Planning Board

Minutes

January 8, 2009

Official as of march 26, 2009

Chair Nikki Roy calls the work session to order at 7:00 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chair Nikki Roy, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Scott Campbell, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet. Vice Chair Peter Jones arrives at 7:02. Eric Reitter arrives at 7:40 p.m.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Nikki Roy, Roger LeClerc, Herb Johnson, Scott Campbell, Peter Jones arrives at 7:02; and Eric Reitter arrives at 7:40.

ABSENT: Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Robert Fletcher and Alternate Victoria Parmele.

Applications to Build on a Class VI or Private Road
Peter Aikens, Jr., Kramas Lane, Map 102; Lot 9.
Steve Olsen of MSC Engineers is present representing Mr. Aikens.

Members noted that they did “drive bys.” Mr. Jones notes that there are a few large trees. The board reviews the plan with Mr. Olsen and discusses the process.

Discussion ensues regarding the trees and the board determines that the issues can be solved; however, RSA 674:41 is the issue to address. Mr. Olsen notes that they have met with the ZBA, who have granted the necessary variances. He adds that the concerns of the abutters were noted and have been addressed.

Further discussion is held regarding the lot creation. Mr. Olsen notes that the lot is a subdivided lot from the 1860’s. Ms. Roy states that there is not a street and this is not a lot on a street plan. She explains that RSA 674:41 applies to anything that is not a Class V road; easements, Class VI roads, private roads, etc. Mr. Jones notes that legislation was done due to safety factors.

Nikki Roy makes a motion, second by Herb Johnson, to send comments to the selectmen as follows:
Although this application is generally more acceptable due to shorter road length and the relatively better maintenance, the planning board continues to be concerned about applications relative to RSA 674:41. Specific issues for this application include passage of emergency vehicles due to narrow road width (measured at 10 ft. 3 in. between two trees) and lack of any written long term maintenance agreement. Motion prevails; 5/0.

Bernard and Betsy Dunbrack, 21 Lower Camp Rd. Map 124; Lot 3
Eric Reitter arrives at 7:40.

The information is reviewed and a discussion is held regarding the proposed 22’ x 24’ addition and why the board still is asked to address this even though the residence currently exists. Ms. Roy notes that it is because this is still asking for a building permit and it is a private road. The board expresses concern with the road and access, as well as the maintenance of the road. Ms. Roy explains that the board’s purview is to comment on access issues relative to the road for the proposal. Ms. Planchet explains that an addition could have an impact if it were to add another bedroom or traffic. Mr. Jones adds that there could also be an impact if the use was changing from a seasonal dwelling to a year round home.

Mr. Reitter states that the board may want to consider looking into whether there is an impact on risks with the addition, for example, more traffic, population, additional fire places. He adds that it could be possible that an addition could increase the level of risk.

Mr. Jones expresses concern with the planning board being consistent. Mr. LeClerc states that the proposed addition is consistent to the existing houses. Mr. Johnson asks how the board can deny this if there are houses that exist beyond this one. Discussion ensues regarding the recommendation for the board of selectmen. Mr. Reitter asks whether the board has been providing recommendations. Ms. Roy replies no and asks if the board wants to go back and offer a recommendation for the Aikins proposal.   Mr. Jones states that he feels that this may be a waste of time as the board is only providing a recommendation anyway relative to a law that is specific as to what can or cannot be accomplished. However, it is up to the selectmen to address each item. He adds that he is not comfortable with this and is not interested in looking at every case and trying to determine where it is okay to bend the rules or not. He adds that there are certain qualifications that must be met and if they are not met; he asks why have the law if it will not be followed. Members feel that in this case a recommendation should not be provided. Ms. Roy makes a motion to send these comments to the selectmen, second by Mr. Johnson: Although there are year round dwellings further down the road the planning board continues to be concerned about the ability of emergency vehicles to access this location safely. Motion passes; 5/0/1. Mr. Reitter abstains.

Voluntary Merger
Bulls Gap Development Corp., Pine St. and Oak St. Map 122; Lot 68.
Ms. Planchet reviews the voluntary merger and notes that the same property also came before the board regarding RSA 674:41 and the board did attach comments in November, which are read by Ms. Planchet.

Ms. Roy explains that the planning board requested a stamped wetlands plan. She states that the plan does not show the setbacks, and certified plot plan should be provided since the wetlands setback is 20’1”. Ms. Planchet reads the notice of decision from the zoning board noting RSA 674:41 with a condition of  the voluntary merger, and all necessary permits.    

Mr. Jones notes that in regard to the voluntary merger; it will make the lot more conforming. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, to approve the voluntary merger for Bulls Gap, Pine St. and Oak St. Map 122; Lot 68. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Ms. Roy expresses concern with the setback to the wetlands and requests that a memo be sent to the selectmen referencing this project and that the information received does not qualify as a stamped wetland plan as previously requested by the board.

CASE: 09-01: Eliza and Stephen Farrar, Jr., 97 Ridge Rd. Map 221, Lot 10.  Applicants seek site plan review for proposed home daycare.

Ms. Roy recuses herself from this case as she is an abutter.

The application is reviewed. Ms. Planchet explains that the application is for a small home daycare facility for up to six children in the applicant’s home. She refers to her review comments and she explains that the board will need to consider a number of waivers. She adds that the applicant is seeking waivers for application fees; Site Plan Requirements VII for preparation of existing conditions plan by a licensed land surveyor, proposed site plan by a professional engineer and associated details; showing sight distance of 250 feet; storm water drainage, water supply and sewerage sections; off-street parking and loading and sign requirements; 10 foot buffer zone; 100 year flood elevation data; and sidewalks. 

Mr. Jones asks how often the planning board has waived application fees. Ms. Planchet replies that since her time as planner the board has waived application fees for another day care facility. She adds that calls have been coming in recognizing the state of economy.  She notes that the board may be addressing more applications for in home businesses. Ms. Roy notes that the fees were established to cover the costs of noticing and staff. Further discussion ensues relative to the fees. Mr. Jones notes that the proposal is encouraging as it supports other businesses. Ms. Planchet explains that financial discussions would take place during the public hearing, possibly in a non public session.    

Ms. Planchet states that she has discussed with the applicant the proposed ordinance change to allow the number for a day care before site plan to be changed from one to three. She explains that a site plan would then only be required for three or more children. Currently the applicant is proposing to watch six children.  This proposal appears to address a Development Ordinance purpose to provide adequate child day care and promote home-based work.

Ms. Planchet refers to the written requests for waivers and explains that the board would need to decide the main question of whether the drawings provided are sufficient. Mr. Reitter states that the plan should be drawn to scale and he adds that the applicant could use the tax map.  Another recommendation is to use a tape measure or use the existing drawing and add all dimensions. Further discussions are held as the board reviews the plan. Ms. Planchet notes that the board may want to look closely at distance; parking layout; outdoor lighting; parking spaces, and an auto and pedestrian circulation plan. The board requests that additional information be provided regarding the outdoor lighting. The board notes that the subdivision plan could be used for an accurate site plan map with the permission of the surveyor. 

Ms. Planchet states that a letter of intent and impact statement have been provided. She adds that the hours of operation are proposed to be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and this should be noted on the plans. She adds that a signature of Stephen Farrar must be added to the application. Ms. Planchet explains that there are inspections that will be completed by the health officer and fire captain, which are a part of the state licensing process.

Additional discussion is held regarding the neighboring farm animals, water quality and safety. Water quality will need to be addressed and will be with the state and the health officer.

Ms. Roy returns to chair the meeting.

CASE 09-02: Edward S. Gleason, Range Rd., Map 218, Lot 36.  Applicant seeks subdivision approval of 22 acres into two lots, one lot will be 8.9 acres; the other will be 13.1 acres.

The comments from the planner’s review and the TRC comments are reviewed and discussions are held as follows: 

Ms. Planchet notes that the ordinance changes are in effect since they were posted prior to receipt of application. She states that these changes should be shown. She explains that she has requested the applicant show the 1 acre contiguous uplands and the 50’ setback. Ms. Planchet states that there is a lot of land; however, the character of the land dictates the proposed shape. She adds that the applicant has applied for a minimum impact expedited application for the driveway crossing with a culvert. 

The board reviews the other comments noted and no additional discussion are held; however, the board requests that these items be noted on new plans:  contiguous buildable area, 50 ft wetland setback, proposed house, well and well radii locations. Ms. Planchet will provide this request to the applicant.

Minutes:
Ms. Roy requests that the board members make every effort to read sets of minutes prior to the meetings as she states that she does not want to continue to spend a lot of time during meeting reading the minutes.

November 13, 2008:
Ms. Roy makes a motion to approve the November 13, 2008 minutes, as amended. Mr. Johnson seconds.
Page 1: Add: which is
Page 1: Replace sentence to read: The group discussed adding Northwood’s existing stormwater recommendations to the subdivision regulations.
Motion passes; 5/0/1. Mr. Reitter abstains as he was not at the meeting. 

November 20, 2008:
Ms. Roy makes a motion to approve the November 20, 2008 minutes, as amended. Mr. Johnson seconds.
Page 5: Replace sentence to read: …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. Motion passes; 4/0/2. Mr. Reitter and Mr. Campbell abstain as they were not at the meeting. 

Town Counsel Comments
Ms. Roy states that comments have been received from town counsel relative to the proposed ordinance changes. Copies are distributed and reviewed. Ms. Roy makes a motion, second by Mr. Jones, to make town counsel’s comments dated December 30, a public document. Discussion ensues regarding the suggestions and Ms. Roy suggests that the comments be taken home and reviewed.

Ms. Roy mentions that the public hearing for proposed ordinances is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Roy leaves at 9:30 p.m.

Planner’s Items
Ms. Planchet explains that the public notice has a case noticed for Mr. Marshall; however, the case will not proceed for January as the application is not complete enough to process.

Ms. Planchet states that there is a comment sheet from Underwood Engineering provided in member’s packets.

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) 
Ms. Planchet provides copies of updated information regarding the CIP. She explains that she does not have any additional information. She adds that the fire chief has requested that any items be carried forward. Ms. Planchet notes that she recalls seeing some recommendations of improvements within the facilities committee meeting minutes in excess of $5,000. She has not received any specifics from the facilities committee. She states that this process should begin much earlier. She states that the entire town and all committees should be working cohesively. She suggests that the planning board meet with the budget committee and the selectmen during the budget process.

Mr. Reitter comments that with the school study there are a few options. He explains that one option is to build a pavilion; however, a field may need to be eliminated. The other option would be to build a free standing middle school or elementary school somewhere else in town but the numbers really do not support a new school as well as the cost is very high considering the amount of students. The third option mentioned was a regional middle school with a neighboring town. He states that Strafford is really in favor of this option as they’re a town in need of extensive school improvements and the voters will not approve it. He adds that they do have land available to support this option; however, it is on a further end of town and this would make it difficult for children in the Gulf Road area.  He adds that a regional school receives more state aid.  

Ms. Planchet states that this is the type of item that should be included in the CIP plans for the future.

Adjournment
Herb Johnson makes a motion, second by Roger LeClerc, to adjourn at 9:42 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary