Planning Board

Minutes

April 10, 2006

Official as of June 22, 2006

Chairman Eric Reitter calls the work session to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Eric Reitter, Vice-chairman Robert Jozokos, Alden Dill, Robert Fletcher, Joann Bailey, Alternate Nikki Roy, Selectmen Representative Douglas Shaffer sitting in for Selectman Ken Witham, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver arrives at 7:20 p.m. Lucy Edwards and Victoria Parmele alternates that have not been sworn in to date.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Eric Reitter, Vice-chairman Bob Jozokos, Alden Dill, Bob Fletcher, Joann Bailey, Alternate Nikki Roy, and Selectmen Representative Doug Shaffer.

ABSENT: Russell Eldridge, and Alternate Scott Martin.

MINUTES:

November 28, 2005: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of November 28, 2005, as written. Motion passes; 4/0/3. Alden Dill, Bob Fletcher, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

December 7, 2005: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of December 7, 2005, as amended. Motion passes; 5/0/2. Bob Fletcher, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

December 12, 2005: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of December 12, 2005, as written. Motion passes; 4/0/3. Nikki Roy, Bob Fletcher, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

December 15, 2005: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of December 12, 2005, as amended. Motion passes; 3/0/4. Nikki Roy, Bob Fletcher, Joann Bailey, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

January 3, 2006: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of January 3, 2006, as amended. Motion passes; 2/0/5. Nikki Roy, Bob Fletcher, Alden Dill, Joann Bailey, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

January 4, 2006: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of January 4, 2006, as written. Motion passes; 3/0/4. Nikki Roy, Bob Fletcher, Alden Dill, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

January 24, 2006: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of January 24, 2006, as amended. Motion passes; 4/0/3. Bob Fletcher, Alden Dill, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

January 26, 2006: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of January 26, 2006, as written. Motion passes; 5/0/2. Bob Fletcher, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting.

February 13, 2006: Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to approve the minutes of February 13, 2006, as written. Motion passes; 2/0/4. Nikki Roy, Bob Fletcher, Alden Dill, and Doug Shaffer abstain, as they were not at the meeting. Joann Bailey abstains, as she had not reviewed the minutes.

A discussion is held regarding reviewing and approving minutes. The board agrees that the regularly monthly meeting minutes will be distributed at the TRC meeting and be ready for approval at the next available meeting or work session.  

OTHER:

Memo Regarding Alternate Position – Mr. Reitter reads a memo received from Ms. Smith regarding the vote for appointment for alternate member, Lucy Edwards. Ms. Smith states that she has reviewed the minutes and tapes and recommends that the board re-state their motion and vote to appoint Ms. Edwards in public session as it appears that Mr. Reitter simply stated the board’s vote to appoint Ms. Edwards after a non-public session, where a formal vote should be taken in public session. Also, in the memo, Ms. Smith referred to RSA 673:6-I(a), regarding terms for alternate members, terms shall be 3 years.  Mr. Reitter makes a motion to appoint Lucy Edwards as an alternate member for a term of three years, term to expire March, 2009. Mr. Fletcher asks if there have been any other residents applying for alternate positions. Ms. Smith replies that two letters have been received and they have been put on the agenda for the regular monthly meeting, as is the normal procedure. Ms. Smith adds that Ms. Edward’s appointment is being discussed as it is clearing up a vote that occurred last month. Ms. Smith states that there is nothing to stop a board from voting in non-public session as long as there is another vote in a public session. She explains that there was no official vote taken for the public record. She adds that the purpose of the memo was to bring this to the attention of the board and clarify a decision that was stated, the vote was stated by the chairman. No actual call of a vote was taken and she felt that this was a technical matter that the board needed to be made aware of. Mr. Fletcher feels that there is another technical matter in that there was not a roll call vote taken, there was no specific reason provided, and also that Ms. Smith made the motion. Ms. Smith states that she has reviewed the tape and heard the chair make the motion; he then paused and said under RSA and then she states that she read the RSA article number and read the RSA. She explains that the motion is clearly the chairman’s voice and then Mr. Reitter started to call for a vote and Ms. Smith noted that a roll call vote must be taken. Ms. Roy adds that when the board makes motions to enter into a non-public session, they commonly refer to Ms. Smith for the correct RSA. Mr. Reitter adds that Ms. Edwards did not specifically request an open session and did not want to be a part of the discussion. Ms. Edwards adds that she stated that her appointment matter was up to the board to decide. Additional discussion continues regarding non public sessions. Joann Bailey seconds the motion. Mr. Fletcher states that he feels that there is an issue with the right to know law. He explains that the board needs to have everything in line or this will occur again next month. Mr. Reitter states that the board is in discussion of the motion right now and this is the time for discussion of the motion. Mr. Fletcher states that he has spoke to a consultant at the Local Government Center (LGC). He states that he was told that this matter never should have gone into a non-public session due to the right to know laws. Ms. Smith disagrees and states that the statute is very clear. Mr. Fletcher notes that this needs to be done properly. Ms. Smith explains that this is the proper way for the board to do appointments. Mr. Reitter adds that the meeting has been legally posted. Ms. Smith clarifies that work sessions require a 24 hour notice. The board can make motions on alternate members during work sessions. She adds that the statute clearly states that if there is any discussion that could adversely affect a person; this is one of the five reasons that the board can enter into a non-public session. She notes that town counsel has concurred with this action and further clarification can be obtained from legal counsel if Mr. Fletcher disagrees. Mr. Fletcher replies that he does disagree and adds that there are additional applicants that should also be considered for the alternate positions. Mr. Reitter states that there are three positions available for alternates. Mr. Shaffer asks if Ms. Smith received a written opinion from counsel. Mr. Reitter comments that based on the RSA, it is clear and does not require counsel’s opinion. Mr. Shaffer replies that written documentation should be obtained from town counsel for their opinions and not just be provided over the telephone. Ms. Smith notes that she usually contacts town counsel via email and would then have documentation to support counsel’s decision. Mr. Reitter asks for further discussion, being none, the motion passes; 5/1/1. Doug Shaffer opposed, and Bob Fletcher abstains. Ms. Smith adds that the policy for appointments is that the planning board must sign the appointment papers for alternate members prior to the person being sworn in by the town clerk. Mr. Reitter notes that neither Ms. Edwards nor Ms. Parmele is a voting member for tonight’s meeting; Ms. Roy is the appointed voting alternate.  

Mr. Reitter introduces Vitoria Parmele as an alternate member. 

Pin Inspections - Ms. Smith states that in 2005 the board agreed to contract with Patrick Bell regarding pin inspections. She explains that adequate funds were not in the budget in order to pay for the service as the money had not been appropriated. Money had been collected on some applications and the inspections have not been done. Discussion is held regarding establishing a policy for pin inspections. Ms. Smith explains that she has been requesting separate checks be provided for pin inspections then if the inspection has not been done, the applicant would get the check returned to them. Mr. Reitter explains the reason for pin inspections is there were subdivisions and boundary line adjustments that the board had approved prior to 2002 in which the construction had been completed and then plans were approved. In 2004, the board agreed to check pins periodically. Mr. Shaffer states that pins have not been placed on his property to date. Linda Smith states that the fee is now $60. per lot. She adds that she will contact the vendor and the town’s engineering firm for an amount for the fee. Mr. Fletcher feels that pin inspections are a good idea. The board agrees to have pin inspections become a condition of approval and require all applicants to provide a separate check for pin inspections. Spot checks will occur over the course of the next year.

Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) - Michelle, from SRPC, who is working under Gerry Mylroie, has faxed information for a water conservation plan for the Meadow at Northwood on Bow Street. Michelle has asked if there are any items that the planning board would like SRPC to review. Mr. Reitter states that the board will review the letter and comment.

Cell Tower Bond – Ms. Smith states that a letter has been received regarding the cell tower bond for the cell tower on the Bean property. After discussion of the process of a bond being necessary for a cell tower, Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Alden Dill, for Board Administrator Linda Smith to send a letter to the cell tower owner stating that the bond is a required condition of the site plan approval and if the bond is released or cancelled on April 26, 2006, then on that date, the site plan for the cell tower will be null and void. At that point, the board will take action to revoke the site plan. A copy to be sent to the bonding company and to the attorney of record for the cell tower company. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA) - Ms. Smith states that she has received information regarding when a BLA needs state subdivision approval. She explains that there are three situations, as follows:

* Making a lot to be less than 5 acres,

* Sewage or disposal system will be installed on the piece being moved to another lot

* No more owners than what was on the original lot otherwise it would be a subdivision.

Bathrooms - A discussion is held regarding required bathrooms. Ms. Smith states that she spoke to an upcoming applicant regarding the need for a bathroom. The applicant explained that the statute requires facilities to be provided for employees and that it is readily accessible. In this case, the applicant will be allowing the employees to use the facilities at the home and they feel that this is readily accessible.  A discussion is held regarding septic systems serving multiple units. Mr. Reitter states that this should be addressed by the code enforcement office. He adds that the planning board will comply with the CEO decision. 

Intersection of Upper Bow Street with Rte. 4 - Alden Dill states that the intersection of Upper Bow Street with Rte. 4 is becoming a difficult area due to many signs. Mr. Reitter states that Mr. Dill should contact the selectmen and then the information should be brought to NHDOT.

Planner Position – Mr. Reitter states that planning board discussed the planner position with Selectmen Representative Ken Witham and then requested Mr. Witham to present the planning board’s thoughts to the rest of the selectmen. Mr. Reitter states that he did not feel that the planner position would be shot down right away. He adds that he has spoken to the town administrator and requested a joint meeting with the selectmen, which has been scheduled for 4/11/06 at 7:45. Mr. Reitter states that he received a phone call from Mr. Witham regarding a compromise. Mr. Witham stated that he would like to help the board to work more efficiently but at the same time there is another position requested for the building department. Mr. Reitter explains that he and Mr. Witham were not speaking for the boards but as individuals. Mr. Reitter states that he is not sure how a compromise would work as a planner is typically hired at a higher salary than a secretary for the building department would be. Mr. Shaffer states that as the representative for Mr. Witham and as a selectmen, he is open minded to keeping the lines of communication open. He asks if a job description has been created for a planner. Mr. Reitter replies that a job description has not been completed. Mr. Reitter adds that the intent of the previous meeting and discussions with Mr. Witham was that the planning board would be included with drafting the job description and as part of the interviewing process. He adds that the process has not been started and that the planning board was looking forward for the process to be a joint process with the selectmen even though it is not a requirement of the RSA’s. Mr. Reitter explains that a planner, in reviewing site plans and subdivisions, would be communicating back and forth with the building department. Ms. Smith states that much of her time has been taken up by working with the building department, especially over the past few months. She adds that she feels that she could help with organizing the process for the building department. Ms. Parmele asks the logic of not having a planner. Ms. Smith explains the voters approved the operating budget and it is up to the BOS, as the fiscal agents of the town, to disperse that money throughout the departments of the town. She adds that it is up to the people in those positions to make a decision whether they are going to agree with the voters and what they thought they were approving or use there own discretion to do something else. Mr. Shaffer replies that the BOS are looking at the entire budget and staying on the same route will result in problems. Mr. Fletcher states that it was his opinion that the BOS all agreed that there needs to be a part time planner; however, the money was the issue. He feels that if there was a way to get a planner and augment the building department, he does not think it would an issue. He adds that it should not be dependent on volunteers at early morning hours. Mr. Shaffer states that he agrees that there should be a part time planner. Mr. Reitter states that everyone agrees that the position is necessary. He adds that the salary was $35,000 and with all other benefits, the total was $38,000. Mr. Reitter states that it was not the board’s intent for the position to be at this amount for only 8 months. Mr. Reitter states that the board could adjust fees and have the planner position be somewhat self funded. Mr. Reitter states that he feels if a planner were hired next month for a part time position for 20-25 hours/week, the salary would be around $25,000. This would be an annual position for $40-$45,000. Mr. Shaffer states that if the amount were proposed at $18,000 -$19,000, it may be able to be worked with. Further discussion is held. Mr. Shaffer states that the BOS are open minded and requests suggestions.    

Ms. Parmele offers her expertise and the use of her hours at no cost. Mr. Reitter thanks Ms. Parmele and replies that her offer is great and the board needs to do what ever it can to supplement. Further discussion is held regarding relying on the volunteers again. In closing, Mr. Reitter states that he is in agreement for lowering taxes and if there is something that can be done utilizing the existing staff and hiring one position rather than two, it is to everyone’s benefit as long as both jobs are getting completed.  

Nikki Roy left at 8:30 p.m.

TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS:

The following comments are not intended to be inclusive of all issues that the board may have regarding a particular development. These comments are intended to be merely a starting point in the discussion of each case and other issues may arise as a result of discussion with the full board and the public.

TRC:

CASE: 06-10: William DeTrude, 10 Friendship Cove. Map 105, Lot 37. Applicant is seeking a boundary line adjustment between tracts 3, 3A, and 4; then combine tracts 3 and 3A into one lot. 

Following a review of the submitted application, the following comments were generated:

* 100 year flood plain needs to be delineated. Ms. Smith will contact the surveyor

* Setback lines should be shown on the plans.

* A written waiver request for wetlands be provided

* A written waiver request for soil types be provided

* Updated plans need to be provided

CASE: 06-07: Dennis Campbell and Alisa Alves, 11 Strafford Road. Map 231, Lot 43. Applicant is seeking subdivision of 6.2 acres into 3 lots.   

Following a review of the submitted application, the following comments were generated:

* State subdivision approval must be obtained

* Site walk to be scheduled

* Accurately show the existing septic system on lot 43.

* Add proof that Section 3.03, Article (B)(1) has been met; areas to be delineated on the plan.

* Provide an explanation of the shared driveway within the wetlands setback.

* Provide bonding of the shared driveway.

* Provide a maintenance agreement for the shared driveway noting the percentages for each lot.

* Provide a construction detail for the entire driveway

* Provide a drainage plan

* Are culverts necessary under the driveways and if so a detail should be provided on the plans 

* Proof that there is site distance of 300’ in each direction, which can be provided in form of a profile with accurate heights of vehicles showing that adequate site distance is achieved.

CASE: 06-08: Franklin and Sandra Bean, 36 Bean Road. Map 234, Lot 12-2. Applicant is seeking a four lot subdivision of 22.47 Ac. One lot will have existing house, septic, and well. 3 remaining lots will be approximately 2.5 Ac. Fourth lot will be 14.8 Ac. Frontage proposed on new Class V road, which will be 650’ long; open space design.

Following a review of the submitted application, the following comments were generated:

* Eric Reitter recommends sending the plans to Underwood Engineering for review.

* Provide an existing conditions plan

* Delineate driveway locations and access points for site distance purposes

CASE: 06-09: Franklin and Sandra Bean, 36 Bean Road; Map 234, Lot 12-2.  Lorraine and David Ruth, 114 First NH Tpke., Map 234, Lot 13. Applicants are seeking a boundary line adjustment to add 0.49 Ac. onto lot 13, to become 1.9 Ac. Lot 12 will be reduced from 22.62 Ac. to 22.12 Ac. This will add 5’ frontage onto lot 13 along Rte 4.  

Following a review of the submitted application, the following comments were generated:

* The Ruth’s will need to grant a 20’ utility easement for the tower as it will cross the land.

CASE: 06-11: Elias and Klia Ververidis, 188 First NH Tpke. Map 231, Lot 35. Applicant is seeking site plan for an art gallery and studio, with 1,000 sq. ft. of business floor space.

* Construction detail for the parking lot be provided

* NHDOT approval for the change of use for the driveway

* 7 parking spaces are required

* 2 parking spaces needed for the house and the barn

* Delineate the walkway between the building and the parking area

* Any hazardous materials and disposal of such

* Hours of operation need to be delineated

CASE: 06-12: Bruce Farr and Judith Sanderson, 51 Catamount Road. Map 212, Lots 21 and 22. Applicant is seeking a boundary line adjustment to adjust the lot line between lots 21 and 22 by adding 3,020 sq. ft. area to lot 22. Lot 21 will become 5 Acs. with 227’ frontage. Lot 22 will be 0.40 acs. with 119.23’ frontage.

* Setbacks

CASE: 06-13: Joseph McCaffrey, 280 Harmony Road. Map 123, Lot 4. Applicant is seeking to subdivide 5.08 Ac. Into 2 lots; one lot will be 2.25 Ac. and the other lot will be 2.83 Ac. 

* Plans should be stamped by a wetlands scientist

* Area of contiguous uplands on lot 4-1

* Wetlands permit is required

* Sheet 2 – driveway note

Buildout Analysis - Linda Smith states that the buildout scenario is completed and has been delivered. This will be reviewed April 27 during the work session.

Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations – Mr. Reitter suggests that there be a checklist for ordinances in both site plan and subdivision applications. This will allow the process to go faster.

Motion to adjourn is made by Alden Dill and second by Doug Shaffer. Motion passes unanimously at 10:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver,

Board Secretary

Town of Northwood

Planning Board - Work Session

April 10, 2006