Planning Board

Minutes

October 25, 2007

Official as of January 24, 2008

Nikki Roy calls the work session to order at 6:40 p.m.

PRESENT: Acting Chair Nikki Roy, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Joanne Carette, Alternates Victoria Parmele, and George Jabre, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Nikki Roy, Ken Curley, Joanne Carette, Alternates Victoria Parmele, and George Jabre.

ABSENT: Chairman Eric Reitter, Vice-chairman Bob Jozokos, Pete Jones, Roger LeClerc, and Robert Fletcher.

MINUTES:
July 26, 2007: Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Ken Curley, to approve the minutes of July 26, 2007, as written. Motion passes 3/0/2. Victoria Parmele and George Jabre abstain. 

August 9, 2007: Postpone until November 15, 2007.

August 23, 2007: Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Ken Curley, to approve the minutes of August 23, 2007, as written. Motion passes 4/0/1. George Jabre abstains. 

OTHER BUSINESS:
Masten Estates: proposed change to sidewalk re: drainage
Terry Trudel, from SEC Consultant is present and provides an overview of the project. 

A discussion is held regarding the sidewalk placement. The town’s engineer from Underwood Engineering viewed the area and noticed extensive runoff from Rte. 4 into Masten Dr. A site walk was conducted with members representing Underwood Engineering, SEC Consultants, and NHDOT District 6. All in attendance agreed to place a catch basin at the top of Masten Drive, which would outlet into an existing swale. Detail sidewalk plans are provided; east and west sides. Mr. Trudel states that the plans have been provided to Underwood Engineering who agrees with the proposal. Mr. Trudel adds that granite curbing would not be used in this case. 

Ms. Planchet notes that she contacted George Reese and adds that the planning board was not notified of the site walk. Mr. Trudel further explains the history of how the sidewalk was added to the plan. Additional discussion is held regarding what the sidewalk would look like without being raised and would it still be considered a sidewalk due to there being no granite curbing and the slope. Ms. Planchet states that it may appear to be only an extension of the pavement. The only difference would be the painting and it may appear to look like a breakdown lane. Mr. Trudel explains that other towns double stripe the area as a specific delineation that it is not a breakdown lane. He adds that other towns also have placed bicycle decals on the pavement within the designated area. 

Mr. Trudel states that the sidewalk was a condition of approval and was addressed at the very last meeting. Now, during the construction, there is a problem. 

Ms. Smith expresses concern with the fact that the town planner was not notified of the site walk. She adds that the planning board is who will be making the decisions and their representative was not notified or involved, and has not had the opportunity to research anything for the board. Mr. Trudel replies that they felt that all of the correct people were notified. He states that the town administrator and the consulting engineer were notified and would have notified the planning board had they felt that was necessary. Mr. Trudel notes they were not even aware they needed to come back to the planning board for this change.

Ms. Roy states that there needs to be a trigger of some sort where the planner is notified and involved and it should come from the town administrator. Mr. Curley noted that the interim town administrator may not have been aware of the procedure. Further discussion is held.

Board members express concern with the location on Rte 4 and safety issues of a flat sidewalk on Rte 4. Additional discussion is held regarding the location along Rte 4; 175’ long. There is further discussion regarding the location of the sidewalks proposed and the frontage. Mr. Curley asks if it would be useful for a raised sidewalk to be placed in the 20’ section. Mr. Trudel replies that there could be a swale added in the 20’ section to help with drainage issues.

Ms. Roy states that there are three options for the board: approve what has been presented, deny the proposal, ask for further designs for the sidewalk and drainage issues. Ms. Smith states that the code enforcement officer has control relative to if the plan is being built as approved by the planning board. Further discussion is held and Ms. Roy states that the board should send a memo to the code enforcement officer suggesting that the board is fine with the west side as proposed with the catch basin and adds that the board would like to see the east side re-examined for the possibly of a raised sidewalk and address the drainage by a different approach due to pedestrian safety.

Additional discussion is held noting the fact that the sidewalk plan was provided after the fact and therefore the planning board was not able to express concerns and feedback of why this was important and why the board wanted the sidewalks. Ms. Roy states that drainage should be addressed while maintaining the raised sidewalk or the sidewalk should be completely removed. The notice of decision is reviewed and read.

The board feels that the intent of requiring sidewalks along Rte. 4 is for protection and safety of pedestrians. The board feels that this particular stretch of Rte. 4 has been identified as a dangerous area for pedestrian traffic because of the curvature and slope of the road, along with the speed, and volume of traffic.  The board agrees that drainage is a concern and strongly requests that options which maintain the raised sidewalk, and adequately address drainage, be implemented. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to send a memo with the planning board’s statement to the code enforcement officer. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0

NEW CASES:
CASE: 07-16: Charles and Patricia Corlin, 23 Mountain Ave. Map 234, Lot 53. Applicants are seeking site plan review requesting to change the use of the existing structure (currently professional office space) to add retail for sales area for jewelry, and for jewelry shows.

Mr. Corlin is present. Revised plans were provided October 24. Mr. Corlin explains that the proposal is to use the facility for occasional jewelry shows. The space will be advertised for rental space. He adds that there are three levels. The lower level is split with one half being used as a yoga business and the other half is a studio apartment. The main level (second floor) was the medical facility. The third floor has a studio and one bedroom apartment.

The plan is reviewed and a discussion is held regarding future use. Ms. Smith states that the mixed use is under the board’s authority under site plan regulations.

Motion to accept the application as submitted is made by Ms. Roy and seconded by Ms. Carette. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Ms. Roy read the abutters’ list. Mr. Curley is present representing the Town of Northwood. A representative of the Shaw Estate, Map 234; Lot 48 is present. 

The Shaw representative expresses concern with the wetlands. He states that they are interested in what happens around their property as they are considering selling the property. Discussion ensues regarding access of the properties. 

Ms. Roy reads the letter of intent for the proposal. She states that the board should review the residential apartments as there are only approvals for 2 apartments not 3. Ms. Planchet states that the plans just came in with the requested changes and there has not been an internal review against the regulations.

Ms. Planchet notes that she found a blanket approval for a future use. When the Corcorans met before the board in 2002, code enforcement discussed with the board administrator determined that the proposal did not need planning board approval because of future expansion was approved in 1987. Ms. Smith states that the third apartment has been added since last year according to the assessor’s notes from the tax card. Ms. Smith states that there would have been permits issued from the building department for plumbing, electrical, etc., and the assessor would have viewed the area. Ms. Smith sates that she recalls the meeting in which Mrs. Dr. Corcoran attended relative to the exercise proposal. She adds that she does not recall anything being said relative to an additional apartment. Mr. Corlin provides a copy of a plan showing all three apartments that was given to him when he purchased the building. Ms. Smith states that this would then be a civil matter with the person he purchased the property from. Ms. Smith will further review this matter with code enforcement and be in touch with the Corlins.

The board agrees to continue the case to the work session, November 15, and the public hearing will be continued to November 29.

Water Resources Subcommittee 
The board agrees to discuss putting this item on the November 29 agenda at the November 15 meeting.

Irving
Ms. Planchet states that she received a call from a consultant working with Irving Oil asking if a site plan was necessary to add a 15,000 gallon storage tank. This would be an additional tank with no changes to the site.

Additional discussion is held regarding the trips per day of the area sites. Ms. Smith states that she does not believe that there is a limit on car trips for the Irving site. The increase in trips would be for actual increase in traffic along Rte. 4. She notes though that there was a trip generation restriction put on the neighboring parcel at the time of the Irving approval if there were to be future development located there.
Ms. Parmele expresses concern regarding another underground tank being added due to MtBE’s.

After discussion, the board feels no site plan review will be necessary as long as the tank is for either gas or diesel.

Board Administrator’s Items:
Boundary Plan - Map 231/Lot 24-2: Graves Family Revocable Trust
Boundary Plan - Map 116/Lot 54: Anderson
The board reviews the two boundary plans submitted.  

Proposed Subcommittee Procedures:
The subcommittee procedures were drafted by Ms. Smith and have been previously provided. After review and lengthy discussion, Ms. Smith notes suggested changes and a final draft will be provided to the board for further review and approval at the next meeting. 

Planner’s Item:
CASE: 07-09: David Docko, 1090 First NH Tpke. Map 217; Lot 35. Site plan for changes for expansion of area for excavated materials storage, at existing business. Conditional approval 5/24/07. New plans are provided along with a driveway permit for review and for signatures. The plans are reviewed and a discussion is held. A motion is made by Nikki Roy, second by Ken Curley, to give the chairman final authority to sign the plans based on the chair’s review of the plan. Motion passes; 5/0.

2008 Proposed Budget:
Ms. Smith states that she has received 2008 proposed budget requests from the chairman. Copies are provided and discussions are held as the board members review the proposed figures.
The proposed budget is as follows:
• Legal ~ $8000
• Contracted Services ~ $5000
• Contracted Services Clients ~ $1500
• SRPC ~ $4,408.
• GIS Cost Share ~ $1500
• Printing & Advertising ~ $2500
• Supplies ~ $1000, level fund
• Postage ~ $2000, level fund
• Equipment ~ $1000
• Training ~ $1000
• Travel ~ $250.
• Planner hours ~ planner budgeted for 20 hours per week.

Ms. Smith notes that the raises and COLA’s have not been figured in. Ms. Roy makes a motion, second by Ms. Carette, to approve the proposed budget as a draft budget for the selectmen to review. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Ms. Roy makes a motion, second by Mr. Curley, to grant the chairman or his designee, and Ms. Smith, the ability to talk with the BOS relative to the budget. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Jabre left at 10:14 p.m.

Planner’s Items (continued):
CASE: 07-10: Sarah & Emily Low, First NH Tpke. Map 221; Lot 40. Subdivision of 100 Acs. to create 69.972 Ac. back lot for conservation and water resource protection purposes. Conditional approval 5/24/07.

The board reviews the conditions, legal comments, and discusses if the legal opinion is for public disclosure. Ms. Planchet explains the legal review is of the Low documents relative to the conservation land purchase project. The town’s conflict of interest policy is read and after discussion, the board agrees to continue the Low discussion to the next meeting due to Ms. Roy’s possible conflict with the project as her husband in the conservation chairman.

Major & Minor Application Forms:
The revised application forms are reviewed. Minor changes to the forms are suggested. Mr. Curley makes a motion, second by Ms. Roy, to approve the major and minor application forms for the planning board, as amended. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Ordinance Edit & Reformat:
Ms. Planchet provides an outline noting changes proposed to the ordinances as well as proposed revisions. She reviews the proposed revisions and suggestions. She requests that if the board members have comments, to email her. 

OTHER:
Ms. Parmele states that she attended the DOT hearing regarding the 10 year plan. She provides a draft letter for the board to send to NHDOT. Members review the letter and a motion is made by Mr. Curley to send the letter from the planning board, as drafted by Ms. Parmele, second by Nikki Roy, as amended as follows:
• change mean time to interim.
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Curley makes a motion to adjourn, second by Ms. Parmele. Motion is unanimously accepted, 4/0 at 10:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary