 227, Lot 10).  Jim recused himself as a board member while this matter was discussed.  Tyson chaired this agenda item.

Jim explained that he and Sue bought the property in 1984.  They have been operating a farm since 1985 or 1986, prior to when this board ever looked at site plans for agricultural uses.  It is zoned rural, and everything is an accepted use in that zone and falls within the definition of agriculture.  They would like to add a small run-in shed.  They are not thinking of increasing the number of horses, but they want a more effective and useful shelter for them.  He asked Sue to describe what they do at the farm.  She stated that they have a couple of boarders and they teach riding lessons, six or so a week.  They do a little bit of hay rides and sleigh rides, but the horses and the drivers are getting old.  They make maple syrup in a good year, and they cut some wood.    

Christopher asked how far off from the property line is the proposed shed. Jim responded that it will be close to the 50-foot setback but well within it.
Tyson asked if this is an expanded use.  Jim replied that it doesn’t meet the threshold of 10%.  If they had a site plan, they wouldn’t have to come in for an amended site plan for this matter.  This property is 16 or 17 acres, and they also own a piece of about 50 acres to the west.  Tyson asked if this building is less than 2000 square feet, and Jim said it is 12’ x 24’.  It is an agricultural building for an agricultural use.  The ordinance allows for small agricultural buildings.  The question is whether or not the board wants to have site plan.  He explained that when he issues a building permit for something like this, if there is a question about whether a building falls under residential use, he puts a note on the building permit that the applicant has stated that the purpose of the permit is residential use so it won’t come back to haunt him. 

Ken asked Jim why he has come before the board tonight, since everything seems to be completely honest and above board.  Jim responded that when Windswept came up with a request for a shed, this board had never taken up a site plan for agricultural use.  Since then the board has realized that it is smart to define residential use because everything else is liable for site plan review.

Ken commented that he believes it would be excessive to have Jim come in for site plan review, and Christopher agreed with that.  Art stated that the board should determine that this matter doesn’t meet the threshold for site plan review.  Jim asked that the minutes reflect that it doesn’t meet the threshold for site plan review.  Tyson added that the minutes reflect that no one on the board objected to this decision.

Other business.  Tyson reported on Cal Dunn’s trial for contempt of court.

Master Plan recommended actions.  Christopher reviewed the roll-up of the recommended actions.  After limited discussion, Seth agreed to come up with a synthesis of the recommended actions, creating two paragraphs out of the two basic concepts.

Since there is nothing scheduled for the August 10th meeting, it was agreed that there will be no meeting on that date.  Chris said that Beth would probably have a draft of the Master Plan available for the August 24th meeting so that the board could start reviewing it.

Motion to adjourn at 7:45 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

July 13th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of June 22, 2010. 2. Public hearing on an application for a proposed two-lot subdivision of land owned by Leslie Keeler on Kimball Pond and Pickard Roads (Tax Map 253, Lot 41) in the rural zone. 3. Other business. 4. Master Plan discussion, including most important recommended actions.
MINUTES:    
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, Ken Stern, and Seth Cohn.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:     Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Minutes of June 22, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Tyson, to approve the minutes.  Art noted that his name was misspelled as Aft in the list of board members present at that meeting.  The minutes as corrected were approved unanimously.

Public hearing on an application for a proposed two-lot subdivision of land owned by Leslie Keeler on Kimball Pond and Pickard Roads (Tax Map 253, Lot 41) in the rural zone.  Dwight Keeler presented on behalf of the applicant.  Abutter present was Faith Berry.  Harry Kinter was in attendance as an interested party.

Dwight explained that this is a two-lot subdivision of a parcel of 19.5 acres.  Web Stout did the engineering, and he has requested that the board waive showing topography and wetlands in the back portion of the property.  He noted that the plan meets all of the zoning criteria.

Tyson asked if anything on the plan has changed since the pre-application conceptual consultation that was held on May 25.  Dwight responded that Web has included the 250 x 300 rectangle of buildable area on each lot that was requested at that meeting.

The Chair read the following request from the applicant:

We are asking to waive showing topography and wetlands on the southwesterly corner of the property.  Topography/wetlands have been shown to demonstrate the buildable areas.

Motion by Ken, seconded by Art, to grant the waiver.  Motion passed unanimously.

Dwight noted that there is driveway access in several areas.  Because Kimball Pond Road is a state road, any access off that road would have to be approved by the state.

Motion by Ken, seconded by Christopher, to accept the application as complete.  Motion passed unanimously. 

There were no further questions from the board members, and the Chair asked for comments/questions from the abutter.  Faith stated that the application looks fine to her.  The Chair asked if Harry had any comments or questions.  Harry asked about the possible access to these lots, and Dwight pointed them out.  Harry commented that he had hoped this board would consider putting the possible building locations as far back as possible, but it looks like that is what has been done.  He wants to see the conservation land protected as much as possible.  Faith added that, from a safety standpoint, it would be better to have the accesses on Pickard Road.

Motion by Ken, seconded by Christopher, to approve the subdivision plan as presented.  Motion passed unanimously. 

Other business.  The Chair reported that he had received a copy of a wetlands application for the Glines property on Northwest Road.  They are working towards getting a building permit.

Tyson reported that Mr. Dunn is being brought to court on Tuesday at 2:30 for contempt of court.

Master Plan.  The board worked on recommended actions for the executive summary.  After some discussion, Christopher agreed to have all board members send him their list of recommended actions to him within the next seven days.  He will then compile a list of the recommendations, ranking them in order of importance.  The list will then be forwarded to everyone before the 27th so that further discussion can take place at that board meeting.

Motion to adjourn at 8:00 p.m., Nancy Lilly, Secretary

June 22nd, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Draft minutes of April 27, 2010, and May 25, 2010. 2. Other business. 3. Master Plan reports on: Chapter 2 – Jim, Chapter 3 – Christopher and Chris
Chapter 4 – Tyson (CNHRPC), Chapter 7 – Doug
MINUTES: 
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   J. Snyder, Chair; T. Miller, V. Chair; C. Evans, A. Rose, D. McCallum, C. Blair, S. Cohn and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:      Ken Stern.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Draft minutes of April 27, 2010, and May 25,, 2010.  Motion by Christopher, seconded by Tyson, to approve the minutes.  Christopher noted that his name should be recorded as Christopher Evans in the list of board members who were absent at the April 27th meeting.  The minutes as corrected were approved unanimously.
Other business.  Tyson reported that the RFP for the solar collectors is out. Briggs reported that there is some interest in the Odyssey House property.
Master Plan.  There was discussion about a deadline for the Master Plan but no decision was made.  As far as quantity is concerned, the Chair stated that we should get an idea of the cost of printing and where the quantity breaks are.  He said he didn’t recall how many were printed last time.  We should consider the fact that we can put it on our website, but we should still have some hard copies.  It was noted that there is a need to have a public hearing after the final draft is available.  Discussion of Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 7 followed.

Doug stated that he would like to have copies of all of the chapters, and the secretary said that she would get them to all of the board members.  It was suggested everyone should make a list of what they feel are the most important recommended actions in the Master Plan (a maximum of 5) and bring that list to the next meeting for further discussion to determine what a majority of the board members feel are the most important.

Motion to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Nancy Lilly, Secretary     

June 8th, 2010:
Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items)

May 25th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Pre-application conceptual consultation regarding a possible two-lot subdivision of land owned by Leslie Keeler at the corner of Kimball Pond Road and Pickard Road (Tax Map 253,  Lot 41) in the rural zone. 2. Other business. 3. Master Plan.
MINUTES:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   T. Miller, Vice Chair; A. Rose, C. Evans, D. McCullum, C. Blair, S. Cohn, K. Stern, and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:    Jim Snyder.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Vice Chair presiding.

Pre-application conceptual consultation regarding a possible two-lot subdivision of land owned by Leslie Keeler at the corner of Kimball Pond Road and Pickard Road (Tax Map 253, Lot 41) in the rural zone.  Web Stout presented on behalf of the applicant.   He explained the location of the property, and noted that there is a large segment of the land that is wetlands.  The total lot is 19.6 acres.  This is in the rural zone which is three-acre zoning.  The smaller lot is 8.5 acres, and the larger lot is 11.1 acres.  They meet the zoning requirements, and the required rectangle fits on both lots.  He pointed out a break in the wall indicating a woods road that goes through there.  Both driveways would come off Pickard Road. If someone wanted an entrance off a state-maintained road, they would have to get a state permit.  Dwight Keeler wanted to come before the board to see if there is anything in this subdivision that stands out as inappropriate.  These lots greatly exceed the requirements.  Web noted that he still has to add the soils and has to ask for an expedited review. 

Ken noted that the abutters’ names should be on the plan.  Web responded that this is only a conceptual consultation just to see if there is anything that stands out as inappropriate.  Briggs stated that he doesn’t see anything that is a problem.  Art commented that Web knows what he needs to put on the plan.

Other business.  The secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance has been revised as of March 9, 2010, and she will be glad to email a copy to anyone who would like to receive it.  It should also be up on the website.

Tyson noted that he went to the spring regional planning workshop.  It was noted that, if the Planning Board is subdividing a lot, there has to be at least one safe access to that lot, and the board is responsible for driveways.  This prompted some discussion among the board members regarding this matter. 

The secretary reviewed some incomplete items in the draft of the April 27th minutes.

Master Plan.  Chris noted that Beth has stated that she is willing to put the plan together, with a cost not to exceed $500.  She will also do the cover and find a printer.

Art referred to Chapter 11, Economic Development, and stated that there isn’t really much of anything to change.  After reading through it, his first inkling was to strike a lot of things that don’t exist today, but he felt that that wouldn’t good for the Master Plan to be going backwards.  He would suggest leaving it pretty much alone.  He noted some small changes that he felt would be appropriate, and it was agreed to make those changes.  He noted that, after the whole plan is put together in a booklet form for a final edit, then we can hold a public hearing.

Tyson noted that they have received a contract from the state on the solar collectors.

Motion to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Nancy Lilly, Secretary

May 11th, 2010: Meeting Cancelled (no agenda items)

April 27th, 2010:
AGENDA: 1. Election of a Chair and a Vice Chair. 2. Draft minutes of March 23, 2010. 3. Other business. 4. Master Plan discussion, including a review of Chapters 3 (Chris Blair’s portion), Chapters 6, 7 and 11.
MINUTES:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Snyder, Chair; Tyson Miller, Vice Chair; Doug McCallum, Chris Blair, and Ken Stern.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:     Christopher Evans, Art Rose, Seth Cohn, and Briggs Lockwood, Selectman Representative.

The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Chair presiding.

Election of a Chair and a Vice Chair.  Ken moved to nominate Jim Snyder to serve as Chairman of the Board.  Motion duly seconded and passed.

Jim moved to nominate Tyson Miller to serve as Vice Chair of the Board.  Motion duly seconded and passed.

Draft minutes of March 23, 2010.  Motion by Tyson, seconded by Chris, to approve the minutes.  Motion passed unanimously.

Master Plan discussion including a review of Chapter 3 (Chris Blair’s portion), Chapters 6, 7 and 11.  Discussion ensued of these chapters.

Motion to adjourn. Chris Blair, Acting Secretary