Planning Board

Minutes

May 7, 2009

Official as of May 28, 2009

Chairman Pete Jones calls the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Pete Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, Victoria Parmele and Alternate Pat Bell and Town Planner Elaine Planchet.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Pete Jones, Bob Strobel, Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, Victoria Parmele and Pat Bell. 

ABSENT: Herb Johnson, Roger LeClerc and Alternate Scott Campbell.

MINUTES:
March 26, 2009:
Bob Holden makes a motion, second by Pat Bell, to accept the March 26 minutes, as amended as follows:
Page 3: Spelling Error - Jackman
Motion passes; 5/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains.

January 14, 2009:
Ms. Parmele has provided some proposed revisions and suggestions of the January 14 minutes for the board to review and discuss. Lengthy discussion is held regarding corrections for the January 14 meeting minutes and if the original set of minutes are accurate. Bob Holden makes a motion to accept the January 14 minutes, as written. Pat Bell seconds. Discussion is held regarding staff reviewing the tapes relative to the sections bolded by Ms. Parmele in her revised draft.  Motion is withdrawn. Deborah Couch motions to have staff review the sections of the tapes relative to comments noted in Ms. Parmele’s amendment. Bob Holden seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

OTHER BUSINESS:
CASE 08-07: Gail A. and Russell L. Martell, 298 First NH Turnpike. Map 231/Lot 41. Applicant seeks a site plan review for proposed family group day care.

Ms. Planchet states that the day care was conditionally approved on August 11, 2008 with the state license remaining as an outstanding condition. Ms. Martell has now received the license effective March 25 and a copy has been placed in the folder. Mr. Jones signs the plan.

Reformat Update for Northwood Development Ordinance
Ms. Planchet explains that the reformatting of the development ordinance is completed, which was approved by the voters in March 2007. She states that she has reviewed the document with town counsel and has made some revisions.  In addition, town counsel provided additional recommendations for the ordinances, which are not covered under the reformatting/editing category. These changes would require that the ordinances go before the voters. Discussion ensues regarding the recommended changes in the reformat. The board agrees to retain the Large Scale Business Setbacks table. Ms. Planchet will e-mail the proposed reformat/edit draft to board members for their review.  

Code Enforcement Correspondence
Lance Benson
Ms. Planchet explains the role of a code enforcement officer. She states that she sent a memo to the code enforcement officer regarding retail sales of bark mulch on the Lance Benson property on Rte. 4. Ms. Planchet refers to correspondence received from the code enforcement officer stating that he sent a letter to Mr. Benson stating that the sales activity is not an approved use for the site. Ms. Planchet states that Mr. Benson has replied to the town stating that the letter was sent in error. Ms. Planchet summarizes the letter which seems to suggest that the old business site had approval for retail sales; however, this new site does not. She adds that perhaps Mr. Benson is not aware that the site plan approval is for the land not the business.

After review of the letter, Mr. Jones asks for clarification as to what is approved on the new site. Mr. Bell states that the issue is if the area is being used for storage or retail and now a sign has been added. Mr. Bell states that it may be necessary for an amendment for the site plan to be filed. Mr. Jones suggests  that this is still a code enforcement issue as to what is going on at the site. Ms. Planchet offers to speak to code enforcement again relative to the activities at the site and what is approved for this site.

Millstone Realty Trust
Ms. Planchet states that after review of the file, the board voted at the April work session to request an “As Built” plan for Millstone Realty Trust/Docko. She explains that since the issue involved an approved site plan, it would fall under code enforcement. The code enforcement officer was requested to inspect the site. Mr. Hickey indicated to Ms. Planchet that the disturbance did not exceed the two acres per the 07-09 case. He provided a letter to Mr. Docko with recommendations to meet compliance for other aspects of the site plan such as location of aggregate piles. Discussion is held regarding the applicant operating within the original two acre site plan approval and additional discussion is held regarding the approved aggregate piles and locations. Ms. Planchet states that these aggregate piles are closer to Rte. 4 than what was noted in the approved site plan and the applicant has been requested to move the piles by code enforcement. Pete Jones makes a motion to rescind the board’s request for an “As Built” plan from Dave Docko, Millstone Realty Trust. Bob Holden seconds. Motion passes 5/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains, as she requests additional clarification. Ms. Planchet will send a letter to the applicant and the agent informing them that the request has been rescinded.

Further discussion is held regarding the aggregate piles. Mr. Jones states that he feels at some point these aggregate piles need to be established at a specific location on the site because of the retail component. He adds that he feels that the site is under development and everything on the site is temporary. Discussion ensues and Ms. Planchet states that the issue should be addressed through code enforcement.

Ms. Planchet states that she has been asked by a member about the appropriateness of members voting on a case, such as this, in which they were not members when the case began. She states that members who were not at all meetings would be able to vote on the case; however, they have the responsibility of becoming familiar with the case which includes meeting minutes and the documents in the official file. She indicates that members may come into the town hall to review the file and get copies of any information needed.   

Consideration of Priorities for board to address
A. Transportation Issues
Ms. Planchet states that Mr. Talon from NHDOT will not be able to attend the planning board meeting to discuss the Masten/sidewalk issue; however, Linda Smith has received a call from someone planning to attend.

Additional discussion is held regarding the current Memorandum of Understanding that the town has with the state. Mr. Jones states that the town needs to take advantage of this and have the town’s voice heard. Mr. Strobel states that NHDES and DOT have stimulus package programs.

Ms. Parmele asks if there is any interest of the board in doing a corridor plan. Mr. Jones suggests prioritizing the items first before discussions ensue and the board needs to set deadlines and direct their efforts.

B. Water Resources
Mr. Jones states that this proposal extended the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act and was a great effort of a subcommittee. Unfortunately, it did not go forward and he adds that this should be kept on the radar.

C. GIS
Mr. Jones states that maybe the board or staff could take advantage of this technology. Ms. Parmele states that there was a great presentation held at town hall. Mr. Strobel states that he is trained in this and could train staff or others in this. 

D. Minor Site Plan Application process; “third tier” 
Mr. Jones states that the current site plans are a major or minor and he feels that over the past few years there have been some small scale businesses proposed and the current process seems to him to be challenging. He adds that there is a directive in the Master Plan encouraging small and local business. He suggests using the down time to come up with an alternative third site plan application to serve the town better. Ms. Planchet states that she, the building inspector, and the board administrator had been directed to work on creating a proposal for this third tier previously. 

E. Blasting Ordinance/Application
Mr. Jones states that Northwood does not have anything related to blasting and he placed this on the agenda to see what the board thinks about this. He asks what the state requirements are and Ms. Parmele asks where this would be placed. Ms. Planchet states that this could be incorporated into the ordinance as would excavation. Mr. Holden stated that he has done some research and that the people whom the board works for feel that this would be overregulation.

OTHER
General discussion ensues with the board members prioritizing. Mr. Jones states that he feels that the two items that are most important are the minor site plan and GIS. Mr. Strobel asks if an assessment can be done from experts or from interested parties on what outcome and timeframe for implementation that we are looking at. He adds that the transportation item is a big item for him. The GIS and the third tier site plan are achievable items for the board to address this term. Mr. Jones states that the blasting, transportation, and water are items that the board will need to be engaged in all of the time.

Mr. Jones suggests that there is a matter of research regarding blasting with notifying abutters relative to their wells. He states that if the state does that then why should the planning board duplicate the process. As far as excavation, right now it is simply a piece of paper that states the town and state regulations. Mr. Holden states that the excavation permit notes vibration, noise, and air contaminants, and states that with blasting the issues still need to be addressed. Ms. Couch states that you may not meet the state’s definition of excavating yet you could still be blasting.  

Mr. Jones suggests that he create a proposed third tier site plan, which could be just a two sheet application where 7 questions could be asked and a drawing be required showing the proposal. He states that the board needs to determine what those 7 items are that the board would want to know that cannot be compromised on. He suggests parking, turning radius, site distance, sign, exterior lighting, etc. He would like it to be presented in an easy to understand way. He asks if this is possible and Ms. Planchet asks the board to determine what the application would be used for. Mr. Jones asks for staff to determine the need and how to meet the need. Ms. Planchet suggests that an expansion may be applicable for a third tier plan.

Ms. Parmele asks how close GIS is to being possible for applications in Northwood. Mr. Strobel states that UNH does have a GIS class at no cost and data is available at no cost as well. Additional discussion is held regarding the town’s tax maps being accessible on the website and aerial photos. Mr. Jones feels that this is feasible.

Additional discussion is held regarding Water Resources. Ms. Parmele provides an overview of the subcommittee. Mr. Jones states that what he would like is to better understand threats to Northwood and the steps that could be taken to improve the situation, if applicable. Mr. Jones states that the public needs to be involved and educated. He adds that it is unrealistic to expect this to change in one year. Ms. Parmele states that the goal was for a water resources plan for the entire town. She refers to state statutes which outline what should be included and the subcommittee was working in that direction; however, changed the focus to be on items that could be completed. She states that the planning board should be involved with education on water resources issues. Mr. Jones states that it is important to keep the issue alive. Discussion ensues.

Ms. Parmele notes that there may be some grant opportunities for the board relative to transportation. Ms. Couch states that she has experience in writing grants and offers to assist. Ms. Parmele states that a transportation subcommittee could be created.

Mr. Jones asks if any of the members would like to take on an item. Mr.  Bell offers to address blasting. Mr. Jones offers to address the minor site plan third tier application and GIS. Mr. Strobel will address the site plan application and GIS. Ms. Couch volunteers to address the site plan regulations as she has done regulations before. She offers to provide previous examples. She adds that as far as transportation she will work on grants. She adds that she has dealt with corridors and rails to trails issues as well. 

Ms. Planchet states that she will find out the guidelines regarding two members of the planning board working together on projects. She states that no decisions can be made. Mr. Jones requests that updates and interactions occur to keep board members in the loop. Ms. Planchet states that updates must be given at a meeting and not via emails. She states that emails can be sent to her and she can generate it to the board. She further explains RSA 91-A. Ms. Parmele states that it is important to follow the Right to Know Law and it is also important that there be collaboration and the board should not get hung up on the process so that the board becomes ineffective. Ms. Parmele states that a subcommittee cannot make any decisions only recommendations that are then brought back to the planning board.

Adjournment
Ms. Couch motions to adjourn. Mr. Bell seconds and the motion passes unanimously at 9:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary