The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 08/27/09

PRESENT: Chairman Pete Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Victoria Parmele, Herb Johnson, Alternate Rick Wolf, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Alternate Pat Bell arrives at 7:27 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Pete Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Victoria Parmele, Herb Johnson, and Alternate Rick Wolf. Alternate Pat Bell-7:27 p.m.

ABSENT: Deborah Couch, and Alternate Scott Campbell

The minutes are postponed to later on in the meeting.

PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION:
52 First NH Tpke. Map 234; Lot 22. Bed and Breakfast.
Christie Gerasimchik is present regarding 52 First NH Turnpike. She explains that she is a potential buyer for this 8 acre property and is seeking to open a bed and breakfast with 5 to 6 rooms available for renting. One room would be handicap accessible. She states that they are looking for a rehab mortgage and this is the house. She mentions that this is the original Jenness homestead and that the Berry Elm was on this property. She states that they would refurbish the house to more of its natural condition.

Ms. Planchet explains the process of the non-binding discussion that is held during a preliminary consultation. She states that this time is for general discussion of the area and proposal as well as the site plan regulations, master plan and development ordinances. Ms. Planchet states that the overlay district maps would have to be checked to determine if this lot would be affected and suggests they call on Monday morning. No concerns are raised by the board. Mr. Jones notes that there may be some complications with parking.

OLD CASE:
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. Continuance granted to this evening.

Ms. Planchet states that a request for a continuance has been received. She explains that the developer indicated they are working with NH DOT and abutters to finalize their plan and would prefer to return to the board when agreements are in place. Mr. Jones makes a motion to grant the request for a continuance to 9/24/09 meeting. Mr. Johnson seconds. The motion passes unanimously; 7/0.
CASE 09-08: Coe Brown Northwood Academy, 907 First NH Turnpike, Map 217; Lots 65 and 66; Dana and Cindy Davidson, 35 Bow Lake Road, Map 218; Lot 1. Applicants are seeking site plan approval to add an educational facility with proposed 1,500 +/- sq. ft.; to expand athletic fields; and to create access onto Bow Lake Road. Application accepted as complete on 7/23/09; 65-day 9/26/09. Geoff Aleva is present from Civil Consultants representing the applicant. Jim Colburn, CBNA Trustee, is also present.

A discussion is held regarding the code of conduct and possible conflict of interest with Member Rick Wolf as his wife is an employee of CBNA. Ms. Planchet reads pertinent sections of the code of conduct regarding financial interest and family members. Ms. Smith states that Mr. Wolf is an alternate member and the concern is not whether or not a fair decision would be made, the concern is if there was an appeal of the board’s decision based on a perceived conflict. At that time, the board would need to start the process over for this application. She suggests erring on the side of caution.

Mr. Jones asks if the applicant has an opinion and Mr. Aleva concurs with Ms. Smith and adds that in a rare case of a potential appeal this issue could result in a long delay and could affect the ultimate outcome of the project. He states that the wording in the code of conduct addresses financial interest. Mr. Wolf states that his attorney noted that there was no conflict. Ms. Parmele states that the code of conduct is straight forward. Mr. Aleva states that abstaining may be the impartial thing to do. Mr. Holden states that the board appreciates participation and comments from Mr. Wolf; however, with this case it may be better for him to recuse. Mr. Wolf recuses himself and leaves the table for this case.

7:27 Pat Bell arrives and is designated as a voting member for the CBNA case.

A discussion is held regarding votes taken at the August 13 meeting, which included votes of Mr. Wolf and whether the board should re-vote on the decisions made regarding fees and the scope of services; task 1 and task 2a and 2b.

Mr. Holden asks for a summary leading up to the decision to vote again and the appropriateness of a re-vote. Ms. Smith explains that the staff or board were not aware that there was a potential conflict of interest. She states that in light of a potential appeal that could occur, she feels any action to revote would make the effort and intent clear of the board and feels that it is better to err on the side of caution and safety should an appeal be submitted.

Mr. Strobel explains that at the August 13 meeting the motion made was relative to costs of staff time vs. the amount already received from the applicant that went into the town general fund for various purposes. The motion passed was for the planner to provide an estimate of costs for staff time for the application. The idea was to see what part of the funds that went into the general fund were costs for staff time to reference at a future point in time. Mr. Strobel makes the same motion from the August 13 meeting: Mr. Strobel motions that we ask the planner to provide the board and applicant with an estimate of time and expenses deemed necessary for staff relative to this case. Mr. Jones seconds and the motion passes; 6/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains.

Mr. Strobel states that the second item was related to Underwood Engineering’s scope of services letter, page 2, task 1, 2A and 2B. He indicated that detailed traffic counts and design services were proposed to be reviewed under tasks 2A and 2B. Mr. Strobel stated that it was determined at the 8/13 meeting that the applicant would provide escrow accounts for Task 1 only and they could proceed with Task 1. He adds that two amendments were made relative to site safety with respect to vehicular paths and safety and was approved. Mr. Strobel makes a motion that the board proceed with task 1, as amended relative to items related to lighting and vehicular paths, referring to Underwood Engineering’s letter from August 13. Mr. Johnson seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Geoff Aleva, Civil Consultants states that they have completed a “pre-school” traffic count. Another traffic count will be done next Wednesday, in the morning and evening. Their traffic engineers will use that data and it will be reviewed by the town engineer and sent to NHDOT for a cursory review also.

Mr. Aleva states that comments have been received from NHDES and the issues will be addressed as compared with their new set of guidelines for water quality and erosion control. He adds that he has spoken with the town planner about waiting to get plans to Underwood for review as they would like to go through the comments from NHDES, make revisions, and then have town engineer review.

Mr. Aleva provides information for a waiver request for the disturbed area fees and requested that refunded fees be applied to the engineering costs. Ms. Planchet provides an estimate for staff time. She explains the hours involved and other employees. She notes that the costs to the town are not affiliated with salaries alone; materials, use of equipment, etc. She states that the staff times were estimated and that estimated copy costs, etc., were really “guesstimates.” She indicated that as she was making these estimates without any real guideline, she realized that the disturbed area fee structure had been established after the previous planning board had studied the idea and made recommendations which were approved by the board of selectmen. Discussion ensues regarding affecting the tax payers and Ms. Planchet notes that the waiver request submitted would be appropriate prior to the cashing of the check. Since the check has been cashed, this is not the purview of the planning board. Mr. Holden states that he takes issue with the board doing a financial analysis and trying to determine what is appropriate. He adds that the fees were set and the board needs to be consistent. Mr. Jones states that a previous case had a very large disturbed area and the application fee was significantly less than what the fee would have been so the board granted a waiver request to lower the fee. He states that the process was that the applicant and board negotiated the fee. Ms. Planchet adds that this process occurred prior to the payment of the fees. Mr. Aleva states that they would ask the board to recommend to the selectmen a fee value reduced for the $6200 figure already paid, less the staff costs. This amount would be used to offset the engineering costs and they understand the process may take some time and they will still proceed with the process.

Ms. Smith states that the applicant would be asking the selectmen to waive fees and she explains that a refund is not something that is possible. The town has expenditures and revenues only. She explains that if the selectmen approve the waiver request then the funds will come out of a line item from the budget that did not have the funds appropriated for that purpose. She adds that this may occur from the board’s budget and she urges the board to proceed with caution. It is important to note the out of pocket expenses. Discussion ensues regarding if the estimate is wrong, then the fees would be paid by the tax payer. Mr. Jones states that it appears that the board has the funds; however, the process is to go through the selectmen. He expresses concern with a precedent being set. Mr. Holden notes that the amount is reduced as the discussion ensues.

Mr. Johnson states that he does not feel that this is a matter for the board and Ms. Parmele agrees. Mr. Aleva states that the item could be addressed at a later time and Ms. Smith replies that this is the decision of the board. She adds that the board could vote to agree that the estimated amount is reasonable. Mr. Johnson states that the amount has been established and should be for all applicants otherwise the board is setting a precedent. Mr. Strobel agrees and adds that the calculations of fees, based on disturbed area, was based on trying to determine a common metric for all applications and costs associated.

A discussion is held and a site walk is scheduled for Friday, September 4 at 2:00 pm, meeting in the upper parking lot.

Ms. Planchet reads a petition submitted with approximately 54 signatures “...to disapprove that portion of Coe-Brown Northwood Academy’s proposed plan for an access road off of Bow Lake Road...”

Mr. Aleva states that the traffic count will include all vehicles, pedestrian traffic, and all buses at the intersections of Bow Lake Road at Route 4 and at proposed access way and at the existing entrance of Coe Brown at Route 4. Mr. Jones asks who determines the bus stops and Ms. Smith replies that she believes it is the bus company. Mr. Strobel explains that there are legislative rules that determine bus stops and scheduling.

Abutter Marcia Severance, 44 Bow Lake Rd., would like to point out to the board that there is the potential for even more traffic on Bow Lake Rd. as there is an approved subdivision on Sherburne Hill Rd, Deer Ridge, which is a two phase subdivision. She explains that the first phase has 7 more houses under construction and phase 2 will at some point be developed, with a potential for at least 12 more lots. She requests that the board consider this additional traffic when discussing traffic on Bow Lake Rd. Mr. Aleva replies that they are aware of this and explains that future development in town is considered in the projections for traffic on Bow Lake Rd. He adds that they have looked at a snapshot in time and then that data is used to project future impacts.

Mr. Holden asks that the applicant speak to the project should the access road not be granted. Mr. Aleva replies that they would go back to the beginning and look for other ways to alleviate the traffic issues in order to keep the development of campus centralized.

Mr. Jones asks if the board is able to look at what is presented as a whole or by sections and approve with conditions. Ms. Smith replies that the board can approve with conditions. Ms. Planchet states that the board’s decision is based on the regulations which are in place and the application before it.

Abutter, Rick Blackburn, Bow Lake Rd. and Rte. 4, states that it was mentioned that the long term was considered. He states that it sounds like there is no impact to properties on Rte 4, at the moment. He asks should the proposal pass what he is to look forward to as a homeowner for impacts to his property. He notes that there is not much for an option in his area other than the removal of his home. He asks about the neighbor’s property and states that there is very little front yard and should there be a need to widen the road then there would be no yard left. He expresses concern with future traffic problems and the fact that something would need to be done and that may affect the area’s property values. Mr. Aleva states that as part of the traffic study, that section of road and impacts on traffic will be looked into during the study. He explains that the original plan estimates that that section of road would not have to be widened; however, they will look at the traffic numbers and what the traffic engineer gives for guidance and recommendations. He adds that they are not sure at this time; however, do not feel anything will be needed other than re-striping and they will know more after the traffic counts.

Ms. Smith clarifies that any off-site improvements that are recommended would be a part of the planning board’s decision now, not a year from now. Everything must be addressed at this time as a part of the process.

Additional discussion is held regarding Bow Lake Rd. Mr. Aleva explains that the width of Bow Lake Rd at the location of the entrance is 23’ or 6” or 23’ 8”, pavement to pavement. Currently no aprons or “decel” lanes are proposed. Mr. Aleva states that the current speed limit is 25 MPH and should the area be lighted for a school zone the proposed speed will be 20 MPH on the access with a speed bumps. Mr. Bell asks if there are any regulations for speed bump width and Mr. Aleva replies no.

Mr. Strobel requests that CBNA representatives address long term plans for future students. Mr. Colburn explains that the population projections show a downward trend. He anticipates staying between 680-700 students which is a comfortable number for the school with the number of classrooms and the class sizes they like. He further explains that there are contracts with Strafford and Northwood and should there be a growth in development, CBNA would be required to accept these students.

Abutter Susan Richardson, Bow Lake Rd. states that she has seen drag racing on Bow Lake Rd. She notes that winter road conditions are icy and she expresses concern with traffic back up and accidents. She notes that she is concerned with the number of cars coming down.

Tim Colby, Bryant Road, asks about the proposed in-house traffic counts and if the data collected will be used from a couple days ago. He notes that he feels that there is a conflict of interest to have Coe Brown doing their own traffic counts as Mr. Colburn, CBNA Trustee, is counting the cars for his own project. Mr. Aleva replies that Mr. Colburn is a licensed PE in NH with many years of traffic experience. Additional discussion is held regarding pedestrians being dropped off in the church parking lot. Mr. Aleva states that this too is taken into account as they are counting everyone who comes into campus. Ms. Bailey states that students are no longer allowed to be dropped off at Wiggin Hall anymore. She states that the drop off is only at the north side.

Ms. Parmele discusses the traffic study memo from Mr. Aleva and points out that the last paragraph is not very specific. Mr. Aleva states that they are looking at impacts of the main intersection and Bow Lake Rd. and it includes Rte. 4.

Patti Blackburn asks when the access road is open, will they be able to access back onto Rte 4. Mr. Aleva states that the intent is to gear this road to staff and students who come and stay and would park in the parking lot. Ms. Blackburn states that they should be aware that many people have said to her if they have to deal with traffic at the access road, then they have to deal with the Bow Lake Rd. and Rte. 4 traffic, they will just go through the access road to get to Rte. 4. Mr. Aleva explains that they may consider a gate at this area during the day.

The case is continued to September 24 at 7:00pm.

CASE 09-09: Robert and Joann Bailey, 246 Catamount Rd. Map 205; Lots 36 and 37. Applicants are seeking a one lot subdivision of 5.16 acres with 298.39’ frontage on Preve Dr.; also a boundary line adjustment of 0.58 acres from lot 36 and add to lot 37; lot 37 to become 1.39 acres with 350’ of frontage on Catamount Rd.
Present are surveyor Bill Wormell and Bob, Joann, and Charlie Bailey.

Rick Wolf returns to the table. Mr. Jones designates Rick Wolf as a voting member.

Ms. Planchet explains that the zoning board has granted a variance for creating a lot with no road frontage for this property. Mr. Johnson motions, second by Mr. Holden, to accept the application as complete. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Mr. Jones reads the abutters list and none are present.

A discussion is held regarding the waiver request for contours. Mr. Wormell explains that the regulations require a contour interval on subdivision plans. He states that the waiver is for the 29 acre, lot 36, as there is an existing home on the lot. He states that they are not planning to change anything and it is not necessary for this on the larger lot. He adds that he is also seeking waiver of the requirement for 2’ contours on the smaller lot, which is lot 36-1. He explains that he has provided 5’ contours on the smaller lot in a previous plan. General discussion is held relative to the contours and the registry of deeds not accepting plans with many crossovers of line and writing. Mr. Jones makes a motion to accept the waiver request for contours. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

The board reviews the plans and Ms. Planchet asks about the wetlands. Mr. Wormell states that he delineated the wetlands and has stamped the plans. Mr. Jones makes a motion to approve the subdivision and boundary line adjustment, as presented. Motion is seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Mr. Jones signed the mylar and Mr. Wormell requests approval from the board to record the mylar for the applicant. Ms. Smith will provide a letter for Mr. Wormell.

Other
Voluntary Merger: Case 09-02: Bruce Marshall
Ms. Planchet explains that the board has previously approved the voluntary merger for Mr. Marshall. The fees for recording were provided. Board members sign the merger form.

Minutes
June 25, 2009
Mr. Jones notes that Rick Wolf is a voting member.
Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to approve the June 25, 2009 minutes, as amended, as follows:
Page 4: strike sentence: Ms. Smith states that the so-called road and cul de sac cannot change. The waiver request list to be attached to the end of the minutes.
Motion passes; 5/0/2. Ms. Parmele and Mr. LeClerc abstain.

July 9, 2009
Mr. Jones designates Pat Bell as a voting member.
Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to approve the July 9, 2009 minutes, as amended.
Punctuation changes noted.
Motion passes; 5/0/2. Mr. LeClerc and Mr. Bell abstain.

July 23, 2009
Mr. Jones designates Pat Bell as a voting member.
Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to approve the July 23, 2009 minutes, as amended.
Page 7: Delete: …the…
Page 7: Change: …stop… to …stops…
Page 9: Change: …your… to …you’re…
Page 11: Change: …cueing… to …queuing…
Motion passes; 5/0/2. Mr. LeClerc and Ms. Parmele abstain.

Board Administrator Items:
Ms. Smith explains that it is typical for the board to consider conducting requests for proposals for engineering services periodically. Ms. Planchet notes that the town has been using Underwood Engineering for at least the past three years. Ms. Smith explains that it is a procedural process and notes that she has mentioned this to the town administrator who agreed that the process should begin. Ms. Smith states that past practice has been a joint committee was created with a few members of the planning board and the selectmen. The planning board usually drives the process and interviews would be held with firms.

Discussion ensues relative to the firm’s services to the town and the hourly rates. Mr. Holden feels that it would be to the town’s advantage to revisit the engineering services as prices are going down. Mr. Jones asks if there is an ordinance or policy compelling the board to conduct RFQ’s on a regular basis. Ms. Smith replies no and states that this is a different climate and is a good time to consider going out to bid. She adds that she would not bind a future board to doing RFQ’s. Mr. Jones states that this process would keep companies competitive knowing that the contract would be expiring. Mr. Holden states that if the town could secure a new contract during the economy, he feels that the board would want the contract as long as possible. Ms. Smith notes that the planning board received client’s funds to cover engineering costs where the selectmen are using the tax payer’s money.

Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, that the planning board do an RFQ for engineering services. Ms. Smith suggests staff provide a schedule and how to go proceed with the process, look into the best way to handle the process, obtain some prices for advertising, completion, etc., and provide this at the next work session. Ms. Smith asks for the board to allow her to contact the selectmen to grant joint participation in the RFQ process.

Mr. Bell is designated a voting member. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Correspondence
A discussion is held regarding correspondence received form the building inspector/code enforcement officer relative to Affordable Counters. Mr. LeClerc mentions that there appears to be cutting done there when in fact there should not be any cutting done. The intent was to keep the original site plan review for outdoor retail sales and no light manufacturing allowing some light finishing. It has been noted that there has been some cutting and debris. Ms. Planchet will speak to Mr. Hickey relative to the activity on the property.

Additional information from the code enforcement is read relative to businesses operating without site plan approvals.

All other correspondence is reviewed with no actions necessary.

CASE 08-03: John Harvey House Properties, LLC/U.S. Housing Consultants, Marc Precourt, 931 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 3. Site plan to change use from retail to office. Property owned by Marc and Scott Precourt. Conditional approval 5/22/08. Ms. Planchet notes that the last condition has been met as she has received a verbal approval for the Northwood Fire Department relative to the second inspection.

Adjournment
Herb Johnson makes a motion to adjourn, second by Roger LeClerc. Mr. Wolf is a voting member. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0, at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page