The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 09/11/08

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Pete Jones, Roger LeClerc, Alternates Victoria Parmele and Scott Campbell; and Town Planner Elaine Planchet. Alternate Eric Reitter arrives at 7:10 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Nikki Roy, Ken Curley, Pete Jones, Roger LeClerc, Victoria Parmele and Scott Campbell. Eric Reitter at 7:10 p.m.

ABSENT: Vice-chair Robert Fletcher, George Jabre, and Herb Johnson

MINUTES: 8/28/08 are distributed.
August 11, 2008:
Nikki Roy makes a motion to accept the minutes of August 11, 2008, as amended, as follows:
Page 3: Add: …discussed…
Page 3: Delete: This would be addressed by the planning board.
Page 8: Add: “p”
Page 9: Add: …to just the inside.
Page 11: Add: “A”
Page 11: Change: LLS to Licensed Land Surveyor…
Pete Jones seconds. Motion passes 6/0/1. Scott Campbell abstains.

Vice Chair Position
Ms. Roy explains that Bob Fletcher had e-mailed her home e-mail with the intention that the e-mail would be addressed at the last meeting; however, her e-mail was not accessible. Ms. Roy reads Mr. Fletcher’s e-mail into the record as he requested. He resigns as vice chair and recommends Roger LeClerc as vice chair. Nikki Roy motions to accept Bob Fletcher’s resignation, with regret. Ken Curley seconds. Ms. Roy states that this is unfortunate and she wishes him luck. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Ms. Roy motions to send a letter to Mr. Fletcher, second by Mr. Curley, thanking him for his service on the board, and that the board understands the circumstances and hopes that he can rejoin the board as soon as possible. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Election of Vice Chair
Mr. LeClerc states that he is not interested in the vice chair position and recommends Pete Jones for the vice chair. Mr. Curley seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0/1. Mr. Jones abstains.

NEW BUSINESS:
CASE 08-10: Town of Northwood, Chesley Memorial Library, 8 Mountain Ave. Map 234/Lot 71. Applicants seek site plan review to allow an expansion of 7 new parking spaces to the parking lot for a total of 18 spaces.

Dave Foster from Underwood Engineering is present to meet with the board regarding the library parking lot expansion. He reviews the concerns of the planning board relative to the project.

Mr. Foster speaks to the setbacks. He states that Underwood did not expect to have a planning board review for the project. He explains that the scope of work defined to Underwood was that the library needs as much parking as possible. The preliminary concepts were provided and reviewed by the town administrator, facilities chairman, and the road agent. The three selected the option provided, then Underwood put more time and effort into the project.

Mr. Foster states that setbacks were not shown because Underwood was simply trying to provide the most parking spaces as possible which is what had been requested. He indicates that if the setbacks were followed then there would not be a project as the site is restricted by size. He notes that the septic system is an existing system, which is in the middle of the parking lot and is underground. He adds that the setbacks are currently being violated just about everywhere on the site; if the setbacks are not granted relief, the project will not go forward.

A discussion is held regarding the town’s ordinances. Mr. Jones asks if the town is allowed to not observe the ordinances and if this is a good policy over the long term. He also asks about the abutters and their perception of their rights if the waivers are granted. He asks if exceptions can be made for a current abutter; however, the next person inherits the issue. Mr. Curley states that the town represents the people. Ms. Planchet adds that all abutters have been notified for the September 25, 2008 meeting for comments. Mr. Curley states that the selectmen need to follow the process and address the issues.

Mr. Reitter explains that the board needs to look at the issues that need to be addressed and let them know what they are in violation of; however, it is ultimately the BOS that will make the determination. He adds that from the outset the board should not be granting waivers solely because of small lots or financial hardships; every application needs to be addressed the same way. Mr. Jones agrees and states that it is important that the board is fair. Mr. Reitter states that it makes it really hard when someone comes in and sees that the planning board has approved exceptions for the town.

Further discussion continues regarding setbacks versus engineering and drainage. Ms. Parmele states that if the planning board does not address the issues the same way it would with another property; it is not fair in the area of public safety.

Ms. Roy agrees and states that she would prefer to separate things out as she sees the setbacks as a very different situation for this case. She explains that the board has considered specific cases as such and in this case Mr. Foster mentioned the setbacks and the board is familiar with the site. She states that if the board follows the setback ordinance, this project will not happen. She states in this case where there are no other options, she asks will the public benefit and should the board make an exception for this. She states that in her opinion, it does, because there are no other options. As far as engineering issues, there are other options. She states that regardless of the applicant, the public good must be met.

Ms. Parmele states that expanding the parking lot is in the public’s interest for safety reasons and would be looked at favorably. Ms. Parmele adds that storm water issues should be also addressed.

Ms. Planchet states that the town administrator said that he will be contacting town counsel regarding the setback and potential ZBA issues. Ms. Roy states that the relief of setbacks is not in the jurisdiction of the planning board. Ms. Planchet notes the cemetery setback. Additional discussion is held regarding digging near the cemetery.

Mr. Reitter notes that the setbacks for parking areas are in the site plan regulations and not the town ordinances. He adds that it may be possible to do a lot line adjustment to address the property lines. Mr. Foster states that the boundary information came from the tax maps.

Ms. Roy asks about the width of the parking spaces and if it would be possible to be 9 ft. Mr. Foster states that the spaces can be 9 ft.; however, this would result in fewer parking spaces. He adds that most of the existing spaces are 8 ft. wide with the handicapped spaces are 11 ft. wide.

Ms. Roy states that Underwood Engineering has been involved with the regulations of the town and working for the town. She asks if Underwood was given specific directions to not follow the town’s regulations. Mr. Foster replies that he was not involved with the initial discussions. Mr. Curley states that the people involved were addressing the concept of more parking spaces with Underwood. Mr. Foster states that a sketch was provided with what the town had in mind and it was clear that there were time constraints and budget constrictions with a need for the most spaces as possible. Mr. Curley states that the town is expanding the parking lot on the basis of safety. Mr. Foster states that right or wrong they did not expect to appear before the planning board. Mr. Reitter states that Ms. Roy’s point is that Underwood serves as the planning board’s engineer and the board revised the site plan regulations within the past three months. Parking and storm water regulations were updated as part of that and Underwood did a detailed review of the regulations. Ms. Roy states that she would have expected Underwood’s work to have noted that some of the items addressed on the plan do not meet the town’s regulations.

Mr. Reitter states that the storm water regulations are the most extensive. He states that the off site runoff should not exceed predevelopment conditions and on site infiltration should be maintained. He adds that it would be a benefit to have this information shown on the plans. Mr. Reitter notes that the board has not had a site plan come in since these revised regulations were adopted. He adds that a design with permeable pavement would work. Mr. Foster replies that this type of project probably would not be possible with the existing structure due to the parking area being over the existing septic system.

Mr. Foster explains the cosmetics of the two different asphalt surfaces. He states that there will be new pavement next to old pavement as well as pervious pavements with a different texture to allow the water to seep in. He adds that there would be a difference in the appearances. He states that the Town of Northwood is the client and Underwood will do what the client requests. Mr. Curley asks what the effects are to the property. Mr. Foster replies that estimates can be done and Mr. Curley states that is what it will come down to in the end. Mr. Reitter states there are other ways to deal with the two surfaces. He states that infiltrating catch basins can be used. Mr. Foster states that there are drainage pipes and catch basins existing on the property. A pipe could be easily removed and a perforated pipe could be installed to help infiltrate some of the runoff currently leaving the site. Mr. Foster is unsure if all of the run off could be infiltrated. Mr. Reitter adds that there is probably not enough room on the site.

Ms. Roy notes that the handicap dimensions are different then those shown in the site plan regulations. She adds that nineteen spaces were shown on the plan; however, twenty were counted.

Mr. Foster states that they will redo the plan to show the setbacks, provide drainage calculations, investigate the sizes of handicapped parking spaces, and will amend the sizing to be 9 ft. spaces instead of 8 ft. Ms. Roy states that the planning board is not able to give Underwood this direction. She explains that any direction needs to come from the selectmen; however, the planning board will provide comments to the selectmen.

Mr. Curley states that the selectmen will need a cost analysis provided. Mr. Curley states that the BOS would like plans that are ordinance acceptable and cost effective then the selectmen will review and make the final decision. Mr. Foster indicates he will look for direction from the town administrator.

Ms. Roy explains the planning board application process. She states that the public hearing is scheduled for September 25, at which time there may be additional comments from the abutters and public.

Mr. Foster states that he has drawn all setbacks onto the parking and reiterates that without relief from the setbacks there will not be a project. He states that Underwood was not avoiding the regulations and notes that they take lead from the client; the town. He adds that there were conditions noted very clearly; financial and time constraints, and to provide as many parking spaces as possible. Underwood noted that the parking regulations were already being violated.

Mr. Reitter states that the stormwater is the most significant item to be addressed and the easiest to work around. Mr. Foster states that he will address the pervious payment issue at the office. He adds that he believes that the better solution would be to remove one of the drainage pipes, install a perforated pipe with the same diameter, then surround it with stone for infiltration. Mr. Foster adds that the pipe exists; therefore, the area has been disturbed already.

Brief discussion is held regarding cemetery setbacks and if relief is possible as the 25’ setback is an RSA. Mr. Reitter states that he is not sure if the setback is from the property line or stone wall or if it would be calculated from the gravestones. Mr. Foster requests that the BOS provide Underwood with direction as to the cemetery issues. Ms. Roy states that this is an important issue and is beyond the town’s ordinances as it is a state statute.

Mr. Reitter states that the storm water needs to be addressed as well as the parking dimensions. He adds that the planning board in this matter is advisory; it is up to the Board of Selectmen to choose to follow it. Mr. Curley states that he would like to be able to have actual plans at the public hearing of the proposal.

Ms. Parmele adds that it is worth noting the updated storm water regulations, which Underwood assisted in the project. She adds that coming up with appropriate technology on this site, town property, is a really good thing.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Voluntary Merger
Mary Gandolfo, 108 & 109 Lakeshore Dr., Map 109; Lots 44 & 51.

A copy of the information for the voluntary merger is provided for review. Mr. Reitter asks if the merger can be done as Lake Shore Dr. is a public road so the residents own to the right of way. Mr. Reitter explains that the two lots are on opposite sides of the road. He is not sure if the merger is even possible.

Ms. Roy notes that one lot is .07 acres with 45’ of water front. The lot across is land only, with .09 acres and the lots are not contiguous. Mr. Campbell asks why a voluntary merger would be done. Mr. Reitter states that a common reason is for taxation; there is a base tax for each lot of record. Ms. Roy notes that the house was rebuilt in 2006. The board requests additional information and suggests that Ms. Planchet discuss the merger with Linda Smith.

Budget Worksheet
A budget worksheet is provided for the board’s review and discussion along with the board’s revenue for 2008. Ms. Planchet states that there have been 9 cases that have generated revenue totaling $3,279. Ms. Planchet explains that Ms. Smith will attend the September 25 meeting and the budget can be finalized at that point.

A discussion is held regarding the legal line being noted as ($599.00). Ms. Planchet will check into the legal budget line.

Mr. Reitter asks if anything has been accomplished with the GIS for the website. Mr. Curley replies yes, Ms. Smith has been working on that. Mr. Reitter adds that this was a shared cost with the assessing department.

Ms. Roy suggests that the board take the budget worksheet home and discussions with ensue at the next meeting.

Mr. Reitter states that the $10,000 grant was a matching grant for the water resources program. He states that it shows that these funds have not been spent to date. Mr. Curley replies that the funds have been spent; however, it hasn’t been held over. He will look into it and recalls that the funds were put into another line.

In addition, Mr. Reitter explains that the budget shown notes that the board has not spent nearly as much as what was budgeted. He explains that the board does get reimbursed through fees; however, the board must budget for everything first as the board is not privy to the amount of applications that will come in over the course of a year. He adds that when the funds are not spent, the money goes back to the town.

Mr. Reitter explains that other cities' websites have access to assessing information anywhere in town with all tax information available online. Mr. Reitter states that Northwood wanted to begin this process with planning, assessing, and possibly the zoning board with assessing to run the programming. Mr. Reitter states that it is a 3 year program. The planning board was participating by adding funds. Mr. Jones states that the town’s tax maps are on the town’s website; however, nothing can be searched. Mr. Curley will check into this with Ms. Smith.

Facilities Committee
Ms. Planchet reminds the board members of the facilities committee memos sent to town departments in July requesting information relative to any capital improvement projects. She states that the planning board requested she schedule a joint meeting with the facilities committee. The committee discussed the offer at their recent meeting and has provided a written response stating that they do not wish to meet. A copy of the memo has been provided in the members packets and is reviewed. Ms. Planchet states that the facilities committee has explained that they are only responsible to take care of the maintenance of existing town buildings, grounds, and facilities, etc. She adds that a letter was also attached addressed to the selectmen relative to a proposed addition to the police station in which the selectmen were referred to the planning board as this is perceived as a capital improvement. Mr. Curley states that the selectmen are not going to consider the addition for this year.

Mr. Reitter states that the planning board needs to update the CIP. Ms. Planchet states that the project should be more than just getting the information from departments and putting it into a spreadsheet. She states that the process should include actual discussions and planning to consider the projects. She suggests that the projects be staggered and that the planning be done consistently.

Mr. Reitter suggests that all of the CIP information be gathered to see what is proposed and maybe take a different approach. He explains that the library parking lot should have been in the CIP for a project this year as should have the ball fields. Mr. Reitter suggests a new letter be done highlighting the ball fields and parking lot and note the fact that the two projects should have been planned for, and explain why a CIP is a benefit for the town. Ms. Roy suggests a beginning paragraph explaining the need to plan ahead, try to budget for and stagger projects. Mr. Curley asks if there is a threshold for the projects. Ms. Planchet replies that she believes it is $5,000. Ms. Planchet will draft a new CIP letter with a different approach for the September 25 meeting and add to the 9/25 agenda and the 10/9 work session.

Ms. Parmele explains that the engineer involved with the storm water subcommittee will have a completed draft report on storm water technology. She suggests that this information be addressed at the same meeting with the water resources subcommittee.

Ms. Parmele left at 9:06 p.m.

Memo: Longueil Subdivision, Copper Hill Road. Map 234; Lot 29.
A memo has been received from the building inspector seeking comments for a proposed subdivision application of Paul Longueil with property in Nottingham. The access to one lot is being proposed to be provided from the Longueil’s existing driveway in Northwood. A discussion is held regarding the time line of this parcel. Ms. Planchet notes that an abutter’s letter has been received from the Town of Nottingham for the subdivision.

Mr. Reitter reads the subdivision regulations relative to a shared driveway. Mr. LeClerc notes that the area is very busy with not much sight distance available. Previous minutes are reviewed and discussion is held regarding the property location. Ms. Planchet references minutes from a preliminary consultation held in September of 2007. Mr. Reitter adds that the reason the planning board did not have any objections with the shared driveway last year was because a shared driveway will only serve up to two residences. As far as the access issues though, he believes that the planning board can appropriately address the matter. Ms. Roy notes the sight distance requirements and it is not clear via the map provided. Mr. Reitter recalls granting a waiver for sight distance for one driveway in that area because it was near the intersection. He adds that the other was granted as well.

Ms. Roy suggests that members attend the Nottingham Planning Board meeting. She states that the she will plan to attend as does Mr. LeClerc. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Pete Jones, to authorize Nikki Roy and Roger LeClerc to present the planning board’s position on Northwood’s regulations to the Nottingham Planning Board. Motion passes; 4/0/2. Ms. Roy and Mr. LeClerc abstain.

REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE
Ms. Planchet addresses another memo from Dave Hickey regarding possible sales activities at the MB Tractor site 1254 First NH Tpke., Map 110/Lot 31. She explains that the site was approved for outdoor tractor display and sales. She notifies the board that a preliminary conceptual consultation has been scheduled for September 25 for someone for this site relative to mini trucks. Additional discussion is held regarding other details and sales for the site.

The board discusses another property on Rte. 4 which Mr. Hickey requested be addressed for proposed office use. It was noted that traffic issues could vary depending on different types of office use. Ms. Roy suggests that a preliminary consultation be scheduled to discuss the office location.

Legislative Changes with Planning Board Implications
Ms. Planchet provides a summary of the new legislative changes for the board’s review which was prepared by the LGC.

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. Roy recuses herself for any discussion relative to the project. Ms. Planchet provides an update regarding the Low project. She states that the project is close to being completed. There are some deed modifications that must be done as well as a few modifications on the plans. She adds that road maintenance is another outstanding issue.

Discussion is held regarding language for road maintenance. Mr. Reitter suggests that language be offered to town counsel noting that the town shall have the right to maintain and improve the access roadway as necessary within the easement. The board agrees to offer to town counsel this statement:
“The town shall have the right to maintain and improve the access roadway as necessary within the easement.”

Gift of Property from 1979
Ms. Planchet explains that in 1979 there was apparently a gift of land without a subdivision approval. Ms. Smith has researched whether a subdivision approval was required at that time. Legal opinion is read about the subdivision regulation requirements in 1979 relative to the current situation.

SIGNATURE/PENDING FILES:
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. Reminder letter sent on 8/27/08; NOD requires pavement completion by 11/6/08. Ms. Planchet states that the certified return receipt has been received.

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. Ms. Planchet states that comments from NHDES have been received indicating their position that the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA) does apply.

Mr. Curley leaves at 9:40.

Proposed Ordinance Changes
Ms. Planchet has reviewed the files and notes there is not a long list of items discussed for changes to the Development Ordinance. She suggests that the board may consider changing the number of children for day care to three from one as the state childcare regulation is based on three children. This has been questioned recently by a local child care provider.

Also mentioned is the possibility of an ordinance change to address the use of underground storage use.

Ms. Planchet notes that Irving may be coming for a preliminary consultation for the change of the size of the underground storage tank. The board had discussed this at the previous meeting and advised that a site plan review would be necessary. Ms. Planchet indicated that an engineer for Irving questioned that opinion, and she suggested he present his position at a preliminary consultation. Discussion is held regarding whether this would be an expansion, change of use or a major site plan application. Ms. Roy states that this would be for sales of more gas and she suggests that the board members review the site plan regulations prior to the meeting on September 25.

Eric Reitter makes a motion to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Nikki Roy seconds the motion and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted
Lisa Fellows-Weaver,
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page