The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 09/25/08

PRESENT: Vice Chair Peter Jones, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Alternate Eric Reitter, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and
Board Administrator Linda Smith.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Vice Chair Peter Jones, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Alternate Eric Reitter.

ABSENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Herb Johnson, Robert Fletcher, George Jabre, and Alternate Victoria Parmele.

PUBLIC: Lucy Edwards, Basel Alkurabi, Robert Wood, Mary Gondalfo, Al Peel, Bill Bushnell, Norma Heroux, and Donna Bunker.

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:
Jim Butler & Diane LaFrance, 1254 First NH Tpke. Map 110; Lot 31. Property currently owned by Alkurabi II, LLC. Jim Butler and Diane LaFrance were not present.

Al Peel, 1254 First NH Tpke. Map 110; Lot 31. Property currently owned by Alkurabi II, LLC. Ms. Planchet explains that Mr. Peel met with her prior to the meeting and explained that he will not be pursuing his proposal for the property.

Ms. Smith speaks to the board regarding site plan policies and recommends that the board discuss how they will approach existing site plans. She states that an example would be if there were an approved site plan on file with the town then the board could allow another business on a site provided that the proposal was the same as the pre-existing site plan. She believes that there needs to be some consistency and she suggests that the board come to a general consensus when property has an existing site plan.

She further provides examples of retail sites in town and differences in products sold. She states that there should be some consistency with the board and she notes that the product should not make any difference as far as site plan amendments. She adds that there needs to be some consistency for staff and the code enforcement department.

Ms. Planchet notes that although office use is general, it may need to be addressed by the board as different office type uses could generate more traffic on a site than what was previously approved. Staffing is also an issue.

Mr. Reitter refers to the site plan regulations and states that the requirements are very clear; major and minor. He states that he would rely on the regulations. Ms. Smith agrees and states that she was addressing approved site plans that would be coming in to the board for an amendment or for an expansion of use.

This will be addressed further at the next work session.

Robert Wood, Affordable Granite Marble, 1254 First NH Tpke. Map 110; Lot 31. Property currently owned by Alkurabi II, LLC. Robert Wood and Basel Alkurabi are present.

Mr. Wood explains that he would like to propose a granite countertop and cabinet sales business. He would place a few granite slabs outside, other than that everything will be inside. Most of the work is received precut, from Philadelphia, PA. He explains that this is a different use than what was done on the site previously; however, he feels it would be less intrusive. Mr. Wood estimates that there may be only three customers at one time on the premises as most of the sales are through sales representatives.

A discussion is held regarding light manufacturing. Mr. Wood states that he does not make the granite; only cutting it to size and adding an edge. Ms. Smith states that she believes that this could be considered as light manufacturing. Mr. Wood states that they are not making the countertops and all work is done inside. There is no by product created and the water is recycled. He adds that he will be using the site for more of retail use.

Ms. Planchet reads the definition of light manufacturing and further discussions are held. Ms. Planchet notes that the current approval does allow for an outdoor display area. Mr. Jones states that this is light manufacturing.

Other discussions are held regarding the previous retail businesses on this site. After discussion, general consensus is that members do not have any issues with the proposal. Mr. Reitter asks about proposed improvements to the site and reads the definition for retail. He believes that the retail definition is more appropriate to the proposal than light manufacturing.

Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Roger LeClerc, to not require a site plan review. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Irving Oil Corporation, 185 First NH Tpke. Map 234; Lot 77. Addition of 10,000 gallon underground storage tank.

Chris Ogonowski is present from Core Eng. representing Irving Oil Corp. He explains that Irving is proposing to install an additional 10,000 gallon underground storage tank for more diesel fuel. They will change the asphalt to concrete. The current diesel fuel tank will be converted to a regular fuel tank. In addition, this will also control deliveries. Mr. Ogonowski states that there will be no changes to the existing grading, drainage, or parking. Plans are provided and reviewed.

Mr. Reitter asks about the inspections and installation process as well as the state approval process. Mr. Ogonowski replies that NH is one of the most stringent inspecting agencies. NHDES requires an application to be submitted with plans. The proposal is reviewed and everything that is touched underground must meet today’s standards. If they touch anything that is older; this must also be brought up to current standards. He adds that Irving adds double wall buckets as a better standard. Mr. Reitter asks if the construction process is completely monitored and inspected. Mr. Ogonowski replies that this process is inspected and a certified engineer comes out who surveys and inspects it. A yearly inspection is also conducted by NHDES. He notes that DES is involved during the whole process. Mr. Ogonowski adds that the tanks are monitored with double walled tanks. These tanks are filled with a brine solution. He also states that there is a sensor and that should any fuel spill, there is an alarm that goes off.

Mr. Ogonowski states that he hopes to complete this all before winter. They are now in the final stages of approval from DES and hope to have the permit by next week. Mr. Reitter states that there has been a lot of leaking tanks along Rt. 4 and this is a primary reason why the board was interested in seeing the proposal. He adds that he does not believe that a double approval for the tank is required; however, notification and the ability for the town to be on site while the process is occurring are very important. Mr. Reitter suggests that the town’s engineer be present as well as the fire department and building inspector.

Mr. Jones asks how long the placement of the tanks and the testing of the tanks take. Mr. Ogonowski replies that from start to finish it is 3 weeks for the complete job.

Mr. Reitter states that this is not a major site plan; however, it is not exempt from the site plan either. He states that the board does not need to review an entire site plan for another tank. DES is involved; there are no additional pumps being proposed, and no additional traffic, ultimately relieving traffic. He suggests that a member of the town be present and have a town representative inspect the installation that the tank is going in right and being installed correctly. Ms. Planchet suggests that the selectmen require that the building inspector and/or town engineer observe all underground storage tanks that go into the town as a policy matter.

Mr. Jones states that there are critical issues. Mr. Reitter states that the town can get an expert involved. Further discussion is held regarding the building permit process. Mr. Ogonowski offered to cover costs of the town’s engineer to be on site through the installation of the tank. Ms. Smith explains the escrow account process, which would need to be established in order for the town’s engineer to be paid.

Ken Curley makes a motion to have the planning board chair send a letter to the selectman about the installation of this tank and recommend that the town require the town engineer to be on site; costs to be the responsibility of the applicant through the building permit. Eric Reitter seconds.

Mr. Reitter makes an amendment to the motion to state that the planning board will write a letter to the BOS requesting that the town’s engineer be present and inspect the installation of the tank, approve the installation, and observe the testing procedures and results, and determine that all are satisfactory. Mr. Curley seconds the amendment and the motion passes; 4/0.

VOTE: on motion as amended; passes 4/0.

Ms. Smith asks who will be responsible for the escrow. Mr. Reitter states that the escrow would be up to the building inspector.

VOLUNTARY MERGER
Mary Gandolfo, 108 & 109 Lakeshore Dr. Map 109; Lots 44 & 51. Ms. Gandolfo is present and explains that she would like to merge the parcels. She explains that there is a house on the water side of the road and there was a house on the lot across the street; however, it was taken down.

A discussion is held regarding the two parcels being abutting properties and if they can be merged. Ms. Smith states that this is a public road and a property owner owns to the middle of the road. She adds that she is not sure if the road is a state owned road. She does note that the state maintains the road.

Discussion is held regarding examples of mergers that have occurred on town and private roads. Mr. Reitter states that it is in the town’s best interest and Ms. Gandolfo’s interest to merge the lots. Ms. Smith suggests that DOT be contacted to confirm that they do not have any legal ownership of the road.

Mr. Reitter makes a motion to approve the voluntary merger with the condition that the town planner contact DOT to see if DOT owns the physical land that Lake Shore Drive sits upon and that it comes up negative. Mr. Curley seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 4/0.
Mr. Jones will sign if DOT does not own the road.

NEW CASES:
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.

Library Director Donna Bunker is present along with Library Trustee Chair Norma Heroux, and Cemetery Trustee Bill Bushnell.

Mr. Jones opens the public hearing. Mr. Curley explains that the selectmen and trustees of the cemetery met and both concur that they are satisfied with the RSA relevant to cemetery setbacks and that parking is an essential use. Ms. Planchet explains that the RSA requires 25’ setbacks from burial grounds. If there is an essential service determined by the governing body, BOS and trustees, then the setback requirements are considered waived. Town counsel has indicated that parking is an essential service. Ms. Planchet states that the town does not need to meet the regulations; however, the planning board certainly wanted to make sure that the public was notified and that there would be no problems with drainage, etc.

Discussion ensues regarding notations to be added to the plans at the cost of the engineering firm.

Mr. Jones reads the abutters’ list. Present is Bill Bushnell representing the East Northwood Cemetery Trustees.

Further discussion is held regarding changes that were made to the plan. Mr. Curley explains that the BOS has discussed options with Underwood and that they will determine how cost effective the options are. He adds that they are in the process of calculating the required stormwater drainage calculations regulations. He adds that there will be 18 spaces instead of the original plan of 20. Ms. Heroux notes that the original spaces were designed to be compact spaces.

Mr. Bushnell explains that one reason for the 25 ft. cemetery setback is that in the colonial times; sometimes people would be buried outside of the cemetery walls. He states that the town’s resident cemetery expert, Sherm Elliot, has assured him that there is nothing along the 25’ area, in his opinion.

Mr. Bushnell states that the trustees have one request, which is to save as many of the trees as possible. He explains that when DOT redid the intersection they destroyed portions of the stone wall. Some stones have toppled over onto the library side. He requested that these be returned over to the cemetery side. Mr. Reitter states that when reviewing plans, trees are required with 40 ft. spacing. So if the area was redeveloped, he would want the recommendation met; which would be two trees.

Mr. Reitter mentions the drainage. He explains that if the drainage is not done because of costs; it may be more costly later. Mr. Curley replies that the engineer noted that it could be as simple as using another type of pipe. He adds that there is a limited amount budgeted this year for this project. Mr. Bushnell asks when the final plan is anticipated and Mr. Curley replies that he will have the town administrator call tomorrow.

Mr. LeClerc motions to accept the comments from the work session from the previous meeting. Mr. Reitter seconds and motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

With no further comments, Mr. Jones closes the public hearing.

OTHER BUSINESS:
BOS comments re: Gulf Road
Mr. Curley states that he has a few items for the planning board to address. He explains that at the last selectmen’s meeting, the board was presented a request to build on a private road application that the planning board had motioned to deny. The selectmen had tabled discussions on the matter as they wanted to make sure that the town was being consistent. He asks if the planning board has any plans to create an ordinance that will restrict building in the Gulf area.

Mr. Reitter states that this was the first application that the board was asked to review and comment on since the tornado occurred. The tornado is the real turning point. He believes that the selectmen need to address this.

Ms. Planchet states that she has a list for discussions regarding proposed ordinances and a moratorium is on the list. Mr. Curley states that the selectmen want to make sure there is consistency with the applications. Ms. Smith states that the selectmen have a policy in issuing the permits and the selectmen have sole authority per state statutes. She adds that there are many different scenarios; therefore it is hard to make a blanket statement. Mr. Reitter states that the dangers in that area have been known for a long time. He adds that the tornado showed that there is a real potential for severe dangers.

Mr. Reitter states that there are two ways to address this. He explains that the planning board has addressed these issues before and there are things that can be done by the planning board and selectmen. He states that the planning board can provide recommendations to the selectmen. Mr. Reitter states that there should be a 2 prong approach; the planning board should have a moratorium on building permits in the Gulf area and address it through the ordinances and the BOS must be proactive. It is up to the selectmen to say what the town is going to do about it. Mr. Jones states that as soon as a moratorium is in place there needs to be a growth ordinance within a year. Ms. Smith notes that it is difficult to have a long lasting moratorium. Mr. Reitter states that a moratorium is for an immediate problem and there needs to be a solution. Mr. Jones recalls Marion Knox addressing the issue at a town meeting and discussion was tabled indefinitely. Mr. Jones states that the end of the road is in Deerfield and there are only 4 houses. He adds that the road meets Deerfield’s needs and is not an issue to the Town of Deerfield.

Further discussion is held regarding the problem and the need for a solution as that needs to be addressed for the people that live in that area. A ferry across the lake is mentioned to access the other side to get to safety. General discussion ensues. No decision or action is determined.

Planner’s Items:
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
The CIP is discussed. A discussion is held regarding the purpose of the CIP. Mr. Reitter explains that this is for roads, facilities, etc. and anything over $5,000 over the 6 year time frame should be noted. The board suggests that a CIP letter be created and sent out with the chair’s signature, requesting input of all town entities, commissions, and/or boards with a deadline of October 16. A meeting with then be scheduled with the budget committee and the BOS.

Mr. Reitter suggests that the planning board have some type of a presentation of the CIP at town meeting. Ms. Smith will mention to the budget committee as well.

Site Plan Revised Checklists
The draft checklist is reviewed for the major site plan application. Eric Reitter motions to approve the major site plan checklist. Pete Jones seconds the motion and the motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

The board will review the minor site plan application checklist for the next meeting, October 9.

Meeting With Water Resources Subcommittee
The meeting with the water resources subcommittee is scheduled for
October 9 pending the amount of applications. If there are three or more new applications the date will be October 16.

Board Administrator’s Items
2009 Budget
Since Ms. Roy is absent, Ms. Smith with make arrangements to discuss the planning board’s budget with Ms. Roy.

Newman Voluntary Merger
Ms. Smith provides a time line of the Newman properties. Ms. Planchet explains counsel’s comments relative to a gift of land to the town from 1979. Counsel was asked to review and comment and noted that it would be okay to approve the merger. The property was surveyed and recorded; however, did not receive town subdivision approval. Ms. Smith states that it didn’t seem possible to allow the merger in the beginning; however, counsel has indicated that the board can grant the merger. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Eric Reitter, to approve the merger. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Eric Reitter makes a motion to adjourn. Second by Roger LeClerc. Motion passes unanimously at 9:48 p.m.; 4/0.

Respectfully submitted

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page