The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 12/17/09

PRESENT: Chairman Bob Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Roger LeClerc, Victoria Parmele, Alternates Rick Wolf and Pat Bell, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet. Selectmen Representative Scott Bryer arrives at 7:15 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Bob Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Roger LeClerc, Victoria Parmele, and Alternates Rick Wolf and Pat Bell; Selectmen Representative Scott Bryer at 7:15 p.m.

ABSENT: Deborah Couch and Alternate Scott Campbell.

Public: Approximately 20 members of the public are present.

MINUTES:
December 3, 2009
Mr. Johnson motions to accept the minutes of December 3, 2009, as written. Mr. Strobel seconds. Motion passes; 5/0/1. Pat Bell abstains as he was not at this meeting.

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.

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

Geoff Aleva from Civil Consultants is present representing CBNA along with trustee Jim Colburn, and Peter Hedrich from Gorrill-Palmer, who created the traffic report for CBNA.

Ms. Planchet states that the case was continued and the board had requested that the traffic engineers be present along with a representative from NHDOT District 6. Ben Dreyer from Underwood Engineering is present along and Kevin Russell from DOT and TEPP engineer Kim Hazarvartian.

Ms. Planchet states that additional information has been provided for tonight’s meeting and is in the members’ packets. She explains the current status of the case. She states that the board has granted a waiver for compact cars. Ms. Planchet adds that there are outstanding waiver requests for landscaping and lighting as well as storm water drainage. Comments from Underwood have been received with responses from CBNA. Ms. Planchet states that Underwood has not had time to reply to CBNA’s comments.

With no comments relative to the landscaping, Mr. Strobel makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to grant the waiver for landscaping. Motion passes; 5/0.

Mr. Strobel explains that the traffic issue will be discussed first with the applicant, traffic consultants, and the board prior to public comment.

Mr. Hedrich states that the new driveway will provide a direct access from Bow Lake Road into the school campus. He explains that from a traffic perspective this will minimize the amount of traffic circulating out onto Rte. 4 and will improve the operations on Rte. 4. He adds that 1/3 of the traffic to the campus comes from Bow Lake Rd. and with this driveway this traffic will no longer circulate onto Rte. 4. Mr. Hedrich discusses the amount of traffic on Bow Lake Road. He states that there will be a reduction of 39 cars or 17% in the morning. In the afternoon, there will be an increase of 11 cars or about 8%. He states that this will be a significant improvement on Rte. 4 with a minimal effect to traffic on Bow Lake Road due to the fact that most of the traffic is already there on Bow Lake Rd.

Scott Bryer arrives at 7:15

Ms. Parmele asks about the traffic that will be turning left onto Rte. 4 in the afternoon. Mr. Hedrich states that the traffic diagrams provided do show the forecasted amount of traffic turning left out of Bow Lake Rd. that does not exist today. He adds that this proposal forecasts an improvement of operations at the Bow Lake Rd. intersection with this additional driveway. He states that this is proposing only an 11% increase of cars on this section of road from Rte. 4 to the proposed driveway. Ms. Planchet states that it was her understanding that the intent was for traffic that comes from the east in the morning to now turn into Bow Lake Rd. Mr. Hedrich replies that they have forecasted that 50% of the traffic coming from the east would be making a right hand turn onto Bow Lake Rd. Ms. Planchet states that this would then be an increase of traffic on Bow Lake Rd. Mr. Hedrich replies it would be an increase of traffic from Rte. 4 to the driveway coming in; however, what is being removed from that stretch of road is all of the cars that come down Bow Lake Rd. and turn right onto Rte. 4. He states that these cars will no longer travel this section of Bow Lake Rd. between the driveway and Rte. 4. He adds that this is 1/3 of the traffic coming and going on Bow Lake Rd. and will be removed and is a greater reduction than the increase of traffic turning right. Mr. Hedrich states that the amount of 50% is a judgment from watching the operations of when school is open and the congestion and assuming that some traffic will want to take the alternate route to get into the campus. He adds that as more traffic takes advantage of the alternate route, the operations will continue to get better on Rte. 4 so there will be a balance.

Mr. Strobel states that he believes that there was an analysis completed of parking permits of the students and Mr. Aleva replies that this was completed prior to the traffic count. He states that 85% was coming from the east from Rte. 4 or Bow Lake Rd. He adds that the majority of traffic comes down Bow Lake Rd. Discussions are held regarding times and bus traffic. Mr. Colburn states that staff must arrive by 7:30 a.m; and that most students arrive by 7:30 He adds that the proposed access road will allow the majority of the cars to enter into the major parking lot of the school. Mr. Aleva states that it is important to remember that the student drop off will remain at Smith Hall, which is mostly for student access.

Mr. Strobel mentions that he recalls that Civil Consultants was hired by CBNA to complete an update to CBNA’s master plan for transportation. He states that this will take off 1/3 of the student traffic from Rte. 4. However, no plans have been provided for dealing with the main entrance to the campus; the drop offs, queuing, etc. Mr. Strobel asks for further recommendations as to the future plans. Mr. Aleva replies that part of the process is the relocation of the athletic field and they are still in discussions what will happen next on the campus. He states that there is possible future expansion of the main entrance area for buildings. They will plan to rework the entrance and do not plan to remove the entrance just plan to remove some of the tightness of the turn. Mr. Strobel states that reworking the entrance will cover 2/3 of the traffic entering the campus. He adds that he has concerns beyond this application for that entrance. Mr. Aleva explains the parking areas and states that they are trying to accommodate the parent drop off area and pedestrians by coming into the campus through Bow Lake Road. Mr. Aleva states that 75% of the folks that enter the campus enter from Bow Lake Rd. He adds that they are not intending to increase the number of student population.

Ms. Planchet states that there was a notice recently on the Coe Brown sign about an information meeting for Nottingham parents and that there was a recent article in Foster’s Daily Democrat that CBNA has been in discussions about the possibility of accepting Barrington students should they not renew their contract with Dover High. She states that the article indicated that CBNA would be willing to accommodate these students. She asks if CBNA has considered the increase of these students and Mr. Colburn states that CBNA currently has 60 Nottingham students and 60 students from Barrington. He adds that every year meetings are held with the parents of students in both of these towns as neither town has a tuition contract with CBNA. Mr. Colburn states that the contract with Barrington and Dover expires in 2014 and other towns are visiting with CBNA for other options. He notes that there are space issues and since CBNA is a public academy, they are not able to receive state building aid. Money for buildings is from bonding by endowments. Mr. Colburn states that they are not in a position to allow more students as the facility cannot currently house these students. In addition, Mr. Colburn states that CBNA felt it was important to hire an engineering firm to help develop the campus. He states that they would need to re-develop the entrance if there was a building added in this area.

Mr. Strobel asked if there was an existing master plan for CBNA and Mr. Colburn replies no. Mr. Colburn continues to explain that at the time they were discussing this with Civil Consultants, they did not have any availability of access onto Bow Lake Rd. There is a lot of wooded property in the back; however, there would be many issues with cost and safety. Mr. Colburn states that the Davidsons had put their property on the market and they felt it was an opportunity that may not appear again.

Mr. Strobel states that he does not contest the idea that this is a good idea to address the traffic on Rte. 4; however, the issue is whether this is good thing for Bow Lake Rd. and whether the impacts on Rte. 4 outweigh the concerns of the town and if there is a balance. He adds that the morning peak is a shorter time period that is more condensed and more concentrated. In the afternoon, the traffic is spread out further; however, 75% of the students would now be turning left onto Rte. 4 east bound. Mr. Aleva states that 75% of the cars coming from Bow Lake Road enter the campus and should be making the left out onto Bow Lake Rd.

Mr. Strobel asks if traffic counts have been taken up to Sherburne Hill Rd. and Mr. Aleva replied no, only at the egress points into the campus. Counts were completed during the summer and while school was in session for the a.m. and p.m. for the traffic flows. No traffic counts were taken up through Bow Lake Rd.

Mr. Hedrich explains that in the morning heading south on Bow Lake Rd. of all the cars on Bow Lake Rd. 75% are coming into the campus and that this is 1/3 of all the cars coming into campus. He adds that the reason why they did not look any further than the immediate campus for the traffic study is because they are not forecasting any growth to the campus. He states that in the morning 140 cars come down Bow Lake Rd. and 96 of these cars are coming into the campus. Mr. Hedrich states it is the same amount of cars that go through the driveways.
Ms. Planchet asks for specific numbers and Mr. Hedrich explains that they are forecasting 60 more cars from eastern Rte. 4 to now go onto Bow Lake Rd in the morning. In the afternoon coming out of the access drive, they estimate 25 cars will turn right towards Rte. 4. He adds that the residential traffic will not change. Discussion ensues regarding the delay. Mr. Strobel notes that in the morning the delay will still be more than 100 seconds regardless if turning left on Bow Lake Road and in the afternoon the delay is 16 seconds. Mr. Hedrich explains that this is 16 seconds per car and the overall delay is reduced at the intersection.

Ms. Parmele states that when all is said and done with what is said to be minor changes to Bow Lake Road, the point the residents are making is that it is already not a safe road. She asks if the representatives here this evening from NHDOT and TEPP feel that this will be less safe on Bow Lake Rd. She adds that the goal is to make the roads safer and make traffic flow better on Rte. 4 but what will happen on Bow Lake Road. Mr. Hedrich states that the overall volume of traffic will stay about the same. He states that the increase will be 11 cars in 60 minutes. He adds that the proposal is reducing the traffic that comes all the way down Bow Lake Rd. in the morning. Ms. Planchet notes the difficulties of turning left onto Rte. 4 and now more cars are turning right onto Bow Lake Rd. and this is all without a traffic light. Mr. Hedrich replies that this is a single lane approach on Rte. 4.

Ms. Planchet asks if there is a delay in turning right, won’t some people try to go around. Mr. Hazarvartian states that they have recommended investing dollars in pavement there for a 100’ section of two lane approach onto Rte 4. He added that they have also recommended monitoring traffic after the access way is in place to see if police control needs to be expanded, reduced, etc. Ms. Planchet states that with the monitoring, what would be required to change or add police or a light. Mr. Hazarvartian replies that it could be accident frequency although he would not expect any increase in rate but says it should be monitored. In addition, if there was a change in queuing or delays on the Bow Lake Rd. approach to Rte. 4 that could be monitored. He adds that with a double lane approach, he believes it would offset any extra traffic that may be added to Bow Lake Rd. He notes that the traffic assignments may balance out once people have a choice and see what works better.

Mr. Johnson states that if traffic turning left is difficult then the cars will proceed to where the office is located. He states that this will not be a problem to Bow Lake Rd.

Ms. Planchet states that the comments that have been generated from the public have been related to safety and the bus stop on Bow Lake Rd. and turning onto Rte. 4. Mr. Strobel adds that if the most convenient entrance is the main entrance then that is what will be used most and why build the access road. Ms. Planchet asks what the plans are for students to be using the access road. Mr. Aleva explains the traffic pattern for the upper parking lot, which is for students and that this new access will save the students from coming down Bow Lake Rd., onto Rte. 4, into the campus, and back up the hill to park. He states that this will be an improvement to the residents as this will remove many cars from the lower portion of the road and on Rte. 4.

Ms. Smith asks if the new access road could be solely for students coming from Strafford rather than the east of Rte. 4 and how much of a difference there will be. Mr. Aleva states that he is hesitant to restrict a direction. He explains that they are promoting pedestrian safety for the students and they will take the least resistance access. Mr. Colburn states that coming from the west end of town there will be less congestion at the main entrance. These cars will find it easier to get into the parking entrance as there will be less right turning vehicles. He adds that he does not anticipate vehicles would be turning left into Bow Lake Rd. as there will still be an officer and there will also be less conflict. Discussion ensues and Ms. Planchet asks if officer placement at the entrance of Bow Lake Rd. has been considered given the inexperienced drivers. Mr. Colburn replies that the numbers do not justify the need for an additional officer at this time; however, they would if necessary. Mr. Hedrich adds that the afternoon traffic numbers are less.

Mr. Strobel asks about the a.m. drop off traffic. Mr. Aleva replies it is around 75. Mr. Colburn adds that they have changed the drop off by Smith Hall for safety reasons. He notes that they are still looking for other options to make it easier, safer and shorter. Mr. Aleva adds that they do not want parents dropping off and heading up to and out at the access road as there will be students walking down from the access road area.

Ms. Parmele asks for perspective from Kevin Russell from NHDOT. He states that he has received many documents over the past few weeks. He explains that DOT has a driveway policy and he would not be denying or approving this access since Bow Lake Rd. is not a state road; however, anything in the right of way he would be approving or denying. He expresses concern with the striping and he states he agrees with comments heard so far in discussions. He states that it will not be a requirement to use Bow Lake Rd. and agrees with the potential amount of 60 cars. As far as the intersection of Rte. 4 and Bow Lake Rd. he states that there will be 11 more conflicts in the evening at the peak hour, which is not a good thing. He adds that as far as the morning, this is the time for the majority of the people to be traveling and mentions the back-ups on Rte 4. He states that he thinks that there is a reduction predicted of 40 conflicts at the interchange and this is a huge positive impact on Rte 4 and the back-ups should not be there any longer. Mr. Russell states that in his opinion these back-ups may be prior to Bow Lake Rd. and as an access engineer, this is a good thing. Mr. Russell refers to the existing day care center business and the 60 vehicles from the westerly bound and states that there will be 39 less conflicts which is a good thing.

Mr. Russell states that concerns with the left turn in the evening, there will be 11 more conflicts. He adds that a traffic light has been discussed and DOT states that this is not warranted and they create their own hazards as it would restrict mobility in the whole area. Ms. Parmele asks what DOT’s goal is in this area of town. She states that this will help traffic flow but it will not slow things down. Mr. Russell states that DOT likes to see less driveways or to limit driveways on Rte 4 to reduce conflicts. He adds that a police presence helps to slow people down. Mr. Strobel states that the speed limit is 35 MPH during school times.

Mr. Strobel asks how the town would slow down traffic at that corner. Mr. Russell states that he would propose striping a line and extend the white line. He states that DOT has never allowed this before in any conditions. He states that he discussed this with engineers in his office and conducted a survey on their opinion. The standards do not show this and there has been some indication that dual lanes could allow this configuration. He states that if there is too wide of a shoulder, then people turning into Bow Lake Rd. have a sight line issue. He feels that most people would travel on the curb line vs. the white line. He states that this is a unique situation and he would be willing to try this. He notes that there are right of way issues too.

Further discussion is held regarding striping and painting. Mr. Aleva reviews the proposal for queuing lanes and painting beyond the access. He adds that the area would be narrower which creates slower speeds.

Mr. Russell stated that he reviewed materials used for the road and crosswalks. He states that his comments would be forwarded to the town as this is a town road.

Mr. Strobel refers to the stretch between the entranceway and Sherburne Hill, which is posted at 25 MPH. He states that residents have said that the actual speed is higher than that. Mr. Strobel notes that Police Chief Drolet is present and Mr. Strobel asks if there are records for actual speeds on this section of Bow Lake Rd. Chief Drolet states that the actual speed is probably around
38-40 mph; officers enforce about 10 mile per hour buffer. Based on tickets they’ve written, he estimates that the average speed where they are writing tickets is around 40 MPH.

Mr. Strobel asks aside from enforcement are there any methods for slowing traffic. Mr. Hazarvartian explains sight distances in the area. He states that even if people are speeding they are able to anticipate the conflicts. He states that bypass shoulders and turn lanes are an option if warranted and are not at this location. He adds that as far as the speed limits in the area, drivers are coming to the end of the road and this will result in some reduction of speed. In addition, there will be some vehicles turning in and out of the new access road which will limit speeds. He adds that they can add warning signs yet not a school zone reduction but signs that show students are present. He notes that this would be a good faith attempt and states that a side road sign such as a “T”, to alert folks that there is a driveway nearby could be considered. Mr. Hazarvartian states that speed bumps could be added; however, he generally reserves those for specialized locations and not this type of road.

Ms. Planchet asks who designates a school zone. Mr. Hazarvartian replies that the town would make the ultimate decision. Mr. Russell states that he has not looked into this; however, will review and provide comments. Mr. Aleva states that there is currently a school zone sign west of Bow Lake Rd., which can be moved to the eastern side of the road. He adds that the striping at the intersection is gone and signs could be added for the school area. He states that they are looking at a combination of ideas.

Ms. Parmele asks if the police chief is satisfied with the data. Chief Drolet states that he is in full agreement that something needs to be done. He states that there are several issues that will not be resolved by this access road with one of the biggest one being the drop off with almost 100 cars lining up. He explains that once the cars are lined up, you cannot get any more in so there is stacking. He states that there are still safety issues with students walking in front of the cars pulling in, which causes these cars to stop as well. The chief adds that the main entrance has to be fixed along with the access road being somewhere else or possibly an off ramp into the campus.

Ms. Parmele asks if the members of the public want to ask questions of the engineers. Marcia Severance asks to return to the article regarding Barrington students. She states that the article references that there are currently 332 students. She asks if CBNA accepts these students, these students will be traveling from an easterly direction with the intent that CBNA will want them to go up Bow Lake Road. Ms. Severance states that this will be a tremendous increase in traffic volume and this added traffic will reduce the property values. Mr. Aleva states that as Mr. Colburn indicated that the contract expires in 2014. He states that they do not know if the students would come to CBNA; however, it does need to be looked into. He adds that the school does not have the capacity for these students, which would require the issues to be revisited. He adds that this is not in the plan at this time.

Sue Thomas, Sherburne Hill Road, states that these kids are all driving too fast. She states that because of the tardy policy, these students will make it to class on time. She asks if anyone has seen Bow Lake Road in the winter. She explains that the road is very slippery. She asks who will be maintaining the access road and Mr. Aleva replies Coe Brown. Discussion is held regarding sidewalks maintenance, which Mr. Aleva states is the town’s responsibility. Ms. Thomas states that there are students who walk in the afternoon, walking on Rte 4, and cross country running on Bow Lake Rd. and Sherburne Hill Rd. She states that there are problems and then there will be 11 more cars and 11 more problems. Ms. Thomas adds that there also is the new housing development that is not fully built; she asks if this has been figured in. Mr. Aleva replies yes. He adds that CBNA is not changing the traffic flow; there will be the same amount of students and staff. Ms. Thomas states that this is an icy road, kids are inexperienced, there will be a bottleneck regardless and there is no officer. She adds that there will still be congestion. Mr. Aleva states that their determination is that this is a safe intersection.

Rick Wolf, speaking as a taxpayer, states that if there is a problem with the road it is a town problem and the same with the enforcement of speed; these are not Coe Brown’s problems.

Tim Colby, Bryant Road, asks what determines a school zone on state highways. He states that this was asked early on and is still unanswered. Mr. Russell stated he would find out and get back to the board with this information. Mr. Colby states that the seniors will still be staying on Rte. 4 to enter the senior parking. Mr. Aleva replies that the seniors will still use the main entrance along with the drop offs. Mr. Colby asks who monitors the drop offs now. Mr. Aleva states that everyone is supposed to go through the resource officer. Mr. Colby asks if CBNA will continue striping the roads and Mr. Strobel states that this would be under the highway department’s budget.

Mr. Hazarvartian states that from the manual on traffic control device a school zone is a place where the speed limit is reduced. The reduced speed zone should begin at a point 200 ft. from a crosswalk or 100’ from the school property line, based on whichever is encountered first as traffic approaches a school. He adds that “should be” is determined by the engineering study.
Mr. Aleva states that they are proposing signs to indicate this is a school area, from the access point, 250 ft. up Bow Lake Rd. and 250 ft. back towards Rte. 4; the purpose is the same. He adds that a school zone is to reduce speed by 10 MPH and no lower than 25 MPH. Mr. Hazarvartian explains signs used in school areas. Ms. Planchet asks that this information be provided in writing to the planning board.

Steve Ireland, Allen Farm Rd., states that he is speaking as a resident and is also a professional engineer who has looked at this. He asks if Bow Lake Rd. is the only road that people are ticketed on and his point is that speeding is a town wide issue. In his professional opinion, he feels that an officer at Bow Lake Road and Rte. 4 is a poor idea as this will make access easier and draw more traffic. Restricting the roads does not fit with access management. He states that this is the same amount of traffic just in a different pattern at a different time. He continues regarding delay times and adds that if CBNA needs to add buildings they will need to come before the board again and there is no point to speculate on the future plans. He states that this is an improvement on internal circulation and Rte. 4 as there will be 22 vehicles less.

Ms. Planchet asks if Mr. Russell if Mr. Ireland was one of those in the office that he surveyed on the opinion of the proposal from CBNA. Mr. Russell replies that he did discuss the proposal with him; however, he was not one he included in the survey regarding traffic improvements in the state right of way.

Mr. Hazarvartian states that illuminations have not been addressed. Mr. Aleva states that they are not proposing any lighting on the access road as it does not appear necessary. Mr. Hazarvartian states that the board may want to consider nighttime is around 4:00 in the winter. He adds that it would be good to light the area if there were evening activities. He would prefer to see a light there. Chief Drolet adds that if the area is used at night for graduation, etc. that access way will need an officer out there and the officer would not be able to be out there in the dark; therefore, that intersection needs to be illuminated. Mr. Aleva states that on the next set of plans they will show a street light at the intersection that will be on a timer to turn it off at 10 or 11 p.m.

Ms. Thomas states that there will be more traffic then if the area is to be used for sporting events and graduation. Mr. Aleva replies there will be traffic using the road and he does not feel that this would warrant another study for traffic.

Ms. Thomas asks if the access will be gated and Mr. Aleva replies no. Ms. Thomas states that this is a problem and asks if the area will be patrolled.

Mr. Aleva provides a request to continue the case to January 28, 2010. Mr. Strobel states that the case is continued to January 28, 2010.

Mr. Strobel calls for a three minute recess.

Rick Wolf has returned to the board as a voting member.

CASE 09-14: Mark Lopez (Family Dollar), Rte. 202 & 9. Map 234; Lot 7; Sublot 2. Applicant is seeking a site plan review for construction of an 9,250 sq. ft. retail store to include Family Dollar and one rental unit. (Property currently owned by Beth Grimes and Gregory Lalish.)

Mr. Johnson recuses himself for this case and leaves the table.

Chris Berry of Berry Surveying and Engineering is present and requests to postpone the consideration of the case to the January 28, 2010 meeting. Mr. Berry states that they are waiving their right to have the planning board act on the application within the 30 day time period following submission of application. Bob Strobel makes a motion to postpone consideration of Family Dollar to January 28. Scott Bryer seconds. Motion passes; 6/0.

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. Application accepted as complete on 11/19/09; 65 day 1/23/10.

Herb Johnson returns to the board as a voting member. Tom Varney is present representing Elias Ververidis; Ms. Klia Ververidis is also present.

Mr. Strobel states that new information was received December 14. These items are reviewed by the board.

Ms. Planchet notes that there were changes to the plans. Ms. Smith states that there has not been a traffic study transmitted as that could be done only by a traffic engineer; traffic data has been submitted.

Mr. Strobel reviews the materials and states that the intended seating is only for 50 customers and he asks if there are any plans for an alcohol license. Mr. Varney replies there are not.

Discussion ensues relative to traffic. Mr. Strobel notes the location and the amount of traffic in the area. He adds that there is a turning lane in the vicinity as well. He states he has concerns with the queuing distance of turning traffic. Mr. Varney states that he reviewed a site plan from the Docko Sand & Gravel site. He reviewed traffic counts and warrants. He states that there was a warrant for a shoulder and left turn lane and he believes that they do not meet that threshold. He explains that there is a 12’ lane and left turn lane in the middle. The bypass lane allows for room to turn. There is a partial left turn lane to enter the property and leave; therefore, he feels that they have the extra room. He states that they proposed that one driveway entrance is being removed leaving two. Mr. Russell of NHDOT states that DOT does not even look at traffic counts until it hits 100 in the peak hours and this proposal was already approved from his office. Ms. Parmele notes that the speed limit is increasing in this area and there are many businesses in this section of town. Mr. Russell states that DOT has a two driveway limit and these are mainly issues with access management. He states that this rule has applied since 1971, that once there is any change of use DOT takes a look at it for many reasons, including drainage, surrounding issues, sight lines, and the traffic amount.

Ms. Ververidis states that this has all been reviewed by DOT and they have granted the approvals. Ms. Planchet states that the town and state have different perspectives and the driveways are where their issues meet. Ms. Ververidis states that neighboring businesses have more traffic. She responds that pizza delivery is not anticipated.

Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to grant a waiver for the traffic study. Motion passes; 6/1. Ms. Parmele is opposed.

Ms. Planchet states that hours of application for both businesses and sight distances should be added to the plans; the board agrees. Mr. Varney states that the sight distance is 400 ft. and agrees to add a note to the plan.

Discussion ensues regarding sending the application to the town engineers for review of storm water calculations. Mr. Bryer motions to have the application sent to the town engineers to review storm water calculations. Ms. Parmele seconds. Mr. Bell asks what the percentage is of the parking area based on the total parcel area. Mr. Varney replies that the parcel is 10.2 acres so the parking lot might be 15%. Mr. Strobel states that the review should confirm that the application meets the town’s regulations for a 25 year storm and that the swales and spreader are adequate to handle the 25 year stormwater drainage in specific. Mr. Bell asks if the level spreader was designed for a 25 year storm and Mr. Varney replies that it was. Mr. Varney explains that it is a simple system being proposed. Mr. Bell states that he does not believe this warrants sending to the engineer as it is a small impact to the site. Setbacks are reviewed and are deemed to be 40’ away. Mr. Strobel states that it is overall a simple system. VOTE: 0/7. Motion does not pass.

Mr. Johnson makes a motion to approve the site plan application with the following conditions:
1. Hours of Operation for both restaurant and art gallery be added to the plan.
2. Sight distance on Route 4 to be shown on the plan.
3. A note to be added to the plan: “The physical appearance of the building will not be changed.”
No Second.

Ms. Parmele mentions the sidewalks.

Abutter Scott Martin, Green St., states that he would like to applaud the applicant for using the existing building. He notes that the lighting on the existing sign is now shining up and should be shining indirectly and that it does not agree with the current town regulations. He states that the lighting should either be back lighting or going down. Mr. Martin asks if 50 seats can fit in the restaurant. Ms. Ververidis replies that they could. Mr. Martin states that what ever can fit in the building is what he would rather see and he expresses concern with future expansion of the business. Mr. Martin states that a lot of people do use the sidewalk. He asks that the lighting be full cut off lighting and asks if there is a lighting plan. He adds that tractor trailers park at the white house and go across the street. He adds that this is an enforcement issue and may be a site issue.

Mr. Strobel states that the lighting sign detail does indicate a light at the top with a cut off. Mr. Varney refers to a lighting plan. Mr. Bell asks if there is lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Varney explains that there is no lighting in the parking lot and there is enough light from the surrounding buildings.

Ms. Smith states that Mr. Martin referred to expansion and she adds that there is an exemption from site plan however minimal it may be.

Ms. Smith states that it has been stated that the applicant’s intent is that the building will remain as it sits today. She asks if a note could be added to the plan stating the building will retain its size and shape, etc. Ms. Ververidis states that she has spoken to Nadine Peterson from the state regarding the historical values. Ms. Smith states that if this is indicated on the site plan it is specific to the town. Ms. Ververidis agrees that the structure will remain the same except painting, etc. She notes that they will request for 50- people and believes that 10 tables will fit comfortably.
Mr. Wolf seconds the motion.

Ms. Smith asks about any discussion on the art studio by the board. She asks about facilities in the restaurant. Ms. Ververidis states that as long as there is a working bathroom within 500 sq. ft. there is not another facility required.

Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Ms. Parmele leaves at 10:11 p.m.

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 accepted as complete on 10/22/09; 65 day 12/26/09.

A request for continuance has been received until the January meeting. Ms. Planchet states that verbal permission has been received for use of the plan.
Mr. Strobel motions to continue case 09-11 to January 28, 2010. Mr. Johnson seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

CASE 09-13: Dr. Judith Mahoney and Kenneth D’Angelo, 569 First NH Tpke. Map 221; Lot 59. Applicant is seeking a waiver to site plan review for a change of use.

Mr. Strobel explains that the request is for the board to grant a waiver of site plan review. Ms. Smith states that she does not feel that the board can determine if site plan is required or not required, only the code enforcement officer can do that. She explains that if the property owner felt that they could operate within the existing site plan or felt that they were not subject to site plan requirements, it would be the code enforcement officer who would determine if the applicant met the site plan threshold. She states that it is not the role of the planning board to enforce its own regulations. The board should review the information and determine if there is enough information provided to make a decision and accept the application as complete enough to grant the waiver requests or deny the request.

RSA 674:43 and 676:44 are reviewed relative to the actions of the board and the process the board must follow regarding this type of application and request.

Mr. D’Angelo states that they have been in business for 20 years at their existing location and would like to move 2 miles down the road. He states that the new facility is a commercial building and they do not intend to change the parking or exterior of the building. In addition, he explains that the new location’s building is classified for professional services, which is what they are and this is really not even a change of use for the new location. He states that they do not feel that anything will be changing other than the location.

Mr. Strobel makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to accept the application as complete. Motion passes unanimously, 6/0.

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

Mr. Bryer refers to a memo from the building inspector and asks if the planner has had discussions relative to the memo. Ms. Planchet replies she has not and Mr. Bryer requests additional information regarding the parking area and the septic system. Mr. D’Angelo explains that there are 3 floors for 3 businesses, and there are 6 bathrooms in the building. He states that the septic system has been inspected and is adequate for their purposes. He adds that there is parking information in the property file. Mr. D’Angelo states that there are no environmental issues or impacts. Ms. Planchet confirms that there is parking information in the property file.

Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Bell, to approve all waiver requests, with the following conditions:
1. Copy of septic system inspection by a licensed septic designer to be provided.
2. Copy of environmental risk review to be provided.
Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Signature/Pending files:
Mr. Strobel signs Site Plans for Eliza and Stephen Farrar home daycare.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lamprey River:
Mr. Strobel explains that the board has indicated supporting the Lamprey River designation. He states that the Lamprey River Watershed Association is looking for a representative and asks members to think about it.

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to adjourn at 10:38 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page