Planning Board

Minutes

June 10, 2010

Official as of June 24, 2010

Chairman Bob Strobel calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Bob Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Selectman Representative Alden Dill, Rick Wolf, Roger LeClerc, Alternate Victoria Parmele, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet.

ABSENT: Pat Bell and Babette Morrill

MINUTES
May 27, 2010
Mr. Dill makes a motion to approve the May 27, 2010, minutes, as written. Mr. Johnson seconds.
Page 5: Add: …that item…
Page 5: Add: …being…
Page 6: Add: …the latter…
Mr. Dill makes a motion to approve the May 27, 2010, minutes, as amended. Mr. Johnson seconds. 3/0/3. Ms. Parmele, Mr. Dill, and Mr. LeClerc abstain.

Application to Build on a Class VI Highway or A Private Road:
Thomas & Karen Scoon, 13 Sky Farm Rd, Map 221/Lot 13. Information Distributed; to be discussed 6/24/10.

Ms. Planchet states that the process is for the board members to receive the information for these applications at one meeting and to then do “drive bys” and discuss at the next meeting of the board. General discussion is held regarding the lot and the location.

OLD CASE:
CASE 09-14: Mark Lopez (Family Dollar), Rte. 202 & 9. Map 234; Lot 7; Sublot 2. Applicant is seeking a site plan review for construction of an 9,250 sq. ft. retail store to include Family Dollar and one rental unit. (Property currently owned by Beth Grimes, and Gregory Lalish.) Application accepted as complete on 2/25/10; 65 day 5/1/10. Continued to 6/10/10.

Mark Lopez and Chris Berry are present.

Mr. Johnson has recused himself from this case and leaves the table.

Voting Designation:
Bob Strobel, Alden Dill, Rick Wolf, Roger LeClerc, and Victoria Parmele.

Mr. Berry mentions that they may add grills to the front window panes, otherwise feels that the applicant has met the board’s intent relative to architectural items.

Ms. Planchet states that the last time the board considered this application, there was an additional request for a legal opinion. The legal opinion is provided for review. Ms. Planchet states that the follow-up opinion was requested by the board to confirm whether or not town counsel had seen the easement language prior to her previous opinion. Mr. Dill makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to make the legal opinion a public document. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Mr. Dill states that the document explains that the opinion of town counsel is that nothing has changed.

Some discussion is held regarding the proposed siding. Mr. Lopez responds that it is the same texture, just a different tone. Mr. Strobel states that the lighting on the windows should also be appropriate.

Mr. Berry explains that the store closes at 8 p.m. and the top of the sign and store lights are internally luminated. As far as security lighting, Mr. Berry states that the motion detectors are on the sides and rear of the building. Mr. Lopez states that the sign is 7 sq. ft.

Mr. Dill asks about the proposed awning. Mr. Berry states that the awning will extend out about 3 ft. Mr. Lopez adds that this is a marine type awning.

Ms. Planchet states that the traffic analysis has been completed by TEPP engineering and has been previously provided to the board. Mr. Berry states that Berry Surveying are not traffic engineers. He explains that they do low level analysis and that it is his opinion that for projects which generate under 100 trips, this is an ok analysis to do. He states that ITE generates 2 or 3 level tiers of acceptable types of studies for projects. Mr. Berry states that TEPP basically agreed with the traffic report provided with some modifications. Mr. Berry notes that they made some modifications to the plans to address TEPP’s comments.  He said that one change was to modify the exit radius onto Rte. 202 and 9, as well as modify the stop bar location and sidewalk location. Mr. Berry said that these have been completed and sent back to TEPP for final approval. He adds that these should be provided to the board in a final revision packet.
 
Mr. Lopez states that they are making progress with the abutter. Mr. Berry states that the abutter is concerned with access onto his property and they plan to include the engineering of the driveway access with the plan. He states that they plan to have revised plans for the next meeting. Mr. Berry adds that preliminarily, Mr. Meyer will be going to Mr. Berry’s office tomorrow morning for discussions. Mr. Berry states that they will send final plans to Underwood and the board. Ms. Planchet explains that the process is for information to be filed first with the planning board and then it may be forwarded to the town engineers.  Mr. Dill motions for the planner to forward revised plans to Underwood when they are received for the second review and comments. Mr. Strobel seconds. The motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Ms. Parmele asks if the traffic from both sites was considered in the analysis. Mr. Berry replies yes and adds that this site alone does not trigger off site improvements with NHDOT; however, they will need to look at both sites to see if this would be necessary. Mr. Dill asks about the abutter’s business as a possible medical office building and Mr. Berry states that he will provide different numbers relative to a medical office building versus a retail business. He adds that the total volumes are probably the same; however, peak hours may vary. He adds that the discount store is a very low generator at the peak hours.

Ms. Parmele asks for information regarding the changes made to the crosswalk.

A discussion is held regarding scheduling a site walk. The board requests that the two front corners of the building and the driveway be staked out. A site walk is scheduled for June 17 at 9 a.m.

Mr. Berry submits a request to continuance to July 22. Mr. Dill motions to continue the case to July 22, 2010. Mr. Strobel seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Herb Johnson returns to the table as a voting member.

Voting Designation:
Bob Strobel, Herb Johnson, Alden Dill, Rick Wolf, Roger LeClerc, and Victoria Parmele.

NEW CASE:
CASE 10-04: Robert and Tracey Jozokos, 113 Sherburne Hill Rd. Map 218; Lot 17. Applicants are seeking site plan review for proposed in home pet grooming business.

The case information is provided to the board members and discussions are held. Ms. Planchet explains the process of the board’s review and that she would request the applicant provide additional information, as the board determines necessary.  Staff notes have been provided and are reviewed by the board.

Mr. Dill references Ms. Smith’s notes and questions whether the applicant would want to be limited in the types of products that will be used; natural, organic, etc. Mr. Dill also asks about the amount of animals per day. He states that he would not dictate the type of materials that can be used as he does not see that being in the board’s purview. The board requests that Ms. Planchet ask the applicant if they are certain that they will be using natural, organic products with no chemical pesticides.

Mr. Wolf mentions concerns with backing out onto the road. Additional discussion is held regarding the site distance. Ms. Planchet suggests that an auto circulation plan be provided to make sure that cars do not need to back into the street. Board members agree to do drive bys prior to the meeting.

The board requests that a location be shown on the plan regarding animals remaining on site after they have been groomed. The board also requests that a pedestrian route plan also be provided.

Additional discussion is held regarding the fact that there is a discrepancy between the building and fire departments relative to the type of fire wall required between a business and a residential use. Ms. Planchet stated she will look into this and she will get the board’s comments to the applicant.

OTHER:
Planner Job Description
Ms. Planchet provides copies of her job description for the board’s review. These are copies from when she was hired in 2006. She explains that the job description was revised in February 2007 and last fall she received information from the town administrator that there were organizational structure changes with a land use department with a planner, board administrator, and board secretary. She explains that her direction had always been from the planning board and general administrative matters through the town administrator. Now she reports to the board administrator for administrative matters which were explained to be for time sheets and leave slips.  She stated that in the same memo, she learned that the job descriptions were to be revised to accommodate the organization change.  Ms. Planchet said that she brought this information to the attention of the planning board in the fall and the board sent a memo to the Board of Selectmen and that nothing has been received to date relative to this memo.   She said that she had been looking for the change in job description as she saw this as the first opportunity for her to respond to the change in an official manner. 

Ms. Planchet explains that she learned that the job descriptions had been changed last week when she was told the revised job description was in her mailbox and she later found out that this was already approved by the selectmen without her even reviewing it. She said that she was told that the revised job description had been placed in her box but she never got it; when the board and town administrators did not receive any input from her, they thought she had no issues with it.  Mr. Dill states that the selectmen approved the job descriptions in order to complete the personnel policy. He added this can be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting.

Ms. Parmele asks if these changes were made for administrative purposes or are there more substantive reasons. Mr. Dill replies that these changes were made mostly for administrative purposes. He adds that the town has not had a personnel policy for years and needed to get something completed and adopted. Ms. Planchet states that the planner position is not appointed by the selectmen as it is stated. She said that the planner position is appointed by the planning board as noted in the memo sent to the selectmen last fall. Mr. Strobel states that this can all be worked out and Mr. Dill agrees and adds that he does not feel that there would be a problem to make some changes. Ms. Planchet mentions that the wage study is the next item that will be addressed for the second time the four years that she has been on staff.

Mr. Dill states that the board administrator is a unique position to Northwood and is not something that ties in with other towns.

Further discussion ensues regarding the administrative roles.   Mr. Dill requests that a memo be sent to the selectmen. He adds that a formal wage study will not be done this year but rather the town administrator will be looking at other towns this size and find like jobs to make sure that Northwood is within the salary range. He states that this process will save money.

Mr. Dill leaves at 8:30 p.m.

Mr. Leclerc states that he would like to review the job description of the board administrator. He asks if additional duties and responsibilities are being added to the planner and Ms. Planchet replies that there is always something to do. She explains that it is a matter of what comes first. She adds that she does do more work now than when she first started as some things do not take as long. She notes that this also depends on the applications that come in the ever changing state laws. She believes that she is prepared and keeps busy and that it is never an issue of whether she has something to do; it is the matter of what she will address first.

Ms. Parmele states that the planner position should also be able to plan and not just address applications. She asks if there are other employees that she takes direction from. Ms. Planchet replies no; she takes direction solely from the planning board. She adds that the description of the land use department is incorrect in that it provides that the master plan is the responsibility of the department when it is the responsibility of the planning board per state statutes. 
Mr. Strobel states that he believes it was the intent of the selectmen to develop a policy and fit the policy as they see fit. He adds that the planning board needs to make sure that the selectmen understand that the direction of the planner is that of the planning board. He states that a land use department is a good concept; however, he feels that this is a fix to get things to fit into the personnel plan rather than looking into the details to see if this actually works. Ms. Planchet states that other towns have a land use department; however, they have more than three employees in the department.

Mr. Strobel suggests that the board take the materials and review for the next meeting and bring recommendations for the next meeting.

July Work Session Date consideration
With the possibility of not having a quorum, the board changed the work session date from July 8 to July 1.

Third Tier Discussions
Ms. Planchet directs the board to the Third Tier Worksheet Section 5 where the discussions left off from last time.

Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to require items b, c, and g and not require the others for both the Change of Use and Home Business. Discussion ensues regarding additional items. Ms. Planchet suggests including some of the existing items for the applicants to provide documentation or delineate, if appropriate. Ms. Planchet adds that code enforcement would need some guidelines to follow. Mr. Strobel states that if they do not have these items on the existing site plan then it should be required. Ms. Planchet states that this would be a way to ensure that the proposed activity is a minimal impact. Mr. Johnson amends the motion to include items b, c, f, g, i, t, and u, to be included for the Change of Use and Home Business. Mr. Strobel seconds the amendment. Mr. Johnson amends the amendment to include item (f) for overlay districts and lighting with sizes of walls and fences to be included for the Change of Use and Home Business. Mr. Strobel seconds the amendment. Amendment passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. LeClerc notes that there should be exit signs for the Jozokos application.

General discussion is held regarding Section IX, Design Standards. Mr. Johnson states that he feels that everything has been covered except for items j and n. Ms. Planchet states that this section is the actual requirements, not requests for information as the previous sections discussed.  Ms. Planchet suggests that the board review the general requirements and consider whether or not specific design standards are necessary in the minimal impact. 

Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Ms. Parmele, to adjourn at 9:45. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary