Planning Board

Minutes

April 8, 2009

Official as of July 23, 2009

Chairman Peter Jones calls the work session to order at 7:03 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Peter Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Deborah Couch, Alternate Pat Bell, Alternate Scott Campbell, Board Administrator Linda Smith.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Peter Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Deborah Couch, Alternate Pat Bell, and Alternate Scott Campbell.

ABSENT: Herb Johnson, Alternate Victoria Parmele, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet.

PUBLIC:
Bruce Marshall, Rick Wolf, John Newman.

Pete Jones makes a motion to send thank you cards to Ken Curley and Bob Fletcher for their service on the board and to the town. Bob Holden seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

MINUTES:
January 14, 2009:
Mr. Jones states that the minutes will be postponed again until comments have been received from Victoria Parmele.

February 26, 2009:
Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Roger LeClerc, to approve the February 26, 2009, as amended, as follows:
Page 1: Change …over powering to overpowering…
Page 3: Add …line…
Motion passes; 4/0/3. Bob Holden, Pat Bell, and Deborah Couch, abstain, as they were not members of the board at that time.

March 12, 2009:
Mr. Jones refers to the motion to approve the non-public minutes of January 22, 2009. He states that there is not a subsequent motion to seal the minutes and asks if this motion should be made at this time. Ms. Smith replies yes. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Bob Holden, to seal the non-public minutes of March 12, 2009. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0/3. Bob Strobel, Pat Bell, and Deborah Couch, abstain, as they were not members of the board at that time.

Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, to approve the minutes of March 12, 2009, as amended, as follows:
Page 5: Delete: Mr. Jones expresses concern regarding the fact that if Northwood does not do something; something will be done in Northwood.   
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0/3. Bob Holden, Pat Bell, and Deborah Couch, abstain, as they were not members of the board at that time.

NEW CASES:
CASE 08-11: David Docko-Millstone Realty Trust, 1090 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 35. Applicant amends site plan application to add excavation use to existing application request site plan review for retail sales of materials (mulch, stone, etc.) on site. Property owned by Millstone Realty Trust, Jacqueline Docko.

Mr. Jones refers the members to read a memo provided by the town planner. Ms. Smith states that the applicant’s engineer has stated that this site is currently used to operate a commercial landscaping and construction business; however, they were never approved for this business only materials storage. The new application requests additional excavation and she asks how the board would like to handle this issue as it is noted throughout that there is not an approval for the use.

Mr. Campbell states there have been materials removed from the site and he asks if the town should be collecting taxes on this. Ms. Smith replies yes and adds that this is why there is a need for the excavation permit. Mr. LeClerc adds that there have been significant changes made to the site. He notes that there is a safety concern regarding rock spillage into the road.

Ms. Smith provides some history of the site. She explains that there have been three or four site plans for this lot. Mr. Docko was first given an approval to operate without a site plan for a short period of time allowing only storage of materials. A site plan was later filed and approved for storing materials. An application was then withdrawn and now another site plan application has been submitted. Ms. Smith states that the original application approval is for material storage. Ms. Couch states that there is storage, a storage facility to store things in, and also an application for an expansion on the site for excavated materials storage. She states that it appears that this has been approved as it states expansion of area on site for excavated materials storage. She asks if this is for on site materials or material brought on to the site. Ms. Smith replies that this is an approval for both. Ms. Couch asks if this grants the applicant the right to excavate on the site.

A discussion is held regarding the excavation permit. Ms. Smith states that according to what the board determined at the last meeting and what the planner has provided, and the discussion held with Mary Pinkham-Langer from NHDOT, this is an excavation site. Ms. Smith states that there is a site plan application for materials storage; however, the misunderstanding is that the applicant feels that he is developing the site for the site plan and is moving materials around and out of the way. Ms. Couch refers to the information and feels that based on the language, Mr. Docko has had an approval for excavated materials since December 3 and it is for the applicant’s own materials and materials brought onto the site. Mr. Campbell states that this was existing and this is above and beyond the approval. Ms. Couch adds that the approval was only for 2 acres and this new application is more than 2 acres.

Mr. Campbell states that the town will be required to collect on the amount of materials being sold off of the site. Ms. Couch states that it is her understanding that the planning board’s realm does not cover issues regarding permits and since there is an application before the board, she asks if a letter should be sent to cease any activity on the site, due to ramifications including taxes. Ms. Smith states that the process would be to send a letter to the code enforcement officer.

Mr. Jones states that a few weeks ago, he drove past the site and observed the blasting mats. He states that code enforcement determined that the applicant was still operating within the boundaries of the approved site plan. He adds that he feels that there is some portion of the activity that is incidental to the grading of the driveway and he thinks that what triggers the excavation activity occurring is the commercial taking of earth; this falls under the state’s definition of excavation. Mr. Jones states that there are two things occurring on the site, the activity to make the driveway, which the applicant should be entitled to do under the current site plan approval as long as it falls under the guidelines of the original site plan, and the second portion is the commercial taking of earth and selling materials. Mr. Jones states that he believes that the applicant has stated that he has sold materials.

Mr. Jones asks what the board does with the proposed application for excavation permit, which was created due to the fact that this case made the board aware that there was not an excavation permitting process. He asks who grants the permit. Ms. Smith states that the planning board is given the authority to review the application and grant the permit. As far as the tax portion, that would be addressed by the selectmen.

Ms. Smith states that Mr. Docko has been through this process before at a different location and under a different scenario. She explains that Mr. Docko had a gravel pit and when the pit was purchased, reopened, and became active, Mr. Docko came to the planning board and went through the site plan process for the gravel pit. She states that reclamation was provided under RSA 155-E and he had to report the removal to the town. She is not sure if the taxation portion was addressed as this is under the authority of the selectmen. Ms. Smith states that the planning board required that there be a bond and an escrow account was created for the bond to ensure that the reclamation would occur. Ms. Smith states that recently this was fully reclaimed and the funds were returned to Mr. Docko. She adds that the process was occurring, just without a form, so this is the same process.

Mr. Jones states that it is his understanding that the process becomes excavation when material is sold, per the state’s definition. Ms. Smith states that Mr. Docko has the right to bring material in, store it, and sell it. Ms. Couch states that the board knows that excavation has taken place outside of the granted accessory need for the driveway and parking area, and out of the 2 acres. She states that this is a part of the new application coming before the board and should be stopped. She states that an applicant cannot submit an application and begin the work without following the process. She adds that the work is being done while the application is still in the process before the board and she feels that any activity beyond the 2 acres should be stopped until the board makes their decision and the board should begin the cease and desist process.

Mr. Campbell asks if the board should request a bond for reclamation. Ms. Smith states that the site plan will include a reclamation plan when it is finished. She adds that the board would typically require a bond or completion can be made a condition before an occupancy permit can be issued; however, the applicant is already on the site and does have approvals. Ms. Smith explains that the board has bonded other projects in town.

Mr. Holden asks if the disturbed area is greater than 2 acres and Mr. Jones states that there is no definitive answer to that at this time. Mr. LeClerc suggests a site walk be done. Mr. Jones feels that the board should go through the code enforcement officer. Mr. Holden states that the board needs to determine if the disturbed area exceeds the 2 acres otherwise there is no need to contact code enforcement.

Mr. Jones asks what the board can do regarding the possibility if the applicant is actually selling materials, which makes this excavation. Ms. Couch states that Mr. Docko has the right to store materials on site even if he buys from another place and then he can resell it. Ms. Smith states that the applicant was very clear from the beginning that sales were occurring from the site.  
Lengthy discussion ensues regarding blasting and relocating of the building. Mr. Jones notes that the building was approved to be relocated on the original plan. Additional discussion is held as Mr. Jones explains the original site plan, which was approved. He adds that the real question is if the site has gone beyond the original proposal. Ms. Couch states that she still feels that a site walk needs to be done and it needs to be determined as to what is actually going on at the site.

A discussion is held regarding the topography of the site and as built plans. Ms. Smith states that as built plans are required and she adds that she does not know if the applicant is even at that point. Mr. Holden asks if the board can ask for a progress as built plan to identify changes in the site. Ms. Smith states that she has not seen a progress as built plan provided to the town before. Mr. Holden states that the board should have the applicant provide a progress report via an as built.

Mr. LeClerc states that he does not feel that any additional permits should be issued until it is determined that the 2 acre limitation is being adhered to as well as the grades. Mr. LeClerc adds that the site will get to a point when there are too many things going on and that is when confusion and problems begin. He states that the current project should be completed prior to anything else beginning. Mr. Holden replies that he feels that this suggestion would not be practical. Ms. Couch states that there currently is a permit to store, excavate, and sell materials from the site within the two acres so there are no problems with the business unless the 2 acres has been exceeded. She states that this is when an as built plan would be helpful; however, does not feel that there are any problems at this time except for a need to amend the application to include the excavation portion, which has been done. Mr. LeClerc states that the grades must be maintained throughout the site and it should be viewed by the building department. 

Mr. Jones states that the town does not have a protocol for inspections during a project of this type. He asks if the requirement of the applicant is to have a set of as built plans. He states that there is no proposed deadline. Ms. Smith states that a deadline cannot be added now to the site plan; however, it can be added to the excavation permit, from this point forward. Ms. Couch states that the board could request an as built plan for the new application, which would help the board with the application. Mr. LeClerc and Mr. Campbell agree. Mr. Bell notes that the engineer has already provided the board with site plans of the area so it would be easy to complete. Bob Holden makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, to request the applicant provide the board with a certified stamped, progress as built plan of area, to be provided for the next meeting, 4/23/09. Mr. Bell amends the motion for the plan to be stamped by a PE. Amendment is seconded by Mr. Holden and passes unanimously; 7/0. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0. Ms. Smith asks how the board would like the request provided to the applicant. The board agrees to have Ms. Smith call and request the information, followed by a certified letter.

Ms. Smith states that zoning board approval is required for the excavation and Holden Engineering has submitted an application for the ZBA. She adds that this month’s ZBA meeting is after the planning board’s meeting.

Additional discussion is held regarding the need for additional information relative to the progress of wholesale use and the status of that use. Mr. Jones requests that the planner try to obtain this additional information for the board through the engineering firm for the next meeting.

Ms. Smith states that she recalls the planner noting that there have been some comments from Underwood and Peter Holden of Holden Engineering regarding notes stating no further comment. Ms. Smith states that due to time constraints at this meeting, she suggests that the board review information within their packets.

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

Mr. Jones states that there has been some new information provided. Mr. Marshall explains that per the board’s request he has provided a map of the wetlands. He provides a letter from a wetlands scientist noting that the map has been reviewed and the wetlands and 100’ buffer are delineated accordingly. He states that the buffer is within the boundary line.

Ms. Smith states that this is not a public hearing and abutters are not present; so there should not be any discussion on the details of the site plan with the applicant.

Mr. Jones reads the TRC notes into the record. Ms. Smith notes that there are some issues relative to the driveway as the driveway comes in on the lot that is not the location of the proposed site plan.

Ms. Smith notes that the driveway also serves two other residences. She states that the applicant does have a driveway permit; however, the language within the permit is not consistent with the language as noted in the site plan. Ms. Smith states that there is a reference to an outdoor display area and this use has not been requested in the site plan application and has not been included in the public notice. Ms. Smith explains that if outdoor display is a requested use on the property, the site plan needs to reflect that request and a new notice will need to be done as well as abutter’s notices. She adds that it appears that the outdoor use is on the other property and she mentions that there is a process that can be done to merge the two lots. Ms. Couch states that the use is requested for lot 23 and the access is on lot 24. Ms. Smith states that there is a right of egress via this plan.

A discussion is held regarding benefits to merge lots. Ms. Smith explains that all activity that occurs on the proposed lot must meet all setback requirements. She adds that if these requirements are not met, then the board is approving a driveway access for a lot that could be merged to another lot or sold. Ms. Smith states that there are some towns that make mergers a requirement.

Mr. Marshall states that he does intend to have an outdoor sales area. He explains that he has spoken to NHDOT regarding clearing an area off of the driveway so that pulling off Rte 4 would not be a problem. He states that NHDOT told him that he has 33 ft. that he could clear. Mr. Jones explains that this sales area would need to be added to the site plan. Ms. Smith states that the board can proceed with the application, as provided, and Mr. Marshall can amend the site plan for the sales area at another time. Ms. Smith adds that the driveway permit will need to be amended as well. She also notes that the applicant has not included the lot with the driveway as part of the site plan application; only one lot is shown, and both need to be included in order to access the lot. Mr. Marshall explains the usage of his driveway for abutters.

The board discusses if the application should be processed further. Ms. Couch expresses concern with the fact that she feels that additional information should be provided and there is another aspect of sales that will be added to the site plan. Mr. Jones states that the applicant can at any time apply for an amendment. Mr. Marshall states that the sales would include boats, trailers, boat trailers, miscellaneous items. He adds that cars require another license. He hopes to get a NHDOT approval and to clear the land, then pursue a sales area. Mr. Jones states that the application does not note anything relative to lot 24 and therefore, nothing can be considered for this lot at this time. Mr. Marshall states that the land he would be clearing is lot 23 and the only issue with lot 24 is the driveway. Ms. Smith states lot 24 should then be included with the application. Additional discussion is held and Ms. Smith notes that NHDOT has allowed this driveway and may not allow another curb cut. Mr. Jones asks Mr. Marshall if he has considered merging the lots and he replied that he did not think there would be a need to do so.

Discussion is held regarding frontage requirements. Ms. Smith states that should there be a request to build, then a variance would be required since there is not 150’ of frontage. She adds that there are no issues at this time since everything exists.

Ms. Smith also notes that there are a significant number of waivers requested. She refers to the prime wetlands setback letter received from Dave Allain and notes that there is a waiver request to show the prime wetland setback on the plan, which is a zoning requirement and is based on a field inspection not a scale of a map that is intended to be a guide. She adds that it is very important to know where the buffer line is. Ms. Smith explains that without the actual facts, there is a potential disturbance, and this approval could end up having the planning board approving an impact to the buffer that would require a variance per zoning ordinances. She further explains the process of delineating wetlands and adds that the board is trying to abide by the town’s regulations. Mr. LeClerc adds that the board is trying to accommodate so that the application can proceed.

Mr. Marshall asks if the board is requiring the lots to be merged. Ms. Smith states that the board can make a merger a condition of approval.   

A statement is required noting how the storage and removal of fluids will be addressed. Mr. Marshall notes that a letter has been provided from a company. Mr. LeClerc requests that a detailed statement be provided as how the materials will be contained on site.

Mr. Marshall states that he will add lot 24 to the site plan application. Ms. Smith adds that the sales use will still not be able to be addressed as this was not included in the public hearing notice. This issue would need to be addressed at another time once properly noticed.

Site distance for parking lot and spaces is reviewed on the plan. Mr. Marshall states that he only proposes to use 3 parking spaces. There is a discrepancy noted regarding the number of spaces.

Outdoor lighting still needs to be addressed.

Mr. Marshall states that the hours of operation have been stated in a letter. Mr. Jones states that the hours and dates need to be more specific.

Ms. Smith also notes that the proposed sign in the rear of the property needs to be moved due to abutter’s lot lines.

Ms. Smith notes that landscaping needs to be addressed. 

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

Ms. Smith explains that the planning board approved a subdivision and at the last meeting on this subdivision there was discussion on sidewalks along Rte. 4. The plan was approved with the sidewalks. NHDOT has stated that the sidewalks are not allowed and the plan now needs to be amended to remove the sidewalks. She states that a meeting was held with the engineers, developer, and town administrator.

A discussion is held regarding drainage and Ms. Smith states that Underwood would need to review the proposal. Mr. LeClerc notes that there may need to be some amendments to the landscaping proposal as well.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Development Ordinance Reformat
Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to send the development ordinances to town counsel for review. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Approved March Changes to Development Ordinance
Copies are distributed.

Transportation Update/Regional Priorities-Meeting with SRPC
A meeting has been tentatively set for April 29. Mr. Strobel asks if there are specific interests of the board. General discussion is held and the material is reviewed. Ms. Planchet’s suggestions would be access management. The board will review the material and present their top five ideas for the town and region at the April 23 meeting.    

Consideration of Alternate Member
Mr. Jones states that he received a letter of interest from Ken Rick. He adds that John Newman and Rick Wolf are present and have indicated an interest in vacant positions. 

Mr. Jones asks if vacancies have been advertised and Ms. Smith replies no. Ms. Smith states that RSA 673:6, allows up to five alternate members and she does not believe that there have been more than three alternate members. Mr. Jones reads the board’s procedures, which notes three and the board should follow the procedure and have three if three is allowed. He asks how the board would like to proceed and suggests that the board notify the public that the board is seeking alternate members. Mr. Holden suggests that it appears that there is someone willing to begin who has been present at recent meetings. Other interested candidates have expressed an interest through Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith recalls an interested party as well. Mr. Jones suggests advertising and candidates can submit a letter of interest and the board will interview these candidates. The board agrees to advertise for an alternate member. Candidates should submit a letter of interest to the board administrator no later than May 11 at 4:00. Notice to be placed in the Suncook Sun, posted on the cable access bulletin board, the town’s website, and at the town hall.

Goals
Mr. Jones states that he would like to see the board create a third tier of a site plan review for small businesses; look into open source software for GIS; and revisit the information provided by the Water Resources Subcommittee.

Mr. Jones makes a motion to adjourn, second by Mr. LeClerc. Motion passes; 6/0. Mr. Holden had left prior to this motion.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary