The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 11/12/09

PRESENT: Chairman Peter Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Herb Johnson, Deborah Couch, Victoria Parmele, Alternate Pat Bell, Town Planner Elaine Planchet.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Peter Jones, Vice Chairman Bob Strobel, Selectmen Representative Bob Holden, Herb Johnson, Deborah Couch, Victoria Parmele, and Alternate Pat Bell.

ABSENT: Roger LeClerc, and Alternates Rick Wolf and Scott Campbell.

MINUTES
September 24, 2009
Page 2: Add …Rts. …
Page 5: Change decal to …deceleration…
Page 6: Add: …potential…
Page 7: Remove: …for Sunday school…
Page 8: Change …amount… to …number…
Mr. Jones motion to approve the minutes of September 24, 2009, as amended. Mr. Strobel seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

October 8, 2009
Mr. Holden makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to approve the minutes of October 8, 2009, as written. Motion passes; 6/0/1. Mr. Bell abstains.

October 22, 2009
Page 2: Add: …not…
Page 2: Change …their… to …the applicant’s…
Page 4: Change: …is not acting… to …acted…
Page 4: Add: …should…
Page 4: Delete would be
Page 4: Change: …picking… to …pick…

Mr. Jones makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passes; 6/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains.

OLD CASE:
CASE 09-11: John Ovadek, 1064 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 45. Applicant is seeking site plan review for a retail/discount store. Application was accepted as complete 10/22/09; 65 day 12/26/09.

Mr. Ovadek is not present. Ms. Planchet provides an update and reviews an email she received. The case is tabled to later on in the meeting in case the applicant appears.

NEW CASE:
CASE 09-12: Elias Ververidis, 188 First NH Turnpike. Map 231; Lot 35. Applicant is seeking site plan review to change the existing use from an art studio to an 80 seat restaurant; art studio proposed to be relocated to the existing barn.

Ms. Planchet reviews the property history and states that special exceptions were granted by the zoning board recently for this property for the access drive and utility lines; it was determined the special exception for the well was not needed as it is not proposed to be in the wetland or its buffer.

The application materials are reviewed along with TRC notes. Ms. Planchet notes that waiver requests have been submitted for a traffic study, an existing conditions plan by a licensed land surveyor, and for the property lines not to be surveyed.

The board reviews the application and general discussions ensue. The board directs Ms. Planchet to request additional information from the applicant on the following: clarification for loading plan, off street loading, whether the pavement is continuous with the residential driveway and residential access, whether the size of the building is adequate for proposed 80 seats, intent to be mostly eat in or take out. The board discussed the need for a traffic study as there are other uses on the lot and in the immediate area, and asks for some information and to show sight distances, speed limits, and turning lanes on Route 4 on the plan, label plans with specific items (i.e. landscape plan, etc.) in the title block, post grades on the driveway and parking lot and explain which are the proposed and which are the existing grades, note revision dates on the revised plans, provide an explanation of the use of paper plates, provide a pedestrian plan, the timeframe for the state historic review. The board also notes that the number of proposed parking spaces does not meet the regulations and a waiver may be required. The board notes that hours of operation should be shown on the plan for each business on site.

The board discusses the limitations of holding a discussion with the applicant not present. The board notes that a site walk had been scheduled for the previous week and a quorum was not present, therefore the site walk did not occur. The board schedules a site walk for Monday morning November 16 at 8:00 am.

Mr. Jones continues case 09-11 to the next meeting, Thursday, November 19 at 7:00 p.m.

OTHER BUSINESS:
“Third Tier” Site Plan Regulation
Ms. Planchet has provided an amended draft review. Discussions are held. Ms. Planchet states that this is a target for the board to fine tune discussion. The board’s focus seems to have been relative to cases involving a change of use and to determine when a review is necessary and who would do the review. She adds that she was referred by Strafford Regional to speak with planners in Somersworth and Rochester where the special site review committee is used. She states that there are RSA’s that the board needs to follow for adoption and implementation.

Ms. Couch states that she is opposed to the idea of granting approval authority to staff when the planning board has been given that power by state law and the voters of the community. She mentions that other communities have an established TRC that reviews applications and works with the applicant to make sure missing items are provided prior to the application getting to the planning board. She states that there are some items in the minor category that really should be in the major review category, specifically the home business applications. She states that these should still require site plan just not at the level as what they are now. Ms. Parmele states that some issues are putting a lot of discretion in the hands of the committee. Mr. Jones adds that some of the board’s authority is being given up; however, the concern he has is that with the way it is now it is difficult for small local businesses to navigate through the process and his goal is to address this and hopes that the board will come up with a mechanism to help.

Additional discussion is held regarding the creation of a more streamlined process. Ms. Couch states that the people in the community have a right to know when changes are being made regardless how big or small. Ms. Parmele states that if decisions are made without the planning board, then there maybe different effects. She adds that she likes the proposal of a streamlined process; however, the planning board still needs to carry out the process. Ms. Couch again suggests that for larger projects, the TRC needs to meet and discuss the proposal before it is even a case before the planning board. The applicant would then revise the plan and submit a complete application before the planning board.

Mr. Strobel mentions the time line of cases and Mr. Jones reminds the board of the types of cases that this tier is to address. Ms. Couch notes that exemption option and suggests that exemptions be addressed further. She would prefer to not give up the board’s rights. Mr. Holden states that this has been discussed for 6 months and the board should decide how to proceed and move on. Mr. Johnson states that if the business exists and there is no expansion proposed, he feels comfortable leaving it as is. Mr. Strobel states that the idea is to ease the process for a home business and Ms. Planchet states that home business requires a site plan review under the current ordinance. She states that rules of procedures would need to be modified. Mr. Bell states that items may require correction and sometimes the board has changed rules and put them back. He adds that he would like a third tier process to move items faster.

Ms. Planchet states that staff is not looking for additional authority other than what the board deems appropriate. She adds that staff has discussed the expansion of the site development section based on what the planning board discussions. She states that someone still ultimately must make a decision with businesses. The planning board has delegated this authority to the building inspector/code enforcement officer to determine exemption status. Ms. Planchet states that other communities do approach applications differently as Ms. Couch mentioned in that applications are not submitted to the planning board until they are truly complete, as determined by staff. This may require a change in the rules of procedure if the timeline is to change. Ms. Planchet states that the special site review committee is authorized by state statute for the planning board to delegate some of its authority to staff.

Ms. Couch suggests that a new TRC be created for the town with various members of committees and town staff. Ms. Couch states that the revised document is not ready to be voted on and she offers to take the draft home and re-work it.

Mr. Strobel states that from discussions, the board would like to retain major and minor site plan review and would also like the concept of the TRC of the new tier. He asks if the existing document can be used and make some changes so that the minor items are addressed by the TRC and all applications are deemed complete before they are presented to the board. He adds that rules and procedures should be amended. Discussion ensued.

Ms. Couch states that the board could end up with an extended exemption, a major and minor site plan application, a minimal impact site plan and a TRC committee that will be more formalized. Ms. Planchet states that she has seen language for a minimal impact process in at least one of the Strafford Regional Planning area communities. She describes the current structure of the TRC.

Planner’s Items:
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Process
Ms. Planchet states that all of the information has been received from all town departments. She plans to have a spreadsheet available at the next meeting for review and possible approval for publication.

Workforce Housing Requirement
Ms. Planchet states that she is still working on this and is currently focusing on where workforce housing is appropriate and acceptable as well as the areas of the community where housing is not permitted. She is looking at the possibility of using GIS to remove overlay district data where housing is not permitted. She notes that there are many lakes in Northwood where the requirement would not apply. She adds that Mr. Strobel has offered his expertise with GIS. Mr. Strobel states that one overlay is not included in the information from Strafford Regional.

Administrative Update
Ms. Planchet states that her new administrative supervisor has called her attention to an issue with her hours. She explains that she was hired to work 15-20 hours a week with sick leave and personal time as benefits. She states that apparently she was not supposed to be accruing these as she does not work a regularly scheduled 20 hours per week. She has been asked for a more specific schedule with specific hours and locations. She states that the planning board may need to approve her working 20 hours per week as this will affect the budget and adds that the flexibility is something that is beneficial not only to her but also to the tax payer.

Mr. Bell asks if there are funds available for the planner to work 20 hours per week. Mr. Holden states that he was not aware of this issue and he will look into it. Ms. Planchet states that there is work and has always been enough work and the board is getting busier. Mr. Jones states that flexibility is necessary; however, the board also needs to comply.

Mr. Johnson left at 9:23 p.m.

Correspondence:
Mr. Jones states that he would like to address the request of Jim Hadley relative to supporting the Lamprey River Watershed Association at the next meeting.
Ms. Couch makes a motion, second by Mr. Bell, to adjourn at 9:37 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page