Planning Board

Minutes

December 22, 2011

Official as of January 17, 2012

Chairman Robert Strobel calls the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Tim Jandebeur, Selectmen Representative Scott Bryer, Rick Wolf, Joe McCaffrey, Alternate Adam Sprague, and Town Planner Elaine Planchet. 

ABSENT:  Herb Johnson, Babette Morrill, and Alternates Victoria Parmele and Pat Bell.

VOTING DESIGNATION Bob Strobel, Tim Jandebeur, Scott Bryer, Rick Wolf, Joe McCaffrey, and Alternate Adam Sprague.

MINUTES
December 8, 2011
Mr. Jandebeur makes a motion, second by Mr. McCaffrey, to approve the minutes of December 8, 2011, as written. Motion passes; 4/0/2. Mr. Bryer and Mr. Sprague abstain as they were not at the meeting.

NEW CASE
Case 11-14: Denise Gordon, 68 First NH Turnpike. Map 234; Lot 19. Applicant seeks site plan review for yarn retail business within existing residence.

Mr. and Mrs. Gordon are present.

Mr. Strobel reads the abutters list and none are present.

Mr. Gordon states that they would like to open a yarn shop in their residence. Members review the plan.

Ms. Planchet asks if the applicants have received and reviewed the board’s comments from the December 8 work session. Ms. Gordon replies she has not. Ms. Planchet provides a copy along with comments from Dave Hickey, the town’s building inspector.

After review of the letters, Mr. Gordon explains that the proposal is to utilize two to three rooms on the main floor of the home. He states that the kitchen and office will remain downstairs; living areas will all be located on the upstairs level.

Mr. Strobel explains the planning board review process.

Mr. Gordon states that staff from NHDOT visited the site and they submitted a permit application to the state. Mr. Strobel reads a letter from NHDOT recognizing receipt of the application.  Ms. Planchet states that no approval has been received to date. Discussion ensues regarding the process of NHDOT granting a driveway permit. Ms. Planchet states that the new permit is necessary due to the proposed change of use.

Ms. Planchet states that comments have been received from the police chief indicating that there are no issues at this time. She notes that nothing has been received yet from the fire department.  She adds that it is possible for the board to consider the fire department and building department permit process as conditions of approval; they do not necessarily have to be received prior to planning board approval. 

Mr. Strobel asks for the staff recommendation.  Ms. Planchet states that it is her opinion that the application is complete for a Minimal Impact application and she recommends that the application be accepted as complete. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. McCaffrey, to accept the application as complete.  Mr. Strobel asks about the minor site plan checklist provided with the application.  Ms. Planchet explains that when she spoke with the applicant, she recommended that a minor site plan application be used since there was no approved site plan on file for the property.  She states that upon review of the submitted information and the site plan review regulations, she thought that the proposal could qualify as a Minimal Impact application.  She referred the board to the Minimal Impact criteria and stated that there is some flexibility in the last item provided that sufficient information is provided for the board to make its determination on the record.  Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Mr. Strobel reads the abutters list. No abutters are present. Mr. Strobel explains the 65 day time frame and the approval process.

The proposed plans and staff notes are reviewed by the board and general discussions are held.  Ms. Planchet goes over her list of questions with the applicants.  Mr. Gordon states that they would like to have signs to show where to park and which door to use for an entrance.   The distance of the parking spaces shown is questioned to determine whether sufficient space is there for the number of parking spaces provided.  Mr. Gordon states there is 67 ft from the space indicated as #1 to the bushes and that there is 275’ of frontage.  Discussion ensues.  Mr. Gordon states he will check the figures again and provide the information on the plan. 

Additional discussion is held regarding lighting. Mr. Strobel provides an explanation regarding wattage of lights and the spread of the lighting on the property.  Mr. Gordon states that they are proposing two lights on the sign directed on the sign. Mr. McCaffrey adds that all lighting should be confined in a neighborly way.

Ms. Planchet asks if the applicants have an idea of the sight distance, which would indicate how far someone could see from the end of their driveway along Route 4. 
Mr. Gordon states that the person from NHDOT measured out the sight distance.

Discussion is held regarding sanitary facilities. Mr. Gordon explains that there is a bathroom off of the kitchen, which is on the same floor as the proposed shop area. He states that there have been discussions with the building department as to what is necessary and costs involved. He states that when all of the information has been received from the town and the have an idea of how much this proposal would cost, they will then determine whether they will follow through or not.

After further review and discussion, Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Jandebeur, to approve the application with the following conditions:  
1. Date of plan drawing, Bar Scale and North Arrow be added to the plan; and,
2. Sight Distance to be added to the plan; and,
3. Sufficient number of parking spaces per site plan regulations shown and drawn to scale on the plan; and,
4. NH DOT Change of Use Driveway Permit be obtained; and,
5. All required local Building and Fire Department permits be obtained.
Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Proposed Ordinance Changes
Ms. Planchet states that the public hearing on the proposed development ordinance changes is scheduled for January 3 at 6:00 pm.  Mr. Jandebeur states that he will not be able to attend.

Ms. Planchet provides copies to the board of a November 14, 2011 Memo addressed to the board from Dave Hickey, Don Arsenault and Jim Wilson with suggestions for changes to regulations.  She states she had not seen it until the day before.  She explains that it is too late to do anything for ordinance changes for the March ballot.  Members review the memo.  Mr. Strobel states that the board should review and discuss these recommendations soon and decide whether to follow up on them rather than to do nothing now and risk not getting to them later.  Mr. Bryer suggests that the board discuss them with those who wrote it.  Mr. Strobel requests that this be added to the February work session agenda and invite Mr. Hickey, Mr. Arsenault and Mr. Wilson to attend. 

Mr. Jandebeur asks about the process of adoption for ordinances and public hearings.  Ms. Planchet explains that the development ordinance is adopted by the voters so that the public hearings are held prior to placement on the ballot.  She states that the site plan and subdivision regulations are adopted at the planning board level and require only two public hearings and approval of the board. 
Discussion ensues and the board agrees to further discuss the memo at the February work session and extend invitations to those who wrote it to attend to obtain information as to the reasoning behind these proposals. 

CIP Subcommittee
Mr. Strobel provides an overview of the recent Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Subcommittee meeting. He states that the spreadsheet was completed and filled out with information received from town departments.  He states that informal information was received from the school board and the highway advisory committee (HAC). He notes that the figures from the school board were that of one member and they are not figures that have been voted on by the school board. Mr. Jandebeur indicates that he is following up on this item.

A discussion is held regarding the draft 10 year plan. Mr. Strobel stated that the CIP Subcommittee has not yet decided whether to present the spreadsheet with information as provided by the departments or to present it with shifting of numbers to even out the peaks.  He states that the subcommittee was looking for direction from the planning board.  Mr. Strobel states that the CIP subcommittee has prepared a draft report for the town report and asks whether the board wants to review and approve the draft CIP report. 

Mr. Wolf makes a motion, second by Mr. Bryer, to authorize Mr. Strobel to determine the content for the CIP town report.  Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Discussion ensues on the CIP spreadsheet and process.  The consensus is to discuss the proposed CIP at the January 17 work session.  Mr. Jandebeur suggests inviting the budget committee to the January 17 meeting as a courtesy. 

Mr. Strobel states that he will make sure that the CIP presenter is available. Discussion ensues and the consensus of the board members is to informally invite the budget committee, board of selectmen, and town departments.

Safety Complex Study Committee
A discussion is held regarding the public safety complex study committee established by the board of selectmen and the request for members to represent the planning board and CIP Subcommittee.  Mr. Strobel states that the CIP Subcommittee is authorized specifically for the CIP and there really isn’t a role on the study committee.  He states that there could be a conflict for a planning board member to be on that committee and then sit to review a proposed site plan, even though the board’s role would be a review, not approval.  Mr. Bryer states that the study committee is for advisory purposes only and there is no binding authority.

Adjournment
Mr. Bryer makes a motion to adjourn at 8:30 pm.  Second by Mr. Wolf.  Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary