The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 05/28/09

PRESENT: Chairman Pete Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, Victoria Parmele, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Pete Jones, Bob Strobel, Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, Victoria Parmele, Roger LeClerc, and Herb Johnson.

ABSENT: Alternates Scott Campbell and Pat Bell.

Public Hearing on Draft Excavation Permit Application and Fee
Mr. Jones opens the public hearing for comment. Ryan Lamey, a septic system design installer, expresses concerns with the proposal, more specifically with the size of lots referenced. Mr. Jones explains that there is nothing in the proposed permit that does not already apply; it is simply a form to be used to gather pertinent information from the Northwood Development Ordinance Section 2.01(D)(1) and is already in the town’s ordinances. Mr. Lamey asks if he clears a residential lot larger than 5 acres, will this permit need to be applied for and will there be a tax to pay.

Ms. Planchet explains that she researched RSA 155-E and realized that the planning board is the regulator for the statute and no permit process was in effect. Discussion ensues. Mr. Jones states that if excavating equipment is being used to create a septic system it would not apply to RSA 155-E. Mr. Jones states that this will not restrict development. He adds that it is the jurisdiction of the planning board to have this form.

Rick Wolf asks why the fee is only $50 and why it would not be based on the amount of material. Mr. Jones explains that the RSA states that the amount can not be higher than $50. He adds that the intent is to cover the form processing costs.

With no additional comment, Mr. Jones closes the public hearing and no additional discussion is held among the board members. Bob Strobel makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to accept the application as drafted. VOTE: 6/1. Mr. LeClerc is opposed.

Preliminary Consultation
John Ovadek, 1064 First NH Turnpike, Map 217; Lot 45. Mr. Ovadek is present to meet with the board regarding proposing a discount store. Ms. Planchet states that there was an approved site plan in the 1980’s for the area for used cars and service. Later, by the submission of a letter, the site was approved for light manufacturing. She adds that there was also a display area on site.

Mr. Ovadek states that he currently has two trucks and uses the site for distribution and storage. He adds that he would not be doing anything to the property as the building exists.

Mr. Jones notes that there is a two bedroom apartment noted on the plan. Mr. Ovadek states that there is a mobile home on the lot. Discussion ensues regarding the need for a site plan application.

Mr. Ovadek mentions that the town also owns a portion of land between his property and the police department. He adds that there were previous discussions regarding an easement with the town. Ms. Smith states that Tom Demerit had spoken to her regarding an exchange of land which appears to be the frontage of the lot. She adds that Mr. Demerit met with the conservation commission and the selectmen; however, nothing was completed.

Ms. Planchet states that with the retail proposal there may be a traffic impact. She asks if the board would request a site plan application for change of use or if the retail aspect would be included under the approved site plan. Ms. Smith suggests that Mr. Ovadek submit something specific in writing and the planner could further review the current approved site plan.

A proposed third tier site plan application is also mentioned as an option; however, there is no time frame with that proposal for smaller businesses or a minor change in use.

Mr. Holden notes specific traffic counts from previous submissions in the file. Ms. Smith advises the board that the board cannot discuss specifics in a preliminary consultation.

MINUTES
The minutes are postponed until later in the meeting.

OLD CASES:
CASE 09-07: Davlynn Development, LLC, Masten Drive at Rte. 4, Map 234. Applicants seek amendment to approved subdivision plan to remove sidewalk. Application accepted as complete on 4/23/09; 65-day 6/27/09.

Terry Trudell from SEC & Associates, the engineering company for the developer, is present. Mr. Trudell refers to letters generated from the planning board and NHDOT. He explains that he was involved with this project when it began in 2004 through 2006.

Mr. Trudell states that the sidewalk issue has been addressed since the beginning proposal and there was an understanding with SEC that the sidewalk is what the town wanted. Mr. Jones refers to the originally approved site plan and asks if there are sidewalks. Ms. Planchet replies that the originally approved subdivision plan for Masten Estates included sidewalks along Rte. 4. She adds that the issue now is that NHDOT has stated no sidewalks are to be placed on Rte. 4. Therefore, the developer is here to present an amendment requesting to remove the sidewalks from the subdivision plan.

Mr. Jones asks when NHDOT noted that the sidewalks need to be removed. Mr. Trudell refers to the plan and explains that the plans do not state if the sidewalks will be raised and get granite curbing or not. He states that it is his understanding that NHDOT will allow an extended width of paving without a raised curb due to drainage issues.

Further discussion ensues regarding the design. Mr. Trudell states that the design is partially constructed. The catch basin was installed and has since been removed. He adds that at this time, they would just like to get the project completed. Ms. Parmele states that the May 11 letter NHDOT states that they would allow the curbed sidewalk as long as drainage is addressed.

Mr. Jones asks how many people in the audience are from the neighborhood and 4 are present. He then asks if they are in favor of the sidewalks or not. All four are in favor. Ms. Pingree states that the sidewalks were one of the contingencies in allowing the development to go in. She states that sidewalks were a part of the compromise and are very important in the area due to the amount of pedestrian traffic in that part of town. She adds that it is important to hold the state to the agreement.

Discussion ensues regarding the drainage. Mr. Jones asks if there is a way to design the sidewalks so that drainage would not be a problem. Mr. Trudell replies that the DOT letter states they did not receive drainage calculations. Mr. Trudell states that they were provided the information. Ms. Couch states that the sidewalks were put in and were required to be removed. She states that the board is concerned to get the neighborhood back to a condition that is acceptable. Mr. Holden states that the developer has stated that they would put the sidewalks in and would design a closed drainage system. He asks if the board can provide a closed flowage system. Mr. Strobel refers to the subdivision regulations, Section 3.05, and states that sidewalks shall be 5’ wide, 6” high and protected by curbing. He adds that it does not state granite; however, it does require curbing, which apparently is in violation to NHDOT. Ms. Smith states that this regulation is for new subdivisions.

Ms. Couch asks if the town can provide a flowage easement. Mr. Trudell states that the closed drainage system has been designed. Ms. Smith states that a flowage easement could be provided; however, she asks about the natural watercourse. Mr. Trudell states that drainage calculations are completed. He states that the design was to a natural watercourse. He explains that it drains to the detention pond, which would resolve the flowage to a natural area.

Ms. Planchet explains that she spoke with an NHDOT representative who indicated he is not present at the meeting due to the state’s budget constraints. She explains that a representative would be able to come to town hall between regular working hours.

Mr. Trudell requests the board continue the case for one more month so they may take another look at the flowage issue.

Rick Wolf states that the board waived sidewalks for the abutting property at the doctor’s office. He feels that the board needs to be consistent. Ms. Parmele states that she believes it was waived due to cost factors, the board was trying to be flexible, and she adds that she feels it was a mistake. Ms. Smith states that one is a site plan regulation and one is a subdivision regulation. She adds that the town has proceeded with caution on requiring sidewalks for site plans.

Mr. Trudell states that they are willing to do the sidewalks. Mr. Jones adds that the neighborhood would like sidewalks; if the town and developer can work through this issue with NHDOT.

Ms. Smith asks whether the drainage was completed or only part done on the approved plan that notes the sidewalks. She also asks about the watercourse connection. She asks if the drainage was submitted to the planning board on the original plan. Mr. Trudell states that he was surprised to see stated in the May 11 letter noting that the drainage study needs to be done because it was completed and provided to DOT. He states that they will need to go back and review the area as to where the flowage easements are necessary.

Ms. Pingree refers to the subdivision’s previous owners approving of the sidewalk. Ms. Couch mentions previous minutes with reference to a current owner who does not want the sidewalks in place. Mr. Jones asks the neighbors if they would be receptive to continuing to next month to allow additional time to address the sidewalk and drainage issues. No one has any issues.

Senator Barnes states that he has received two letters from the town and refers to a copy of a letter to Bob Talon of District 6 requesting his attendance or a designee at this meeting or to provide the rationale in writing. It was determined that Mr. Talon did provide a response. He asks what the board would like the state representatives to do for the board. Also in attendance are State Representatives Maureen Mann and Susie Nord. Rep. Mann suggests that the drainage material be forwarded to NHDOT as it appears it was misplaced. Senator Barnes states that he would coordinate a meeting with the commission and NHDOT and try to finalize the issues so they can be resolved if the board wishes.

Discussion continues regarding the plan. Rep. Mann asks when the original sale took place was the sale contingent on the plan which included sidewalks. Ms. Smith replies no and adds that it was not contingent on a plan that was not decided yet. She adds that not with the flowage easements and Mr. Trudell agrees. Ms. Couch states that the sidewalks were an addition after the fact. Discussion is held relative to the sidewalks and the original subdivision plan.

Ms. Smith suggests that the secretary review the tapes relative to the discussion on the sidewalk to see exactly what the discussion was.

Ms. Couch asks about who would be responsible for obtaining the easements. Mr. Jones states that it would be the developer at this time.

Mr. Strobel mentions that Mr. Talon of NHDOT informed the planner that he could not attend the meeting due to the budget. Senator Barnes requested that this information be provided to him in writing. He adds that he would have made sure that someone would have been here if it would have been conveyed to him and he will do whatever it takes to assist the board.

Mr. Jones thanked the state representatives for coming and continues the hearing to June 25 with the easement information to be provided by the June 11 work session.

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.
Amendment to be addressed: Applicant amends site plan application on 4/1/09 to add excavation use to existing application request site plan review for retail sales of materials (mulch, stone, etc.) on site. (ZBA granted variance to standards in Article 2.01 (C)(1)(a) and (b) with conditions on 5/18/09.)
Peter Holden of Holden Engineering is present along with the applicant Dave Docko.

Ms. Planchet provides an overview of the project. She states that an application was filed in October of 2008. At the March meeting, the board determined that excavation activities were ongoing at the site and requested the applicant provide an amendment to the application identifying the excavation use proposed. Ms. Planchet states that the zoning board has granted a variance with conditions, for the noise and vibration levels.

Mr. Peter Holden explains the overall site plan areas. He states that they will reclaim edges of the excavation areas and refers to the plan. Mr. Peter Holden states that he believes all comments from Underwood Engineering have been addressed and the only other outstanding issue would be the driveway permit and the widened shoulder across the street. They are installing a guardrail and propose to regrade an area near the abutter across the street. A plan has been suggested and the front yard will be filled in and the garage will be leveled to a flat area. He states that they believe DOT will then provide the driveway permit.

Mr. Jones states that it appears that there is to be reclamation. Mr. Peter Holden replies that it is a part of the site plan; however, there is no additional reclamation as everything is being reused. Mr. Jones states that excavation portion is only temporary.

Mr. Jones reads the notice of decision received from the zoning board. Mr. LeClerc states that the board must make sure that there is accountability and that the criteria are followed. Mr. Jones states that the ZBA has required that notification will be provided to the code enforcement officer. Ms. Smith states that the noise and vibration can be exceeded per the variance.

Discussion is held among members regarding the site plan and if this is a reclamation plan. The site will be functioning once the blasting and excavation is completed. Mr. Jones states that he believes the completed project is a materials yard and reclamation will not be necessary. Ms. Parmele states that the purpose of the area may change in the future.

Discussion ensues regarding the site and where reclaimation will occur. Ms. Planchet asks where that is noted on the plans and Mr. Peter Holden refers to a note on the plan explaining what will occur on all disturbed areas; they will be loamed and seeded.

Herb Johnson makes a motion, second by Deborah Couch, to accept the application amendment as complete. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.
Discussion ensues regarding the total disturbed area. Mr. Docko states that when the project is completed, there will be 15 acres of undisturbed land.

Ms. Planchet asks if there will be any excavation within 150’ of a dwelling. The plan is reviewed to determine this and Mr. Peter Holden states that the plan is shown according to scale. Mr. Docko states that the closest building is a garage and is not a dwelling so no. The plan is further reviewed and Mr. Peter Holden states that Mr. Docko will not excavate closer than 50’ to the surrounding properties. He added that they could amend the plan to reflect where the excavation will be done. Mr. Docko states that no excavation will occur within 150’ of a dwelling.

Ms. Planchet reads from the regulations regarding landscaping and drainage along with temporary slopes being a 1 to 1 ratio. Discussion is held regarding the RSA 155-E:5 and an expiration date for the excavation permit. The board refers to the ZBA notice of decision and notes that the blasting must be done by the end of 2015, which could be used as the expiration date. Mr. Strobel states that he would prefer to not have the permit be able to transfer to a new owner. Ms. Couch states that this is why the board would have the bond in place. Mr. LeClerc asks what the normal time frame is for permits and how fees should be applied and charged. Ms. Planchet states that the fee is $50; however, there was no fee applied to Mr. Docko’s application because the fee had not been approved when he filed. Ms. Couch suggests that a condition be noted that the applicant provide code enforcement when crushing, blasting, etc. will begin and end and must be in writing. Mr. Strobel requests that advance notice be provided to the code enforcement officer and Mr. Docko states that he could provide a week’s notice to the code enforcement officer.

Discussion is held regarding a bond. Ms. Couch states that she would feel comfortable requesting a bond; however it is very hard to get a bond at this time. Ms. Smith states that the town has accepted letters of credit. She adds that the applicant has previously had an escrow account for a project on a different scale. She further explains the process of escrows for the reclamation costs. Further discussion is held regarding the phasing plan. Mr. Peter Holden suggests that the reclamation be applied to a phase and the bond be then applied to the next phase. Mr. Peter Holden offers to provide a proposal for security purposes.

Mr. Johnson left at 9:45 p.m.

Ms. Parmele states that there is a lot of material towards the front of the site. She expresses concern with some type of screening that could be used near the road. Mr. Docko states that there is no other area on site as the equipment takes up the yard room. Piles will keep changing over time; however, as the yard proceeds to move back, the piles can be moved back as well. Mr. Peter Holden states that the area needs to be leveled before the piles can be moved. Mr. Docko states that he could add trees possibly as soon as this fall. Tree size is discussed and would not be full size pine trees.

Ms. Planchet states that the items that are still outstanding are to make adjustments to the plan for the 150 ft away from a dwelling, and there are issues to be resolved with an abutter. Applicant will provide additional information and details for the June 11 meeting and at that time the board could consider approval with conditions. She notes that the abutters list needs to be updated. She adds that the pedestrian warning signs note an age requirement. The board did recall this discussion and the consensus was to limit it to age. Mr. Peter Holden notes that the pedestrian plan is a part of the circulation plan. Ms. Planchet states that there are some notes on the plan referencing proposals. She refers to sheet 4 regarding the shed and states that it is proposed to be moveable and yet the note states it is to be within an area. Mr. Peter Holden indicates it should be shown within the oval area; he will adjust the lines and legend to make this clearer.

Ms. Planchet references the Dig Safe notes for construction and asks what the construction is intended to include. Mr. Peter Holden states that this is relative to the driveway. She asks what is being paved and Mr. Peter Holden states it is the apron at the entrance. Ms. Planchet asks about underground utilities referenced in item number 8. Mr. Peter Holden replies that they are not planning on having any underground utilities on the site and will amend the plan.

Mr. Docko submits a written request to continue the meeting. Pete Jones makes a motion to accept the continuance request to June 11, 2009. Roger LeClerc seconds. Bob Holden states that many items and questions were raised this evening and addressed. He expresses concern with the fact that the board will come up with additional questions at the June 11 meeting. Motion carries; 6/0. Mr. Jones states that the hearing is continued to June 11.

CASE 09-03: Bruce Marshall, 1029 First NH Turnpike, Map 217; Lot 23 & 24. Applicant seeks site plan review for automotive mechanic shop. Application accepted as complete on 4/23/09; 65-day 6/27/09.

Ms. Planchet explains that Mr. Marshall was not able to attend the meeting and the representative was in attendance at 7; however, could only stay until 8
p.m. this evening. Information has been left off for the board to review.

The board postpones continuation of this discussion as Ms. Smith has left the room.

MINUTES:
April 23, 2009
General capitalization and punctuation corrections are made.
Page 3: Delete: …were not the intent. Restate: The excavation would proceed as the materials were used.
Page 11: Change: …amount…to…number…
Page 11: Delete the following sentence: Ms. Parmele states that she is not comfortable with the amount of spaces as there is over crowding.

The board discusses confusion when more than one person at a meeting has the same last name and requests that first and last names be used from this point on. In addition, the board agreed to having documents when referenced at a meeting be attached to the back of the minutes.

All other amendments were tabled until the next meeting.

May 7, 2009
Page 3: Change: …meetings…to…programs.
Page 4: Delete the following sentence: Ms. Parmele asked who he meant. Mr. Holden replied it was the taxpayers.
Page 4: Change: …income…to…outcome...
Page 5: Delete: …the…and …as far as regulatory there is a role in that too. Replace: … on water resources issues.
Page 6: Add: …and…
Page 6: Delete: Mr. Holden encourages the chair to be efficient with wrapping up meetings.
Bob Strobel makes a motion to approve the May 7 minutes as amended. Victoria Parmele seconds. Motion passes; 5/0. Bob Holden was out of the room for the vote.

Information provided from Mr. Marshall’s representative is reviewed. Ms. Smith states that due to the fact that an abutter has raised a question regarding the town’s records not matching; she asked the town’s assessor to review the file and he indicated that he could not tell. He also stated that he was not sure if the right of way was conveyed. Discussion ensues regarding the material and ownership of the lots. Ms. Smith states that the board could request town counsel to review the material and make a determination if the area is one lot or two lots. Ms. Smith states that the applicant would incur the costs of the review. Ms. Couch requests that the applicant provide something in writing from his attorney stating that the ownership is for one or two lots.

Discussion ensues regarding the need for backup regarding ownership and the deed research provided. Ms. Smith notes that the only issues would be setbacks if it is two lots or one. She adds that there is no value on the cul de sac lot and essentially it is a road. Pete Jones motions to have staff notify the applicant that he must provide a written decision as to whether they believe they own one lot or two. If one, then the assessor should be notified and all necessary corrections made. Bob Holden seconds.

Ms. Couch states that the deed research appears to have been done. Ms. Couch amends the motion to request that the applicant provide a legal opinion to be done using the deed research that has been provided. Mr. Strobel seconds. Mr. Strobel states that if the two lots exist then a waiver will need to be done as the application refers to each lot. Vote on amendment passes unanimously; 6/0.
Vote on motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Ms. Couch makes a motion to forward the information once it is received onto town counsel. Ms. Smith explains the process of escrow accounts and states that the applicant will need to provide funds for the escrow account to pay for counsel fees. No second is provided. Ms. Couch offers an amendment to require an escrow account be established by Mr. Marshall. Mr. Holden seconds. Discussion ensues regarding the process of town counsel reviewing materials and if it is necessary for town counsel to review another attorney’s opinion on the lots. Ms. Smith states that if the applicant has an attorney that provides something in writing determining the number of lots, the board can proceed on the attorney’s presumption. She adds that this is protection.

Ms. Planchet states that the discrepancy has been noted. She notes that in a previous case for Mr. Gleason, where the deeds and the tax map information differed, the deeds carried. She adds that if an abutter disagrees it is then the abutter’s responsibility to prove otherwise. Ms. Smith states that this does show that the planning board has done due diligence in obtaining information from someone sanctioned by the state of NH. Ms. Smith states that the reason the board is doing this is to make sure the board knows if everything has to be subject to setbacks and whether there are two lots or one. Civil issues relative to the right of way and abutters issues are something that they will need to work out. She adds that another issue raised was because of the regulations that state that all easements on the lots must be shown, which is what they have been working on to delineate. It is more of a clarification of what the board is dealing with and the board can have an attorney review and provide an opinion.

Ms. Smith states that the information that was sent was from a realtor, showing only the acreage of one lot and that when the deed was conveyed it became two lots. She states that if there is a problem with the conveyance of the deed with the previous owners, this is a civil matter and out of the board’s purview. Mr. Holden states that based on the comments from the board administrator, he urges the members to vote no. Amendment to the motion fails; 0/6.

Pete Jones makes a motion to continue the case to June 11. Bob Holden seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Consideration of Alternate Member
Ms. Smith states that three responses have been received with copies provided in the member’s packets. After discussion, the board agrees to have staff decide whether to invite interested parties to either the June 11 or 25 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
Deborah Couch makes a motion to adjourn. Second by Victoria Parmele. Motion passes; 6/0 at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page