The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 10/09/08

PRESENT: Vice Chair Peter Jones, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Scott Campbell, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Peter Jones, Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Scott Campbell, and Alternate Victoria Parmele.

ABSENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Herb Johnson, Robert Fletcher, George Jabre and Alternate Eric Reitter.

PUBLIC: Lucy Edwards, Rick Wolfe, Chris Lounsbury, Karen Smith; and Julie LaBranche from Strafford Regional Planning Commission.

Water Resources Subcommittee:
Presentation on Proposed Protected Shoreland Ordinance

Karen Smith, member of the water resource subcommittee, explains that in 2007 the subcommittee met with the planning board and asked for support and financial contributions to apply for a grant through the NH Estuaries Program. Through this support, the grant was received and there were two separate projects. She explains that one project was a follow up with the stormwater management plan that was done in 2007 and the second project is the work on the shoreland buffer ordinance.

Ms. Smith explains that Julie LaBranche has reviewed the town’s current regulations and the new Comprehensive Shoreline Protection Act (CSPA) that is in place in the state with a goal to tighten up these regulations. She states that the board may want to consider adding additional protections especially where there are delicate waterways and surface waters in Northwood.

Ms. Smith states that Ms. LaBranche has been working on this since June and they are prepared to propose an ordinance to the board for consideration for 2009 town meeting.

Overview of Ordinance Rationale
Ms. LaBranche has prepared a PowerPoint presentation and provides handouts to the board and public. She states that the grant must be completed by the end of October.

Ms. LaBranche states that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to provide protection for and maintain the functions and values of surface waters. She explains that Northwood has four large watersheds; Little Suncook River, Isinglass River/Bow Lake, North River, and Lamprey River. She refers to a map of the region and explains that a watershed is typically defined by topography boundaries. All water drains to a single discharge and often leads to a larger river. She adds that this includes all tributaries.

Ms. LaBranche further explains the watershed map and states that Northwood is in an unusual situation due to the town having the headwaters of four major watersheds. All tributaries and small order streams converge into the area and divide out to the separate watersheds. She notes that not many communities have this situation and it is unusual in nature to have so many area of headwaters in one community.

Ms. LaBranche provides an explanation of five different orders of streams representing 50.62 total miles. Ms. LaBranche states that Northwood has an enormous contribution to water quality and that the first and second order streams represent the most linear miles, which is very significant. She refers to the Headwaters of Major Regional Watersheds table in the power point and the handout.

The NH Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA)
Ms. LaBranche states that Northwood does not have any 4th order and higher streams or rivers; therefore, no streams and rivers in Northwood are regulated under the jurisdiction of the CSPA. She adds that currently 13 lakes and ponds are regulated under the CSPA in town; no tributaries are regulated.

Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act: RSA 483-B:8 I and II
Ms. LaBranche refers to RSA 483-B:8 I and II and explains that this RSA allows towns to adopt shoreland protections that are more stringent than the minimum standards of the CSPA. She notes that the state thinks of the regulations as minimum standards and encourages towns to adopt land use ordinances for shorelands of waters courses other than public waters regulated under the CSPA and more stringent regulations. Ms. LaBranche adds that a reason for this is that since smaller streams contribute to the overall water quality to a 4th order and higher streams, these streams are only as good as the contributors to them. She notes that 4th order and higher streams are often fisheries, larger rivers, and have habitats for different species including land species such as reptiles.

A discussion is held regarding what portions of streams have protection from the overlay districts. Ms. LaBranche explains that the Lamprey River headwaters have a lot of protection under the conservation overlay and also protected land.
Public Drinking Water Supplies
Ms. LaBranche explains that the ordinance rationale is looking at protecting surface waters which are public drinking water supplies. She states that Pleasant Lake is a public drinking water supply for the Town of Deerfield and the Lamprey River covers the Town of Durham for water supply. She states that surface waters should be looked at and should be protected now.

State Designated and Protected Rivers.
Ms. LaBranche addresses state designated and protected rivers. She explains that the Isinglass River and portions of the Lamprey River are NH protected rivers under the Rivers Management and Protection Program (RSA 483). This means that they are both included in the River Management Programs under the direction of NHDES. The designation provides protection for large use with at least 250’ setbacks for activities such as solid waste facilities, land fills, and waste water treatment plants. Another protection that is included is that a local advisory committee could be formed. The committee is an advisory committee for public outreach and education. Management plans also are completed for conservation of the river corridor and watersheds to protect water quality for the purpose of maintaining the state designated uses of the river as Class B water bodies. Ms. LaBranche notes that the lower portion of the Lamprey River is federally designated as a Scenic River. She states that there are only 6 scenic rivers in the country.

Designated Conservation Areas
Ms. LaBranche states that Northwood has recognized specific areas that have been designated conservation areas. These areas possess unique, valuable, and irreplaceable natural resources. She adds that the ordinance may be amended to include streams.

Functions and Values of Riparian and Shoreland Areas
Ms. LaBranche explains that the functions and values of riparian and shoreland areas are bank stabilization, flood and erosion control, water quality, fisheries habitat and water contact recreation, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic, scenic and property values. She states that these characteristics are what communities recognize as economical and social benefits.

Draft Protected Shoreland Ordinance
Ms. LaBranche states that the purpose and intent of this proposal is to have protections within the ordinance and it must be specific for the board to make their findings. Her advice to the subcommittee was to make the intent as specific as possible.

She explains that the general requirements were crafted to meet the objectives of this purpose to:
 Minimize impact of floods by promoting bank stabilization and reducing erosion
 Maintain water quality, and protecting public and private water supplies
 Reduce sedimentation and removing pollutants in stormwater runoff
 Provide groundwater recharge through infiltration of runoff
 Protect aquatic habitat, riparian areas, wetlands and maintain stream base flow
 Provide scenic, aesthetic and property values
 Sustain the economic benefit of recreational water bodies

Ms. LaBranche explains that a protected shoreland is the land 250 ft. from perennial streams, rivers, and surface waters.

Ms. LaBranche states that the subcommittee recommends the following general requirements:
1. Structures shall be located a minimum distance of 50 feet from the reference line of a stream, river and surface waters.
2. Septic systems shall be located a minimum distance of 75 feet from the reference line of a stream, river and surface waters.
3. The total area of impervious surface on any lot or portion of a lot within the Protected Shoreland District shall not exceed twenty percent (20%).
4. All development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the stormwater management requirements and design standards as adopted in the Northwood Site Plan Review Regulations.

Ms. Planchet asks if the local ordinance would prevail over the CSPA. Ms. LaBranche states that a local ordinance would prevail as the town can be more stringent but cannot be less stringent. Ms. Planchet asks what the benefit would be to have the same standards and requirements as the state in the local ordinances. Ms. Smith replies that the CSPA covers only lakes and great ponds in Northwood. She adds that this would be applying to smaller lakes and streams in town.

Mr. Jones asks if there is a map showing the 50’ buffers. Ms. LaBranche replies there is a map and she will provide a table with further information.

Waterfront Buffer Proposal
The Waterfront Buffer is proposed to be those protected shorelands within 0’ to 50’ of the reference line of a stream, river, and surface waters. Ms. LaBranche states that all of the proposed requirements are consistent with the CSPA requirements for the waterfront buffer and are that:
1. No chemicals, including pesticides of any kind or fertilizers of any kind shall be applied.
2. Cleared areas on pre-existing lots shall not be increased.
3. Dead, diseased, or unsafe, trees, saplings, or shrubs may be removed.
4. Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is permitted.
5. For water-dependent construction activities, a temporary 12-foot wide access path shall be allowed.
6. A permanent 6-foot wide path to provide access to the water body is permitted.

A discussion is held regarding the grid and point system used by the CSPA for tree removal. Ms. LaBranche states that this may be too difficult to apply to the local levels and may be difficult to enforce.

Woodland Buffer
Ms. LaBranche explains the subcommittee recommendations for a woodland buffer shall be those protected shorelands within 50’ to 150’ of the reference line of a stream, river, and surface waters:
1. At least 50 percent of the land area within the Woodland Buffer shall be maintained in a naturally vegetated and undisturbed state. A healthy, well-distributed stand of trees, saplings, shrubs, ground cover and their living, undamaged root systems shall be left in place. Tree canopy shall be maintained to the extent possible.
2. Dead, diseased, or unsafe, trees, saplings, or shrubs may be removed.
3. Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is permitted.

Ms. LaBranche states that 50% of the land area can be cleared within the woodland buffer. The rest needs to be maintained. She adds that there can be guidelines established. She will provide possible scenarios for the board to review.

Uses and Activities Prohibited
Ms. LaBranche describes that there are certain uses, structures, and activities that are prohibited within the Protected Shoreland District. These prohibited items basically are categorized into three items as follows:
   pose a high risk of contamination of soil or surface waters,
   introduce hazardous substances,
   emit nutrients and other pollutants in high concentrations

Conditional Uses and Activities In the Waterfront Buffer
Ms. LaBranche states that there are certain uses and activities that are conditional uses, as follows:
   Roads, driveways, bridges, access ways, and utilities
   Utilities, including but not limited to transmission lines, pipelines,
   infrastructure
   Increase in impervious surface coverage up to 30 percent
   Water dependent uses and structures
   Recreational footpaths and trails
   Other public utilities and facilities and flood control structures

She acknowledges that the subcommittee’s recommendation for the planning board to administer a conditional use permit process is a different approach for Northwood. Ms. Planchet asks if the planning board has the authority to do this permit process now. Ms. LaBranche states that she believes it does through the innovative land use statute. Currently Durham and New Durham use conditional use permits. Ms. LaBranche adds that the conditional use permit process must be adopted at town meeting. Additional discussion is held regarding the process and how the process would be perceived by the town. Ms. Parmele notes that this could also apply to water bodies. Ms. LaBranche will provide further information regarding the conditional use permit process.

Non-Conforming Lots, Structures and Uses
Ms. LaBranche states that the last section of the ordinance is non-conforming, undeveloped lots. She states that these lots of record shall be developed in such a manner that demonstrates a “good faith” effort to comply to the extent possible with the requirements of this ordinance. She states proposed language that “…except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, a non-conforming lot shall not be permitted to become more non-conforming.” She adds that non-conforming structures may be repaired, renovated, or replaced in kind; however, an existing non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use and an existing nonconforming use may not be expanded to become more non-conforming. Enforcement would be done through site plan reviews.

Additional discussion is held regarding the importance of the town’s headwaters with advantages and disadvantages. Ms. LaBranche explains that this ordinance would be an environmental benefit. Ms. Smith recommends including the Lamprey River, Isinglass River, and Pleasant Lake, as they are public waters and stewards to protect.

Karen Smith provides drafts of an article for the Suncook Sun and also of a press release for the Concord Monitor and Foster’s Daily Democrat. The press release is reviewed and amended. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to approve the Suncook Sun ad as corrected; 5/0. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to approve the press release for Foster’s Daily Democrat and Concord Monitor, as amended. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

A discussion is held regarding other town committees and surrounding town boards as well. Pete Jones makes a motion that the planning board allow the water resources subcommittee to invite members of the conservation commission, zoning board of adjustment, board of selectmen, and surrounding towns’ board committees/commissions. Ken Curley seconds. A discussion is held regarding the method of contact, mail, phone, email and quorums and the need to post for the other meetings. An amendment is offered by Mr. Jones, second by Mr. Curley, to change the wording to state …to invite interested parties of town government committees, commissions, and boards. Process is further discussed regarding the wording and the motion and amendment; the seconds are withdrawn. Pete Jones makes a motion that Karen Smith invite members of the public to the presentation for the water resources buffer ordinance. Scott Campbell seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Further discussion is held as to when the presentation to the public will be held and the board agrees to schedule it for November 13 from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.

NHDES Survey for State Water Plan Process
Ms. Planchet presents a survey received from NHDES and suggests that the water resource committee complete it. Mr. Jones reads the survey information regarding creating water resource plan for the State of NH and policies. Ken Curley makes a motion to have the Water Resources Subcommittee participate in and complete the DES survey for the planning board. Scott Campbell seconds and the motion passes; 5/0.

OLD BUSINESS:
CASE VM: 08-01: Mary Gondolfo, Lake Shore Dr. Map 109; Lots 44 & 51.
Ms. Planchet states that she contacted DOT regarding ownership of the road as the property is on both sides of the road. The board had directed her to contact DOT and determine whether or not the state owned the land under the road as a condition for granting the merger. Ms. Planchet states that she and Linda Smith had conversations with the property owner, DOT Division 6, the DOT in Concord and the Local Government Center. The property owner also did some research with the state DOT. Ms. Planchet states that there is no proof as to ownership of the town or state. LGC indicated that the burden would be on the state to prove ownership. LGC states that the staff and property owner have already done due diligence and encouraged the board to grant approval. The board reviews the voluntary merger information along with a memo provided from Board Administrator Linda Smith. After review, Pete Jones makes a motion to approve the voluntary merger for property owned by Mary Gondolfo, Lake Shore Dr.; Map 109; Lots 44 & 51. Scott Campbell seconds and the motion passes; 5/0.

NEW BUSINESS:
CASE 08-11: David Docko-Millstone Realty Trust, 1090 First NH Turnpike. Map 217; Lot 35. Applicant seeks site plan amendment to add retails sales of materials (mulch, stone, etc.) on site. Property owned by Millstone Realty Trust, Jacqueline Docko.

The board reviews the materials provided along with notes from the planner. Previous case files for this property are reviewed. Ms. Planchet states for purposes of the application a question would be if the existing conditions plan includes what the planning board has previously approved and what is existing. She states that this would have to be addressed with the applicant. Further discussion is held regarding wholesale and retail sales of materials and traffic issues; and public and owner use of the property.

Waivers have been requested for the Auto and Pedestrian Circulation Plan, Lighting Plan, Landscape Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Sidewalks. Ms. Planchet states that she and Linda Smith recommend sending the plans to Underwood Engineering and Ms. Smith has noted that she would also send the previous plans as well. Mr. Hickey has suggested via memo that the board contact DOT regarding the turning lane. He also mentioned that the board should request the state to add a traffic entering/leaving sign. Ms. Planchet states that the fire department has requested the use of a “knox box” entry control for front gate.

Ms. Planchet has also noted in her review report that the applicant has requested to negotiate the disturbed area fees or have them waived altogether as the applicant believes that the fees are excessive ($0.025 x 370,000 s.f. = $9,250.00).

The abbreviated traffic report that was provided is discussed. The board would like to see a complete traffic study that would include the current usage and traffic compared to a more appropriate use of activity rather than a wholesale nursery; more detail should be provided including noting any accident data that has occurred in the vicinity.

Discussion ensues regarding the existing approved use and whether or not retail sales is the only new use being proposed for the property. Ms. Planchet notes the Notice of Decision for Case 07-09, the approved site plan for the expansion of the area on site for excavated materials storage at the existing business was to limit access to the property owner only. Ms. Planchet states that the driveway location on the approved 07-09 plan has not been moved.

Mr. Curley states that he has some reservations regarding considering the application as the requirements for previous applications have not been fulfilled. Further discussion is held regarding the code enforcement process should an applicant not be in compliance with their approval. If there is something that has not been completed then the code enforcement officer should be notified. Mr. Curley asks if the board should proceed since the driveway is not in compliance. He adds that the traffic study would be wrong too and states that the board should not be considering a plan if the existing information is not accurate.

Additional discussion is held regarding the existing driveway permit. Questions are generated if the permit is still valid with NHDOT since there is now a new one approved. It is deemed that an amendment to the driveway permit would be required given the fact that this is a change of use.

Lengthy discussion is held regarding the definition of a complete application.

Mr. Curley leaves at 9:58 p.m.

Facilities are discussed and if a portable toilet is a requirement and if the unit would need to be a handicapped accessible facility. Ms. Planchet will pursue this question. Mr. Jones states that the location should be delineated.

Items are noted on the plans that should be corrected i.e. abutters name and addresses.

Ms. Planchet notes that the applicant has combined the proposed site plan and erosion control plan on one plan. She asks if the board believes that this is sufficient. Mr. Jones expresses concern with the waivers of all the particular plans given the location, site topography, and existing conditions. Other members present are in agreement.

Mr. LeClerc notes the hours of operation and lighting. He expresses concern regarding evening hours and the traffic. Mr. Jones replies that this would be addressed in a traffic report.

Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, for the town planner to provide the information sheet to the applicant in order that the board may have more information for the next meeting; including items addressed previously. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Budget
Ms. Planchet states that she has received a memo from the board administrator suggesting that the board grant permission for her and the chair to create the board’s budget. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, to authorize the board administrator and the planning board chair to review and propose the 2009 planning board budget with the suggestion that they do so with the sharpest pencil they can find. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Dunkin Donuts Remodel Proposal
Ms. Planchet explains that Dunkin Donuts is proposing an expansion of use by adding additional seating, a canopy, and a sign. Mr. Hickey has asked for clarification on what the board would require.

The board reviews the plan provided by Mr. Hickey and states that the canopy is not shown on the plan and asks what kind of canopy would it be and whether or not it has been previously approved. Ms. Planchet states that this would be a code enforcement issue. Ms. Parmele states that if the proposal is for seating then they would need to come in and meet with the board. As far as the sign; the sign would need to meet the ordinances.

Highway Advisory Committee (HAC)
Ms. Planchet refers to a memo received from the HAC. Mr. Jones gives his resignation as chair of the Access Management Subcommittee. Ms. Parmele states that she will follow through with Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and will also follow through with HAC. Ms. Planchet explains that there is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the state DOT. Ms. Parmele states that it is clear that Northwood has not been represented. She requests any ideas to be generated to her regarding state roads.

Docko Reclamation Bond
A memo has been received regarding the pit closure of the Docko gravel pit. A discussion is held regarding the reclamation that was required. Dave Hickey has inspected the property and recommends that the board release the bond for the gravel pit reclamation as it has been completed. Pete Jones makes a motion to recommend that the treasurer disburse the funds from the escrow account for the Docko pit closure, Map 238; Lot 10; Sublot G. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Town of Nottingham-Regional Impact/Longueil Subdivision
Ms. Planchet states that the Town of Nottingham Planning Board has deemed the proposed Longueil subdivision a regional impact and the board has received a notice relative to the next public hearing. Also provided were minutes of that meeting, which members of the Northwood Planning Board attended.

Planner’s Items:
Ordinance Changes
Ms. Parmele asks if it is even possible for a buffer ordinance to be proposed this year. Ms. Planchet replies that this will need to be further addressed.

Adjournment
Pete Jones makes a motion to adjourn. Second by Roger LeClerc. Motion passes unanimously at 10:38 p.m.; 4/0.

Respectfully submitted

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page