The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 06/11/09

PRESENT: Chairman Pete Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Victoria Parmele arrives 7:15.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Pete Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, and Herb Johnson. Victoria Parmele at 7:15.

ABSENT: Deborah Couch, Alternates Scott Campbell and Pat Bell.

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. No abutters are present. New plans are presented, which have amended abutters for two lots where Dave Docko has purchased.

Discussions ensue and Peter Holden addresses the outstanding items as follows:
DOT Driveway Permit: Peter Holden states that they have met with the neighbor, Mr. Currier, and are in the process of creating an agreement. The proposal was shown to Bob Talon of NHDOT who stated that once there is an application signed by Mr. Currier the permit will be signed. Mr. Jones states that this item could be a possible condition of approval.

Costs of Reclamation: Ms. Planchet states that the board had asked for reclamation costs. She states that the board also talked about a bond or a surety and that it would be tied to the phasing plans. Peter Holden explains that surety will be provided and they are proposing to provide reclamation surety in the form of a bond, letter of credit, or cash and shall be applied by each phase. He explains that the project will be completed in three phases. He states that the surety will be in place for phase I reclamation. Prior to proceeding from phase I to phase II or from phase II to phase III a site inspection will be performed by the Town of Northwood Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) to determine if 50% of the prior phase has been adequately reclaimed and stabilized as depicted in the design plans. Mr. Peter Holden continues to states that if 50% of the phase has been adequately reclaimed, work can proceed in the next phase and the bond amount will remain constant until all 3 phases are complete and reclaimed. Final release of the bond will occur upon completion of the project and final inspection by the town CEO.

Ms. Smith states that this should not be code enforcement officer responsibilities. She explains that currently the town has staff to do this; however, in the future it may be different or there may not be anyone in house that has the expertise. She states that it should not be the town’s employees doing the work, it should be the town’s engineer and the cost incurred by the developer with the applicant incurring the costs. Ms. Smith states because of the time frame involved and the project extending over a lengthy period of time these are estimates and may change over time as the value of doing work would change. Ms. Smith states that typically a minimum of 10% contingency above any estimate be provided. She states that if the board approves this in concept, she suggests that it be sent to Underwood for review and comment so that they may confirm costs involved. Mr. Jones suggests language be added for market values. Mr. Peter Holden states that as each phase is completed, language could be added noting the NHDOT values the quantities and then costs are recalculated. Mr. Jones asks at what point in time the bond would be released. Mr. Peter Holden states that at the end of the last phase it is released after the final inspection. Ms. Smith states that this may be okay as the reclamation costs decrease as the project progresses so it may not be necessary to provide for increasing costs.

Mr. Peter Holden states that the final inspection will not be difficult. Ms. Smith states that the town will not incur the costs of inspections; it is the applicant. Ms. Planchet states that if the person can do an inspection and if not qualified is there the option to seek the town’s engineer. Ms. Parmele states that this is a land issue and that an engineer would be better to check. Discussion ensues regarding the town’s interest to make sure that the inspection is done efficiently and by qualified staff.

Mr. Strobel states that if the board approves the plan and has the drawings for site work; it is a matter of reading the drawings, determining what the slopes are as planned and as built. He adds that if the code enforcement officer is not qualified to read the plan the only thing that will help is to proceed with the plan and include if there will be a constant slope. Mr. Docko states that the plan is to stabilize erosion and unsettled areas in the event the land is reverted back to the town. Mr. Jones asks what the answer is if the code enforcement officer is not comfortable with the site or inspection and Ms. Smith explains that the CEO would defer to a professional; however, costs would not be incurred by the applicant unless something is stated now. Mr. Peter Holden refers to the revised site specific permit and adds that there are ways for assistance to be provided should staff not feel qualified. Mr. Strobel states that if this is an issue with costs could the funds come from the surety. Mr. Docko states that a checklist was provided from the state regarding erosion control and slope issues. He made the changes and was approved so this would cover the wetlands.

Ms. Parmele asks if the reclamation portions are following the state’s excavation regulations regarding drainage. Mr. Docko replies that drainage is already in place in the beginning of the project. Ms. Parmele asks if this would need to be checked at the end and Mr. Docko replies no.

Mr. Peter Holden states that he will add language for the developer to cover the expenses, if necessary, for other or additional expenses. Ms. Smith suggests that there be no language in the planning board’s approval and adds that to negotiate with the applicant would not be accurate as the property could be sold and make it difficult for the bond to carry over to a new owner. Mr. Peter Holden states that he would like some type of notice if someone will be doing the inspection other than the CEO so that they do not have a large engineering bill that they were not expecting. Discussion ensues regarding the language. Ms. Planchet offers language as follows: These inspections to take place by the CEO or an agent authorized by the CEO at the expense of the developer upon notice and review with the developer.

Grading: Mr. Peter Holden states that the grading has been adjusted on the new plan and it is not within 150 feet from house/dwelling. He adds that the area has been bulged out and a face of excavation has been moved 50 ft from property line.

Lot Area: Mr. Peter Holden states that the lot area is 26.15 acres.

Abutters: All abutters have been updated and changed on the plans, which have been provided this evening.

Note of Proposed Shed and Boundary: Mr. Peter Holden states that the shed will remain within the area more clearly defined on the plan.

Ms. Planchet states that at the last meeting the large piles were discussed. Mr. Johnson states that a 20’ buffer was going to be added and he feels that that is sufficient. Mr. Bob Holden states that the piles are the company’s materials from the site. Mr. Peter Holden states that as the development continues the piles will be moved towards the back and smaller piles will be out front. Ms. Parmele asks how long this process will take. Mr. Docko states that there is more work to be done out front and will be a couple of years.

Discussion is held regarding the conditions for the site plan approval.

1. All local, state, federal permits be obtained;
2. DOT driveway permit be obtained;
3. Reclamation plan as proposed in 6/11/09 Reclamation Cost by Phase with three phases to be followed;
4. Bond, letter of credit or cash for $10,665.25 (amount provided on Reclamation Surety Plan in Phase 1) plus 10% contingency; bond amount to remain constant until all three phases are complete and reclaimed;
5. Reclamation Phase Surety Inspections to be done by code enforcement officer or an agent authorized by the code enforcement officer at the developer’s expense upon notice and review with the developer;
6. Written notification to code enforcement officer and abutters not less than 48 hours prior to blasting;
7. Completion of project by December 31, 2015;
8. Hours of Operation to be 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Mon-Fri and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday; and

Herb Johnson makes a motion, second Pete Jones, to approve the site plan application with the above discussed conditions. Ms. Parmele states that she still has concerns with the traffic flow in this area. She would like to vote in favor of the project; however, she suggests a condition to relook at the traffic situation if there are issues and take another look at it. Ms. Smith states that this can not be done at this time as the board should be specific now and can’t re-open the case later. Ms. Planchet suggests a condition based on height of materials for safety purposes. After discussion, Herb Johnson makes a motion to add this condition as an amendment:
9. Landscaping along Rte 4 to be completed prior to beginning Phase II.
Bob Holden seconds.

Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Bob Holden leaves at 8:31 p.m.

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. Continued from 5/28/09.

Ms. Planchet states that the applicant had been requested to provide an attorney’s opinion on lot ownership using deed research provided earlier. She states that she has not received anything to date.

The applicant and agent are not present.

Abutters Joyce and John Elliot are present. Ms. Elliot asks about if the minutes were ever found. Ms. Smith explains that past minutes are on a micro fiche and in a storage unit, and the town does not own a reader. She explains that there has not been a formal request for information and adds that a request form would need to be filled out before staff could begin doing any research. Ms. Elliot states that it is her understanding that the cul de sac was a requirement of the planning board back in 1984 as a contingency to divide the lot into 3 lots. Mr. Jones adds that the planning board does not know whether there are two lots or just one lot. Ms. Smith states that the board is attempting to determine this by requesting the ownership information by an attorney’s opinion, and thus recognizing it is the responsibility of the applicant.

General discussion is held regarding taxes and ownership of the property. Ms. Planchet explains the application process. Mr. Jones continues case 09-03 to June 25, 2009.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Consideration of Alternates
Ken Rick, David Turner, and Richard Wolf are present for consideration to become alternate members. Mr. Jones explains past practice is that the applicants are interviewed in a non-public session and the board deliberates, and motions to appoint a member or not. Ms. Planchet states that the board has also determined alternate members in a public session. She reads RSA 91-A.3. Discussion is held and the board decides that the interviews should be done in public and the board will deliberate in a non-public session.

The potential alternates join board members at the table and the candidates introduce themselves. They provide an overview of themselves and explain what they could offer the board and why they are interested in becoming part of the planning board. The board discusses general planning topics and perspectives with the candidates.
Pete Jones motions to go into non-public session per 91-A:3II(c) at 9:15 p.m.
Roll Call Vote:
Roger LeCLerc – yes
Victoria Parmele – yes
Bob Strobel – yes
Pete Jones – yes
Herb Johnson – yes
Motion passes; 5/0.

Pete Jones makes a motion to come out of non-public session and to seal the minutes. Herb Johnson seconds.
Roll Call Vote:
Roger LeCLerc – yes
Victoria Parmele – yes
Bob Strobel – yes
Pete Jones – yes
Herb Johnson – yes
Motion passes at 9:35; 5/0.

Roger LeClerc makes a motion to nominate Rick Wolf as an alternate member with a term through March 31, 2010. Bob Strobel seconds. Motion passes; 5/0.

The board agreed to send thank you letters to the other candidates.

Development Ordinance Reformat/Edit
Ms. Planchet states that the reformatting was sent via email for review. She asks if the board would consider leaving the final decision to the planner to proceed. Mr. Jones asks if the draft was sent to town counsel for review. Ms. Planchet replies yes and adds that all recommendations per counsel have been made. The board agreed.

Other Business:
Minor Site Plan-“3rd Tier: Ms. Planchet states that a document with information from Derry was sent via email for review along with a memo from her with suggestions from staff as directed by the board in the fall of 2008.

Masten Sidewalks: Ms. Planchet states that she sent a letter to Senator Barnes as he requested at the last meeting and reads to the board the senator’s letter to the Assistant Commissioner of NHDOT that he copied to the board.

Economic Development Committee: Ms. Planchet states that the selectmen have requested a planning board member be appointed to the committee. Ms. Planchet suggests the board seriously consider if a member on this committee is a good idea per the board’s responsibilities. She mentions that board members have to follow the regulations and may be in a difficult situation if they, for example, express a pro-business attitude on the economic development committee and then have to make decisions based on the regulations. Ms. Parmele states that it is a good idea and is appropriate for a planning board member on the committee as well as the planner. Ms. Smith notes that the member may need to recuse themselves from discussions. Mr. Jones states that he has volunteered to be on the committee as a citizen. Ms. Planchet states that there is a state statute restricting planning board members to have no more than one member on another town committee. Ms. Smith states that there is an issue on specifics; however, the committee would give a window of business perspective for the board.

Discussion continues regarding other types of committees of the business community and the opportunities of planning aspects with an economic development committee. Ms. Parmele asks how to work with and encourage development and transportation. Discussion will continue to the next meeting.

MINUTES:
January 14, 2009
Herb Johnson makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to approve the most recent version of the January 14 minutes. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Ms. Parmele left at 9:55 p.m.

April 23, 2009
Bob Strobel makes a motion, second by Herb Johnson, to approve the April 23, 2009, as amended, as follows:
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 5: Add: ...parked…
Page 5: Add: …regarding sight distance.
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.
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Minor Site Plan-“3rd Tier: Mr. Jones mentions the process of the Derry “Third Tier” site plan process. He states that Derry has a technical review committee that reviews proposals and they make the determination if the application should be forwarded to the planning board or if it something that the TRC can address. Ms. Planchet replies that that was the proposal presented in the fall 2008 by the board administrator, planner, building department. Discussion ensues regarding having employees that may or may not have a vested interest in the town. Mr. Jones states that if the decision was turned over to the technical review committee, the board would still need to define some parameters. General discussion continues regarding the third tier option and examples of when this type of application could be used.

Mr. Johnson motions to adjourn at 10:15 a.m. Mr. Strobel seconds. The motion passes; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page