Planning Board

Minutes

July 27, 2006

Official as of September 28, 2006

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

PRESENT: Chairman Eric Reitter, Vice-chairman Robert Jozokos, Joann Bailey, Lucy Edwards, Nikki Roy, Board Administrator Linda Smith, Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver, and Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector David Hickey.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Eric Reitter, Bob Jozokos, Joann Bailey, Lucy Edwards, and Nikki Roy.

ABSENT: Selectmen Representative Ken Witham, Robert Fletcher, Russ Eldridge, Alden Dill, Alternates Scott Martin and Victoria Parmele.

WORK SESSION:
Mr. Reitter states that all work session items will be postponed to the end of the meeting.

PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATIONS:
David Docko, Rte. 4:
Mr. Docko explains that the proposal is for a gravel driveway leading to a 20’x20’ garage. A plan is provided and reviewed. The garage will have electricity. Mr. Reitter states that the contours should be shown around the garage; and erosion control. Mr. Docko explains that there is ledge on the site and Mr. Reitter suggests that the exposed ledge also be shown on the plans. Mr. Reitter asks about the limits of fill. Mr. Docko replies that it is the same as shown on the plan. Site distances on Rte. 4 for the driveway entrance needs to be shown. Mr. Reitter asks if there will be any water or septic added to the lot. Mr. Docko replies no.

Richard Parks – Grano Property:
Mr. Parks is present representing the North East Credit Union (NECU) for the Grano property on the corner of Rte. 4 and Rte. 202 for a credit union. Jonathan Ring of Jones and Beach Engineers is also present. Mr. Ring explains that the facility is proposed to be 2,880 sq. ft. The facility would consist of a 24 hour drive up ATM, and four drive thru customer lanes. They are currently gathering the survey data and plan to be before the board with an application within a month or so and before the zoning board in August.

Mr. Parks explains that NECU is a member owned institution; not a bank. The NECU began at the Navy shipyard 70 years ago. He explains the criteria for becoming a member of the credit union. The plan is to build a facility similar to the one currently being built in Lee. Mr. Parks provides pictures of the Portsmouth and Rochester facility to show the architectural style.

Zoning ordinances are discussed. A discussion is held regarding obtaining a special exception for the property. Mr. Hickey explains the time frame for a zoning board application. 
Table of uses is discussed. Mr. Ring states that a bank or a credit union is not listed. He asks if the proposal would fit under the listed uses of retail, service business, or business and professional offices. Discussion ensues regarding the type of business and Mr. Reitter states that retail and professional office business are two strong possibilities with retail being the closest.

Signage is discussed. Mr. Ring asks what the maximum size for a sign is. Mr. Reitter states that the signs must be a reasonable use. Mr. Parks explains that they have scaled down the size of the building for Northwood and the sign will be based on the square footage of the building. Ms. Smith states that the board’s authority is for the sign location only.

Mr. Ring explains that they are proposing an exit and entrance on the Rte. 4 side as well as on the Rte. 202 side, subject to NHDOT approvals. Ms. Edwards states that entering and exiting onto Rte. 4 is always an issue for the board. Mr. Ring states that there are curb cuts on each of these roads as they exist today. Mr. Reitter refers to the site plan regulations and adds that when an applicant appears before the board, the entire property is up for review. He adds that this is a non-binding discussion and is up to the entire board. Mr. Reitter explains that the board is concerned with two accesses as people may cut through the parking lot to avoid the intersections lights.

Ms. Bailey refers to a previous comment when Mr. Ring stated that the site was approved for a bed and breakfast. Ms. Smith states that there was an approved site plan for a bed and breakfast. Ms. Bailey states that the traffic will not compare to a bed and breakfast to this type of a facility. Mr. Ring explains that there was the approval on the property and he adds that they will have a traffic engineer review the site plan and they will provide a copy when it is available.

Mr. Jozokos refers to the building design and to the architecture of Northwood. He feels that this does not look like a typical New England style. He states that there are many historical homes in town and would encourage the architectural engineer to explore changes to the architecture that they have presented. Mr. Reitter adds that the intersection is a focal point of Northwood. He refers to the Hannaford building and suggests a partial brick and clapboard façade as he would like the building to fit in. Mr. Parks replies that they will look into this for some modifications. Ms. Bailey adds that there should be some effort to keep the rural sense of this small town. Ms. Roy comments that she is pleased with their proposal as compared to some other options that could occur. She too adds that she is concerned with losing the character and is sensitive of the area. Mr. Parks replies that he remembers Northwood from many years ago. He has walked the property and through the house and they will be sensitive to the local needs of the town.

Mr. Ring states that lighting and landscaping plans will also be provided.
 

REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE:
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. Application was accepted 4/27/06. {Continued from 6/22/06. 65-day 7/1/06.}

A written request has been received from Mr. McCaffrey to continue the case to August 24. Mr. Reitter makes a motion, second by Mr. Jozokos, to continue the case to August 24, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Tritech Engineering/DGD Development - Jenness Pond Rd. A request was received to be removed from the agenda.

PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATIONS:
Chris Kofer – Rte. 4 Property:
Mr. Kofer explains that this property is just East of the SAU office. He is currently leasing property for his business and would like to propose placing storage boxes on this property and use for storage and a supply depot, as his business is done mostly offsite. He plans to preserve as many trees as possible. The proposed storage boxes are 50’. The doors would be able to be seen. He adds that he also may add an office trailer. Mr. Kofer explains that his taxes went from $800 to $2,200 on this property. The deliveries would be one or two trucks a day. He explains that there was an old approved plan; however this plan has expired. Mr. Kofer feels that this would be a lower impact than what would have been developed. He adds that he is not changing the property or the character. Mr. Reitter states that this would need a site plan review. Building permits would also be needed for the storage units. Mr. Reitter adds that the board cannot approve a non existent site plan. Ms. Edwards adds that the planning board really needs the information on paper and the board has a responsibility to the town. Ms. Smith adds that the planning board is also concerned with safety.  Mr. Reitter states that the board would need to see a plan showing where the driveway would be located, the curb cuts, and the location of the building, well and septic.

Additional discussion is held regarding requirements for Chase’s water business. Ms. Smith replies that this is a code enforcement matter and he should meet with the code enforcement officer. 

Julie Perron - Lot Line Adjustment:
Ms. Perron is present regarding a lot line adjustment; however, she would like to discuss the possibility of a subdivision. Copies of a proposal are distributed and reviewed. She explains that for the lot line adjustment, she would propose adding three acres to the Guptill’s property. She asks what would prevent the lot from being a buildable lot. Mr. Reitter replies that it is a private road, which would need to be improved to the current road standards and turned over to the town. There would also need to be 150’ of frontage on the new lot.
A discussion is held regarding the class of the road. The road is deemed a Class VI road and would need to be improved to the town’s subdivision road standards. Ms. Edwards explains that Ms. Perron would need permission from the selectmen as they have the sole authority to allow it or not. Further discussion is held regarding the fact that the subdivision was an open space subdivision. Ms. Smith states that beyond frontage, the subdivision predates the formulas that the board has for percentages for buildable land and more open space would need to be added. Ms. Perron replies that when the subdivision was done, she planned for another lot to be subdivided.

Mr. Reitter states that with the boundary line adjustment, the previous subdivision plan would need to be amended. Ms. Smith refers to state statutes regarding open space subdivisions, which states that open space subdivisions can never be changed so that the land remains open in perpetuity. 

Ms. Smith states that the lot is non-conforming now based on the regulations of the open space subdivision. Additional discussion is held regarding non-conformity. Mr. Reitter states that the open space requirements have changed; additional acreage would be needed and today’s standards would need to be followed. 

Mr. Reitter states that the board would need a surveyed plan of the lot areas and the survey would need to include the Guptill property. Metes and bounds for the Guptill property would also be necessary. A meeting with the selectmen is necessary regarding the Class VI road. Ms. Smith states that a home owner’s association
would be necessary too.

OLD CASES:
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. Application was accepted 4/27/06. {Continued from 7/10/06. 65- day 7/1/06.}

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. Application was accepted 4/27/06. {Continued from 7/10/06. 65-day 7/1/06.}

Mr. Bean is present and states that they are still waiting for letters from PSNH and NHDOT and requests to continue the case. He asks about the RSA for a 4 year exemption and why it does not apply to him for the previous open space subdivision that they had done. Ms. Smith replies that the exemption only applies to an original plan providing that substantial work occurs within the first year. It does not allow for new plans to be submitted that are different from the original approval. 

Mr. Bean states that his attorney is reviewing the homeowner’s association.

Mr. Reitter makes a motion, second by Mr. Jozokos, to continue the case to August 24, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 50/.

CASE: 06-16: Richard & Dianna Smith, Bow St. and Rte. 4. Map 230, Lot 63.
Applicant is seeking to subdivide 10.86 Ac. into 2 lots; one lot will be 5.12 Ac. and the other lot will be 5.74 Ac. Application was accepted 6/22/06. {Continued from 6/22/06. 65-day 8/26/06.}

Mr. David Vincent is present along with Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Revised plans are provided based on comments generated at the site walk. He explains that he has shown a proposed driveway entrance on the mylar. Note 12 has been amended regarding the NHDOT permit stating that they exceed the minimum requirements for site distance for a driveway on Rte. 4. 

At the June meeting, a discussion was held regarding the possibility of having a shared driveway with abutters. Mr. Smith states that they did check into this; however, with no avail to having a shared driveway.

Additional discussion is held regarding a waiver for a 12 ft. driveway encroaching into the setbacks instead of the driveway encroaching into the wetland setback.
Mr. Vincent submits a waiver request to Section 3.03(A)(iv). Bob Jozokos makes a motion, second by Lucy Edwards, to approve the waiver. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

With no public comments, Mr. Reitter closes the public portion of this case.
Bob Jozokos makes a motion, second by Joanne Bailey, to approve the subdivision with the following conditions: 
- All local, state, and federal permits local are obtained.
- Certification of monumentation be provided
- Conditions of approval be added to the final plans.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

NEW CASES:
CASE: 06-19:  J. Bruce & Elaine Gatchell, Rte. 152. Map 234, Lot 33. Applicant is seeking revocation of subdivision of 39.47 acres into 13 lots; 34.86 acres in Northwood and 4.61 acres in Nottingham; per RSA 674:4-a.  

Mr. Gatchell is present. Mr. Reitter reads that abutters for this case and none are present. Mr. Gatchell states that they went to the Town of Nottingham’s town meeting to ask for acceptance for a town road, which was denied. He states that through oversight and ignorance, they were not aware that there was a need for a continuance for the case with the Town of Northwood. He asks the board to continue the case. Mr. Gatchell states that the site looks awful right now and he would like to see the area improved. He mentioned that should the state change the area, there would not be a problem. Ms. Smith read state statue 676:4-a. She states that the plan has never been recorded as it did not meet the Northwood Planning Board’s conditions. Ms. Smith states that the board has officially revoked the plans. The options that the board has is do nothing and there would be a recording done that shows that the plan has been revoked, or allow 30 days for the notice play to out and sign a revocation of the subdivision and then record the document at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds. She adds that the board could choose to hold a hearing on the revocation but are not obligated to do so. Ms. Smith states that the board, based on a request, could continue the case tonight and hold another hearing with abutters present; however, the abutters would need to be notified again.

Additional discussion is held regarding substantial development. Ms. Smith states that there was not an approved plan and no development occurred within one year. She explains that the planning board stated conditions to be done within a one year time frame, and something needed to be done in order to conclude the approval. Mr. Gatchell asks if he is still within the position to continue. Ms. Smith replies that any requests to continue are up to the board. Mr. Reitter replies that the board voted to revoke the subdivision. Mr. Gatchell asks what the procedures are to continue the case and if he would need to start the process all over again and asks if he could submit the same set of plans. Additional discussion is held regarding the submission of new plans and that the plans would need to comply with all of the town’s current standards. Mr. Gatchell states that he plans to meet with the Town of Nottingham again in March of 2007; however, he could appeal to Superior Court.

Mr. Gatchell explains that there is a hardship with doing the project all over again. He states that he did not want to go against the two towns. Additional discussion is held regarding waiving fees of a new application rather than having the application remain open for another year. Mr. Gatchell mentions that he could have appeared before the ZBA for a private road.  

Ms. Roy states that the applicant cannot pursue anything with Town of Nottingham. Should the plan be revoked by Northwood, as there would not be anything to present to the Town of Nottingham. Ms. Edwards adds that you cannot go to a town meeting and vote to accept a road if the road is not on an approved plan. Discussion ensues regarding building a road. Mr. Reitter states that building a road could be one of the solutions. Mr. Gatchell explains that building the road is not a feasible option. Ms. Smith states that the board deliberated long and hard on this matter and at the time of the conditional approval, the project was given a one year time frame to be completed, which is not typically done. She feels that the record shows that the board supported their decision to conditionally approve the subdivision.
Further discussion is held regarding any loss to the town if another hearing were to be held. Ms. Smith states that the loss to the town is the board, in essence, is giving consideration beyond what the board would give the citizens, as this would be allowing the conditional approval of all the zoning changes that the board has put in place. Mr. Reitter explains the changes that have occurred relative to zoning changes and what a new application would be subject too. Bob Jozokos makes a motion, second by Lucy Edwards, to not hold a public hearing. Mr. Jozokos agrees that the board is protecting the town. Ms. Bailey agrees. Ms. Edwards states that the planning board worked hard on these ordinances and the board has a responsibility to be fair to the applicants, as well as to the town. Ms. Roy adds that it would be beneficial to not have the process incur any longer. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Code Enforcement Issues:
Chase Water Systems, First NH Tpke.
Ms. Bailey expresses concern regarding Chase Water Systems and asked if permits have been obtained for the business to be in operation. Mr. Hickey states that letters have been written instructing the proprietors to meet with the planning board and follow site plan approval process. Mr. Reitter asks how long this has been going on and Mr. Hickey replies a few months. Mr. Reitter then asks at what point the town begins to take legal actions. He adds that money has been placed into the budget for legal matters for code enforcement matters.

Nikki Roy left at 9:30 p.m.

MINUTES: 5/18/06, 5/25/06, and 6/5/06. 6/12/06 are distributed. All minutes are postponed.

VOLUNTARY MERGERS:
1. John and Marsha Robinson, Lynn Grove Rd. Map 113; Lots 8 & 21. Waiting for additional information.
2. David D’Alessandro, 61 Rand Rd. Map 102: Lot 23 & 28. Waiting for additional information.

APPLICATIONS TO BUILD ON A CLASS VI ROAD:
1. Fieldstone Farm Family Trust, Laskey Dr. Map 121; Lot 14. Mr. Reitter
motions to recommend the application to build based on the fact that this is replacing an existing structure. Mr. Jozokos seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Boundary Survey Plan: Northwood Oil Company, 1085 1st NH Tpke. Map 217; Lot 32. The boundary survey is reviewed.

Code Enforcement Issues:
Hannaford Turning Sign:
Mr. Hickey states that he has had a complaint regarding Hannaford’s trucks
traveling on Church Street to make deliveries rather than traveling on Rte. 4. He states that he has sent a memo to the selectmen requesting the road agent to place a sign stating no trucking at the intersection of Church Street and Rte. 202. Mr. Reitter states that this is a condition of their site plan approval and he should contact Hannaford. Mr. Hickey states that he will notify Hannaford. The board  agrees that Mr. Wilson should place a sign stating no trucks allowed.

Schreck:
A discussion is held regarding a retaining wall being added at the Northwood Business Center. Mr. Hickey states that he does not receive any correspondence from Underwood Engineering regarding this project and requests that he be copied from the engineering firm on all correspondence. Mr. Reitter requests Ms. Smith to contact the applicant or Underwood and request an approved retaining wall plan be provided to Mr. Hickey. He adds that Underwood be asked to inspect the retaining wall. Mr. Hickey notes that the site is a mess. There is insulation hanging out, there are drainage issues, and he has received complaints.

Condexes:
A discussion is held regarding regulations for duplexes becoming condexes. Mr. Reitter states that this would be the subdivision regulations. He adds that there is nothing real specific on condos and he adds that condo documents would need to be created as well.

Bow Lake Drainage:
Mr. Hickey states that there have been some complaints regarding the drainage at the Newbury North site. He sent a letter regarding the turbidity of the stream. Ms. Edwards suggests that the residents that have been complaining should meet with the selectmen. Mr. Reitter states that the Rockingham County Conservation District and the selectmen should be notified and he suggests that the stormwater pollution plan be reviewed. 

Water Resources Committee:
A letter of interest has been received from Bill Bushnell expressing an interest to serve on the Water Resources Committee. A motion is made by Eric Reitter, second by Lucy Edwards to appoint to Bill Bushnell to the Water Resources Committee.

Volunteer for SRPC:
Ms. Edwards expresses an interest in being a Northwood representative of the planning board to SRPC; however, she is not able to committee until November 2006. Ms. Smith adds that it does not have to be a member of the planning board. Ms. Smith will notify the selectmen.

NHDOT Meeting:
A meeting with DOT has been scheduled for August 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Notices to be placed in the paper. 
Website:
Ms. Weaver states that all approved minutes for all boards have been added to the website. Ms. Edwards asks who is posting meeting schedules as they have not been added. Ms. Weaver replies that Ms. Fortin is updating the meetings as best she can.  Ms. Edwards will contact the library regarding postings on the website.

Planner:
Ms. Smith states that Elaine Planchet has been hired as the part time planner. She came in the office on Monday for a few hours. A discussion is held regarding a schedule for the planner. Mr. Reitter states that he would prefer to not have the planner and administrator in the office at same time. He suggests that Ms. Planchet work at home and talk to the administrator via phone or email on Mondays. Ms. Smith adds that Ms. Planchet suggested working on Saturdays simultaneously with the municipal receptionist. The board agrees and thinks that is a great idea. 

Laptop for Planner:
Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to purchase a laptop for the part time planner. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0. A meeting has been scheduled for the planning board to meet with the selectmen regarding the planner position, August 8 at 6:30. Also to be discussed at this meeting is if the board administrator is able to contact town counsel without having to pursue through the town administrator.

Water Resources:
 Mr. Reitter states that the water resources committee will be meeting August 3, at 7:00 at the town hall. The committee is reviewing water quality data from the lakes. He explains that last week they met with Stone Environmental and they will be reviewing site plan and subdivision regulations, and making suggestions in early October.

Ms. Smith states that she has come up with a list of items for review of conditions of approval that should be added onto plans. She will provide this to the planner for review.

Ordinances:
Mr. Reitter states that the board needs to start thinking of ordinances. Mr. Reitter notes that sidewalks are an issue that the board will need to address.  

Adjournment:
Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Bob Jozokos, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m.
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary