The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 08/11/08

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Roger LeClerc, George Jabre, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Eric Reitter arrives at 6:55 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chair Nikki Roy, Roger LeClerc, George Jabre, Alternate Victoria Parmele, and Eric Reitter at 6:55 p.m.

ABSENT: Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Vice-chair Robert Fletcher, Pete Jones, Herb Johnson, and Alternate Scott Campbell

MINUTES: 7/10/08 are distributed.

APPLICATION TO BUILD ON A CLASS VI ROAD:
Dennis and Linda Sullivan, 17 Summer St., Map 116/Lot 6 ~ distributed. Drive bys to be done by the board prior to the next meeting, August 28.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Planner’s Items
Facilities Committee Request for 2009 Projects
Ms. Planchet explains that the facilities committee is requesting input and/or recommendations from town boards and committees regarding projects for 2009. Mr. Reitter states that the facilities committee request is very similar to the planning board’s capital improvements plan (CIP). He states that this is the responsibility of the planning board to prepare the CIP. Mr. Reitter states that the facilities committee should be informed of this. Ms. Smith suggests a joint meeting with the planning board and facilities committee.

Mr. Reitter provides an update regarding the school board’s planning activities. He explains that the planning board had requested the school board look at long term planning for school facilities. He states that there is money approved in the budget and they have a consultant who is looking at long term planning and when they might need additional facilities. He suggests that a planning board representative attend these meetings.

Ms. Roy suggests that the board meet with the facilities committee at a work session and review the board’s responsibilities of a CIP. September 11 or 15 are suggested. Ms. Planchet will contact the facilities committee and set a time for this meeting.

Draft Updated Site Plan Checklists
Ms. Planchet provides drafts of the site plan checklists for major and minor site plans for the board to review. She states that there is one section that needs to be discussed regarding landscaping changes. She explains that the issue was discussed with the board and the consensus was that landscaping would be for major site plans. Ms. Planchet notes that she has amended the major site plan checklist for landscaping changes. She explains that what was in the regulations before these changes applied to both major and minor site plans. Significant changes have been made and the board’s intentions were that it was for major site plan. This raises questions for the checklist and the regulations for minor site plans. These drafts will be further addressed.

Changes to RSA 91-A, Effective July, 2008
Ms. Planchet provides copies of the revisions to RSA 91-A. She states that some of the changes will affect the board.

Chair Nikki Roy calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Roger LeClerc, George Jabre, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Eric Reitter, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chair Nikki Roy, Roger LeClerc, George Jabre, Alternate Victoria Parmele, and Eric Reitter.

PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION:
Doug MacDonald
Mr. MacDonald is present regarding his property off Corson Drive. He explains that the parcel is 50 acres and was originally purchased with the intent to build a single family dwelling. He states that he has gone through the process of the zoning board and the ZBA deemed that the parcel is not useable for the purposes of building a single family home. He explains that he would like to have some help as to what he can do with this 50 acre piece of land. He states that he would like to get the board’s feelings and input. He explains that the ZBA questioned if the property could be used for a two season dwelling or hunting cabin or a non-permanent structure. He also asks about possible farming. He states that the land had been used for farming; he asks the board whether it could be used for a commercial farm.

Mr. MacDonald states that there is no road frontage on Bow Lake Rd. nor is there any frontage on Corson Drive. He adds that there is a woods road that has been widened to 16 ft. and brought up to federal standards for logging purposes. Written permission has been given from the fire and police chiefs stating that the road is suitable for 55,000 lb. vehicle that can make a full turn around. He states that the access road seems suitable for any type of one ton truck or farming or construction equipment.

Mr. MacDonald states that the parcel is at the end of Corson Dr., which is about 800’ long and the parcel joins into the woods road about 1500’ later. Overall, he states that the point of access to get to the 50 acre parcel is approximately 2200’. Mr. MacDonald states that the parcel has been forested. He has an approved septic design. He explains that 25% of the land is wetland.

Mr. MacDonald states that he was approved by the ZBA under a special exception, exempt from road frontage. He adds that RSA 674:41 was addressed and the road was deemed to meet Class V standards.

Ms. Roy, having attended the ZBA meetings, states that the hunting cabin idea was mentioned and was discussed with respect to whether the property was related to a road or not. The discussion was related to having a relationship to a Class V or better road. She explains that the discussion relative to a hunting cabin suggested that it may not meet the requirements of a relationship to a regular road.

Ms. Roy states that the planning board can provide information on a hunting cabin without comments from town counsel. Ms. Smith adds that if the cabin is proposed as a residential structure, it would be a matter of applying for a building permit and the application would go through the process. The planning board would not have a role in that application process; however, it would be addressed by the ZBA under RSA 674:41 II due to the fact that there is no existing road. She adds that relative to commercial and agricultural use, it would be addressed by the planning board. Ms. Smith states that the hunting cabin process would be through the building inspector who would determine that the application would need to go before the ZBA.

Mr. MacDonald states that this is another way of him spending money on an application and the process of notifying abutters. Further discussion is held regarding the agricultural and forestry option. Mr. MacDonald states that he has some blueberry bushes with red oak and white pines on the property. He explains that he works with acupuncture and Chinese herbs and was considering farming some of the herbs.

Mr. Reitter states that he believes that no site plan would be required unless a retail component was added and if there would be a structure added. He states that farming is not developing and would not fall under the site plan regulations. He adds that the farming or growing of products would be a permitted use although he adds that it may be an issue to mention to town counsel to make sure that a site plan would not be necessary. Mr. Reitter adds that should a structure be added, a building permit would be required and the building and ZBA process will begin. Ms. Roy notes the discussions with ZBA regarding differences of residential homes with a relationship to a road and other uses not so directly related to a road. Further discussion is held regarding business options and permit processes.

OLD CASE:
CASE 08-04: David and Deborah Church, 227 Ridge Rd. Map 219; Lot 4. Applicants seek to subdivide 7.3 acre into two lots; 3.48 acs. and 3.81 acs. Application accepted 5/22/08. 65 day 7/26/08. Continued from 6/26/08.

Mr. LeClerc recuses himself and leaves the table.

Ms. Planchet states that the 65 day time limit expired July 26, 2008 and this would have been addressed at the regular scheduled monthly meeting on July 24; however, the meeting was cancelled due to the tornado. She explains that the applicant was not present at the July 10 meeting and the board discussed the case and recognized that additional information was necessary in order to continue and make a decision. A letter was sent to the applicant requesting the required information. She states that nothing new has been received from the applicants. Ms. Planchet states that she contacted town counsel regarding the 65 day deadline and the matter due to the cancellation of the 7/24 meeting. Comments from town counsel were received via email 8/8/08 and are reviewed by the board members. Mr. Reitter makes a motion to make paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 public information. Ms. Parmele seconds and the motion passes; 4/0.

A discussion is held regarding the procedure. Ms. Roy states that a request to continue the case beyond tonight would be necessary from the applicant. The information of the case is reviewed and Ms. Roy notes that the applicants are not present. Ms. Planchet provides a timeline of attempts to contact the applicants via phone and mail. She adds that Mr. Church did come in to town hall and Ms. Smith explains that she spoke to Mr. Church. She provided him with a copy of Ms. Planchet’s letter to him and explained that the board needed the information requested in the letter in order to proceed with the case. Ms. Smith states that Mr. Church had asked about the next steps of the process and noted that he felt that he had provided all of the information that he could provide. Ms. Smith told him of this meeting date and Mr. Church indicated that he did plan to attend. Ms. Planchet adds that staff did try to contact Mr. Church of the July 24 meeting cancellation by phone but the number was not in service. She adds that since then, she has again tried to contact Mr. Church and his phone is still not in service. She stated that she left a message for Rick Turner, the applicant’s authorized representative. He came in and spoke with her today, but he had not spoken with Mr. Church.

The letter handed to Mr. Church is reviewed as well as the July 10 meeting minutes as they both reference the additional information the board requested. The plan provided is also reviewed. General discussion is held. Ms. Roy states that she does not believe that the board has enough information to approve the case tonight and the applicant has not requested a continuance. Nikki Roy makes a motion to deny case 08-04 based on the fact that there is insufficient information to continue. Eric Reitter seconds.

Ms. Roy amends the motion to state that the case be denied based on the fact that there is insufficient information provided regarding the detail for the proposed right-of-way and driveway, slope, sight distance and drainage, as the plan was changed from the original application. Mr. Reitter seconds the amendment. Motion passes; 4/0

Mr. LeClerc returns to the table.

CASE 08-06: Beverly Cangiano, 958 First NH Turnpike. Map 217/Lot 59. Applicant seeks a site plan review for proposed dog kennel to include boarding, training, and breeding. Property owned by Theresa Canejo-Mosher. Application accepted 6/26/08. 65 day 8/30/08. Continued from 6/26/08.

Ms. Planchet states that she has received written notification from the applicant requesting to withdraw the application. Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Eric Reitter, to approve the applicant’s request to withdraw the application. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

NEW CASES:
CASE 08-07: Gail A. and Russell L. Martell, 298 First NH Turnpike. Map 231/Lot 41. Applicant seeks a site plan review for proposed family group day care.

Mr. and Mrs. Martell are present. Ms. Martell explains that the proposal is to have a family day care as one of her families is expecting another child. She states that nothing will be changing on the property.

Ms. Planchet notes that a waiver request for application fees has been submitted and the board may want to address this waiver prior to proceeding with discussions. Ms. Roy makes a motion, second by Ms. Parmele, to go into non-public session under RSA 91-A:3, II(c).
Roll Call Vote:
Roger LeClerc: yes
George Jabre: yes
Victoria Parmele: yes
Eric Reitter: yes
Nikki Roy: yes
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Motion to come out of non-public session and to seal the minutes is made by Ms. Roy, seconded by Ms. Parmele.
Roll Call Vote:
Roger LeClerc: yes
George Jabre: yes
Victoria Parmele: yes
Eric Reitter: yes
Nikki Roy: yes
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Eric Reitter, to accept the application as complete. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Nikki Roy, to grant the waiver request for site plan application fees. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Ms. Roy opens the public hearing and reads the abutters’ list.

Planner’s comments are reviewed and discussions are held relative to the following issues:
Number of children proposed: Ms. Martell replies that she would like to have approval for up to 10 children with the range in ages being from infant to 16 years old.

A discussion is held regarding whether the septic system is acceptable for the number of children. Ms. Martell explains that there have not been any issues with the septic system.

Further discussion is held regarding other employees or caretakers. Ms. Martell replies that as far as employees there would only be two, herself and her husband. Mr. Reitter asks about a family day care vs. a regular day care. Mr. Martell explains that a family day care is when anyone in the family can help at the facility from within the household.

The number of cars estimated to be entering and exiting the site is discussed. Ms. Martell states that the traffic counts would vary daily. She states that the day care services 3 separate families currently and that totals 6 trips per day. She adds that children also get off the bus on Green Street.

Ms. Martell states that they have applied with the NH Department of Transportation for a driveway permit due to the change of use.

Discussion ensues regarding the proposed fence and the hours of operation. Mr. Martell stated that the regular hours would be from 5:00 am to 5:00 pm, but the hours could change.

Ms. Planchet explained that the health inspector, Don Arsenault, would undertake his inspection after the planning board approval; a satisfactory inspection could be a condition of approval.

A general discussion is held regarding annual water testing. Mr. Martell explains that the state requires water tests be performed within so many days of the facility’s approval. They will be doing this.

A waiver request has been submitted for a number of regulations. Ms. Roy notes that it is mostly for the engineered site plan. Mr. Reitter notes that the waiver request is not from the site plan regulations; however, is a waiver request of the site plan. He states that considering that there are no changes occurring to the property as shown, it is adequate for what the board needs. Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Nikki Roy, to grant the waiver request for the site plan. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

A discussion is held regarding the access. Ms. Martell explains that the access is from both directions Rte. 4 or Green St. and they will exit onto Green Street. Mr. Martell explains that the state expressed concern with cars backing up onto Rte. 4 and he assures the board that this will not be an issue and further described that the driveway allows for complete turn a round, if necessary. He adds that the area is plowed and sanded prior to 5 a.m. for customers.

With no further discussion, Ms. Roy closes the public portion of the meeting for this application.

Eric Reitter makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to approve the site plan application with the following conditions:
1. All local, state, and federal permits be obtained to include the NHDOT driveway permit; and
2. Water testing be done with results provided to the planning board and made a part of the site plan information; and,
3. Hours of operation be added to the plan; and,
4. The health officer conducts an inspection and finds that everything is satisfactory.

Ms. Parmele asks about a cap on the number of children. Mr. Reitter amends the motion to include a cap of 10 children (clients), consistent with the state’s regulations. Ms. Parmele seconds the amendment. Ms. Roy adds that copies of all permits should be provided to the planning board, including the NHDOT permit and the NH family child care license. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

CASE 08-08: Misty Leah, LLC – The Cottages at Harvey Lake, Eleazer (Lee) Carver, 977 First NH Turnpike. Map 217/Lot 9. Applicant seeks minor subdivision for condominium conveyance. Mr. and Mrs. Carver are present representing the Cottages at Harvey Lake.

A legal opinion has been received from town counsel regarding this case. After review Ms. Roy makes a motion to release town counsel’s opinion as a public document. Ms. Parmele seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Carver explains that currently the property is used as a seasonal rental business rented by the week or month. The cottages are only seasonal. Mr. Jabre asks for clarification regarding the purpose; if it is to change the cottages owned by the Carvers to condominiums owned by someone else. Mr. Carver replies that the intent is to set the property up for that; however, it is not the immediate intent.

Ms. Planchet explains that Mr. Carver contacted the town in the fall regarding the process and was told that it is just a change of ownership and nothing would be required; however, that is incorrect. Ms. Planchet states that the plan has been filed at the registry of deeds and the condominium documents have as well. She adds that the only change is the ownership, not a change of use as thee buildings will continue to be used as cottages. In addition, she explains that state law designates condominium conveyance as a subdivision; however, it must be noted within the town regulations. She adds that a condominium conveyance is only noted in the definitions of a subdivision without any further process described. Town counsel has suggested that when the plans are approved a note be added referencing the previous recorded book and page.

Ms. Planchet explains that she received an email from Karen Smith of the water resources committee asking about the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). She has expressed concern regarding the setbacks and noted that NHDES considers this conversion a new subdivision and the new 50’ setback would apply for this case.

Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Eric Reitter, to accept the application as complete. Motion passes; 5/0.

Ms. Roy reads the abutters list and opens the public portion of this case. Abutters present are Stuart and Gloria Smith.

Mr. Reitter states that the cottages are all existing structures and this was approved in the past. He states that he would like to make sure that the ownership is clear, and the condo documents are prepared. He would like to see a homeowners association created for maintenance issues for access, etc. Ms. Planchet states that this is noted within the condominium documents.
Mr. Reitter states the NHDES CSPA requirement could be a condition of approval.

Linda Smith asks since this is an individual condo ownership would the owners also have control to the outside of the condo as opposed to just the inside. Mr. Carver replies that the association would have control if the unit falls into disrepair.

A discussion is held regarding parking for each unit. Mr. Carver states that nothing is paved at this time. He explains that the surveyor was required to follow the state regulations to provide a specific number of parking spaces per unit. Ms. Smith states that if the parking changes then it would be a change that the board would have jurisdiction over. Ms. Smith asks about the existing stonewall. Mr. Carver replies that the stonewall was removed prior to the changes in the CSPA. He adds that it was actually an overgrown rock garden. Ms. Roy notes that if they plan to pave the parking areas they would have to come before the board, but probably would not be able to due to the CSPA.

Further discussion is held regarding the seasons open for business. Mr. Carver replies that they open in the spring and would probably shut down by the end of October.

Bob Charest, president of Harvey Lake Association, is present and expresses concern regarding the ownership. Mr. Reitter states that the plan has been recorded and they are not planning to do anything extra. Mr. Charest asks if there are any plans for the house and store. Ms. Carver replies that they may rent out the store at some point; however, they have been concentrating on the cottages this year.

Further discussion is held regarding the undivided interests and leasing the cottages. Mr. Carver adds that everything has been recorded at the registry and they are seeking town approval at this time. He notes that the septic has been updated.

With no further comments, Ms. Roy closes the public portion.

Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by George Jabre, to approve case 08-08 with the following conditions:
1. A note be placed on the plan referencing Rockingham County Registry of Deeds book and page for condominium documents and plan; and,
2. Obtain all necessary state, federal, and local permits, including Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, as applicable; and,
3. Approval is based only on the existing use and configurations, as they currently exist, and limitations of approved site plan and approved condominium documents.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Ms. Roy calls for a recess.

SIGNATURE/PENDING FILES:
CASE: 04-42: David Frazier, 224 Blakes Hill Rd. Map 217; Lot 11. Site plan for light metal fabricating and hydraulic repair business. Conditional approval 2/24/05.

Ms. Planchet states that per a memo received from Code Enforcement Officer Dave Hickey dated 7/21/08; the fencing has been completed as required. Ms. Roy signs the plan. Ms. Planchet notes that there is apparently only one plan with relevant notes.

CASE: 06-08: Franklin and Sandra Bean, 36 Bean Rd. Map 234, Lot 12-2. Subdivision of 4 lots. Conditional approval 11/6/06. Extension approved on 9/27/07 for one year. Ms. Planchet notes that the Bean subdivision extension deadline is coming up and the board could revoke the subdivision approval. Mr. Reitter notes that there are other regulations now. Ms. Planchet will send a letter to the Beans regarding the expiration of the extension.

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.

Ms. Planchet states that she has contacted town counsel regarding the Low project. Nothing new has been received.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. LeClerc expresses concern regarding the recent motorcycle accidents that have occurred on Rte. 4, two fatalities.

Mr. LeClerc states that he has received some complaints that when the weather was not bad there has been a lot of dust coming out of Docko’s property on Rte. 4, and there is a visibility issue. Mr. LeClerc adds that “No Pick Up” is only noted on one side of the sign. He asks if it is okay to bury asphalt. Mr. Reitter believes that it is okay to bury chunks of asphalt but not pulverized asphalt.

Ms. Roy suggests that the board drives by the area and make some observations of the area and the board can discusses sending a letter to code enforcement at the next August meeting.

NEW BUSINESS:
CASE 08-09: Linda M. Cunningham and Stephen J. Czarnecki, 958 First NH Turnpike. Map 217/Lot 59. Applicants seek site plan review for dog training and breeding and motor vehicle repair. Property owned by Theresa Canejo-Mosher.

Ms. Planchet states that only one plan has been provided. She explains that the applicants have contacted Bill Wormell Licensed Land Surveyor (LLS) for permission to use his plans of the property. Mr. Wormell notified Ms. Planchet via email granting permission to use the plans if changes that were being made were similar to what has been done in the past. However, Mr. Wormell expressed concern with the motor vehicle portion of the proposal and he did not want the plan revised to such an extent without him being involved. Ms. Planchet explains that the applicants have provided a waiver request for plans so they could meet the application deadline. She adds that she was expecting more involvement which has not been received from the surveyor or the applicant.

Further discussion is held regarding the fact that a significant amount of information is needed in order to further address. More information is required in order for the application to be accepted at the August meeting. The additional information must be provided 15 days prior to the meeting. Outstanding items are as follows:
(a) Site Plan requirements lacking on plan. Separation between proposed commercial and adjacent residential property.
(b) Is existing septic system sufficient for needs of both businesses and the house?
(c) What is the plan for animal waste?
(d) What is expected number of dogs?
(e) Is boarding of dogs proposed? (# and length of time)
(f) Expected number of motor vehicles?
(g) What are considered medium sized vehicles? What is size/type of tractors?
(h) Plan to dispose of motor vehicle fluids?
(i) What are plans for hazardous materials storage?
(j) Limits on unregistered vehicles...are there plans for storage of vehicles?
(k) Plans for storage of automobile parts? (Limits on outside storage....wetlands in the back.)
(l) Is floor of “work shop” acceptable for motor vehicle repair?
(m) Are licenses required for both businesses?
(n) Handicap acceptable public restroom is needed for public access.
(o) What is proposed for new training area? (building or fencing?)
(p) Details on lighting to be provided.
(q) The buildings will have to comply with the required codes.
(r) Traffic pattern and circulation plan for pedestrians to be shown
(s) Parking to be available for both uses.
(t) Where is public entrance?
(u) Change of use driveway permit is required from the state Department of Transportation. Noted on Letter of Intent that will be applying.
(v) Building corner is over the property line. Linda suggests ZBA process for “Equitable Waiver for Dimensional Requirements” RSA 674:33-a. Possibility of a condition of approval?
(w) Vegetation/landscaping separating properties?
(x) Details on proposed signage?
(y) Is well capacity adequate?
(z) Is landscaping proposed?
(aa) Impact statement slim on detail...question traffic change, etc.
(bb) Sight distance should be shown. Question sight distance turning east?

George Jabre left at 9:50 p.m.

Nikki Roy makes a motion to adjourn. Eric Reitter seconds. The motion passes unanimously at 9:55 p.m.; 4/0.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page