The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 04/23/09

PRESENT: Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Roger LeClerc arrives at 9:15 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, and Victoria Parmele. Roger LeClerc - 9:15 p.m.

ABSENT: Chairman Peter Jones, Herb Johnson, Alternates Pat Bell and Scott Campbell.

Public Hearing: Draft Excavation Permit Application and Fee
Mr. Strobel opens the public hearing relative to excavation permits and the application fee.

Ms. Planchet states that the fee was proposed and approved to be recommended as $50. She explains that after the board decided to recommend the fee to the board of selectmen, she spoke with the town administrator, Dave Stack, who stated that the planning board has the authority to propose and adopt the fee.

Ms. Planchet recommends a change be made to the proposed excavation permit application to add a note that relief must be obtained from the Northwood Board of Adjustment if a yes response is provided for items 4-7. Ms. Couch makes a motion to make a change to reflect that if there is a yes response to items 4-7, then the applicant must obtain relief from the ZBA. Mr. Strobel seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

There is no public input at this time. Ms. Planchet explains that the proposal must be addressed at two public hearings. The item is continued to May 28, 2009.

MINUTES: 1/14/09 and 3/26/09 minutes are postponed to the end of the meeting.

OLD CASES:
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. Property owned by Millstone Realty Trust, Jacqueline Docko. Application accepted as complete on 10/23/08; 65-day 12/27/08. Continuances granted. Continued from 3/26/09.

David Docko is present along with Mark DeGrace from Holden Engineering.
Ms. Planchet states that the case has been continued from March 26 and the applicant was directed to go through the excavation permit application process, which resulted in a need to request relief from the zoning board. She explains that the excavation issue is on the ZBA’s agenda for April 27. Ms. Planchet states that the excavation portion of the case should not be discussed by the planning board this evening.

Mr. Strobel states that the board requested an as built plan. Ms. Planchet states that she spoke to the applicant and engineer regarding the request and the information request of the board. Ms. Couch asks if the plan provided in the application is an existing conditions plan that is current. Mr. DeGrace replies that the plan was up to date based on the survey date, last fall. Ms. Couch states that the board is looking for something more current. Ms. Planchet states that the code enforcement officer can determine if the conditions are accurate for the two acre parcel, which was approved in case 07-09. She states that this case is for the proposed use going forward. Ms. Planchet states that the planning board needs to address the current case with the information provided for this application and the regulations. Ms. Smith agrees. Ms. Couch adds that the request of the board was to do with more of the excavation aspect. Ms. Smith states that she was not aware at the previous meeting of the filing of the intent to excavate form and adds that the board may have acted prematurely since the applicant is to appear to the ZBA. She adds that the applicant is under no obligation to provide the plans and is moving on. Ms. Smith adds that the planner and code enforcement officer had visited the site regarding the existing site plan and she had not been aware of this at the work session.

Ms. Parmele asks how discussions can continue as parts of the case relate to the excavation. Ms. Smith states that the board will need to look at segments.

A discussion is held regarding the phasing plan. Mr. DeGrace states that the idea of the phasing plan was to provide to the planning board an understanding of how the site will be used and developed. Mr. DeGrace explains that phase one shows one- third of the development scheme. He states that drainage control and detention basin is a part of phase one and explains that the driveway and traffic controls are included.

Phase 2 is explained which includes stormwater controls with detention basins and no other additional expansion other than that the driveway is larger as the site is worked more. Mr. DeGrace states that the public safety controls and water quality controls are in place for phases one and two.

Mr. DeGrace states that Phase 3 has no additional concerns for water quality and the driveway is shown. Ms. Couch questions the ratio of the slope. Mr. DeGrace replies that it is either a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 slope. Additional discussion is held regarding the slope at the location starting with roadway. Mr. DeGrace explains that there is a slope on the roadway and the land itself rises along with the road, so if there is a flat working surface then there must be a transition to the land behind it. Dave Docko states that there will be a vertical ledge with no slope at all; however, it is not finished at this time. He adds that there will be a vertical wall. Discussion ensues regarding the wall.

Ms. Planchet notes receipt of additional documentation from Underwood Engineering. She notes that Underwood’s comment relative to NHDOT. Mr. DeGrace states that NHDOT is in agreement with the plan as proposed, except for one item, relative to the abutter named Currier being right across the street from the proposed entrance. Mr. DeGrace explains that there is a grading issue and explains that as the Curriers travel up their driveway to go onto Rte 4 they are at an incline and it is not a level platform. He adds that DOT is trying to get a guardrail in there that would exacerbate the problem. They are trying to find a way to get a platform and a guardrail there. Mr. DeGrace states that they have done some grading and have sent it to DOT and if approved by DOT, he states they would expect the permit to come in within a week.

Mr. Strobel asks if the phasing plan could be upgraded to reflect the applicant’s intent for the ledge. Mr. DeGrace replies that the original application for 2 acres was for storage of material. Discussion ensues regarding wholesale materials and the current application. Ms. Planchet states that the application is for retail use and for excavation of an additional 8 acres. She adds that prior approvals do not state wholesale use, although reference was made to that in submitted material for this case. Mr. Docko states that the current plan is for retail. Additional discussion is held regarding the April 1st letter and the revised note on the April 1 submittal, which does not include language about existing wholesale use. The board deems that this is ok as the plan and letter of intent are now in agreement.

Ms. Couch asks about general lighting and the hours of operation. Mr. Docko states that the hours of the business in the winter are less due to it getting dark earlier; therefore no additional lighting is proposed. Ms. Couch notes that the hours state until 6 p.m. Ms. Parmele asks to restrict the retail hours to earlier hours in the winter due to visibility. Mr. Docko replies that he would prefer to not restrict anything.

Mr. Holden notes that this site is selling sand and gravel and there may be some times in the winter that the town may need the product during the evenings.

Ms. Couch asks if there is a time limit for a site plan. Ms. Planchet replies the board can consider a deadline. Mr. DeGrace states that the developer can develop the site and store the materials on site. The excavation would proceed as the materials were used. Ms. Parmele asks how long working the site would take and Mr. Docko replies around three to five years. Ms. Parmele also asks if materials are brought onto the site and Mr. Docko replies yes.

Mr. Strobel asks for public comments.
Michelle Mayberry, Harvey Lake Rd., asks about the groundwater water quality with blasting. Mr. DeGrace replies that there will be more opportunities for stormwater infiltration, for rain water to get into the earth. He adds that it would change but the effect is contained on the site, the wetland remains on site and the off sight hydrology would remain the same. Ms. Mayberry asks about the materials removed from the site and the fees, Mr. Docko explains the fees are based on the yardage removed off of the site.

Harold Towne representing PMT Realty Trust-Northwood Power Equipment, abutter, states that he believes that the board does not have authority to ask about the 155-E permit. He asks about the specific requirements. He asks if there is a site plan for removing materials or if this is for 155-E. Ms. Planchet explains that Mr. Docko filed a minor site plan application to add retail sales in which an additional 8 acres of land will be disturbed. In the course of the planning board’s review, the town’s engineer determined the potential that excavation would be done as well. Ms. Planchet explained that at the board’s direction, she has reviewed RSA 155-E and spoken with town counsel and Ms. Langer from the state. She states that it appears that since this site is to remove products and sell the products; the applicant falls under the 155-E guidelines and has filed for an excavation permit. Mr. Towne questions the need for a site plan relative to an excavation permit. Additional discussion ensues regarding the recommendations from town counsel and for the applicant to provide the excavation permit application.

A written request to continue is provided. Bob Strobel makes a motion to continue the case to May 28. Victoria Parmele seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

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. Continued from 3/26/09. No quorum is present and Ms. Smith states that no discussion can be held.

CASE 09-03: Bruce Marshall, 1029 First NH Turnpike, Map 217; Lot 23 & 24. Applicant seeks site plan review for automotive mechanic shop.

Bruce Marshall is present.

Mr. Strobel states that the board had requested additional information at the work session. Mr. Marshall states that containing oil was a concern of the board and he has provided a letter regarding the process. Mr. Strobel notes that there were some issues also with NHDOT regarding the driveway permit. Mr. Strobel states that DOT must accept the language change so that the language in the state request is the same as that for the town. Mr. Marshall states that he contacted NHDOT regarding the sales area and the automotive shop. He states that the permit wording can be amended and provided. Ms. Smith states that the board needs to determine if the application is sufficient enough to proceed. She adds that the driveway permit can be a condition of approval.

Discussion is held regarding the plan showing a retail sales area. Ms. Smith states that this aspect has not been noticed and cannot be discussed. She requests that the applicant remove the sales aspect from the application and then the board can proceed with the automotive shop.

Ms. Couch expresses concern about the easements for the driveway. Mr. Marshall states that there is only one deed for the two lots. Ms. Smith states that she reviewed the deeds and the town’s tax maps show these as two separate lots. She explains that the issue can be corrected by showing the deed to the town’s assessor or complete a voluntary merger, which would combine the two lots. Additional discussion is held regarding deed language.

Ms. Smith expresses concern regarding the need for written support for the requested waivers. Ms. Couch states that she is concerned regarding the need for the public areas to be shown.

Bob Holden makes a motion, second by Bob Strobel, to accept the application as complete. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Strobel opens the public portion for this case and reads the abutters list. Abutters present are Joyce Elliot, Taylor Mauck, Town of Northwood represented by Bob Holden, and Michelle Mayberry.

Mr. Marshall explains that he is proposing to open a small engine repair shop/ automobile mechanics business at the site.

Abutter Ms. Elliot states that her deed grants her a right of way. She states that her mother was the original owner of the area and the planning board required her to put in the cul-de-sac for fire trucks to access. She states that they may own a portion of the driveway or lot 24. She asks if Mr. Marshall is listed as the owner of lot 24 and states that she understood the cul-de-sac was a right of way for all three lots. She expresses concerns about continuing use of the driveway and access. She notes that she is the last driveway in and pays for the plowing. In addition, she expresses concern with vehicles parked near the road and blocking the visibility. She states that she is also concerned with the sign visibility regarding site distance.

Taylor Mauck has concern with the cul de sac as well. He explains that he understood the cul de sac to be a requirement of the town and it is not a driveway, it is a road. He states that the town road specs at the time of requirement need to be researched to determine what that was at that time. He states that he is concerned as to what may happen with the cul de sac in the future. Additional discussion is held regarding the width of the road. Mr. Mauck states that this is a road and is wide enough that two cars can pass easily on the road. Linda Smith states that she has reviewed the subdivision plans and deeds and there appears to be a reference error in following the book and page numbers. She adds that the road specifications do need to be researched. Linda Smith states that the board can require a copy of the deeds and an opinion from an attorney. Mr. Mauck states that the cul de sac also acts as a retention pond. Linda Smith states that this is a valid point as the applicant is requesting to change the use of the cul de sac. Mr. Mauck states that this road is part of his frontage.

Michelle Mayberry states that she is concerned with the waivers, particularly the wetlands. She states that this is a narrow lot and is concerned about the future for the area and waivers. Ms. Mayberry notes that the access and egress of the three lots is very narrow for commercial use.

Linda Smith explains the process of an accepted application. She states that the board accepts the application as complete and discussions ensue. She adds that the board can only discuss the application once it is accepted as complete. She states that the board is required to make a decision on the application within 65 days unless the applicant requests an extension. She notes that the board can request additional information.

Karen Smith states she is a resident of Harvey Lake and a board member of the Harvey Lake Watershed Assoc., which is responsible for water quality testing. She asks the board to recognize this area as a prime wetland and she explains that all wetlands play an important role in the filtration of surface waters, erosion reduction, and flood control. She expresses concern with the property as it is in close proximity to Harvey Lake. She adds that there is a stream that runs along and there is also a direct inlet to Northwood Lake. Karen Smith expresses concerns with the degradation of wetlands and she notes that there are specific setback buffers and requests that the board recognize this as well.

Karen Smith also mentions the Best Management Practices (BMP) and states that the BMP’s do not guarantee that accidents do not occur. Further discussion is held regarding the 100 ft. buffer for prime wetlands and the process of granting a waiver. Mr. Holden asks if this would impact the Harvey Lake Watershed. Karen Smith replies that this is a part of the Northwood Lake Watershed. Mr. Holden notes that the proposal appears to be 150’ from the wetland.

Mr. Strobel reads an email received from Conservation Commission Chairman Stephen Roy regarding the prime wetlands buffer and the need for a wetlands survey to delineate the wetlands buffer.

“The conservation commission would not support waiving the requirement to adequately establish the limits of the wetland that abuts the property and its associated buffer. The reasons follow:

The town actively moved to nominate this prime wetland due to its unique characteristic in that it supports a high density of heron rookeries in this region, and its vital role in acting as flood storage between Harvey Lake and Kelsey Mill road. Delineating the wetland boundary adequately (per the requirement of 5.01.B.1), and then maintaining a buffer around the boundary of the wetland free of impervious surfaces and structures (per the overlay requirement of 5.01.E.1) encourages sheet flow of runoff across the non-developed natural landscape, which, in turn, is the mechanism responsible for removing sediment that would otherwise wash into the wetland; and reducing the load of chemicals into the wetland related to roads/automotives, nutrients/fertilizers/pesticides, and other constituents that are prevalent in commercially developed areas. An adequate buffer also encourages infiltration of surface water (stormflow) into the ground/groundwater which reduces the potential for erosion.

Waiving the requirement to adequately establish the limit of the wetland and its boundary would undermine the town's capacity to gauge compliance with its ordinance and properly enforce the town's development code; correspondingly, waiving the requirement would undermine the applicant's ability to stay 'out of trouble' and comply with the town's ordinance because they would not know the location of the setback boundary, and may unduly be subjected to enforcement by the town in the future.

There may be a legal argument that the PB issuing such a waiver when there is full knowledge that this wetland feature resides on/abuts the applicant's property may be equivalent to indirectly issuing a variance the requirement of Section 5.01 of the town's ordinance; an act that the PB can not do.

Waiving the requirement to adequately establish the wetland boundary and determine it buffer may unduly subject the applicant to litigation due to violating state law. RSA 482 (excerpt below, emphasis added) requires that the DES hold a hearing and issue a permit for any activity within 100 feet of a designated prime wetland. If the applicant does not know where this boundary is, how will they comply with state law? Although it is not necessarily the obligation of the PB to ensure that the activities of all town residents comply with state law, as a trustee of the welfare of town residents, the PB should, to the extent that it can, take actions to enable town residents to conform with state law.”

Mr. Strobel notes that RSA 482-A:11 IV is cited but does not read into record.

Mr. Strobel closes the public comment section for this meeting.

Discussion is held and the board requests the need for the following items:
• Deed research for lots 23 and 24 and any deeded access
• Abutters having legal right of way to be shown on the plan
• Sign setback and location be added to the plan
• Location for the driveway needs to be shown on the plan
• Gravel parking lot, not to be paved
• Dumpster location to be added to the plan
• Hours of operation to be added to the plan
• A note on plan regarding best management practices
• Approximate location of 100’ wetlands buffer to be added to the plan
• NHDOT driveway permit
• Title block to be added to the plan

Deborah Couch makes a motion, second by Bob Holden, for the applicant to provide all additional information, as requested by the board. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. All additional information is to be provided by May 13.

A site walk is scheduled for Tuesday, May 5 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Couch motions for the case to be continued to May 28 at 7 p.m. Ms. Parmele seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Roger LeClerc arrives at 9:15 p.m.
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. Continued from 3/26/09.

Deborah Couch has recused herself and is seated with the applicants as their representative.

Mr. Strobel reads a list of items requested for this meeting.

The board has some questions regarding the location and turning radius of cars. Ms. Couch states that although there was not an official site walk held, the cars were turned around to show the radius. Ms. Couch states that there would be three cars able to be parked; however, she states that there would not be three there during the hours of operation. Mr. Holden asks if the hours of operation have been changed due to the issue of the school bus schedule. Discussion is held regarding the bus schedule and concern with cars being parked on the street. The bus picks up at 7:45 a.m. and the board agrees that opening at 8 a.m. would be fine. The applicant had requested to be open until 9:00 pm; after discussion regarding concerns about being late in a residential area, the applicant agrees not to schedule anything after 8:00 p.m.

Ms. Planchet explains that blank state application forms were provided. Ms. Couch states that a certificate of occupancy is required for the board of cosmetology and is part of the permit application; they will not complete the state applications until other approvals are in place.

Ms. Couch states that they will not be requesting a waiver for state septic approval. Water usage is discussed and Ms. Couch states that the septic system must be able to handle 150 gallons per day per chair. She adds that they believe that the usage will be less than 150 GPD.

A discussion is held regarding the use of chemicals and the disposal. Ms. Parmele asks what chemicals and hazards will be used. Ms. Couch explains that the product will be washed from the hair and will go down the drain and into the septic system. The chemicals may include ammonia, alcohol, etc. Ms. Couch adds that the applicant is trying to find products that are good for the environment; ammonia free. Ms. Parmele states that there is a concern with the neighboring septic systems due to the slopes of the area. Mr. Strobel notes that a plume of groundwater discharge will flow down slope toward a swale. Ms. Couch replies that they don’t know what it does once it is underground. She adds that this is just one chair and refers to information from the engineer that it will meet the capacity. Mr. Strobel states that the letter just deals with the quantity of water. Ms. Couch adds that the planning board has approved a salon exactly the same proposal on Yeaton Drive in 2006. Ms. Planchet reminds the board that precedent does not apply to planning board cases as board members and regulations change.

Mr. Holden asks whether the septic concern is a DES issue. Ms. Parmele states that the planning board is required to look out for the safety of others and the town.

Ms. Couch states that the Master Plan encourages in home businesses.

Mr. Strobel asks if there are comments from the public. Charlie Zilch explains that when submitting a septic design a product listing sheet is required to be provided to DES to make sure everything applies. He states that DES will red flag anything that should not go into a septic system.

Jason Stehle, abutter on Masten Dr. reads the definition of an abutter and notes that it clearly states that abutter is a person who has land that is directly affected. He states that they live down hill and their property will be negatively impacted by any increase in water from a home hair salon. He notes that the Master Plan encourages local suitable home based business; however, they feel that this proposal is not a suitable proposal and they do not feel that the application in the current form should be approved. Mr. Stehle refers to the site plan regulations and feels that sections B, F, K & O are not adequately addressed. Vehicular traffic will be increased and there will be an increase to the risk of public safety. He addresses the fact that there is no on street parking, delivery or loading allowed and notes that there will need to be cars parked on the street during the daytime hours. He states that adequate parking would be 4 parking spaces.

Mr. Stehle states that there will be a potential concern to the water supply and he feels that the application should list chemicals. He does not feel that any rights should be given to DES for this. Mr. Stehle states as far as the harmony with the character of the surrounding development, this is a residential area and should not be used for retail or walk-in services. This is not Rte 4 and they feel that this is setting a precedent for others in the neighborhood.

Mr. Stehle refers to 2.01A of the development ordinance and states that uses must be compatible and 2.01 D1a also notes that the use will not alter the character of the area. He states that they do not feel that a hair salon belongs in a residential development; it belongs in a commercial development. He adds that the application is incomplete as the plan should show the date and permit numbers of all state and federal permits and the permits are not completed. In closing, he adds that the site plan applied for should have been a major site plan as there are changes in the use, provided that no additional parking is proposed. He states that this application should be resubmitted as a major site plan and a traffic study should be competed. Mr. Stehle states that they are not opposed to an in home business and respectfully requests that the salon be started in a commercial area.

Ms. Couch states that this is a one chair salon so there will not be much traffic. She states that this is within the character and is a residential community near other commercial interests on Rte. 4. She refers to another home based business within the development.

Mr. Jackman states that it doesn’t make sense for traffic on Rte 4 to impact the safety of the kids in the neighborhood. Ms. Couch states that the safety concern has been addressed with the bus stop and hours of operation. She adds that the children do not play at Rte 4. As far as the pollution they will not be polluting the environment as the salon products will be in harmony with the development. She adds that many will not know the salon is here. Ms. Couch states that they asked for a waiver with permits due to timing of the Board of Cosmetology. Ms. Couch states that this is a minor site plan and a traffic study is not necessary for a salon with one chair.

Charlene Edsdale of 68 Masten Dr. asks if the application is approved will there be a slow, children sign added. Mr. Strobel states that the hours of operation would be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ms. Esdale states that there is a morning and afternoon bus. Mr. Jackman states that there is another right of way and asks why there is a problem with just a few cars as it is no different with anyone visiting. Further discussion is held regarding a minimal proposal and the fact that there will just be a minimal number of clients.

Ms. Smith states that it has been stated here that there are illegal salons being operated in town. She states that there are no illegal salons being operated in Northwood because the town is not aware of that; if someone believes otherwise, then it needs to be addressed with the code enforcement department so it can be looked into. Ms. Couch states that there is one legal one chair salon operating in town.

Ms. Pingree states that she was a part of the Master Plan committee and feels strongly that this proposal is within the spirit of Master Plan. She states that she owns an antique shop which is across the street from a medical facility, within other businesses. She states that a one chair salon in a garage is very much in keeping within the character of the neighborhood. She states that she sees a one chair salon only bringing in one additional car to the residence and she feels that this is a simple small home based business. Ms. Parmele states that there could be environmental concerns. Discussion ensues regarding the purposes of the site plan regulations and the development ordinances. Ms. Parmele states the purpose is to protect the health and safety of the residents.

Julie Doiron states that she is in support of the site plan proposal and lives in the cul de sac at end of the street. She states that there are 23 kids on Davlynn Dr; 12 live in cul de sac, where the adjoining road comes down. She explains that at noon time the bus with the kindergarteners comes in and the parents are always there. She adds that DES will check on the water and chemicals. She states that this is not a walk in business; by appointment only and adds that she would love to see a “slow children at play” sign required. She hopes that the parking matter can be worked out.

Discussion is held regarding the number of parking spaces required. Mr. LeClerc states that the setbacks are met and he has no problem with the four parking spaces. Ms. Couch states that there will be crushed gravel. She agrees with the need for a sign for child safety. Discussion ensues regarding the need of the sign. Ms. Smith states that it is the town’s responsibility if the road justifies the need for a sign; however, there is no requirement if the need is not related to the business. She recommends the residents appear before the selectmen regarding some traffic safety sign.

Victoria Parmele makes a motion, second by Bob Holden, to approve the site plan application, with the following conditions:
1. All applicable local, state, and federal permits be obtained and that copy of board of cosmetology registration permit for salon be provided prior to opening for business;
2. Final Certificate of Occupancy to be granted after Board of Cosmetology Salon permit obtained;
3. Four parking spaces to be provided and shown on the site plan;
4. Hours of Operation 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and,
5. All conditions to be met within 18 months.
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Deborah Couch returns the board as a voting member.

CASE 09-07: Davlynn Development, LLC, Masten Drive at Rte. 4, Map 234. Applicants seek amendment to approved subdivision plan to remove sidewalk.

Charlie Zilch is here representing the applicants.

Ms. Planchet provides a brief overview. She states that this is an amendment for a subdivision approval from January 2006. She states that the approved plan included sidewalks along Rte. 4 and three years later the developer is approaching the board as NHDOT has not approved the sidewalk. Ms. Planchet states that she spoke to the district 6 engineer, Bob Talon, and they feel that the sidewalks cause drainage issues. She adds that she has spoken to an attorney at the Local Government Center who explained that maybe there is another way that sidewalks can be there and the drainage would be addressed.

Charlie Zilch explained history to date. He states that the developer is pretty much finished with the development; has been ready to put in sidewalks; however, is stuck between DOT and the planning board. Mr. Storey would still do the sidewalks; only needs some direction as to how to proceed. Mr. Zilch explains that NHDOT may entertain another option and he explains that there is a possibility instead of a raised sidewalk, something on the same level as the pavement, paint them, and mark them. These would have the same sheet flow.

Deborah Couch makes a motion to accept the application as complete. Second by Bob Holden. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Mr. Strobel reads the abutters list. Abutters present are Pam Raphael, Sarah Ramsey, Colleen Pingree, and 5-6 other members of the public. Mr. Strobel opens the public portion of this case.

Ms. Pingree states that she has lived across from the proposed sidewalk since 1990 and provides some history of the area. She states that a sidewalk was included with the Rt.152 plan. She states that the state has set a precedent and tone for neighborhoods and creating a walking neighborhood. She states that there is substantial walking traffic on Rte 4 with the 23 kids that live in Davlynn as well as in addition to kids who live on Rte 4. She states that when the developer came, folks from the neighborhood came and asked for sidewalks and the developer was willing to do that. Ms. Pingree states that the planning board should take a stand with the state and hold them accountable. She adds that the sidewalks need to be raised sidewalks as it is in safer and keeps in with the characteristics of a neighborhood. She states that it has been 2½ years and there are still no sidewalks.

Pam Masten Raphael owns the house that the sidewalks are to be in front of, right on the corner where Masten turns. She states that she is more concerned with a flat sidewalk due to runoff going into her driveway. She would prefer no sidewalks. She states that no one can do anything until they decide what they will do with the sidewalks. She notes that the bushes have been taken down and people use her driveway as a turnaround. She explains that she has lived in that house since the 1970’s and she likes it to look rural and would like to keep it that way. She notes that many people walk on the side of road, just more careful now. She expresses concern with drainage and requests that it be left as it is just to be cleaned up.

Sarah Ramsey, 77 First NH Turnpike, asks where the proposed sidewalk is to be placed. Mr. Zilch explains that the sidewalk only covers the frontage of the property. She asks if there would be any drainage ending up on her driveway. Mr. Zilch replies that there is no barrier so there is some sheet flow. He adds that the drainage will be intercepted before it enters the Ramsey’s property.

Discussion ensues and Mr. Strobel asks what NHDOT issues are specifically; if it is with plowing, drainage, flowage rights, maintenance of sidewalks, etc. Discussion ensues regarding addressing NHDOT in writing requesting information and ask for a representative to attend the next meeting. Mr. Strobel motions, second by Ms. Parmele, for staff to send NHDOT a letter regarding the sidewalk issues and request for attendance at the next meeting; CC the developer-SEC Associates. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Mr. Strobel amends the motion to include elected representatives, state reps, state senators, and the governor’s office. Ms. Parmele seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Additional discussion is held regarding the design that would be used and if it could make the culverts worse. Mr. Strobel states that this discussion could continue at the next meeting, pending response from NHDOT and if the sidewalks can be considered.

Mr. Zilch states that the developer would like to reduce the bond. Discussion ensues regarding the final coat of pavement needing to be placed on hold. Ms. Smith states that this is not a question for this board; it should be addressed by the selectmen.

Deborah Couch makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to continue the case to May 28. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

A discussion is held regarding the May work session. The board agrees to change the meeting date to May 7 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Parmele motions to adjourn at 12:25 a.m. Mr. Strobel seconds. The motion passes; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page