Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes of 10/4/2012 APPROVED

December 10th, 2012

TOWN OF CARROLL
PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES
October 4, 2012

APPROVED

Members Present: Chairman, Dr. Evan Karpf, Vice Chairman, Erik Bergum, Selectmen’s Representative, William Dowling, and members Kenneth Mills, Donna Foster, Ernest Temple, and Richard Nelson. Also present was David Scalley.

7:00 PM A quorum being present, Chairman Karpf called the meeting to order.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Correspondence:
The Code Enforcement Officer’s monthly report was available in the meeting folders for all members.

E-mail from Town Counsel regarding posting a bond in a subdivision was spoken of by Chairman Karpf. Some members were not sure they had received this e-mail. The Secretary will re-send the e-mail and it will be discussed at the next meeting.

Chairman Karpf read the e-mail from LGC regarding his resignation and rescinding of the resignation as well as tabling an issue.

Chairman Karpf read a voter education announcement.

Minutes Review:
Minutes of September 6, 2012
Ms. Foster offered corrections to Page 2, first paragraph, first sentence within the motion - after “resignation” add “given at the August meeting”, and after “resignation” in the second line, add “given by e-mail”. Also Ms. Foster offered a correction to the third paragraph after the word “tabled”, add “by Chairman Karpf”.



Page 2 of 6
Planning Board
October 4, 2012


Mr. Mills said the tabling procedure needs to be addressed. He referred to Robert’s Rules. He said he is aware that Robert’s Rules are cumbersome to follow but they can be used for informational purposes as a guide.

It was decided that the Minutes of September 6, 2012 will be brought back for review at the next meeting.

Report of Officers and Committees:
Master Plan Sub-committee
Mr. Mills distributed a report of progress made by the Master Plan Sub-committee. He said that while the Sub-committee is in the process of gathering information, there are questions regarding formalizing the process the Sub-committee should be using, specifically regarding posting of meetings and recording of minutes. He said that two members of the Sub-committee may meet to pass along information or might send e-mails for this purpose. Mr. Bergum said he is of the opinion that after this information gathering phase, when the Sub-committee starts the organizing and creative process, that is when the public should be notified and RSA 91-A would apply. He suggested at this stage to just call the information given to the Planning Board, a monthly report, to prevent a perception of impropriety. These reports will be available to the public. The Secretary was asked to contact LGC for clarification.

Workforce Housing
Ms. Foster distributed a 34 page document to each member, entitled Workforce Housing: Its Everybody’s Business. She said this document was produced by the Mt. Washington Valley Housing Coalition. She said it includes information from towns that have a high influx of second homes, which Carroll is also experiencing.

LGC Law Lecture
Mr. Nelson attended the LGC Law Lecture series on Land Use Controls as did Mr. Dowling. Mr. Nelson said he came away with the knowledge that nothing was black and white. He said there were two attorneys giving the lecture and it seemed that nothing was concrete. He said he left a little disturbed. It was informative to a degree but it wasn’t as good as he expected.

Chairman Karpf said in the first Lecture that he attended, cluster housing was brought up. Cluster housing allows increased density of housing within a development which allows maintenance of permanent open space. He said it is advantageous to the town and to the
Page 3 of 6
Planning Board
October 4, 2012


developer. He suggested that a look at cluster housing should be a part of the Master Plan. Ms. Foster said a lot of this is discussed in the document she just gave the Board. It was noted that septic in a cluster development was a limitation when there was no town sewer.

Chairman Karpf said the Sub-committee might also want to look at energy efficiency as in insulation and other energy saving items.

Chairman Karpf said Impact Fees were discussed at the first Law Lecture. As development increases there is a cost to the towns. Impact Fees are calculated by a formula which produces a fee amount that the developer pays. For example, if the town decides that the greatest impact of development would be more children to educate, the town can impose an impact fee for education. The town would develop the formula. The fee collected would have to be used specifically for the purpose stated and used within 7 years or be returned to the developer.

Unfinished Business:
Planning Board Budget
The Secretary told the Board that after consultation with LGC and DRA and finally back to LGC again, it was found that RSA 673:16, II allows that a Land Use Account can be set up as an “in and out” type account to capture fees for postage, advertising, legal and engineering consultations and expenses that an applicant might incur. However application fees, building permit fees and inspection fees would not go into this account. Those fees would still be put into the Planning Special Revenue Fund. The Land Use Account would be used to pay the costs the applicant incurred as part of the review process. She said, on the budget sheet under the “Comments” column, all figures noting SRF (Special Revenue Fund) should be changed to Land Use Account.

The Secretary also said, that while going through the process that resulted in the discovery of RSA 673:16, II, it was found that line 901 – Code Enforcement Officer, should not be in the Planning Board budget. The Planning Board has no control over the Code Enforcement Officer and does not supervise or sign off on any of his expenses. The Code Enforcement Officer comes under the authority of the Board of Selectmen and should be in that budget.

Chairman Karpf said the RSA for the Land Use Account stipulates the designation of an agent for the account.


Page 4 of 6
Planning Board
October 4, 2012


Chairman Karpf offered a motion to name Linda Dowling, the Secretary, as the designated agent. Mr. Temple seconded the motion.

Discussion – This would incur no extra time for the Secretary. The Secretary is the person who receives the fees from the applicant. It was felt to be logical since the Secretary would be the receiving the fees and would know what expenses were incurred.

The vote was 7 – 0. The motion carries

The Secretary was advised to notify the Treasurer of this designation as the Treasurer has custody of the Account. It was noted that the Secretary documents her usage of time each month.

Chairman Karpf reminded the Board to RSVP their attendance. The Secretary usually sends out a request to RSVP when the e-mail informing the members that the meeting folders are available, is sent. However, there may be glitches in e-mail.

Applicant’s Guide – Review
Changes were made to the Guide. It will be revised and brought back for the next meeting.

Chairman Karpf asked that the Secretary contact LGC to see if the RSA has a requirement for a public hearing for changes in regulations.

Other Business:
Driveway Permit Fees
The Code Enforcement Officer suggested $15.00 - $25.00 for a Driveway Permit Fee. Mr. Bergum asked what the actual cost was. Discussion ensued after which,

Mr. Bergum offered a motion for a $25.00 Driveway Permit Fee. Mr. Dowling seconded the motion. The vote was 7 – 0. The motion carries.

The Secretary had questions from the Road Agent regarding Driveway Fees. He said he has gotten many questions regarding whether an additional permit is needed to pave a driveway.
Page 5 of 6
Planning Board
October 4, 2012


He also receives questions asking if a permit is needed to replace a culvert. He asked if these two items could be clarified in the Driveway Regulations.

Much discussion took place regarding a homeowner’s property rights regarding paving a driveway. The Board also discussed replacement of culverts again in relation to homeowner’s property rights and also if the replacement or repair would take place within the Town’s right-of-way. The following language was offered to address these issues;

Addition to 8.10 “Material design and surface of a driveway is at the homeowner’s discretion.”

Add to 8.11 “In the case where a culvert in an existing driveway needs to be installed, repaired or replaced a permit is required. However, in this case, there is no fee.”

Sub-division Regulations
The Secretary told the Board, the Regulations have been inputted and now she has begun the process of proofing for everything from cosmetic (typos and grammar) to substance (what the actual regulation states). She will note the areas of substance in question for the Board to address at a later date. Ms. Foster asked if she could send suggestions she found while proofing and the Secretary welcomed all input.

Ms. Foster said she wanted to clarify that her motion regarding accepting the Chairman’s resignation was not a personal attack. Her motivation was to address her concerns regarding how to make the Board more “user friendly” to businesses and not just residential development.

Chairman Karpf stated that he could not remember the Board ever denying any application. He said the RSA’s protect the applicant and the Board must operate according to those RSAs. The timeframes are set by RSA and evidence of the Board’s compliance with the law is shown by the fact that the Board has never been sued by a developer. He suggested that Board members have a responsibility to correct mis-information and treat everyone the same. He said the Board’s regulations are the least restrictive they can be and still be within the law.
Chairman Karpf said that the Town voted in the Zoning Ordinance and the Regulations and the Board must follow them.


Page 6 of 6
Planning Board
October 4, 2012


Ms. Foster voiced her concerns regarding the viability of the Town if more businesses don’t decide to come into the Town. Chairman Karpf said he understood her concerns but there is nothing the Planning Board can do to encourage businesses to come into Town. If a business
wants to come in, the Board will treat them, as well as all applicants, fairly and efficiently, according to the laws and regulations.

After prolonged discussion;

Mr. Bergum offered a motion to adjourn. Ms. Foster seconded the motion. The vote was 7 – 0. The motion carries.

8:55 PM The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda J. Dowling
Secretary
Carroll Planning Board

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024