Planning Board

Minutes

November 20, 2008

Official as of January 8, 2009

Chair Nikki Roy calls the meeting to order at 7:18 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Vice Chair Peter Jones, Roger LeClerc, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet and Board Administrator Linda Smith.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Nikki Roy, Peter Jones, Roger LeClerc, and Victoria Parmele.

ABSENT: Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Robert Fletcher, Scott Campbell, Herb Johnson, and Alternate Eric Reitter.

Preliminary Conceptual Consultation
Boundary Line Adjustment: Chip Belyea, Lower Deerfield Rd. Map 243; Lots 7, 8, & 9.
Mr. Belyea explains that he and his wife would like to transfer 15 acres from lot 9 and add to lot 8. They would also like to change the frontages. Mr. Belyea states that 243-9 is approximately 18½ acres. They plan to add a hammerhead section to lot 8 and will be adding 16.07+ acres.

Mr. Belyea would like to transfer 16.07 acres to lot 243/8, then take 12 feet of frontage from 243/9 and add it to 243/8. He explains that this adjusts the line in the back corner and will make it a little wider in the back. The next portion would be to take 27.57’ of frontage from lot 7 and add it to lot 8. He states that in the end lot 8 will have a total of 350’. Ms. Roy asks what the ending frontage will be on lot 9. Mr. Belyea replies that it will be over 150’.

Ms. Smith notes that lot 9 may have an issue regarding buildable land percentages referencing section 1.04. Additional discussion is held regarding ordinance 3.03, minimum lot width of 100’, and if it applies. Mr. Jones questions whether a new lot is created when a BLA is done. Ms. Smith states that this is a conforming lot. Mr. Belyea adds that the BLA would make the shape of the lot more rectangular, which is also a requirement in the ordinance. Other options are mentioned regarding the line adjustments.

Ms. Roy explains that this is a non binding discussion and the board has provided their feedback.

Robert Paquette, 266 First NH Turnpike; Map 231; Lot 8, to propose a tool repair/service operation. Property owned by Donna Paquette.
Mr. and Mrs. Paquette are present.
 
Mr. Paquette provides handouts for the board. He shows an approved 1991 site plan for the barn, 1254 sq. ft. He states that he would like to have a tool repair service business. He asks if he needs to have any other zoning permits for the business. There were previous businesses on the site with exotic birds and then antiques. Mr. Paquette adds that he does not anticipate a whole lot of cars as the business involves just dropping off the item to be repaired and then return to pick up. He further explains the plan provided and the building  
entrance and egress. Ms. Smith reminds the board regarding preliminary consultation discussions and states that the discussion held must be for general information purposes only. Discussion of parking areas would be too detailed for a preliminary. Ms. Planchet notes that the approved site plan for this site is for retail, antiques/gift shop. Ms. Planchet states that she and Mr. Paquette spoke regarding small engines such as lawn mowers and that is not the proposal so there would be no issue with hazardous materials on site.

A discussion is held regarding staff’s proposal for changes to the site plan and having an exempt status for site development if there is nothing major being amended. Ms. Planchet states that a meeting was held with the board administrator and the building inspector regarding this issue. It was determined that a service use has less of an impact than a retail use in terms of traffic, duration of stay on site, etc. Ms. Planchet suggests that the board waive the site plan review for this applicant as there is an approved site plan on file.

Additional discussion is held regarding hydraulic fluids on site. Mr. Paquette replies that it would be on site only to replenish what may be lacking and thought he would have less than 5 gallons at a time. Ms. Planchet notes that there would not be any disposal required. Mr. Paquette adds that he is not sure as to what type of tools he will encounter. He feels it would be mostly electrical. 

Ms. Smith expresses concern with the fact that the planning board does not have the authority in the regulations to exempt site plans. This would be done through the code enforcement officer. Further discussion ensues to include the broader issue of amendments to existing approved site plans. Ms. Roy notes that there are instances when a building permit is not sought, and that the  board would then have the authority to determine if a site plan would be needed. Ms. Planchet states that the staff proposal, if agreed on, would require a change to the site plan regulations.

Further discussion continues and Ms. Smith expresses concern with the board being consistent. She notes that on the Paquette site, there is an approved site plan for retail. This proposal is for a less intensive use yet it is a change in use from retail to a service business. Ms. Smith asks if this is something that fits into the definitions. She adds that if the board allows one exempt site plan that is a change in use; it is something that needs to be done in a consistent manner.

Mr. Jones asks what the board’s motivation would be to waive site plan reviews. Ms. Planchet replies that waivers are from an application that is submitted. If there is no site plan application presented then there would be nothing to waive. She adds that the site plan regulations address storage and usage and disposal. She does not know of anything that would address what goes on inside the building. Ms. Planchet notes that the applications could be costly and reviews fees. Discussion ensues regarding fees and staff time incurred.

Ms. Roy asks if the tool repair business would be classified as a home business. She reads the relevant ordinance and discussion ensues. Ms. Smith states that this is a service more than a retail business. Home occupation is reviewed as well and this is deemed to comply due to the service generation of  traffic.   

Mr. Jones asks what the process has been in the past regarding waiving site plans. Ms. Smith states that there is an approved site plan on record so this is not really waiving the site plan. This is discussing the board is comfortable that the proposed use falls within the guidelines; however, when there is a change of use being incorporated even less intense, it is not really complying to the regulations. Ms. Smith adds this could be perceived as a code enforcement issue. 

Ms. Planchet notes that the board addressed a previous antique store that was proposed as office space, which is a less intense use. She reports on the staff proposal, which would suggest a change to the exempt portion of the site plan regulations to add a new number 4. This would explain that the existing site plan had been reviewed and determined that the change is not much of a difference. There would be a checklist to make sure that all issues are reviewed; traffic, egress, and access. This would be an administrative decision done by the TRC and should there be items that need to be addressed then the board would be involved via the site plan review process.   

Pete Jones asks for a specific example of when this would occur. Ms. Smith states that this is the issue that needs to be addressed. She adds that the board will need to determine if there is a change of use and fall within the exempt status. Ms. Smith adds that noise and air pollution could also be factors that would need to be considered. Ms. Smith states that the plan could work for staff and the applicants. 

Getting back to the Paquettes; Mr. LeClerc states that he does not have any issues with the proposal as it is a limited use. There would be no increase with traffic. He does not see an issue with the hydraulic fluids either. He adds that he feels that the board has been consistent with recent applications. Ms. Roy states that the board’s recommendation was to have the office proposal come in for site plan at the Harvey House. Ms. Smith notes that MB Tractor also had to come in due to a change of use. Ms. Smith notes that the MB Tractor application had significant traffic impacts. Ms. Roy states that she does not believe that the Paquette’s proposal is substantive enough for the application and it lacks a traffic concern the previously referenced site had.

Building permits are discussed and the enforcement issues. Ms. Smith feels that the proposal is in the purview of a site plan application and the board has required proof that there is a vendor available to remove the hazardous materials. Mr. Jones notes proper management and adds that OSHA requirements would need to be followed. Ms. Smith notes the regulations for pollution control and businesses that are included. She adds that this is not one of those businesses.

Ms. Roy recommends that a letter be provided noting more specifics about the size of the area and some details regarding the hydraulics and the tools being brought in through the entry door. Mr. Paquette states he would describe the tools he would repair as “hand tools”. Mr. LeClerc asks if there would be any type of large equipment and Mr. Paquette replies no. Mr. LeClerc feels that the proposal is fine. Ms. Parmele expresses concern with proper management of hazardous materials on site given the fact that there is no town sewer or water. Ms. Roy adds that she would also like the proposal discussed tonight to be attached to the letter and requests that there be something noted relative to Best Management Practices for any hazardous fluids, etc. on site. Ms. Planchet states that the designated parking area should be noted along with hours of operation.

Ms. Smith disagrees with the process as there could be abutters that would have some opposition to the proposal. She adds that she disagrees with the fact that the details are being discussed here. Ms. Roy explains that no changes are being completed only clarifying details that the proposal is not going beyond the permitted uses.

Further discussion continues regarding the proposed language change to the site plan. Ms. Roy notes paragraph C relative to exempt site plan developments. She adds that the board needs to distinguish between site plans being submitted with an approved site plans. Discussion ensues regarding wording and Ms. Planchet states that she will work on this. Ms. Smith references that no current site plan would be in compliance with current standards. Ms. Roy adds that she feels that this would go along with the Master Plan in that it is encouraging small businesses. She also suggests that a purpose section be amended to create new opportunities for local businesses.

Discussion ensues regarding responsibilities of staff and how the board will address the process.

Other Business:
Copies of Dave Hickey’s memo dated 11/3 regarding 1254 First NH Turnpike are distributed and read. Mr. LeClerc states that he feels that this is fine and believes it is a waste of money for the business owner, but that is his choice.  He adds that it appears that the applicant is doing what he explained to the board. Ms. Roy thanks Mr. Hickey for investigating.

Application to Build on a Class VI or Private Road
Bulls Gap Development Corp., Pine St. and Oak St. Map 122; Lot 68. Some members did a drive by and Mr. LeClerc states that he does not have any
problems if things are done correctly. Ms. Smith states that the area totals at least 4 original Harvey Lake lots, possibly 5 lots, and the proposal is to build a three bedroom house. She adds that it will be a merger of all the lots, which will make the lot more square. Access would be off of Pine Street.

Mr. Jones states that he thinks the board should submit to the selectmen the usual concerns relative to any development on a private road, and reiterates the importance of access to the area by safety vehicles. 

Ms. Roy notes that the area is very wet. She explains that looking at the site, the wetland area may run through the center of the lot. She states that there is no wetlands scientist stamp provided, there are no setbacks shown, and the house is within the setback for the septic system. She expresses concern as there are some items on the plan that have not been caught. She notes that when she visited the area there was a lot of standing water by the side of the road. Ms. Roy adds that the topography looks like the area is a drainage ditch for the area.

Ms. Roy suggests that the board reference the selectmen’s guidelines in a memo regarding the selectmen’s procedures for these applications and add that the planning board would like to see a stamped plan from a wetlands scientist. 
Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to send a memo to the selectmen requesting wetlands delineation on the proposed plan for the Bull’s Gap Development, Pine St. and Oak St. Map 122; Lot 68. A discussion is held. Mr. Jones states that he feels that the board should go straight to the road issue, RSA 674:41. Discussion ensues regarding the process through the code enforcement officer. Mr. Jones does not see that the wetland issue is not related to RSA 674:41. Ms. Smith mentions the building permit being issued. Additional discussion ensues regarding the process and the information provided. Ms. Roy withdraws her motion and Ms. Parmele withdraws her second as long as it is made clear to the selectmen what the issues are.

Karen Smith asks if there is a point where potential owners are notified that specific roads are not plowed and told there is a road association when in fact there is no such thing. Ms. Roy replies no there is no process for official notification of private roads.

Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Nikki Roy, that the planning board advise the selectmen that a building permit should not be issued for the Bulls Gap Development; Pine St. and Oak St. Map 122. Lot 68 due to the following reasons:
• A safe passage of automobiles and town emergency vehicles would be exceedingly difficult due to poor road conditions and narrow road width. 
• Furthermore, the planning board notes that the property falls within a delineated wetland on the wetlands conservation overlay district map. Wet conditions were observed during drive-bys of board members.
• According to the septic design plan, the proximity of the proposed house to the wetland area delineated on the applicant’s Effluent Disposal Design plan appears to be within the 20 ft. setback. 
• In accordance with the selectmen’s process for reviewing Class VI roads, a wetland delineation plan with a wetland scientist’s stamp  was not provided with the application to the planning board, as required.
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

OLD CASE:
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. Application accepted as complete on 10/23/08; 65-day 12/27/08. Continued from 10/23/08.
Ms. Roy reads a letter dated 11/20/08 from Holden Engineering, requesting a continuance of Case 08-11 to the next regular scheduled meeting, December 18.

Ms. Roy provides an update regarding a discussion she had with Underwood Engineering regarding the review for the Docko application. She states that when the engineering firm was preparing the estimate they were being very thorough and specific. She requested that another review be done as the amount was excessive. She notes that there are many issues to address as this is a large site. 
 
Ms. Roy makes a motion, second by Mr. Jones, to continue case 08-11 to December 11. Ms. Roy amends the motion to state that the case will be continued to December 18, 2008. Mr. Jones seconds the amendment. Motion passes; 4/0.

Water Resources Subcommittee Proposed Buffer Ordinance
Victoria Parmele and Karen Smith provide an overview of the proposal. Handouts are provided for review, the revised proposed ordinance and some recommendations regarding changes to the existing wetland conservation overlay and a supplemental information document.

Ms. Karen Smith states that she will begin with the ordinance and she states that there is a change in the applicability section relative to the description of the protected shoreland districts. Ms. Planchet confirms that these changes are to the draft proposal not to anything that exists. Additions have been added to the draft for explanation purposes.

Further review and discussion is held regarding the draft buffer ordinance and existing vegetation.

Linda Smith refers to recording of site plans and states that there are significant restrictions. She asks if some uses can be exempt; sheds for example are accessory structures. She states that sheds are exempt as they are part of the compliance under nonconforming lots. She also asks about the HISS mapping and if a home owner could do this legally. She adds that the licensure board has more control over specific items. Ms. Smith also suggests sending proposal VIII to the building department for comments when the subcommittee is finished.

Karen Smith refers to the conservation overlay district, 5.01 B1 and suggests additional changes be made to note that the boundaries should be delineated and identified as a jurisdictional boundary.

Karen Smith notes the setback section, E2, and suggests the following changes be added: Where the Wetland Conservation Overlay District does not overlap with other districts; a 50 foot setback area shall be maintained. No structures shall be constructed within this setback. Vegetation within this buffer area shall remain in its natural state. Also the 25’ setback should be changed to 50’. Other wording has been deleted. She adds that a consultant suggested changing the wetland clarifications or successor rules and WT 100 due to the fact that there is a possibility that the existing wording could be contested.

Section C has two highlighted areas for discussion. Further discussion ensues regarding driveway crossings and forestry issues. Ms. Smith notes that there would be a process in place regarding an intent to cut form and review of the conservation commission.

General comments
After discussion, the board agrees that these two issues will be left in with the Best Management Practices and that should be sufficient.

Ms. Roy requests that Mr. Campbell and Mr. Curley be contacted to see if they can pick up the material and review for feedback to be provided for December 11. She also requests that Mr. Reitter be emailed the materials for his review.

All issues will be revised and addressed again to determine implementation.

NEW-Applications to Build on a Class VI or Private Road
~ Peter Aikens, Jr., Kramas Lane, Map 102; Lot 9.
~ Bernard and Betsy Dunbrack, 21 Lower Camp Rd. Map 124; Lot 3
Members will do drive bys and these applications will be addressed at the next meeting, December 11.

Planner’s Report
Reformatting: Ms. Planchet states that she is working on the formatting for ordinances.

Capital Improvement Plan: Ms. Planchet states that information has been received from departments except for the transfer station and the fire department. She notes that the school has provided information. 

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. Mr. Jones signs the Low plans.

Board Administrator’s Items
Results of GIS Meeting with Cartographics: Ms. Smith provides an overview of the GIS presentation meeting with Cartographics. She states that the town is probably not in the position for the desktop software and the process at this time. She states that she would be leaning towards the web based software. However, she states that with the timing and budget climate, she recommends that the board adjust the GIS line. She notes that this is not the year for anything new to be proposed.

Ms. Smith states that she has spoken to Mr. Jones and there is some open source software for GIS and maybe what the board could do would be to add some funds to a salary line for approximately 20 hours to allow for additional research to be performed by staff this next year. She adds that maybe a workshop could be attended by staff as well. Ms. Smith recommends that the hours be added to the planner’s salary as the board has control over that position. Nikki Roy makes a motion to amend the GIS budget line to $1 to keep the line open. Second by Pete Jones. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Adjournment
Roger LeClerc makes a motion to adjourn. Motion is second by Victoria Parmele. Motion passes unanimously 4/0 at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary