The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 04/10/08

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Vice-chair Robert Fletcher, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Alternate Victoria Parmele, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Nikki Roy, Bob Fletcher, Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Victoria Parmele.

ABSENT: Pete Jones, George Jabre, and Herb Johnson

PUBLIC: Lucy Edwards

Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Site Plan Review Regulations:
Section IX D. Off-Street Parking Site Plan Regulations
With no public comment, Ms. Roy closes the public hearing. No additional discussion is held. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Nikki Roy, to accept the Site Plan Off-Street Parking Regulations, as presented; 4/0. Ms. Parmele did not vote as she was out of the room.

CASE: 08-01: Millstone Realty Trust, Jacqueline & David Docko, 1090 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 35. Applicant proposes adding retail sales to existing business. Continued from March 27, 2008.

Ms. Planchet explains that at the last meeting the board requested a legal opinion before going forward with some of the waiver requests. She distributes copies of the legal opinion from the Local Government Center (LGC) to the board members. After review, Ms. Roy asks whether the board is comfortable making this a public document. Ms. Roy makes a motion to release the (LGC) legal opinion from April 2, as a public document. Mr. Curley seconds. Some discussion is held regarding the reason the opinion was requested. Ms. Roy explains that the board requested the opinion about liability issues if granting the specific waivers. Motion passes; 5/0.

Dave Docko arrives at 7:16 p.m. and is provided a copy of the legal opinion.

General discussion is held. Mr. Fletcher refers to the document and reads the section about if the land was approved for a past use; it means that approval should not be assumed for the change of use. He adds that each case is based on its own merits. In addition, he refers to page 3 and states that there may be liability issues if the board allows someone to proceed without professionally engineered plans if there are possible dangerous conditions. Ms. Roy states that when she reads this section, she thinks that it states that there is no liability issue. Additional discussion ensues regarding what the board has previously approved. Mr. LeClerc expresses concern with consistency of the board. He feels that this site needs to have a professional engineered plan completed to obtain the correct boundaries, and to make sure that everything on the site is correct. Mr. Curley adds that he agrees with the board being consistent. He explains that there have been many issues on Rte. 4 in the past and the board has been doing a good job at being consistent and the reason why is that the board has not granted waivers. Ms. Parmele adds that she agrees. Ms. Roy states that each application is its own and it should be addressed in that manner. She notes that the time to have requested a PE plan was the last time that the applicant met with the board with the full site plan. She states that she does not believe that the requested change of use is substantially altering any physical characteristics of the plan that was approved. In her opinion she does not feel that this is the time for the board to request a full plan. Mr. Fletcher agrees that a PE plan should have been requested with the last site plan application.

The board reviews Section X, Waiver Regulations. Ms. Roy reads Section X(3). Dave Docko asks after the plans have been done, whose responsibility is it to check to make sure everything is done completely, and accurate. Ms. Roy explains that the state has a process for professional engineers with criteria to follow. She adds that should something go wrong, the PE is responsible for the design, as stated in the LGC legal opinion letter provided. Mr. Docko asks who in the town does the inspections. He states that the board’s general concern is safety and he is not asking to change the site conditions. Ms. Roy expresses concern with the drainage of the site and it has not been done by a PE. She adds that this would be resolved if there was a plan done by a PE. Ms. Parmele and Mr. LeClerc agree. Mr. LeClerc expresses additional concern with erosion and further liability for the town. Mr. Curley states that the drainage issue is well taken. As far as a change of use, he feels that if the drainage issue exists this change in use could exacerbate it. He adds that the drainage is not the change here and is not a reason to deny. Ms. Parmele adds that this is another shot for the board to get it right and request a PE plan for a business that could be here for a long time. She notes that there is already a disturbance on the site. There may also be more traffic on the site.

Ms. Roy asks Mr. Docko to explain why a plan has not been obtained so far. Mr. Docko replies that he went through the process last year and the board didn’t require it. He feels that he is competent to make the conditions satisfactory to erosion and safety. He adds that he has had an engineer on site. Mr. Fletcher asks if it would be a hardship to have a professional engineered plan done. Mr. Docko replied no; it is a business. Mr. Curley asks about the timeframe. Mr. Docko states that he will do all the alterations approved on the site plan last year and could continue as he has been approved. Ms. Roy states that she does not feel that this meets the requirements for granting a waiver if it is just mere convenience.

Roger LeClerc makes a motion to deny the waiver requests for professionally engineered plans for a site plan, an existing condition plan, and proposed site plan. Seconded by Bob Fletcher. Mr. LeClerc states that he wants the board to be consistent and fair. Mr. Parmele agrees and adds that this is procedural. Ms. Roy adds that the board is tied to the four criteria. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Docko left the meeting.

Ms. Roy states that she does not feel that the board can grant a waiver for stormwater and drainage. She adds that she was most concerned about these items previously. Ms. Roy makes a motion, second by Mr. Fletcher, to deny the waiver request for stormwater disposal facilities not being designed and stamped by a registered engineer, and a drainage analysis not being completed. Mr. Curley asks if these are requirements from the April meeting. Ms. Roy explains that they were concerns from the original site plan. They are not new requirements in the site plan regulations. She adds that the board has always required a drainage analysis to be performed. They were waived for the previous site plan. Ms. Roy reviews the May 24, 2007 meeting minutes and notes that a vote was taken at 4/2 for granting a waiver. Mr. LeClerc was wondering if there had been a mistake made by the board and wanted to make sure that the board had the opportunity to correct a mistake, if possible. Further discussion is held regarding the drainage noted on the previously provided plans. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

The board continues the case to April 24, 2008. Ms. Planchet will contact the applicant and ask him to let the board know the timeframe if and when the information will be provided.

Ms. Roy closes the public hearing and opens the work session portion of the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The same voting members are present for the work session.

Work Session
Ms. Roy refers to the board’s packets where there is a copy of the planning board’s letter she drafted that was agreed to be sent to selectmen regarding the Hendrick and MacDonald properties located off of Corson Drive. She notes that the board was also copied a letter sent to the BOS from the conservation commission also expressing concerns. Mr. Curley states that the selectmen are proceeding with an appeal within the time frame of 30 days, which is up April 24. Ms. Roy requests that the planning board be updated as to the progress.

Planner Items:
House Bill 1472: Ms. Planchet explains that she received a call from Representative Jim Boutin, calling the board’s attention to HB1472, related to work force hosing. It passed the house and there will be a hearing in the Senate next week. Rep. Boutin is opposed to the bill and wanted the board to be aware of it. A copy of the bill is presented to the board.

Certifications are presented for signature for the site plan regulations approved on March 27 and this evening.

Ms. Planchet mentions that the Ms. Parmele requested that the design review items put aside for later be considered for a timeframe. Ms. Roy suggests that the new board members get rolling first and then address the design review regulations again.

CASE 08-02: William Porritt, 1 Overlook Rd. Map 210/Lot 19; Michael and Kathryn Reid, Bennetts Bridge Rd. Map 210/Lot 18. Applicants seek a boundary line adjustment to adjust property lines to accommodate the 20’ setback.

Ms. Roy explains the work session process for new cases. The board reviews the plans.

The planner’s notes are reviewed. The board requests that additional information be obtained from the applicant on location of wells, well radii, septic systems, utilities, drainage, structures, etc.

Ms. Roy mentions the back lot width would then be 25’, which is less than the required 100’ minimum.

Note #5 and the boundary line agreement are discussed. Ms. Planchet will look onto these agreements. The board directs Ms. Planchet to contact the applicant and request additional information.

Review Correspondence:
All correspondence is reviewed and general discussions are held.

Adjournment
Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Ken Curley, to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page