Planning Board

Minutes

March 26, 2009

Official as of May 7, 2009

Vice chairman Peter Jones calls the work session to order at 7:00 p.m. 

PRESENT: Vice Chair Peter Jones, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Bob Strobel, Deborah Couch, Alternates Pat Bell and Scott Campbell, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith.

ABSENT:  Victoria Parmele

OLD CASE:
CASE 08-11: David Docko-Millstone Realty Trust, 1090 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 35. Applicant seeks site plan amendment to add retails sales of materials (mulch, stone, etc.) on site.

Voting Designation for Docko Case: Pete Jones, Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Scott Campbell, Bob Strobel, and Deborah Couch.

Dave Docko is present along with Peter Holden of Holden Engineering.

Ms. Planchet explains that at the last meeting she was directed to review RSA 155-E regarding excavation permits. She provides copies of a legal opinion to the board for their review. After review, Bob Holden makes a motion to make the legal opinion public, second by Herb Johnson. Motion passed; 6/0/1. Bob Strobel abstains. Copies are provided to Mr. Docko and Peter Holden.

Peter Holden states that they do not believe that this is a proposal for excavation. He explains that in reading RSA 155-E:2-a there are certain exceptions. Mr. P. Holden states that they believe they meet the exception that the excavation is incidental to the use of the property. Further discussion is held.  Mr. P. Holden refers to the original site plan submitted a few years ago and states that there is a building, parking area, places for storage of proposed aggregate, stone, and sand. Mr. P. Holden states that the purpose of the plan was so that a business can be operated out of this site. He adds that Mr. Docko was hauling in material, adding it to the piles, and then hauling off site to construction sites. This site plan shows grading and fill to allow areas for storage.  Mr. P. Holden states that the plan is to store materials for Mr. Docko’s own use and also to sell materials, which is the reason why they are looking for an approval for retail sales. Peter Holden continues and states that the proposal is to take the previously approved area and grade it off to a flat area to work on. There are some wetlands on site. Mr. P. Holden states that the site plan shows a building, parking area, circulated driveway, and storage areas. Mr. P. Holden states that these items are all excluded from excavation and the work being done is flattening the area. He explains that if selling tractors, the site would still need to be leveled out so this is not any different. In addition, if this were excavation plans the site would have been graded differently.

Ms. Planchet refers to the materials being obtained from the site or brought in. Mr. P. Holden stated that they are trying to get rid of these materials so that there is a flat surface. Discussion ensues regarding excavation. Ms. Planchet states that the materials on site eventually will be processed and sold, which seems to meet the definition of excavation. Mr. P. Holden replies that if anything else was being sold on the site and needed to be leveled, they would try to sell these materials. He adds that even construction companies offer to level the land and then they remove the materials. Mr. P. Holden notes the exception; therefore, this would not be an excavation. Ms. Couch asks about the original application and what was presented and if moving materials was noted.  Mr. P. Holden replies that the original application shows stock piles, grading, buildings, parking area, and driveway. Mr. P. Holden explains that Mr. Docko is currently implementing that site plan, and they are requesting to expand the original site plan request and also include the ability of retail sales. 

Mr. Jones asks if they feel that this is an excavation process. Mr. P. Holden replies, “no,” however; they will obtain an excavation permit if that is what is necessary for site plan approval. Ms. Planchet adds that a representative from DRA met with her and reviewed the plan, and explained that many believe that their project is incidental. She states that the definitions have been provided and reviewed. Further discussion ensues regarding the definition of commercial taking.

Mr. Bob Holden asks if there have been complaints from abutters about the site. Ms. Smith states that she is aware that complaints have been made and that this issue would be addressed through the code enforcement department. Mr. Campbell makes a motion, second by Mr. LeClerc, that the planning board believes this is an excavation process. Ms. Smith states that new members are not under any obligation to vote if they feel that they are not up to speed on this application.
Yes: Scott Campbell, Roger LeClerc, Pete Jones
No: Herb Johnson, Bob Holden
Abstain: Bob Strobel, Deborah Couch
Motion passes 3/2/2. 
Mr. Docko left at this time.

Mr. Jones states that the board is not able to continue until an amendment to the application is filed for the excavation process, which will require a new public notice. Ms. Smith states that the abutters will be required to be noticed for the excavation portion. A continuance is required and Mr. Holden provides a written request to continue to April 23.
Ms. Couch makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to accept the request for continuance. Motion passes; 7/0.

CASE 09-06: George and Sherry Jackman, 7 Davlynn Drive. Map 234; Lot 41-Sublot 13. Applicants seek site plan review for proposed in home hair salon business. 

Mr. And Mrs. Jackman are present. Deborah Couch recuses herself from the board as she is the applicants’ representative.

Voting Designation for Jackman Case: Pete Jones, Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Bob Strobel, and Alternates Scott Campbell and Pat Bell.

Ms. Planchet provides a summary of the case and that the planning board at its work session recognized that some criteria had not been provided. She states that she believes that the application is complete based on the criteria that information and/or waiver requests for missing information had been provided. Ms. Smith expresses concern with any new information that was provided and the fact that this new information cannot be used until the time frame has been met, based on the board’s regulations and statute.   

A discussion is held regarding a certain level of basic information for the process of processing an application. Ms. Smith states that waivers can be requested and are part of the process but should not be the leverage if an application is accepted or not. Discussion ensues regarding what is a reasonable request and how to address it. Mr. Holden asks if the board can accept the application for discussion and Mr. Jones explains that when the board accepts an application as complete, the time period begins. He adds that the board members each have to review the information and determine if the application is deemed complete. He states that the board needs to determine if the application is complete enough to be considered. Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Holden, to accept the application as complete. Information missing is reviewed. Motion passes; 7/0.

Mr. Jones opens the public hearing and reads the abutters list for this case.

Deborah Couch states that for clarification she did run for the planning board’s open seat and learned of the seat while applying for the application. She has recused herself.

Ms. Planchet notes that there is an e-mail from abutters Tiffany and Pete George of 13 Davlynn Drive, which Mr. Jones reads into the record.

Ms. Couch explains that the Jackmans are proposing to open a hair salon by converting one of their garage bays into the salon. Mr. Jackman explains that he’d left a lucrative career to become a pastor of a church and that they are seeking to supplement that income.  He states that they believe that it is important to be home with the children and that’s why they’re proposing this to be in their home.  He states that they did look into off site property; however, it is costly to begin and they decided to invest funds into the home. He notes that he has previously met with the board proposing an in home business for shed sales and that when the board raised traffic concerns and locations, he withdrew that proposal.  He explains that this business proposal is for an appointment business only and he feels that this would be a minor impact to traffic.

Ms. Couch states that she did submit a second site plan once she received the TRC comments. She explains that the driveway will be extended 10 ft. to meet the requirement and allow for a turn around within the driveway. She states that she noted 18 ft. for the parking space and there is another 26 ft. space for turning and parking. Ms. Couch notes that there is also a one stall garage still that can be utilized. She explains that the larger space will also suffice as a handicapped space. She states that the doorway is shown as the pedestrian walkway and asks what additional information would be necessary. In addition, she states that the house has been shown to scale.

Ms. Couch explains that they are not proposing to add any landscaping to the area as the house is surrounded by trees on three sides. She adds that they are not proposing any additional lighting either. A sign is proposed to be hung below the mailbox, as shown on the plan.  

Ms. Couch explains that as far as water supply, they need to apply for three state permits: the Board of Cosmetology requires an occupancy permit prior to applying; DES requires a discharge to groundwater permit; and subsurface system bureau requires a permit to make sure that the septic system is built to capacity for the house and the salon. She explains that they intend to show the capacity and use the existing plan. She notes that the expenses for these are extensive and this planning board meeting is the first process needed.

Ms. Couch states that the owners do not want their septic system to fail and will be very cautious as to what goes into the system. She states that they do not plan to do nails. Additional discussion is held regarding the Board of Cosmetology’s requirements for sculptured nails. Ms. Jackman explains that this is something that falls under the same licensing; however, she would not be doing this and the requirements are only ventilation.

Mr. Strobel suggests showing the septic if it can be located. Ms. Couch states that the septic is in the front with the well in the back. Ms. Smith explains that one reason the septic design is helpful to have is that the state has certain criteria for issuing and the town can restrict in a more restrictive manner than the state. The state may grant waivers, where as the board may prefer additional requirements. Not having the information until later limits the board’s ability to weigh in.

Mr. Campbell left at 8:30 p.m.

Ms. Smith states that the items relative to the septic system could be a condition of approval; however, once that happens the board does not have any say on it so that if the board wants to review it they need to see it ahead of time. Mr. LeCLerc asks how many bedrooms the system is currently for and Ms. Couch replies three. Mr. Jackman explains that their septic was recently replaced as was their neighbors due to installation errors with the builder. He indicates they do not want to see their septic system fail so they intend to be cautious.

Jason Stehle, Masten Dr., expresses concern with chemicals from hair dyes, bleach, etc. being introduced into the environment. In addition, he states that the house is located near a school bus stop that is used several different times during the day as there are various pick-up times. He is concerned about traffic and does not leave out by Davlynn Dr. due to the kids. Mr. Stehle also states that he is concerned with property values as this may have a negative impact. In addition, he notes the possibility of a precedent that this may set due to the fact that if one house in the neighborhood could become a business, then others could also.

Mr. Jackman states that he wants everything to be safe and without state approval the salon will not be added. He states that kids are important and he does not want anyone to be in danger or sick.

Matt Lemieux, Masten Dr., states he and his wife have concerns similar to Mr. Stehle’s comments that were stated previously. He adds that he cannot control the traffic and how they drive into the road. He states that if the salon opens at 7:00 a.m. the kids are waiting for the bus in this area. He explains that they moved into a residential neighborhood for a reason. As far as chemicals he states that you can never judge what is left and there will be a need to sanitize, bleach, disinfectant, etc. There will be more water usage because of extra laundry. He adds that they are concerned with the property values as well and the parking of cars on the road.

Mr. Jackman states that the Lemieux residence is the next street.

Discussion is held regarding the hours of operation. Mr. Jackman states that the salon would service by appointment only. Ms. Jackman states that the hours could be adjusted so not to conflict with the bus schedule.

Further discussion is held regarding the turning radius for cars. Mr. Bell asks how wide the driveway is. Ms. Couch replies that it is 24’ in some areas and 12’ in other areas; two cars could not pass beside each other. Ms. Couch states that they considered widening the driveway; however, they did not want to cut trees, and further infringe on the abutters. She notes that there is a slope and wall on the Rte. 4 side.

A discussion is held regarding the water usage. Ms. Couch explains that the state allows approximately 70 gallons per day and estimates for a one chair usage. Ms. Planchet notes that this information was not provided 15 days prior to the meeting.  She states that a site walk would be beneficial for the board.

Ms. Smith states that this board typically requires additional water testing for day cares in town, beyond the state’s requirements, and the results are required to be provided to the health officer. Mr. Jackman asks if the other salons in Northwood are following the same guidelines. Additional discussion is held regarding if these salons are permitted businesses. Ms. Couch suggests that the code enforcement officer be contacted.
Additional information is requested as follows:
• Parking issues and detail relative to showing that the turn-around is possible
• septic system
• clarification statement relative to chemicals and usage, where they are going, and handling of chemicals
• state applications
• details showing the drip lines of the trees, and,
• details of the water usage.

Ms. Couch indicates that no dumpster will be on site as there is trash pick-up.  Mr. Bell asks if there are covenants in Davlynn. Mr. Jackman replies no.

Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, for a site walk to be scheduled April 3, 8:00 A.M. Motion passes; 6/0.

Ms. Smith states that as far as property values, the courts have upheld statements from professionals; however, it must be backed up by someone in the field such as a realtor, appraiser, assessor, etc., before the board could consider property values. Mr. Jones suggests that residents review the master plan for reference to home business.
 
The public hearing will remain open and the case is continued to April 23 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Couch returns to the board as a voting member.

Voting Designation: Pete Jones, Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Bob Strobel, Deborah Couch, and Alternate Pat Bell.

Minutes:
January 8, 2009
Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. LeClerc, to accept the minutes of January 8, 2009, as written. Motion passes; 4/0/3. Pat Bell, Bob Holden, and Deborah Couch abstain.

January 14, 2009
These minutes are postponed as Ms. Parmele had requested additional time to review the minutes further; she is not at this meeting and Mr. Jones suggests postponing.

January 22, 2009
Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to accept the minutes January 22, 2009, as amended as follows:
Page 5: re-wording paragraph
Motion passes; 4/0/3. Pat Bell, Bob Holden, and Deborah Couch abstain.

Other Business
A discussion is held regarding meeting times. Ms. Planchet explains that previously the regular meetings began with a work session at 6:30 to address items like minutes, correspondence, etc. She asks if the board would like to consider having the half hour work session portion prior to the regular meeting. Mr. Johnson states that the times were changed as there was a problem with getting quorums and he would suggest keeping the meeting at 7 p.m. to be consistent. Mr. LeClerc agrees with 6:30 p.m. Mr. Holden is unclear as to how important that additional half hour would be. Ms. Planchet explains that this half hour is pertinent to items pertaining to the planning board; however, not to specific cases as the public hearings begin at 7 p.m. Ms. Couch states she believes it’s important to be consistent and that every meeting begin at the same time.  The board came to a consensus to keep the meeting times to begin at 7:00.

Northwood Development Ordinances
Ms. Planchet states that the reformatting is being reviewed by Ms. Smith and Mr. Reitter and that she hoped to have it ready for planning board approval soon.
 
Excavation Permit Application Fee
Ms. Planchet provides draft copies of the permit for review. A discussion is held regarding fees to be assessed. She explains that a public hearing will need to be held to adopt the permit. Mr. Jones explains that fees are assessed to cover staff time to process the information. Ms. Couch asks if the fee can be assessed by the amount of disturbed area. Discussion ensues regarding disturbed area and commercial properties. Herb Johnson makes a motion, second by Bob Holden, to recommend $75. for an excavation permit application fee. Mr. Strobel states that he checked with other towns and there are three other towns that charge $50., Derry, Woodstock, Lancaster. Mr. Johnson withdraws the motion and Mr. Holden withdraws the second. Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Holden, to recommend $50. as the application fee for an excavation permit. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) – 10 Year Highway Plan
Ms. Planchet notes that SRPC is seeking to schedule a joint meeting with town committees. The board suggests May and Ms. Planchet will check to see if the highway advisory committee would be able to make this meeting as well.

Election of Officers
Mr. LeClerc asks if this needs to be addressed this evening as there are new members and he does not know the members and what they can do. Ms. Smith replies that the state typically likes the elections done within the month soon after elections. She explains that there is form that the state distributes to the town clerk that must be completed and returned noting the officers and this usually occurs at the next meeting after elections.

Nominations for Chair:
Herb Johnson makes a motion to nominate Pete Jones as chairman. Deborah Couch seconds. Motion passes; 6/0/1. Pete Jones abstains.

Nominations for Vice Chair:
Deborah Couch makes a motion to nominate Bob Strobel for vice chair. Pete Jones seconds. Motion passes; 6/0/1. Bob Strobel abstains.

Blasting Permit
Mr. Jones notes that Northwood does not have a blasting permit and some towns do. He suggests that the board members think about this type of a permit. 

Adjournment
Mr. Johnson makes a motion to adjourn, second by Mr. LeClerc. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Respectfully Submitted
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary