Planning Board

Minutes

October 22, 2009

Official as of November 12, 2009

Vice-Chairman Robert Strobel calls the work session to order at 7:03 p.m. 

PRESENT: Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Deborah Couch, Rick Wolf, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, Board Administrator Linda Smith. Alternate Pat Bell arrives at 7:05 p.m. Roger LeClerc arrives at 7:06 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Roger LeClerc, Deborah Couch, and Alternates Pat Bell and Rick Wolf.

ABSENT: Chairman Peter Jones, Herb Johnson, Victoria Parmele, and Alternate Scott Campbell. 

MINUTES
The minutes of September 24, 2009 are postponed. The minutes of October 8 are distributed and also postponed.

Preliminary Consultations
McEneaney Survey Associates for Jon Hendrick, Corson Drive, Maps & Lots 105/25; 208/3; 202/4 and 207/40.

Kevin McEneaney, land surveyor, is present representing Jon Hendrick.

Ms. Planchet explains that the preliminary consultation is to be a general discussion of the proposal and the discussion is non-binding on both the board and the applicant.

Mr. McEneaney distributes plans and describes the lots. He explains that the lots are existing lots of record off Corson Dr. The lots range in size from 4½ acres up to 119 acres. He states that three of the four lots have no frontage. The largest lot has minimum frontage on Corson Dr. He states that he is here tonight to discuss the process of how building permits can be obtained for these lots.

Mr. McEneaney states that lots 25 and 3 have approvals for septic systems and  they intend to apply for approvals for the other lots.

Ms. Couch asks if the intention is to build single houses on each lot and Mr. McEneaney replies yes.  He explains that the access is through Corson Drive. Mr. McEneaney explains that Corson Drive is approved a portion of the way with 5 existing houses to that point. Beyond that point the road is improved but not up to town standards. He adds that they would probably have to improve the road to town standards, at a minimum. The access for lot 105/25 is the extension right off of Corson Dr. The access for 208/3 is a 50 ft. right of way off an abutting lot that exists. He adds that the 119 acre parcel has frontage on the approved portion of Corson Dr. Further discussion is held regarding the area.

Ms. Smith provides a general synopsis of the history of these parcels. She states that Mr. Hendrick did apply for building permits for single family residential structures on all of these lots. Mr. Hendrick was denied by the building inspector and applied to the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA).  There was a series of approvals and rehearings, and the selectmen filed a motion for reconsideration. Ms. Smith explains that based on the final part of the state statute, RSA 674:41, the jurisdiction for the granting of permits rests with the ZBA. The ZBA has the authority to determine whether or not the applicant meets that criteria. The final outcome was that the ZBA denied the applications.

Ms. Smith explains that RSA 674:41 involves the lack of an access. Some of the criteria are relative to emergency vehicles, and whether there was a connection to another street. She states that it was deemed that building permits for single family residences did not meet that criteria based on the fact that there is a woods road there rather than any other type of access, as well as they were deeded easements rather than a road that would meet some type of standard.

Ms. Smith states that the property owner could return to the board with a different plan. She cautions the board to not give advice to an applicant as to how they would design or create the plan as it is the applicant’s decision. She adds that it is her opinion that should the applicant be interested in pursuing this, they would need to go to the building inspector who issues the building permits and go through that process rather than through the planning board providing input at this time.

Mr. McEneaney refers to the February 2008 ZBA minutes, and states that he understood there to be 3 votes that approved Mr. Hendrick to apply for the building permits having no frontage, however, there was certain criteria that must be adhered to. Ms. Smith replies that she is unsure of any conditions; however, she states that there was an approval of a special exception for the purpose of the town’s zoning ordinance and there was also a stipulation in that approval that state statute 674:41 would need to be met. She states that it did not meet that threshold.

Ms. Couch suggests that the applicant should begin with the building inspector. Ms. Smith adds that the planning board does not address single       
family residential building permits.

Stephanie Stephenson, 266 Harmony Rd, Map 123; Lot 5.
Stephanie Stephenson is present as well as Chuck Therriault. Ms. Stephenson states that there was a runway on the property for many years. She states that she wishes to have the airstrip reinstated on the property for sales purposes. She adds that nothing has changed on the property and a site plan approval was completed.

Mr. Therriault explains that it was determined that he did not need to go through the site plan application process as the airstrip was deemed an accessory use, defined by the state as such if it is for personal use only. He refers to RSA 674:16.

Ms. Stephenson states that it is her intention to relist the property in the spring with the airstrip.

Ms. Couch asks how the airstrip use was removed. Ms. Smith explains that back in the 90’s when this was approved; there was a different zoning ordinance. She states that there is a certain right to free travel; however, at the time she recalls that town counsel stated that unless specifically stated in the ordinance that airstrips are not allowed, they would be allowed. She adds that there was nothing in the ordinances relative to an accessory use, which is why the state’s definition was referred to and used. Ms. Smith states that there is now a zoning ordinance which defines an accessory use, which the airstrip may not meet.

Ms. Smith states that the airstrip was on the property for many years and about a year ago Ms. Stephenson came in and asked for the airstrip use to be removed from the tax cards because of the tax calculation; therefore, the town’s assessor has taken the use off of the property. She adds that there is also abandonment of use language in the ordinances so if the board deems that this has occurred then a site plan would be necessary. Ms. Stephenson states that the change was made back in November when she was laid off. Mr. Therriault states that the way a property is taxed does not set the usage of the property. Ms. Smith agrees and notes that the other process would have been to go through the process to revoke the airstrip; however, there was never an official site plan on file.

Ms. Planchet agrees and adds that the property file contains information relative to the state wetlands process for the use but that there was not a site plan, which is why the assessor could remove the use. Ms. Planchet states that an airstrip is not a standard use on a residential property. She adds that many of the items on the checklist do not apply, which is why there is a waiver request. Should the board agree that a site plan is required, then waivers could be requested. Ms. Planchet states that the drainage requirements may have changed.

Mr. Therriault refers to state statute 674 that this is deemed an accessory use for personal use. Ms. Couch asks if the use would be grandfathered and asks if a phone call makes a use abandoned. Ms. Smith reads the definition of abandonment from the development ordinance, which notes that the discontinuance of a use for a period of 12 consecutive months is presumed an act of abandonment. Discussion ensues.

Ms. Planchet states that in reference to new information relative to the statute, she suggests an opinion from town counsel. The board agrees and Mr. Holden asks how the legal costs would be covered. Ms. Planchet states that she anticipates it would be the board’s expense; however, if described in general terms she would be able to talk to the Local Government Center. Ms. Couch feels that this is a specific issue. Ms. Smith notes that the costs could be passed onto the applicant; however, they would need to apply for a site plan. Further discussion is held regarding the fact that this is a preliminary and Mr. Holden notes that there was a request made to the town and the town acted on that request. He adds that if a legal opinion is now needed, the tax payer should the tax payer pick up these costs. Ms. Couch asks if this is the board’s responsibility. Mr. Strobel suggests that the planner contact the Local Government Center.

Ms. Planchet explains that staff thought that there was a need for a site plan and advised based on the town’s regulations. She states that this is additional  information that they were not aware of and the issue has not been finalized. She adds that she is not comfortable that the staff has met the needs of the town’s people as she does not know if this RSA cite affects the recommendation; however, the applicant has now challenged the advice of the staff so the burden to show otherwise is now back to the applicant. Mr. Strobel explains that the property owners had the option to submit a site plan application for the use and see whether the board accepts their opinion or not upon review.

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. Continued to 10/22/09.

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

Rick Wolf has recused himself from this discussion and moves away from the table.

Geoff Aleva of Civil Consultants is present representing Coe Brown Northwood Academy. He mentions new plan sets provided and the traffic study final report has been provided. He adds that a check should be received early next week for the escrow to get the review started with Underwood Engineering. He adds that he is awaiting NHDES comments on the wetlands application; however, the application has been deemed administratively complete. He adds that no comments have been received from Dorie Wiggin; it has been close to the 75 day timeframe with the state so he anticipates correspondence by mid November. He adds that he believes that there will be a site walk requested.

Mr. Aleva reviews the changes on the new plan set. He explains that these changes are mostly drainage related regarding the new alteration of terrain standards, which he believes are very similar to the town with some areas being more strict. As far as the maintenance building, he explains that the stormwater collected from the roof will infiltrate around the building back into the area and through the gravel wetland for water quality treatment.

Mr. Aleva explains that in efforts to reduce some of the impact, they are proposing to narrow the gravel driveway area and reclaim the area as green space. He adds that near the proposed access to Bow Lake Road they have installed Bio-retention cell to give some stormwater quality along the edge for roadway runoff.

Mr. Aleva states that the traffic study results indicate the proposed access way will decrease congestion along Rte. 4 for CBNA’s portion of the project during a.m. and p.m. He adds that the report also indicates that there is no need for a light at Bow Lake Road and Rte. 4 and recommends that the area does not need to be designated as a school zone.

Mr. Aleva states that some information has been added to the new plan set relative to signage. Ms. Planchet asks about the legend box on sheet 1. Mr. Aleva states that it has been removed on Sheet 4.

Ms. Planchet requests hard copies of the traffic report. She adds that there was a reference in the traffic report relative to the expansion of the parking area.  Mr. Aleva replies no expansion is proposed; it may be relative to the reconfiguration of the parking in the area.

Ms. Planchet states that the escrow account has not been established yet and that Underwood is ready to begin once the check is received. The review will then be completed and the board and applicant will have time to review and comment.

Ms. Couch asks if there would be a problem with adding signage to Bow Lake Rd. noting that this entrance is a school entrance. Mr. Aleva refers to sheet 7 and states that although it was not recommended by the traffic report he believes that revisions can be made.

Mr. Aleva prepares a letter requesting a continuance. He requests that the case be continued to the work session, November 12. Discussion ensues regarding the review time for the engineers and applicant comments. Ms. Smith states that this is a large project and the planning board has not held up this project. Mr. Holden asks about the applicant’s projected timeframe given the current status of the application. Mr. Aleva states that they are still hoping to do some clearing and other site work prior to the winter months but the actual construction would have to wait until spring.      

Bob Strobel makes a motion, second by Deborah Couch, to accept the request to continue this case to November 19. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.  The public hearing is continued to November 19.

Mr. Wolf returns to the board as a voting member.

CASE 09-11: John Ovadek, 1064 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 45. Applicant is seeking site plan review for a retail/discount store. 

Ms. Planchet explains that the application was received for October and the work session took place October 8. At that time the board requested additional information, which she provided to the applicant. She states that the applicant is not present due to a family emergency and has requested that the application be continued. She explained that the application can not be continued unless it is deemed complete. She adds that she relayed to Mr. Ovadeck that she thought it was very important that a scaled plan be provided to the board before the board would consider the application complete. She provides copies of a faxed scaled plan. All other information requested has not been received. 

Ms. Planchet states that the prior site plan review was done in 1987 and there is a letter in the property file allowing the change of use in 1994. She states that at that time the regulations were different and that planning board accepted a less intensive use without the need for site plan review. She adds that there is a surveyed plan in the property file for a different purpose but it does show the lot and surrounding area.

Ms. Couch states that she recalls requesting the information relative to the PSNH easement. Ms. Planchet states that he only provided the plan.

Ms. Couch states that the applicant is not present and feels that there are many unaddressed issues. She asks about the process if the board did not accept the application as complete. Ms. Planchet states that there is nothing to continue if the application is not accepted. She adds that the abutters were notified for this meeting. Mr. Holden asks for a staff recommendation. Ms. Planchet suggests that the board accept the application as she believes the applicant will provide the additional information requested. She states that it is up to the board as to what they are comfortable with and need in order to address and approve the case.

Mr. Strobel refers to Ms. Planchet’s October 26 information request letter. Ms. Planchet states that Mr. Ovadeck indicated to her that he has applied for the  NHDOT driveway permit. Additional review of the plan is held and discussion ensues relative to the level of completeness. Ms. Smith states that at some point in the past there were some legal concerns with the former property owner and the town relative to the property line and what is understood to be a Class VI road that goes through the property. Ms. Smith states that there was a lease with the former property owner and the town with what could be done and couldn’t be done. She expresses concern regarding determining what the setback is on this plan provided. Mr. Bell states that the scale is pretty good and he apparently traced the existing scaled plan.  Ms. Couch asks where the property line is and Mr. Bell states that the road is the property line. Ms. Couch asks where the access is and states that the applicant really needs to be here. Mr. Smith states that the access is on Rte. 4.

Based on staff’s recommendation, Mr. Holden makes a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Strobel seconds. Discussion ensues relative to the completeness of the application and the process of continuing. Ms. Couch asks what would happen if the application were not accepted and whether it would have to be noticed again. Ms. Smith states that in previous conversations with town counsel, if there is specific information that keeps the case short of meeting what the board wants, yet the board is comfortable with it and can request specific items and the items can be received within a reasonable time frame, the case can be continued to a date and time certain, without being re-noticed. Motion passes; 5/1. Ms. Couch is opposed.

Mr. Strobel opens the public hearing and reads the abutter list. No abutters are present.

Discussion is held relative to the list of outstanding items.  The board requests the following items be provided for the next meeting: 
(1) Information relative to the utility easement and the status of the possible discontinued road on the property;
(2) Delineate abutters and location on the plan
(3) Delineate location with length of entrance to the site
(4) Show exact number of parking spaces required, drawn to scale
(5) Hours of operation to be added to the site plan
(6) Show 20 ft setbacks on the plan
(7) Delineate traffic flow on plan
(8) Will residential use be continued with mobile home?
(9) Traffic estimate
(10) A description/purpose of detention pond.

The board schedules a site walk for October 30 at 5:30 p.m.

Staff will send correspondence to the applicant noting the items still to be addressed. This case is continued to November 12.

OTHER BUSINESS:
“Third Tier” Site Plan Regulation
Mr. Strobel provides an overview of a proposed third tier application form that he has drafted. Ms. Planchet states that it is up to the board to decide what is necessary. Ms. Couch states that this process is designed to be simpler so if abutter’s notification is deemed necessary then she feels that in itself would trigger the site plan application and a public hearing. Mr. Strobel disagrees.

Ms. Smith states that she brought this idea up basically for existing, approved, non residential locations that may be rental situations or a change of ownership where there had been a pre-existing non residential use and now there is something else proposed without many changes, construction, etc. She explains that there was such a variety at how applicants were being treated that she felt that there should be some pattern and consistency. She adds that this needs to be very clear that these are issues that would not rise to the level of a site plan and how they would be handled either by the staff or changes within the site plan regulations that would diminish the requirements, and a specific criteria and threshold as to who meets that if staff should be addressing it. If this was the case then those issues would be exempt from site plan. She adds that she, the planner, and the building inspector had come up with a concept of minor items that could be addressed by staff. She states that the form would be after the criteria were determined by the board. She also mentions that if there was a non residential use in place prior to 1995 that could involve a different approach as site plan regulations were legally defendable in 1995.

Ms. Smith refers to her handout and suggests that the following be asked:
Does the applicant agree that there will be no significant changes to the site such as no increase in parking, traffic, building construction, overall general appearance, loss of tree cover, landscaping, will be in compliance with noise, lighting, smoke, and the sign ordinance within the development ordinances. Application would need to be signed by the applicant and will be reviewed by the planner or the board administrator at the planner’s discretion. Ms. Smith also suggests that a certificate of occupancy could be required for the new non residential use.

Ms. Couch agrees and states that that would be sufficient. Ms. Planchet explains the exempt status in current regulations and suggests that staff draft a proposal to expand on that status. Further discussion is held relative to the main goal, which is to reduce the burden to the applicant.

Fee is mentioned and suggested to be $20.

Staff will draft an example with an expanded exempt site development section with an attempt to distribute prior to the next meeting.

Planner’s Items:
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Process
Ms. Planchet states that letters have been sent out and information is coming in. She adds that she will gather the information and provide a spreadsheet. She hopes to have the process finalized for the November 12 meeting.

Workforce Housing Requirement
Ms. Planchet states that there are two different approaches and basically the towns need to comply by January 2010. The state statute provides specific requirements; consultants at the OEP conference and for Strafford Regional have provided a lot of information. She states that she believes that Northwood may have the information available and an ordinance may not be necessary to address workforce housing. She suggests however that the board consider a change to regulations to allow accessory apartments as that could be considered exclusionary.

Membership 
Mr. Strobel reminds the board that Chairman Jones will be resigning in November and there will be a vacancy. Mr. Strobel informs the board that they may have elections of officers after the resignation and may also consider appointing a regular member to fill the vacancy. Ms. Planchet states that Mr. Jones’ and Ms. Parmele’s seats are both up for re-election in March.

Other
Ms. Couch asks about the policy of out going correspondence. She asks if the planning board members always receive a hard copy of all correspondence that is sent out or is it just the chair. Ms. Planchet explains that the secretary prepares the meeting folders and not all correspondence is provided to members. Ms. Planchet states that all correspondence that is a part of the official application is placed into the file. Ms. Couch states that an example would be the letter that went out to Mr. Ovadek as she feels that that item should have been correspondence that was in her meeting folder. Ms. Couch states that she would like to receive all the official case documentation that is sent to the applicant that pertains to the case and will be addressed at the next meeting.  Mr. Holden cautions the group and states that he understands the need for information; however, the board must be prudent in costs.

Mr. Wolf makes a motion, second by Mr. LeClerc, to adjourn at 9:55 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary