| Planning Board Minutes 10/28/10 |
| Written by Lisa Fellows-Weaver | |
| Tuesday, 07 December 2010 | |
|
Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2010 Official as of November 18, 2010 Chairman Robert Strobel calls the work session to order at 6:40 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Adam Sprague, Roger LeClerc, Babette Morrill, Rick Wolf, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Dave Hickey, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Selectman Representative Alden Dill arrives at 6:55 p.m. ABSENT: Alternate Pat Bell VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Herb Johnson, Adam Sprague, Roger LeClerc, Babette Morrill, Rick Wolf, and Alternate Victoria Parmele. Mr. LeClerc motions to nominate Mr. Johnson as the planning board representative to the safety complex building study committee. Mr. Sprague seconds. Ms. Morrill amends the motion to add Mr. Strobel as a backup representative to the safety complex building study committee. Mr. Johnson seconds. Amendment passes unanimously; 7/0. Request from Town Administrator for Staff Work for Economic Development Committee Alden Dill arrives at 6:55. Mr. Strobel states that the voting designation changes given the arrival of Mr. Dill. Mr. Johnson explains that the economic revitalization zone designation is an item that he feels is important to the town. He explains that the EDC is trying to work on revitalizing Rte. 4 and the vacant buildings. Mr. Strobel asks if there are any funds in the EDC budget that could be used for outside work. Ms. Smith replies no, not at this time. Mr. Johnson states that the funds necessary are negligible for what it could mean for the town. Ms. Smith suggests that the board approve Ms. Planchet’s attendance to the EDC meeting at which time she could come back to the planning board with a projection of work that would be required. In addition, Ms. Smith states that Ms. Planchet could also inform the EDC of the costs and the EDC can add to their 2011 budget. Discussion ensues and Ms. Planchet states that a work priority should be established between work for the planning board and work for others and there really needs to be more information provided. Ms. Planchet states that she currently has 20 hours available per week and that is what has been budgeted. Mr. Dill states that based on the current work load of the planning board, he feels that a few hours could be transferred from the planning board to the EDC and should the planning board’s work load increase, then the hours could be reverted back. Mr. Strobel states that he would allocate 3 hours a week for the EDC work to be spread over time if needed. Mr. Strobel makes a motion to authorize the town planner to attend the EDC meetings, as they request, and provide an estimated block of time for revitalization research. No second is provided. Mr. Johnson reiterates his motion to approve allowing the planner to work for the EDC. Ms. Smith suggests that the board authorize the planner to attend the EDC and if there is a time where there is a need for additional hours, it can be addressed. Ms. Planchet states that the research will require more hours than the meeting time. Mr. Dill motions for the planner to not exceed 20 hours per week for work relative to the planning board and the economic development committee. Mr. Johnson seconds. Motion passes; 4/3. Opposed: Mr. Strobel, Mr. LeClerc, and Mr. Wolf. Chairman Robert Strobel closes the work session and calls the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Selectman Representative Alden Dill, Adam Sprague, Roger LeClerc, Babette Morrill, Rick Wolf, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Dave Hickey, Town Planner Elaine Planchet and Board Administrator Linda Smith. ABSENT: Alternate Pat Bell MINUTES Boddy Site Walk Minutes – October 7, 2010 Plunket Site Walk Minutes – October 7, 2010 Proposed Agreement 34 Pine Street: Ms. Planchet states that the agreement presented is a recommendation from town counsel that the town is agreeing that there are two separate lots and this is a correction to note what has occurred. Mr. Dill states that JP Morgan would like to own the original lot that the mortgage was on and the ownership of the other lot, .11 acres, would be the person who bought it from the town. OLD CASE: Chris Berry is present representing Mr. Lopez. Herb Johnson recuses himself from this case and leaves the table. Mr. Berry states that the building is now proposed to be an 8,000 sq. ft. building. He explains that they have been working with the abutter relative to the proposal and have continued the case for a few months. It is his understanding that the board is questioning the status of the application. He states that they anticipate that there should be a resolution with the abutter within the next few days. He adds that had they not requested the continuances and continued with their proposal, they believe that the abutter may have appealed the case; therefore, they have been trying to resolve any issues with the abutters outside of the planning board’s purview. Mr. Berry states that a plan was submitted yesterday and they have made some revisions to the easements. He explains changes on the plan to date: parking has been reduced and they will be requesting waivers, the building is the same, the front aisle for the traffic movement for the site has been amended to 40’ to allow easier flow of trucks to the loading docks; the proposal will also include the design and construction of the driveway that will lead to the abutting properties and the installation of two curb cuts into the abutter’s property, from the proposed driveway. Mr. Berry asked if the town has the same engineering firm. Ms. Planchet replies that it has changed as the board of selectmen made a different appointment on Tuesday. Discussion ensues. Ms. Planchet states that escrow funds have been received from the applicant; the case has been reviewed once by Underwood Engineering, and the traffic study has been reviewed by TEPP. She adds that she spoke to Mr. Dreyer from Underwood that morning and explained that it was her understanding that Underwood would continue with the Family Dollar application. She states that additional funding would be necessary if the board wanted to have the new engineering firm review this case. Mr. Dill suggested that she speak with the town administrator. Ms. Planchet replies that she did discuss this with Mr. Stack and he had the same understanding that Underwood would continue with this case. Mr. Berry states that if they got the revised plans out this week, Underwood will not have comments back in time for the November meeting; however, he requests that the board meet with the applicant to discuss the plan changes in more detail. Ms. Planchet states that due to holidays there will be only one meeting in November, on the 18th. Mr. Berry requests to continue the case to November 18. Mr. Strobel states that the plans will not be able to be reviewed by the board and he suggests considering continuing to December 9 to allow ample time. Mr. Berry agrees and submits a request to continue the case to December 9. Mr. Strobel motions to accept the request to continue the case to December 9. Mr. Dill seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0. Mr. Berry informs the board that he is now actively involved in another site plan and he is using the traffic engineer Tepp. He asks if the board has any concerns with this. None are expressed. Mr. Strobel thanks Mr. Berry for the information. NEW CASES: Herb Johnson returns to the board as a voting member. Roger LeClerc recuses himself from this discussion and leaves the table. VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Alden Dill, Herb Johnson, Adam Sprague, Babette Morrill, Rick Wolf and Alternate Victoria Parmele. Surveyor, Mr. Randy Orvis, is present along with Mr. Josh Plunket. Mr. Strobel states that the site walk took place and Ms. Planchet notes that revised plans were provided after the site walk. Mr. Strobel states that the 4 parking spaces in the western corner have been removed. He explains that there is some clarification regarding the traffic flow. Mr. Orvis states that the granite curb will be relocated so that there will not be a second exit on the property. He states that the pavement in this area will be removed and replaced with landscaping. He adds that there is an area of landscaping that is in the right of way. Mr. Orvis states that he has added sight distance at the entrance. He states that looking easterly there is 1,500’ of sight distance and westerly there is 1,200’ of sight distance. Mr. Strobel states that at the site walk he noticed a utility pole. Mr. Orvis states that there is 1,200 ft. visible behind the pole. He added that there is also a blind spot noted depending on how far the driver pulls out. Mr. Strobel notes that the pole is off the lot; however, he suggests contacting PSNH regarding relocation. Additional discussion is held regarding the parking. Mr. Dill notes that the angled parking has been removed. Mr. Orvis explains that non-delineated parking has been added to the gravel area. He adds that there were two extra spots and there is room for more. Mr. Orvis states that he has corrected the hours of operation. He also notes that he has added a new well location, and corrected an abutter’s name. Mr. Wolf asks if the well will meet the setbacks. Mr. Orvis states that it meets the setback due to the stream; it is precluded from development. Discussion ensues regarding the well and septic requirements. Mr. Orvis states that he may need to adjust the well location. He states that should the well need to be moved down back then he will need to adjust the septic as well. Mr. Orvis states that they will not be using the old well. He adds that nitrate plume is within the boundary line and must remain on the property. He states that the dumpster would also need to be relocated. Ms. Smith asks if the septic tanks are within the building setback. Mr. Orvis replies yes they are and adds that they are within the septic setback, which the standard is 10 ft. from the boundary line. Ms. Smith states that Northwood’s regulations state that no structures can be 20 ft. from a boundary. Mr. Orvis states that this is new and is not enforced. Further discussion is held regarding structures and definitions. Ms. Morrill states that the board cannot approve the plan because there is parking within the right of way. Mr. Dill replies that even with the right of way, it is still a legal parking area as it is for compact cars. Mr. Orvis states that they are only here requesting a change of use on an existing use. Mr. Strobel states that the parking spaces that extend into the right of way should be removed from the plan. Ms. Planchet notes that the landscaping is an issue as well. Ms. Smith asks if the landscaping is needed to meet the requirement. Mr. Strobel states that if the landscaping is off the land then it is not needed. Mr. Orvis states that he will remove these items from the plan. Additional discussion is held regarding relocating the septic tank. Mr. Orvis states that he may need to move it and can spin the septic and move the tank away from the property line to meet the setback requirements. He adds that he is waiting to receive a call from the state regarding the well. He notes that the potential other well location would be near the woods road, on the lower end of the gravel parking. This would be 20 ft. from the property line as well and the further back is better for the well. Ms. Planchet suggests that the board may want to view this prior to making any decisions. Mr. Orvis states that if the septic is moved he will propose a rail fence to protect people from driving over it. He notes that the state requested this on the plan. Mr. Dill asks about the gate. Mr. Orvis states that the gate is existing and is beside the building where the driveway starts to go down. Mr. Dill requests that the lumens of the internally lit sign be noted on the plan. Mr. Orvis replies that he believes that the existing street lamp is a 175 watt bulb. Mr. Dill asks if there will be any other lighting added and Mr. Plunket replies that all lighting will remain as currently exists. Ms. Planchet states that traffic figures have been provided and are available for review from the current location. She asks if the applicant has contacted NHDOT to see if a change of use permit is necessary. He states that he will contact NHDOT’s Division 6. Mr. Wolf asks if there are any requirements relative to larger parking spaces or turn around for recreational vehicles. Ms. Planchet replies that there are no specific regulations for any types of recreational vehicles. Ms. Planchet suggests that the board discuss the 7 compact car spaces and whether this meets the regulations. She notes that there is also an apartment. She states that 20 spaces are required. Mr. Orvis states that he thought that the requirement could be made up with the compact spaces. Ms. Morrill notes that the 4 angled spaces are being removed as that was a safety concern. Mr. Dill states that this revision is better. Mr. Wolf states that the parking is within the setback and Mr. Orvis states that he has an approved waiver for this item. Mr. Strobel states that this was not waived due to the fact that the board wanted to conduct a site walk. Mr. Dill asks if a waiver would be necessary as this is a change of use and is based on a previous site plan. Ms. Smith states that town counsel has stated that when there is a site plan that includes a change in use, the standards for today may be applied and it may be considered as a new site plan. Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Ms. Morrill, to grant the waiver for paved parking areas. Mr. Dill suggests waiting until a final plan has been submitted. Additional discussion is held regarding the overall parking and where the spaces will be should there need to be changes made due to relocating the well and septic. Mr. Johnson amends the motion, second by Ms. Morrill, to grant the waiver for the existing paved parking areas within the setback. Ms. Morrill suggests changing the three spaces if possible. Further discussion ensues regarding determining the location of the compact vehicles. Mr. Wolf states that the state can review and make changes along the right of way. Motion passes; 6/1. Rick Wolf is opposed. Mr. Strobel opens the public portion of this case. Roger LeClerc states that he spoke to Kevin Russell of NHDOT regarding the infringement of setbacks. Mr. LeClerc states that he was told that the town should be sending an application to DOT for the driveway as this is a change of use and DOT is waiting for this. He adds that DOT will be coming out to review the project and will shut the business down if there are problems. Ms. Planchet states that the driveway applications do not come from the town they come from the applicant. Ms. Smith asks in what capacity Mr. LeClerc addressed DOT. Mr. LeClerc replies that he is speaking as a citizen and that he has concerns. He adds that this is all public knowledge. Mr. Strobel states that Mr. LeClerc is a planning board member that has recused himself for this case and asked how Mr. LeClerc spoke to DOT, as a citizen or as a planning board member. Mr. LeClerc states it was as a citizen. Mr. LeClerc asks if the issues were addressed relative to the septic system and how many issues there were. Mr. LeClerc states that he has received documentation from the state and there are many issues that need to be addressed with the well, septic, and others. With no further comments, Mr. Strobel closes the public hearing for this case and adds that the board will reopen the public portion as the board sees fit. Mr. Dill asks if there will be a filter system added for the food odor. Mr. Plunket replies yes and adds that there will be other systems in place that are not at his current location. Copies of the system are provided for the file. Ms. Parmele refers to comments made by Mr. LeClerc as to the items that will be forthcoming as the comments seemed ominous. Mr. Strobel states that the septic system has not been approved to date. Mr. Strobel states that the board does not have jurisdiction over the driveway permit; there may be additional changes to the plan. Mr. Orvis reads from the letter provided from the state which requests changes to the septic design: the plans were lacking the daily flow calculations as they were provided but on a separate sheet; he was asked to add the lot loading calculations and again the figures were provided on a separate sheet; to provide approval for the well and nitrate plume needed to be noted on the plan; piping needed to be changed to the kitchen grease trap, and a note needed to be added to the plan stating that the septic system will not be driven on or parked on. Ms. Planchet notes that board is concerned with the local regulations and a condition that all state permits need to be obtained may be done to make sure that these items are addressed. Mr. Orvis asks when revised plans need to be received by. Ms. Planchet replies that any revised plans must be provided by Wednesday, November 3. Mr. Strobel notes that the 65 day time frame ends November 27. Ms. Morrill notes that in the stream there is foundation drain. Mr. Orvis states that they are not proposing this; it already exists. He states that this occurs all the time. Mr. Strobel states that this case is continued to November 18, 2010. Mr. Strobel calls for a recess at 8:42 p.m. Session resumes at 8:45 p.m. Roger LeClerc returns to the board as a voting member. CASE 10-07: Harry Franssen/Bently-Harrison, LLC, 1471-1481 First NH Turnpike, Map 108/Lots 1 & 2. Applicant seeks site plan review for change of use for Sales and Repair of Autos, trucks, buses and RV’s and to add residential use. (Property currently owned by William Boddy.) Mr. Franssen is present along with Mr. Boddy. VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Herb Johnson, Alden Dill, Adam Sprague, Babette Morrill, Roger LeClerc, and Rick Wolf New plans are provided to the board for review. A discussion is held regarding the setback requirements. Mr. Franssen states that he is willing to move proposed items as necessary. Mr. Johnson asks how close the property is to the lake. Mr. Strobel states that he has mapped out the area and provided information to the planner and he believes that the back portion of the lot is 175’ from the lake and from the cleared area it is 300’. Mr. Dill notes that there may be an issue regarding the parking in the setbacks and no waivers have been provided. Ms. Planchet notes that the revised plans were not received within 15 days of the meeting and that she hasn’t had a chance to review them. She references the setback requirements and suggests that the board not make any decisions tonight as staff can review and make a list and provide to the applicant for response for the November 18 meeting. Mr. Dill asks what the purpose of the 30 x 30 tent is. Mr. Franssen explains that potentially one of the uses of the floral building could be for a flea market, toy and train exhibits or shows. The tent will be used for storage and would only be there in the winter months. Ms. Smith states that if there would be a flea market area proposed, that item should be noticed as it could generate additional traffic. Mr. Franssen states that the use is not on the plan and the plan has not been approved. Mr. Strobel states that the tent can be noted on the application for outside storage. If retail sales are proposed it is a different use. Ms. Planchet states that the application is noticed for a change of use for sales and repairs of autos, trucks, and buses, and recreational vehicles, and to add residential use. Mr. Dill states that the applicant had previously mentioned a retail use and an apartment in the florist building. Ms. Planchet states that if the proposal is much different than what was noticed then the application may need to be re-noticed. Mr. Franssen states that he will continue the process as presented with no flea market proposal at this time. Mr. Dill notes that the plan does list retail and an apartment. Mr. Franssen states that the proposal is to use the florist building for retail and the second floor as an apartment and that the retail will consist of vehicles. Mr. Dill states that the proposal is for vehicle sales not generic retail. Mr. Franssen states that it is his understanding that the building has been approved for retail sales as well so he is not changing that approval; he is addressing the retail sales of the vehicles. Ms. Planchet states that the proposed use listed was commercial and residential commercial. She states that since the plans were not in the town offices for 15 days she should review the plans and will create a list of items for the applicant and board’s consideration. She suggests the board could continue the case to address the new information. Ms. Planchet states that the residential use is for the modular unit. Mr. Franssen states that the residential use should also be for the florist building. Ms. Planchet requests that Mr. Franssen provide a specific proposed use. Discussion ensues regarding the proposed uses and the number of spaces required for parking, pending square footage. Mr. Franssen states that he will not define a specific retail use for the downstairs but will use the first floor for storage. He states that his main purpose for the property is to live in the modular, rent the second floor of the building and retail is for repairs of vehicles, RV’s, autos. He does not have any idea as to what he will do with the downstairs of the building. Mr. Herb Johnson states that there is already an approval for retail and he may not want to remove that approval. Ms. Smith states that the site is proposed to change to multiple uses. Ms. Parmele requests additional information on what uses will occur on the property. Mr. Franssen replies that due to the size of the garage, 35 x 48, he is limited to the amount of repairs he can do. He states that he could get one bus into the garage and eventually he would like to obtain an inspection license. For the front area, east of the house, he would use as a display area for vehicles, etc. He states that he may also obtain a dealer’s license. Mr. Wolf expresses concern with the septic system. Mr. Franssen states that he is not proposing any traffic to be driven over the septic system. Mr. Dill asks if a waiver is necessary for the septic as it is within the 20 ft. setback. A discussion is held regarding seasonal tents. Mr. Hickey explains that canvas tents are seasonal items. Mr. Franssen states that he would only do a seasonal item. Mr. Dill states that the town requires building permits for portable garages. Mr. Strobel states that staff will review the plan and provide a list to Mr. Franssen. Mr. Franssen states that at that time he will redo the plan and provide ten copies for the board for the November meeting. Items to be addressed are as follows: Mr. Strobel opens up the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Johnson, abutter, states that the state approved the access and egress of that property and when that happened, she does not believe that the state considered their access as there is a blind spot. She explains that their driveway is right there and they will be pulling out while cars are entering and exiting the parcel. Mr. Tom Johnson states that at the last meeting he requested a traffic survey be done and at the site walk he stated that he did not want to request this. He states that the DOT will review this area and address it when accidents happen. He adds that the entrance of this property was decided 25 years ago. He explained that there was at one time a request for the entrance to be placed directly across the street from their driveway and that was not approved, which is why the driveway is now further down. Mr. Boddy states that there is a large mound or hill in front of the abutter’s driveway and perhaps that can be removed to make the line of sight better, but then there would be more noise. Mr. Boddy adds that there is at least 300’ for sight distance on either side. He adds that when the floral business went in he contacted Alan Garland of NHDOT, and asked if it were necessary for anything to be done due to the new businesses and Mr. Garland replied no as long as the driveway was maintained as it existed. Mr. Boddy states that he did try to obtain an additional driveway from the state, to no avail. With no further comments, Mr. Strobel closed the public portion and continued the public hearing to November 18. Mr. Strobel states that staff will review the plans and provide comments to Mr. Franssen. OTHER Third Tier Process Working with Code Enforcement/Conditions Further discussion is held regarding creating a checklist for deliberations or with conditions of approval and perhaps set a default time frame. Specific discussion is held regarding the Docko site relative to needing a turn lane in order to have retail sales. Mr. Hickey states that he did require the owner to remove the open flag sign and he feels that there are still retail sales being done on site; however, he does not have any control without proof of such sales. Ms. Planchet reviews the cases and the notices of decision. Ms. Planchet states that storage is approved and only the property owner is allowed on the site. Mr. Wolf states that there are deliveries being made as the selectmen are purchasing material from this vendor. Mr. LeClerc states that a prior planning board member noted that they had purchased material from the vendor. Ms. Smith states that this issue had been addressed. Ms. Planchet states that the vendor was selling; however, delivery was acceptable so there could be a sign of sales but they are off site sales. Mr. Dill states that if there are enforcement issues he would like to see issues being addressed and enforced, in a productive manner. Mr. Hickey states that this is a hard issue to enforce without specific dates. Ms. Smith states that RSA 674:39, which is the 4 year exemption on plats and plans, says that the board may specify a threshold with a specific level of work. She explains that previously there was a blanket time frame of 4 years and that now the statute allows planning boards to determine what constitutes substantial completion, and she reads the statute relative to how this applies to decisions made in previous years. Board Administrator’s Items Mr. Strobel states that there are two regular members at the end of their terms as well as two other seats to consider at election time. Potential Ordinance Changes Discussion ensues and the board agrees to direct staff to draft possible regulation changes addressing accessory apartment units for the next meeting. Mr. LeClerc makes a motion to adjourn at 10:25. Seconded by Mr. Dill. The board agrees to hold a work session on November 18 at 6:30 p.m. followed by the regular monthly meeting at 7:00 p.m. Master Plan Update Discussion/Determination Planner’s Job Description Respectfully submitted, |