The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 10/23/08

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, George Jabre, Alternates Victoria Parmele and Scott Campbell, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Vice Chair Peter Jones arrives at 7:05 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Nikki Roy, Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, George Jabre, Victoria Parmele, and Scott Campbell. Pete Jones 7:05 p.m.

ABSENT: Herb Johnson, Robert Fletcher, and Alternate Eric Reitter.

PUBLIC: Dave Docko and Peter Holden from Holden Engineering, and Rick Wolf are present.

BOUNDARY PLANS
1. John and Elaine Gardner Jr., 49 Baker Ave. Deerfield/Northwood. Map 113; Lot 11.
2. Shirley E. Smith, 107 West St. Map 212; Lot 3.
The board reviews the boundary plans.

VOLUNTARY MERGER
CASE VM: 08-02: John and Fran Newman, 52 Bigelow Rd. Map 125; Lots 20.01 & 20. The merger was previously approved on September 25 and required new signatures by the chair and board members in the proper location.

APPLICATION to BUILD on a CLASS VI or PRIVATE ROAD
Bulls Gap Development Corp., Pine St. and Oak St. Map 122; Lot 68. The information is distributed. Ms. Roy asks members to do “drive-bys” and observe the location. The item will be addressed at the next meeting.

NEW CASES:
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, Trustee.

Ms. Roy leads a discussion regarding accepting the application. She reviews the staff notes related to this application. Ms. Planchet states that there are requests for waivers and they are for a landscaped plan, auto and pedestrian circulation plan, lighting plan, erosion control plan and sidewalks. She adds that there is also a wavier request for the disturbed area fee, which has been determined to be $9,250.

Nikki Roy makes a motion to accept the application as complete. Pete Jones seconds and the motion passes 5/0/2. Mr. LeClerc and Mr. Campbell abstain. Mr. LeClerc states he abstained because he does not know enough about the application to vote on it at this time. Mr. Campbell states that he does not want to vote to waive everything at this time. Ms. Roy explains that accepting the application as complete only opens the application up for discussion and waivers will be addressed independently. Ms. Smith adds that accepting the application means that the board believes that there is enough information provided to proceed to make a decision. She adds that the board can always request more information for review during the time frame of 65 days.

Peter Holden from Holden Engineering and Dave Docko are present.
Ms. Roy reads the abutters list and opens the public portion. No abutters are present.

Mr. Holden describes the property and shows a locus map of the area. He explains that the proposal will have site work done to the front 2/3 of the lot. He explains that they are proposing to sell existing materials. Currently the materials are sold and then delivered to sites. Mr. Holden states that perhaps the wrong terms have been used; wholesale and retail. He states that Mr. Docko sells materials off site and brings it from this site to the construction site. He will continue to do that and would now like to sell to contractors and homeowners. The materials sold are sand, stone, bark mulch and stone dust.

Mr. Holden states that there was a previous site plan approval in which the existing driveway was approved for the current operation. The driveway is being relocated with just a few more changes necessary before completion.

Mr. Holden continues to describe the plan and notes that there is a wetland to the west and in the rear of the property. He states that they propose to create a constant grade of about 1% out towards the back. The intent is for rain water to flow to the back of the lot. He adds that they have kept a 50 ft. buffer on the east side and on the west side. There is more than a 50 foot buffer around the wetland.

Mr. Holden explains that there will not be much of a presence except for the piles of materials. He adds that the existing 20’ x 20’ building is somewhat portable. There is no plumbing or septic system in the building. Mr. Holden states that in the future they propose to provide a portable toilet facility.

Mr. Holden explains that in order to deal with the stormwater they have created a berm along the western wetland, which eventually turns into a ditch and then into a detention area. He states that the town’s regulations require holding all of the accumulation from a 10 year storm. There is a sand filter created so that the water goes into the ground and runs out of the pipes into a structure then towards the wetland. This is done so that the flow out of the detention area is controlled. The sand also filters out any particles and treats the first waters. Mr. Holden explains that there is also a berm created on the western side so water will not go into any other wetland and to direct water to a second detention pond.

Mr. Holden states that the operation of the site will be fluid as there may be a need for crushed gravel, stone, etc. and there will be changes on the site. The idea is for trucks to go into the site, pick up the materials, and proceed. Specific traffic patterns were not provided as it would be based on fluidity of the material piles, size, and location; however, typically it would be counter clock-wise.

Mr. Holden continues to explain that there will be only one light proposed, near the building. He adds that they are proposing to install a gate to keep anyone from entering the site at night. Mr. Holden mentions that the fire department has requested that a knox box be added and agreed to do that.

Mr. Holden states that they do have some landscaping proposed in the front of the site. They do not have full landscape plans and have requested a waiver. As far as an erosion plan, Mr. Holden states that they have submitted an application to the state for a site specific erosion control permit as the site is over 100,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Holden reviews the comment letter he received from the planning board and provides copies of the letter with his responses noted in blue. He explains the responses as follows:

Traffic Study
Mr. Holden states that the options are limited; however, they are proposing to construct a 12’ wide deceleration lane from the top of the hill near Kelsey Mill Road. He adds that there have been discussions with Bob Talon, access engineer, NHDOT District 6 who thought that the proposal was acceptable. Also discussed is widening the shoulder area for cars heading east similar to the transfer station and at the highway garage. According to Mr. Holden, Mr. Talon indicated that a left turn lane was not appropriate though; however, widening the shoulder would be helpful. He adds that this is not required but would be completed although it is currently not shown on the plan.
As far as the driveway permit, Mr. Holden states that the existing permit is still valid until the driveway has been relocated. He adds that a new driveway permit has been applied for which includes retail sales.

The traffic report is reviewed along with a chart used by District 5 to see if a left turn lane is warranted. Mr. Holden states that the traffic necessary to warrant the left turn lane would be 55 cars per hour. He states that the site is at 5 to 6 cars per hour. As far as trip generations the result was 2 cars per hour, 70 trips per day. Mr. Holden states that they do not meet these requirements but are still proposing to build the widened shoulder due to the characteristics of the vehicles.

Ms. Roy notes that it is very likely that the town’s engineer would be reviewing the traffic information.

As far as whether the portable toilet is required to be handicapped accessible, Mr. Holden states that they will provide it if required and will verify with code enforcement officers.

Building Department Comments
A recommendation was received from the building department regarding the turning lane and noting that the area is very dangerous. Mr. Holden previously addressed these issues.

Fire Department
A request for a knox box was received from the fire department and Mr. Holden previously stated that the knox box would be provided.

General
Mr. Holden states that comments recommended that the town’s engineer review and comment on the application. He states that they agree with the review.

Further discussion is held regarding the existing approved use and the previous notice of decisions for the site. The letter of intent provided states that the site is presently used to run a wholesale supply business that provides bulk construction aggregate and landscape materials. Ms. Roy states that the board wants to make it clear that there is no wholesale approval on the site.

Mr. Holden asks about the authorization of ownership for the property. Ms. Planchet states that this has been addressed and documentation has been provided.
Ms. Planchet explains that the key points in the major site plan application did not meet some of the regulations. However, the traffic impacts are significant and therefore the application is a major site plan application.

Traffic Report
Further discussion ensues regarding the abbreviated traffic study provided. Mr. Holden explains that they are trying to present the numbers that justified the deceleration lane and the widened shoulder knowing that a left turning lane was not an option. Mr. Holden adds that they tried to provide enough information for District 6 so that any necessary decisions could be made. Ms. Parmele states that she understands that the traffic numbers may not warrant a left turning lane; however, she wonders given the character of the road and the fact that Rte. 4 is the main street of Northwood, how NHDOT factors these issues and the potential impacts. Mr. Holden explains that DOT reviews the chart provided, factors in other information, and notes the surrounding areas; they are careful with improvements on highways.

Mr. Holden states that as far as the comparison activity for the wholesale nursery, he explains that a wholesale nursery was used because only aggregate and bark mulch will be sold and buyers are generally contractors. Retail sales usually include plants, fertilizers, ornament, tools, etc., all of which will not be sold at this site and the customer is usually the general public. He adds that this eliminates a large portion of the traffic. Ms. Roy asks if winter sand is sold. Mr. Docko replies yes. Ms. Planchet states that the application is to add retail use. Mr. Holden states that it is retail; however, it is not selling items in a retail nursery, no plants, no greenhouse, etc. Ms. Planchet questions whether a study has been done to include traffic for retail. Mr. Holden explains that they did check with a similar retail business in Epsom and their best day was 34 cars and it was the day before a holiday weekend.

Ms. Roy states that the nursery example is characterized by seasonal variations and trip characteristics. She refers to an item on the table of contents that was not copied and suggests that perhaps Underwood would have a better understanding of the materials. Mr. Holden states that the pass by traffic is considered in the trip generation report and this would be generally destination traffic.

Mr. Jones asks if the left turning lane is just NHDOT’s decision. Ms. Roy replies that the board also has a role in commenting on this issue. She adds that if the board feels strongly that there is a need for a turning lane as does the town’s traffic engineer, there may be discussions with DOT. Ms. Smith adds that relative to the retail aspect, the public will enter the site to view the products and this has not been considered.

Mr. Holden states that as far as the weekends are concerned, they did consider the existing traffic and generated the traffic report. The average weekday was 17,100 and the average Saturday was 17,500. With drop-ins or pass by traffic, this amount was included within the general generated traffic of 35.

Impact Statement
Mr. Holden states that the reference to the existing wholesale sales and proposed retail sales is that the wholesale was used to describe the current use, which is storage of materials to sell to customers of construction companies.

Mr. Holden notes that if the board or Underwood Engineering believes that the traffic report is insufficient, they will provide additional information as needed.

Additional discussion is held regarding the public utilities. Mr. Holden states that they do not have any utilities other than electricity for the one existing light. He adds that the portable toilet will be placed near the building. Ms. Planchet asks if the building were to be moved would the pole also be moved. Mr. Holden replies that the building would not be moved much. Ms. Roy requests that a note be added to the plan stating the type of lighting. She directs Mr. Holden to the town’s regulations.

Parking spaces are addressed. Mr. Holden states that parking areas would be marked by curb stops and signs. He adds that if the spaces were to be moved then the signs would be moved too.

Mr. Holden states that there will not be any negative impacts to the site and no changes or negative impacts to the public safety. He adds that as far as the use of the site they do not anticipate any negative impacts as it is an open site. Improvements are being made to the roadways. However, he notes that there will be changes to the tax revenue as the area will need to be taken out of current use.

Mr. Holden states that a summary of the surface drainage has been provided and he will provide a copy of the state application.

Mr. Holden states that there will be no dumpster proposed on site.

As far as the erosion control plan, Mr. Holden notes that the clearing limits are proposed and provided. He adds that they have not met these limits with the excavation that has occurred on the site so far.

Checklist
Mr. Holden proceeds through the checklist section of the letter. Discussions ensue. Mr. Holden states that the driveway has been moved and is in the location where it was proposed, noted on both the current and previously approved plan.

As far as the existing conditions plan, Mr. Holden explains that the plan shows conditions as of the date of submission; however, does not include proposed features. In relation to case 07-09, he states that the current plan was prepared anew.

Mr. Holden notes an incorrect name for an abutter and adds that this will be corrected.

Mr. Holden explains that the proposed site plan and erosion control plan are on the same plan in an effort to show everything together since the site plan is a grading plan and shows the erosion.

Additional discussion is held regarding the loading and unloading of materials. Mr. Holden explains that materials are brought to the site in dump trucks and stored in stock piles along the perimeter of the site. Material will be loaded into trucks in front of each stock pile. These trucks will be vehicles owned by the construction company or will be customers that will generally be contractors. Some sales will go to homeowners but it is expected that these sales will be limited since most homeowners do not have the means to transport these materials.

Mr. Holden states that some items on the checklist are marked as “n/a” and they agree that the board will need to decide if applicable. He states that the landscaping maintenance plan is not provided. He explains that they were planning to add trees similar to the previous site plan.

Mr. LeClerc asks what the hours of operation will be. Mr. Docko replies that he would like sunrise to sunset. Ms. Planchet notes that the hours are noted on the plans. Mr. Jones stated that 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is noted. Mr. Docko states that nothing would be done later in the evening as he would not want to light the entrance.

Mr. LeClerc asks about accident reports for this area. Mr. Holden states that they did not provide this. He explains that usually this is not done and these numbers are so small and it is not anything that they would have any influence with.

Mr. Jones expresses concern with the moveable building/parking and the fact that there is no pedestrian circulation plan provided. Mr. Docko replies that the reason why is because he wants to change the site with stock piles, etc. Mr. Jones states that the issue needs to be looked at from a pedestrian’s point of view and it is difficult to resolve. He also requests where there are similar situations where this is done. Mr. Holden replies that they do not see this happening every week or every month; they just would like to be able to move the building around and move the parking when necessary due to stock piles. Mr. Holden proposes that a sign be installed on site noting the loop and state “circulate counter-clockwise”. Mr. Jones adds that he would be less concerned if the clientele were going to be all contractors; however, as soon as “homeowner” is mentioned it is a different case. Ms. Smith notes that a bigger concern would be children getting out of their vehicles.

Ms. Planchet suggests that if board does not grant the waiver, then they could look at different ways to address the automotive and pedestrian circulation plan. Further discussion is held regarding the matter and Mr. Holden will withdraw that waiver and work on some type of verbiage for a sign.

Ms. Parmele questions the materials coming out of the trucks with the nature of the business. Mr. Holden describes requirements for the tractor trailers needing covers if exceeding 25 MPH.

Mr. LeClerc asks how it is determined if the trucks are overloaded. Mr. Holden states that the trucks have a scale and usually you know how much a bucket load weighs. He adds that there is a lot of motivation to not overload as there are fines.

Ms. Smith asks if there is a requirement for permanent restroom facilities as she thought you could not use portable facilities year round. Mr. Holden replies that they were told it is ok.

Mr. LeClerc asks about an issue with chemical leaks. Mr. Docko replies that using sand to absorb the fluid would be best thing.

Waivers
#1 Filing Fee: Ms. Roy recommends that the board ask Underwood to review this and see what the total affected area is. The board agrees as does the applicant.

#2 Auto and Pedestrian Circulation Plan: Applicants withdraw waiver request.

#3 Lighting Plan: Ms. Roy states that she would like to see a description of what is proposed. Mr. Holden states that there is a light on the existing pole. This was the Public Service rental light. He adds that they will not move the light just the building. Ms. Roy states that she would like to see the plan indicate the pole location and a waiver would not be necessary.

#4 Landscape Plan: Mr. Holden explains that they are proposing to plant trees along the front of the site. Ms. Parmele asks if the goal is to block the views of the site. Mr. Docko replies no. Ms. Roy states that there are significant landscaping requirements for site plans. Additional discussion is held regarding the landscaping. Mr. Holden states that they will provide a maintenance plan. Ms. Roy adds that a more specific waiver may be necessary or that the maintenance plan may be sufficient. Ms. Planchet notes that there are buffer requirements as well for residential/commercial properties.

#5 Erosion Control Plan: Ms. Roy states that a plan has been provided and the waiver requested is to separate the erosion control plan from the site plan. She believes that having only one plan together is sufficient. Nikki Roy makes a motion to grant the waiver request to separate the erosion control plan from the site plan. Pete Jones seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

#6 Sidewalks: Ms. Roy provides a summary of the board’s intent for sidewalks. Ms. Planchet notes that there have been problems in town with drainage, etc. She adds that there are still some drainage issues with the Masten site. Ms. Roy adds that there may drainage issues with this site too.

The regulation for sidewalks is reviewed. Mr. Curley states that it would be nice to have sidewalks along Rte 4; however, discussion ensues regarding the maintenance of the sidewalks. Mr. Curley states that the state will not maintain the sidewalks and the town won’t either so they are unable to use them year round.

Mr. Jones notes that sidewalks are another impervious surface; however, questions at what point is it reasonable for there to be contiguous sidewalks. Mr. Curley states that he believes that the need for sidewalks depend residential density. He explains that along that section of Rte 4 residences are very scarce. Ms. Parmele states that sidewalks are theoretically a great idea and it would be nice to have more. She states that hopefully in the future sidewalk maintenance will be provided and there will be more sidewalks; right now it does not make any sense to require it in this location. Mr. Jones asks who would use that sidewalk and Ms. Roy replies that it is a longer term issue. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Pete Jones, to grant the waiver request for the sidewalks. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0.

Ms. Roy suggests a motion to send the plans and case information to Underwood Engineering.

Rick Wolf agrees with waiving the sidewalks as they would not have a use. Mr. Wolf asks how many days a week the site is in operation. Mr. Holden replies seven days.

Pete Jones makes a motion to send the application and plans to Underwood Engineers for review. Ken Curley seconds. Ms. Roy suggests that a cover letter be enclosed requesting Underwood’s review to focus on the adequacy of the traffic study and the wholesale/nursery classification. She adds that there should also be a consideration for accident data and impact of that on Rte 4; question of on-site traffic circulation; stormwater regulations and drainage plan; previously approved plan relative to the disturbed area calculations. Motion passes; 7/0.

Additional discussion is held regarding the process of an escrow account. Ms. Planchet will contact Mr. Holden when the estimate is received. Ms. Roy requests to be copied on the estimate information.

Ms. Roy continues the public hearing to November 20.

MINUTES
The minutes are postponed to the next meeting.

OTHER BUSINESS
Changes to Existing Site Plan
A discussion is held regarding consistency with requiring site plan reviews when businesses change. Examples are given as the MB Tractor and the Harvey House Properties/Housing Consultants. Ms. Planchet suggests that the board come up with a general consensus as to what would trigger a site plan review for properties that have an approved existing site plan for a non- residential activity and there is a change being proposed.

Mr. Jones feels that this is subjective as to the changes on the board. Discussion ensues regarding options and the latitude for staff. Ms. Smith states that previously there were a few criteria noted in the site plan regulations and the board could exempt items. Now there are certain criteria for exemptions and the board does not have any latitude except what is in the regulations. She adds that if there is an approved site plan and there is a change occurring it is a code enforcement issue, not a planning board issue. Often time’s code enforcement will forward the issue to the planning board for a preliminary consultation. Ms. Smith states that something needs to be added to the regulations or there needs to be some kind of guidelines for exempting certain site plans.

Additional discussion is held regarding site changes and parameters. Mr. LeClerc notes that there are sheets of granite outside at the former MB Tractor and it could appear that some fabricating may be occurring, which had been noted at a meeting that this would not be occurring. Ms. Planchet states that the code enforcement officer is aware of the issue and was planning to visit the site.

Pete Jones makes a motion for the planning board to send a memo to the code enforcement officer informing him of the board’s understanding of activity on the property at the corner of Main St. and Rte 4, to fall under the definition of retail, and to verify that the activity on the site is limited to the minor final finishing, not fabrication of products from raw materials. Raw materials have been noted as being stored outside and the board questions whether minor finishing is going to occur or a more extensive cutting of the material. Scott Campbell seconds.

Mr. Wolf expresses comments regarding the businesses on this site and the fact that the board is requiring new businesses to apply for site plan applications. Lengthy discussion is held regarding the past uses of the site and the need for site plans. Ms. Smith notes that previous site plans are abandoned once there is a new approved plan on file.

Motion passes; 6/0/1. Mr. Curley abstains.

Ken Curley and George Jabre leave at 9:45 p.m.

Ms. Roy suggests and the board agrees that Ms. Smith and Ms. Planchet will further discuss this with Mr. Hickey and present a staff recommendation for the board’s discussion at a later date.

Longueil Nottingham Meeting
Ms. Roy notes that there is another meeting next week in Nottingham regarding Mr. Longueil’s subdivision proposal. She plans to attend and asks if the motion will carry forward allowing her to speak on behalf of the board. Ms. Smith notes that Mr. Longueil has called and told her that he was withdrawing. She notes that this should be provided in writing and Northwood should still be represented. Ms. Roy notes that the RSA 674:41 issue regarding each of these lots (which are accessed off of shared driveways) was not considered by the Nottingham board prior to the meeting that she attended. Ms. Smith will contact the Nottingham office for verification of the withdrawal and will notify Ms. Roy of this information prior to the scheduled meeting in Nottingham.

Planner’s Items:
Proposed Ordinance for Definition of Day Care
Ms. Planchet states that the state’s definition for day care is for 3 children or more and the town’s definition is one child or more. Since there have been some inquiries regarding this number, she thought it would be appropriate for the board to consider a revision to the definition from one to three children. A draft ordinance change to this effect is presented to board members.

Ordinance Changes
In addition, Ms. Planchet notes that she does not have an ongoing list of items for proposed ordinance changes. Ms. Roy states that as time gets closer the board will vote on all ordinances at the same time, and schedule hearings, etc.

Also mentioned is a possible ordinance regarding blasting suggested by Mr. Hickey. Ms. Roy states that blasting is becoming more of a focal point in the state’s regulations. She explains that there is research now regarding the impacts of blasting and protecting water supplies. Ms. Planchet will check to see if a blasting approval was received for the 07-09 Docko application. She will also contact The Office of Energy and Planning for information on a blasting ordinance.

Minor Checklist
Ms. Planchet states that the minor checklist is ready for approval and the regulations will need to be separated out which regulations apply to minor and which to major site plans. The minor and major checklists are clear. Nikki Roy makes a motion to approve the minor site plan application checklist. Pete Jones seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Masten Development
Ms. Planchet states that a memo from Mr. Hickey has been received regarding the sidewalks at the Masten Development. There is some concern with the drainage at that location.

Water Resource Press Release
A draft press release for the buffer ordinance contract has been received for review. Ms. Roy states that the consultant’s contract expires at the end of October. She has provided this press release as part of the contract. The board is not ready to make a press release at this time since there is more review and discussion necessary. However, this press release is a good draft from which to work when the board is ready to make the press release.

Board Administrator’s Items:
Budget
Nikki Roy reviews the proposed 2009 budget. She explains that the step increase and COLA are decisions of the selectmen. Explaining the budget, Ms. Roy notes the following:
Legal – line is reduced to $5,000, noting that if more is required, they will have to find the funds elsewhere.

Contracted Planning Services – reduced to $1,500 due to no matching grants proposed. This amount will allow the board to pursue grants, if available. Contracted Service Clients – costs are reimbursed from clients. The amount will be level funded.
SRPC Dues – have been calculated at $4,665.
GIS Cost Share – Ms. Smith explains that funds have been put into this line over the past few years and nothing has been done. The plan was that the building department and assessing department would be cost sharing for a GIS service. She further explains the advantages of GIS and has been in contact with Mr. Fountain from Cartographics who will be here October 30 at 6:30 to do a presentation. Ms. Roy states that the line will be level funded at $1,500. and she adds that the intent is to use funds before the year’s end from this year’s budget. Ms. Smith states that the line may be adjusted if need be when meeting with the budget committee and she adds that there may be a possibility that other departments may join in once they see the presentation of what can be offered.
Postage – has been reduced to $1,500 due to slower activity.
All other lines have been level funded.

SIGNATURE/PENDING FILES
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. (Town Counsel indicated satisfaction with most recent revisions; plans received – to be signed. Public hearing to be scheduled with BOS for November 12.)

Ms. Planchet states that she has requested written documentation from town counsel noting that the project can proceed. She explains that town counsel is still waiting on the Low’s attorney to finalize the easement document. Ms. Smith states that she would prefer not to schedule a hearing until the plan has been signed.
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. Conditional approval 8/11/08. Awaiting state license.

Adjournment
Roger LeClerc makes a motion to adjourn. Second by Scott Campbell. Motion passes unanimously at 10:25 p.m.; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page