The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire - Planning Board Minutes 02/26/09

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

VOTING DESIGNATION: Vice Chair Peter Jones, Selectmen Representative Ken Curley, Roger LeClerc, Scott Campbell and Alternate Victoria Parmele

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

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS:
1. Sherry and George Jackman, 7 Davlynn Dr., Map 234; Lot 41.
Mr. and Mrs. Jackman are present with Deborah Couch, agent.

Ms. Couch explains that the Jackman proposal is to open a hair salon in the home. There is a basement garage and the salon would be in the basement. She asks what the board would like so that large costs are not incurred if not necessary.

She explains the existing lighting and that there would be a small sign under the mailbox. A plan is provided with the driveway for parking in front of the garage and a turn around.

Mr. Jones explains that the board has accepted all sorts of drawings in the past. He states that parking, lighting, and signage should be shown on the plan. The board’s consensus is that it would be okay to use the plan shown to begin the process.

2. Bruce Marshall, 1029 First NH Turnpike, Map 217; Lots 23 and 24. Mr. Marshall is present.

Ms. Planchet provides an overview of the project. She explains that Mr. Marshall met with her in December proposing a small scale automotive repair shop along Rte. 4. She states that it was determined that the application materials provided were not sufficient to proceed. He is meeting with the board regarding direction and requirements. Ms. Planchet adds that the regulations do appear to be overpowering for a small use. She states that she is trying to work with prospective applicants recognizing that the board does require a certain level of information.

Mr. Marshall provides an overview of the proposal noting sign locations and parking areas. Mr. Jones explains that the board’s past practice has been for a plan to show where the driveway would be located, the location of parking spaces, sight distance; lighting, signage, traffic issues, etc.

Ms. Smith states that the concern at the technical review level was a lack of specific information. She adds that this lot appears to be two lots co-owned. She asks if the lots will be merged. Ms. Smith notes that there is a prime wetland that requires a 100 ft. buffer. She recommends that the board knows where the wetland is from the town maps. She adds that if the board waives a licensed land surveyed plan the wetland should be delineated to show where the setback is. Mr. Marshall believes the wetland is 125 ft. from the building. He adds that there is a culvert there that was put in for the driveway. Ms. Smith states that the wetland is within the conservation overlay district; the buffer must be maintained in a natural vegetative state.

Mr. Jones states that the issues appear to be the level of detail and the wetlands. He explains that the board has been very flexible with applicants given the costs and the levels of details required. He adds that the wetlands issue will require some detail and could be costly.

Discussion is held regarding combining the lots and Mr. Marshall states that the merger would not be a problem.

OLD 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. Application accepted as complete on 10/23/08; 65-day 12/27/08. Continuances granted. Continued from 1/22/09.

David Docko is present along with Mark DeGrace of Holden Engineering.

Ms. Planchet states that Ben Dreyer from Underwood Engineering is present to address comments relative to his review. She then provides a timeline of the project.

Mr. DeGrace states that they have not provided additional comments to the second review.

A discussion is held regarding the waivers. Mr. Jones asks about the 28 ft. elevation for the building. Mr. Docko states that the plan may have been misread. The grade is 28 ft. from the shed and this was when it was on top of the hill. Mr. Docko states that there will be a 28 ft. difference in what the actual conditions will be when finished. Mr. Jones asks about the traffic plan.

Ms. Planchet refers to Note 1 on sheet 4 of the plan and reads “...the purpose of this plan is to show the layout of the operation for a wholesale and retail construction materials business...” and, further, “...additionally the operation consists of wholesale of landscaping and nursery materials.” Mr. Dreyer states that Underwood believes it is an excavation. Mr. Docko states that this is a material yard and will be changing as the piles change; these piles get added to, are moved, and are depleted allowing more room to pile. Mr. DeGrace states that there is no structured design to phasing and Mr. Dreyer reviews the phasing recommendations from Underwood.

Ms. Parmele states that there is a use being proposed as well as a use of the land. She expresses concern with groundwater recharge and the movement of the materials. She states that the site will change and it is hard for the board to quantify this. Mr. Jones states that this is a dynamic site and Mr. Docko states that it is hard to lay it all out on paper as it is a forever changing site even when it is completed. Mr. DeGrace suggests a schematic phasing plan and Mr. Dreyer agreed that this way it would not be applied to a specific time.

Further discussion ensues regarding the site circulation. Mr. Jones states that the board needs to see some type of a phasing plan with some sort of time line. Mr. Jones states that the board has a commitment to the public relative to safety and asks what we do about this issue. Mr. DeGrace replies that this would show up on a version of the schematics and they would address this. He adds that the detention pond would not be the last thing going in. Mr. Jones requests a sequence of events. Mr. DeGrace said they would show the sequence on the different plans. Mr. Dreyer suggests that the timing falls under a site specific permit and a construction schedule may be required. He feels that this would be sufficient. Mr. Jones states that he is more concerned with the retail factor.

Additional discussion is held regarding blasting on the site. Mr. Campbell asks if there will be blasting on site and Mr. Docko replies yes and explains that the area is all ledge. Mr. LeClerc asks what provisions are planned regarding the aquifers. Mr. Docko states that there is an aquifer and a study was done with conservation regarding the end of the known aquifer on the ridge. He adds that nothing additional is shown feeding any further into the area. Mr. Docko explains that blasting companies have oversights and rules that they must follow.

Ms. Planchet asks about a plan for pedestrians. Mr. Docko states that they would have a sign to the effect to remain in vehicles. Additional discussion is held discussing the schematic plan and phases to show different circulation patterns for vehicles. Possible layouts are discussed.
Mr. Jones expressed concern with the fact that the planning board needs to have a document that shows a commitment to public safety.

Mr. Jones asks for specifics and schematics. Mr. DeGrace states that an outline of the excavation can be provided. As far as schematics it would show the overall or general way of the proposal. Mr. DeGrace feels that this would be reasonable.

Additional discussion is held regarding signage. Ms. Planchet states that it would be great if items could be shown on the plans as the phasing is completed. Mr. DeGrace agrees to address circulation plans on the schematics.

Discussion ensues regarding the site access. Mr. DeGrace states that they concur with the town regarding the traffic review. Mr. Dreyer states that it was not clear if there was a permit. Mr. DeGrace states that the reason there is a request for a new driveway permit is because of changes to the Route 4 deceleration lane. He adds that he believes that the state has reaffirmed the previous driveway permit. He adds that he will provide a copy of the DOT updated letter for the next meeting as there seems to be some confusion from Holden Engineering’s point of view. Mr. DeGrace states that there are several parties involved and he feels that the DOT concern was generated from someone from the town. Mr. Dreyer replies that his understanding is that the driveway was not to standards.

The drainage report is discussed and Ms. Parmele asks how the drainage will be evaluated. Mr. Dreyer explains that the results are based on soils. He adds that this is not a typical site. Mr. DeGrace states that there was some confusion of the engineer who wrote the response as the filtration ordinance did not apply and that was not the intent. He adds that Holden Engineering does recognize that the ordinance is appropriate.

Mr. Wolfe asks about the turning lane and thought that it was stated that there would not be a deceleration lane. Ms. Planchet replies that the applicant indicated they would provide a letter from DOT to clarify. Mr. Wolfe states that it appears that the proposal is a major project, more so than what was proposed in the beginning. He feels that the abutters should be notified again. Ms. Planchet states that the proposal has not been changed. Mr. Docko states that this is the third time he has appeared before the board and each time for a larger issue and all abutters were noticed separately each time.

Mr. LeClerc asks about the blasting and if any materials are left on site. Mr. Docko replies nothing is left on site and all work is done by subcontractors. Mr. LeClerc asks if there will be a fencing added because of the long process for safety issues. Mr. Docko states that there will be a fence on the high side of the lot; there is a stone wall present along the front of the area. He notes that when everything is completed the lot will be level. He is not proposing any barricading on the property.

Mr. Dreyer refers to the drainage and states that a sheet should be provided for each outlet. He requests documentation. He adds that he is not overly concerned.

Mr. Campbell asks about the dust from the property. Mr. Docko states that there will be a lot of trucks on the site and there will be a water truck on site.

Mr. Jones opens discussion for the storm water management plan. Mr. DeGrace states that they are okay with the information provided by Mr. Dreyer.

As far as the traffic report the driveway permit is in DOT’s purview. Ms. Planchet suggests a conditional approval could be made that the DOT driveway permit must be obtained and comply with whatever must be done to obtain the permit. Ms. Parmele expresses concern with the management of the site and material ending up on Route 4. Mr. Docko states that it is state law that trucks must be covered. Mr. Dreyer states that there are precautions that can be made.

Discussion ensues regarding the excavation along with the wholesale and retail uses of the site. The disturbed area is noted by Mr. Dreyer to be 8 acres more than the 2007 plan. He references Note 1 on Sheet 4 and RSA 155-E. Ms. Planchet will review further as the board needs to decide if they will be adding retail to existing storage facility or if the site is a wholesale operation with excavation. Mr. Dreyer states that the RSA defines excavation as a means for the land area which has or has not been used for the taking of earth. He adds that the response received from Holden Engineering was that the earth removal was to be incidental to the construction for the wholesale retail sales. He states that this is the RSA and is not making any decisions. Mr. Docko states that this is a quarry and he has talked to someone at the state and has paid the taxes for removal off the site. He has received a permit. Mr. Jones states that nothing has been committed to for a final state and Mr. Docko states that he would prefer to not commit to a completed site, that this is an ongoing process.

Ms. Parmele asks what the water resources implications of excavation are. Mr. Dreyer states that they must obtain a state site specific permit and he does not see anything that would conflict. He does not feel that the changes in the classification will impact the quality or affect the treatments and functions.

A discussion is held regarding the waivers. Ms. Planchet asks for a landscape plan and Mr. DeGrace replies that he does not know of the landscaped plan. Ms. Planchet adds that regarding the lighting plan, there is a light planned for the site and is shown. She recommends that the board approve that waiver request. Pete Jones makes a motion to grant the waiver request for a lighting plan. Ken Curley seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Ms. Planchet states that the disturbed area fee is over $9,000. She states that the applicant is requesting that the fee be waived or negotiated. Mr. Jones states that the reason for fees is to cover staff fees and taxes are not incurred. Ms. Planchet explains fees for the town’s engineering services. Mr. Docko states that the fee is large for a small building, a driveway, and is a large amount of land. Further discussion ensues with Mr. DeGrace noting the application fees for processing and the engineering fees.

Ms. Smith states that when the planner was hired the fee schedule was reviewed from surrounding towns and discussions were held relative to the different fee patterns. She indicated that at the time, the board had discussed increasing general fees and adding disturbed area fees. The board agreed to increase the disturbed area fee to help absorb the salary of the planner rather than passing fees onto the general taxpayer. She states that she is not aware of any requests for a waiver of disturbed area fees.

Mr. Jones asks if there is an offer and if there is a cost analysis to the taxpayer. Ms. Planchet states that the nature of the application is such that the engineeering services have been more important and the costs of engineering services have been covered. Mr. Curley asks what the fee is and Ms. Planchet replies that it’s $9,250 for approximately 8 acres. Mr. Docko asks how the calculations are determined for house lots and roads. Ms. Planchet replies that there is not a disturbed area fee for residential. Further discussion includes the town’s subdivision fees. Mr. DeGrace offers $1,500. Ken Curley makes a motion, second by Pete Jones, to lower the disturbed area fee from $9,250 to $1,500. Discussion is held regarding the planner’s hours involved with this case. Mr. Docko states that with the other cases the disturbed area was paid. Ms. Smith notes hours of the secretary and her time specific to the engineering aspect. She states that she feels that the offer would cover for her time. Motion passes; 5/0.

Ken Curley makes a motion to continue the case to March 26. Victoria Parmele seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Ken Curley left at 9:10.
A recess is taken at 9:10 p.m. Session resumes at 9:17 p.m.

CASE 09-01: Eliza and Stephen Farrar, Jr., 97 Ridge Rd. Map 221, Lot 10. Applicants seek site plan review for proposed home daycare. Application accepted as complete on 1/22/09; 65-day 3/28/09. Continued from 1/22/09.

Mr. Jones states that a site walk was scheduled; members present were himself, Roger LeClerc, and Victoria Parmele, which was not a quorum so no meeting was held. Ms. Planchet states that the purpose of scheduling a site walk was for safety concerns to be addressed and to view the area for safety and parking. Mr. Jones notes that the applicant has provided updated materials for the board to review.

Mr. LeClerc states that he noticed a deck and asked if the children would be on the deck area and Ms. Farrar replies no. Mr. LeClerc also expresses concern with the existing vinyl fencing as it appeared to be flexible and the children may go over the fence and into the pond. Ms. Farrar suggests changing the fencing. She notes that the state also has regulations on fencing. Ms. Planchet notes that the board has required fencing for daycares in the past.

Ms. Parmele asks about visibility from the abutters. Ms. Farrar states that she does not feel that there is any issue with the abutters. She is fine with the abutters’ animals and the kids enjoy the animals and do not believe the abutters have any issues either. Ms. Farrar states that they have done plantings; however, the trees have not grown up yet.

Mr. Jones states that he is very concerned about the fence and additional discussion is held regarding the state’s regulations on fencing. Mr. Jones feels that the fencing on site is equivalent to construction fencing and anyone could just run through it. Ms. Planchet states that the town can require something that is more restrictive than the state for the safety of the children.

Additional discussion ensues regarding the fence. Mr. Jones reads from the state document that Ms. Farrar presented relative to the play area and that “...all fencing required shall be designed to restrain young children.” Mr. Jones states that there is nothing noted relative to the particulars on heights, anchoring, materials, etc. Mr. Jones states that the fence must be in compliance with building codes.

Ms. Parmele asks about the water quality. Ms. Farrar replies that she believes that the state requires water testing. Ms. Smith adds that the board previously has required water quality testing to be done and provided to the planning board.

Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Roger LeClerc, to approve the application for Case 09-01 with the following conditions:

1. Provide outdoor fencing that is code compliant and maintains the safety of the children;
2. The applicant must do an annual water sample for EPA method 8260 including MtBE’s and this testing must be performed every July;
3. A copy of the test results must be submitted to the Planning Board and Health Officer;
4. All local, state, and federal permits be obtained; and,
5. A copy of state daycare license be submitted after it is obtained.

Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

NEW CASES:
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.

Tim Bernier is present representing the applicant.

A discussion is held relative to the application being complete. Ms. Planchet notes that there is a waiver request from application fees. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell to deem the application complete. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Jones opens the public portion for this case and reads the abutter’s list. Abutter David Geer is present.

A discussion is held regarding the waiver request for the fees related to the second application. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, to grant the waiver request for fees related to the second application. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Bernier explains that the proposal is to subdivide the total property of just under 22 acres, into 2 lots. He explains that they dug the test pits even though the state approval was not required and they do support a house. He states that they have asked for a state permit for a culvert and have met with the conservation commission who agreed to sign the application request and send it forward to NHDES. Mr. Bernier explains that the entire lot has been mapped for wetlands. He notes that a waiver request for topography has been provided due to the wetlands on the lot. He refers to the plan and explains that they do not plan to cross the back area of wetlands and there is no access to that area. Mr. Jones asks what the area is at this time. Mr. Bernier states that the area is not an improved property at all. He explains that the proposed house locations are potential areas only. Proposed well radius is noted, along with proposed septic areas, with driveways and necessary crossings. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Roger LeClerc, to grant the waiver request to show topography on the southwesterly corner of lot 36. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Abutter David Geer expresses concerns regarding the wetland and the drainage across Range Rd. and into Lot 36.2. He explains that since the raising of Sherburne Hill Rd. and improvements on Range Rd, the drainage has stopped. There is a culvert; however, it is plugged and there is a damming of the water that drains on Sherburne Hill Rd. and has been accumulating on that property. Mr. Geer states that he met with the town administrator last year at the site and nothing came of it. He feels that this would release a considerable amount of water onto this property. He adds that he felt that this may be an appropriate time to register his complaints and express concerns.

Spike Bryant provides some history of the land and the culvert that is on Range Rd. is from the 1950’s. He states that the town needs to replace the culvert as it is a town culvert. He states that this is the area of Tucker Brook which drains onto Rte. 4.

Mr. Geer adds that the property on the north side is a tree farm and there is some damage to the trees. A clearing was done a few years back with an area that could not even be accessed as it was that wet.

Mr. Bernier also explains the area and the wetlands. Mr. Bryant states that the area is swamp and he does not know how the area could be accessed. Mr. Bernier notes that there is a road present. Mr. Bryant states that the water issue could be addressed and the road agent is aware of the matter. Mr. Jones requests that Ms. Planchet draft a letter from the planning board for the chair to sign and forward to the selectmen and the road agent so the matter of the culvert is made known to them.

With no further discussion, Mr. Jones closes the public hearing for this case.

Mr. Jones reviews staff’s notes. Discussion is held regarding underground utilities. Mr. Bernier submits a waiver request for underground utilities due to ledge and large lots. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Scott Campbell, to grant the waiver request for underground utilities. Mr. Jones asks how long the driveways are proposed to be and Mr. Bernier replies around 600’. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Other comments from the staff’s notes are reviewed and with no further discussion, Mr. Jones makes a motion to approve the application, as submitted. Scott Campbell seconds and the motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

CASE 09-04(R): Marie Jean, 2 Our Way, Map 216 Lot 8. Applicant seeks revocation of site plan approval for used car sales business.

Marie Jean is present.

Mr. Jones reads the abutters list. Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Roger LeClerc, to grant the applicant’s request of revocation of the approved site plan for a used car sales. Ms. Smith states that the applicant has an existing business on site and requests to maintain approval for that business. Mr. Jones adds for clarification that the existing business remains. Motion is seconded by Roger LeClerc and passes unanimously; 4/0.

Minutes
The minutes are postponed.

Planner’s Items
Reformatted Development Ordinance-DRAFT
Ms. Planchet states that the ordinance reformatting is almost completed. She states that Ms. Smith and Eric Reitter are reviewing the document and when the final draft is completed, she would suggest that it be reviewed by town counsel.

Resignation: Ms. Planchet states that she has received an email resignation from Alternate Eric Reitter. She adds that there is currently a one year position on the board due to the resignation of Nikki Roy. Discussion ensues regarding membership and Pete Jones makes a motion, second by Victoria Parmele, to accept the resignation from Eric T. Reitter with significant regret and much thanks for his many years of excellent service to the town. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Jones recommends appointing Victoria Parmele to a regular position for a one year term. Scott Campbell seconds. Ms. Parmele states that she will accept the nomination. VOTE: 3/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains.

NHDOT Driveway Applications
Ms. Planchet notes that driveway applications have been received for Marshall and Ververidis.

Request for Meeting re: Masten Estates/Sidewalks
Ms. Planchet states that a request has been received from SEC Associates to revise the Masten plans relative to the sidewalks. Discussion is held and this item will be placed on the regular meeting for March.

Adjournment
Pete Jones makes a motion to adjourn. Motion is seconded by Roger LeClerc and passes unanimously at 10:42 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page