| Planning Board Minutes 03/24/11 |
| Written by Lisa Fellows-Weaver | |
| Wednesday, 20 April 2011 | |
|
Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2011 Official as of April 14, 2011 Chairman Robert Strobel calls the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Selectmen’s Representative Scott Bryer, Rick Wolf, Tim Jandebeur, Joe McCaffrey, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver. VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Herb Johnson, Scott Bryer, Rick Wolf, Tim Jandebeur, and Joe McCaffrey. ABSENT: Babette Morrill, Alternates Victoria Parmele and Pat Bell. There are approximately 10 people present in the audience. MINUTES: March 10, 2011 Preliminary Conceptual Consultation: Mr. Strobel explains that a preliminary consultation is a non-binding discussion that an applicant can have with the board regarding a proposed project. He reads the regulations for a consultation. Rich Bojko is present and explains that the idea proposed is for an outdoor seasonal antiques market. He states that he has had multiple meetings with the town’s economic development committee, (EDC). He states that he hopes that this proposal will bring back retail and dealer traffic back to antique alley. He notes that he is the owner of a few antique shops on Rte 4. Mr. Bojko states that the EDC has come up with three different proposals that they are working on and that one idea is an outdoor market, which is the most ambitious idea of all three. He states that another idea is a monthly market at a venue along Rte. 4, which they are still working on. He adds that the last idea to propose is an annual antique show, a higher end show, and they are currently working with CBNA and hope to have this show at the end of July. Mr. Bojko states that the annual antique show and monthly market proposal will not be an impact. Mr. Bojko provides a packet of information relative to the outdoor market including a letter of authorization to speak on behalf of the owners. He also provides a written detail of the proposal noting all points of interest and operations. He states that he has created a site plan. He adds that there are notes he wrote of a meeting he has had with NHDOT regarding the driveway permit and safety issues. Mr. Bojko states that the property, located east of Rte. 202 lights, was formerly a golf driving range. He provides a description of the layout of the property noting that there is approximately 20 acres behind the existing home. He states there are two existing driveways that they plan to use- one as an entrance and the other as the exit. He states he hopes to have around 100 dealers in the back field with a parking area to allow room for up to 100+ car. He refers to the sketch and notes that there is only 1/3 of the field being used. He states that this will allow for any seasonal issues. He states that most of the area is still under snow at this time. He adds that the point of this consultation is to see how the board feels and if there are any other large obstacles that they may need to address. He notes that there is a serious time frame as antique markets usually begin around the end of April or beginning of May and he needs to start to attract dealers now. He adds that he has taken a survey over the past few weeks and there is an overwhelming support from dealers for the market. Mr. Bojko states that he would also like to include farmer’s market items as well. He explains that spaces will be around 20’x30’; dealers will arrive around 7 a.m. and the market will open at 8 a.m. and close around 1 p.m. He states that this is a long term process that will be from Memorial Day through Columbus Day, Sundays only but perhaps the full weekend on holiday weekends and the weekend of antiques week. Ms. Planchet states that generally there is nothing in the ordinances that would prevent something like this proposal from happening. She notes that there may be safety and parking issues that will need to be addressed. Mr. Bojko states that he has three properties in Northwood and safety is an issue. He states he would like to have as smooth of a flow of traffic as possible. He has spoken to Jim Driver and one concern is the exit. He states that the proposal is to have an exit lane that is west side only, with no left turn. He stated that Mr. Driver was comfortable with the site and proposal and that a recommendation was provided from Mr. Driver. Additional discussion is held regarding a police detail if necessary, particularly on the first day. Mr. Bojko states that he would like to have the community involved as well. He explains that he would like to have local food concessions such as local lions clubs, the boys club, and hold local fundraising events. Mr. Johnson states that he feels that a police detail may need to be present all the time. Mr. Bryer states that it would probably be necessary the first time they are open. Mr. Bojko notes how much a detail costs and other items necessary. Mr. Bryer asks if the farmer’s market has an officer as well as Hannaford. He states that the detail is a large amount of money. Mr. Strobel suggests that Mr. Bojko contact participants of similar events to get an idea of a traffic count. Further discussion is held regarding the proposed times of day for the market and peak times. Mr. Bojko notes that the 7 a.m. time frame on a Sunday morning is not a typical peak traffic time for Rte. 4. Ms. Planchet states that District 6 will look at these items and should provide their comments on letterhead. Mr. McCarthy adds that the traffic also drops off around Noon. Mr. Wolf states that race weekend may be an issue. Additional discussion is held regarding the types of items that will be sold. Mr. Bojko states that the idea is for antiques. He notes that the dealer contract will not allow new items; only antiques and collectibles. He adds that the farmer’s market will also add to the clientele. OLD CASE: Mr. Johnson recuses himself from this case and leaves the table. VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Rick Wolf, Scott Bryer, Tim Jandebeur, and Joe McCaffrey. Chris Berry of Berry Engineering is present. He states that 4 to 5 years ago his office did work for Mr. McCaffrey. Mr. Strobel states that if Mr. McCaffrey cannot be impartial for any reason then he would need to recuse himself. Mr. McCaffrey explains that Berry Surveying did some survey work for him that has long been completed. He adds that the business transaction does not have anything to do with this current application and he does not have any prejudices against or for Berry Surveying. Ms. Planchet explains that this case has been continued for over a year and that any member who votes on this case is required to be familiar with all the information in the file. She states that she has compiled the minutes for all meetings relative to this case into one document which consists of 18 pages and that she e-mailed it to planning board members. Ms. Planchet states that since the February 24 meeting, abutters have been notified for the abutting property as there has been an amendment to the application. Mr. Strobel reads the public notice for the revised case, 09-14A. He reads the abutters list and opens the public hearing. No abutters are present and there is no public comment. Amended plans are provided. Mr. Berry provides a complete overview of the project. He explains that the proposal is to construct an 8,000 sq. ft. Family Dollar store off the intersection of Rtes. 4, 43, 9 and 202. In 2005 an existing conditions plan was done of lots 5-2 and 5-3 for a prior developer. Since that time, all information has been updated and NECU has constructed their site. Mr. Berry states that the wetlands have been delineated at the rear of the property. He states that there is an easement over the property and that both parties have reached an agreement and he is representing both. Proper notification has been received for this item. Mr. Berry adds that a high intensity soil survey has been performed on the site. Mr. Berry explains that the parking area will be at the front of the building with some ancillary parking on the side. He states that a loading dock is also proposed at the site and that any dumpsters will be in the rear of the building, facing the structure. He states that the dumpsters will be on a pad, screened with a fence and vegetation. Mr. Berry states that the entrance to the site will need to be large as the chain has modified their delivery vehicles to a WB67, which has 17 additional feet of vehicle and swing. He explains the loading area on site and unloading patterns. He states that deliveries are to take place prior to opening. Mr. Berry states that the leach field will also be proposed to the front of the site with onsite snow storage. He adds that most of the snow will be removed from the site especially after large snow events because there is little space for storage. He states that he is confident that this will not be a problem. Mr. Berry states that Northwood has historically been concerned with pedestrian access to sites. He states that originally there were no sidewalks proposed and this has been changed and sidewalks have been added per the board’s request. Mr. Berry notes and explains ADA access and indicates that bollards are added behind the curb lines. He states that employee parking is located on the side of the building. Mr. Berry states that the abutting property requests that since there was an easement along the entire boundary line, they have requested access in two locations. He explains that they are proposing their access points and constructing the site so that there is harmonious development. He adds that Family Dollar does not want KimChris Properties to be burdened with costs to redevelop for future needs. He notes that they have tried to develop the driveway to foresee their potential uses. Mr. Berry states that a painted pedestrian walkway will be across the front of the project and that they have worked with Tepp traffic engineering. Mr. Berry states that this is a challenging site for drainage and grading. He states that they are utilizing a large percentage of the land area and with the town’s stormwater management requirements, there is a large amount of drainage, design, and engineering, and water quality engineering in place. He states that the proposed building is designed to be a residential style structure with asphalt shingles. He explains that when water drains from the roof, the state considers the water to be clean. He states that this allows them to re-infiltrate the water into the ground through an infiltration basin. He states that excess water is discharged through an emergency spillway and then into the wetland in the rear of the property, through a small swale area and into drainage basins through the site. Mr. Berry states that this is the natural discharge point for any stormwater that may leave the wetland in the back. He notes that the discharge points remain the same pre- and post- development, which is very important. Mr. Berry states that as far as grading there are areas that will require some fill. He states that 1 ft. contours are shown on the plan for the site. Mr. Berry continues with on site drainage. He explains that the majority of the site’s “dirty water” is captured; parking lot, the stormwater, front and side delivery areas, etc., and sent to an underground detention facility. He states that the facility has an isolated row and at the first flush of water or 1 inch of rain at the isolated row, it picks up the sediment and lays it out over a silt fence mat inside the tube area. He explains that water perks through the rest of the stonebed and stores in the detention facility and that to further clean the water, there are deep sumps in the catch basins with hoods as well as a hood and sump system at the entrance of the storage system. He continues to explain that as water leaves the system it drains into a septic tank with baffles and hoods that will also capture additional floatables, sediments, silts, total suspended solids (TSS), and hydrostatic carbons prior to entering the NHDOT stormwater system. Mr. Berry states that there is a part of the project site that they are unable to capture and detain as efficiently as the rest of the site, from a basin to the road way. He states that at a future date they will be requesting a waiver to increase the peak rate of stormwater to the closed system and the NHDOT right-of-way and a wavier request for the removal of TSS, which is required to be 75% removable rate. They will be able to allow for 15% of a removable rate and the area that they are looking for, for the waiver requests is not a high use area. In addition, he adds that no individual is harmed in this manner as it is a closed system. Mr. Berry stated that they are required to add a deceleration lane for the site. Mr. Berry states that the leach field will be a pump system in the front area. To avoid a hump area, they have built up the grade of the site; however, there will still be small projection due to the nature of the soil on the site and the project area. Mr. Berry states that they have proposed sediment and erosion control measure for on site construction. He adds that they will be preparing a stormwater pollution prevention management plan as required by the EPA. He added that they will also manage this for the applicant. Mr. Berry notes that the front yard is an area that will not be disturbed. He states that they have proposed a landscaped berm to try to trap the first flush of water to infiltrate into the ground. The proposed driveway profile is reviewed. Mr. Berry states that he believes that the max grade on the site is 4% as compared to a 7-8% grade on a driveway entrance. Mr. Berry reviews the landscaping plan. He states that the site will substantially not be seen from the road and to break up the structure, they are proposing landscaped trees along the front. He states that the sign is located on the front left if looking to the street. Mr. Strobel expresses concern with the lighting. Mr. Berry states that the lighting will be with the lowest possible lumens and to keep the profile of the lights as low as possible. He adds that they are all night sky friendly, down lit, and shielded so that there is no wasted light. Mr. McCaffrey asks for additional explanations of the proposed lighting and the overspread into the road. Mr. Berry explains that the lighting fixtures are sodium boxes on post and designed to throw light at the pavement, not out. He adds that it is a noticeable light but not directed at someone. Mr. Berry notes that the store closes at 8:30 p.m. Ms. Planchet states that the plan indicates Mr. Berry states that they need to apply for a sewage disposal permit and they also need to follow up with NHDOT on stormwater drainage and driveway permitting. Ms. Planchet states that the engineering review with be received Monday at the earliest. Mr. Berry provides a request to continue to April 14. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to grant the request to continue to April 14, 2011. Motion passes unanimously; 7/0. Mr. Johnson returns to the table as a voting member. Case 11-01: Michele Young, 221 Rochester Rd, Map 232/Lot 17. Applicant seeks site plan review for change of use to add seating for a grill and pub restaurant and to remove the store and gasoline pumps. (Property currently owned by Robert Garland.) Ms. Young is present along with Mr. Garland who is in the audience. Ms. Planchet notes that new information was received. She adds that the application was accepted in February. Ms. Planchet reviews the outstanding items list. A discussion is held regarding the gas tanks. Ms. Young states that she plans to have the company CAB do the work and then NHDES would do the inspection. Ms. Planchet suggests that the NHDES letter could be a condition of approval. Mr. Strobel indicates that a letter was received noting that the septic design has the capacity for 21 seats with paper plates. He adds that the letter states that the septic design is acceptable to drive over. Mr. Wolf states that the septic design is a chambered system. Mr. Strobel states that a new plan has been provided. He adds that the location of the road has been noted along with snow storage indicated, and all abutters have been listed on the plan. He confirms that all fees have been paid. A discussion is held regarding the 4 parking spaces in the front. Ms. Young states that she has ample parking and does not need these spaces but had them already delineated on the plan. She submits a new plan without the 4 spaces in the front. Ms. Young states that hours of operation are noted on the plan and the hours did not change from the original proposal. Mr. Strobel states that the sign is not noted on the plan. Ms. Young states that the original plan had the sign on it and misunderstood that everything was to be carried over to the new plan. She states she will revise a plan to have everything on one plan and will not have the 4 front parking spaces. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to accept the drawing submitted with the 4 parking spots along Rte. 202 removed. No vote was taken. Mr. McCaffrey asks about the outstanding issues noted in the February minutes. He asks about the increase in seats from 8 to 21 and asks if there is a plan to increase the septic design. Mr. Strobel replies that there is no proposal to increase the septic as a part of this application. Mr. Jandebeur asks if the parking spots being removed on the plan are the ones that face the flower pots. Mr. Strobel replies yes and explains that the planning board should not approve a plan that shows items in the right of way. He states that if they are not on the plan submitted then there is no issue for the planning board to have to approve anything in the setback or right of way. Mr. Strobel states that the requirement can be met without having these 4 spaces noted on the plan. Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Bryer, to approve the minimal impact application with the following conditions: Ms. Planchet asks if a condition should be added relative to the gas lines. Mr. Bryer notes that NHDES will send someone to test the tanks and they should provide a formal closing letter of the gas lines. Mr. Bryer asks about the hours of operation listed on the plan. Mr. Wolf states that the state’s liquor laws determine closing hours. The February minutes are reviewed and read noting that Ms. Young would prefer to have the largest window of hours available to her so to not have to come back again to request additional hours. Mr. Strobel states that the hours listed on the plan are Sunday through Thursday 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.; Friday and Saturday 10:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. with two employees. Mr. Strobel suggests that a time frame be added for the conditions and suggests that all conditions must be met within 6 months and all construction must be completed within one year by 3/24/12. Mr. Bryer seconds the amendments. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. NEW CASES: Ms. Planchet states that there were minimal impact discussions held regarding this application at the work session. She explains that the consensus of the board at that time was that perhaps this did not meet the minimal impact application requirements because it seems that the parking could not be satisfied by the existing situation. She states that this is a residential driveway and the proposed use requires some reconfigurations and additional spaces. She adds that it seemed to be the consensus of the board that the case would not qualify as a minimal impact application, but that waiver requests could be submitted. Mr. McCaffrey asks if there is significant construction between the minimum impact. Ms. Planchet explains that construction would distinguish between a major and minor site plan. She states that changes have recently been made to the regulations and the board has created a minimal impact option relative to changes of use. Ms. Planchet reads the criteria. Ms. Planchet states that parking was not met and there is no approved site plan on file for this lot. She adds that the applicant filed this application before the board made a final decision on the minimal impact application. She states that the board has directed staff to discuss waiver requests with applicants. She states that this proposed use is to sell his produce; she recommends that the board recognize the limits of the proposal within the existing regulations and she suggests it be considered a minor site plan and to entertain the waiver requests. Mr. Bryer motions to grant the waiver requests. No second is provided. Ms. Planchet states that the board needs to determine which type of application this is. She states that if the board determines it falls under a minor site plan, it would be her recommendation that the application is incomplete unless waiver requests cover the information not provided. Mr. Cavarretta states that the minor application was his only option as the minimal impact was not available. Mr. Bryer states that this is a good example except for the parking issues. Mr. Johnson agrees and adds that there is the issue that parking can not be questionable with the minimal impact. Ms. Planchet states that the applicant has provided a general written waiver request to cover the items he noted on the checklist as “not applicable.” Ms. Planchet explains that it is for the board to decide whether requirements are applicable or not and that, if deemed not applicable, the applicant does not need to request a waiver. She refers the board to the checklist provided and suggests she read the items and the board provide a consensus as to whether they agree that the item is applicable or not, and if applicable, whether a waiver would be required. The board agrees. Ms. Planchet reads from the checklist (on file) and the board agrees with the applicant’s notation of “not applicable” for each of the notations except for the following: Items are applicable, and should be shown if proposed: VII-B(5)(n) – Location and type of existing and proposed traffic control devices Items which would require a waiver request if not provided: VII-B(1)(a) – Existing Conditions Plan be prepared by Licensed Land Surveyor IX-D(1)(a) – All developments to make adequate provisions for storm water disposal facilities. Mr. Johnson makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to accept the application as a minor site plan with items identified in this discussion, deemed to be non- applicable and that the waiver requests being made in conjunction with the information filed makes this application a complete minor site plan application. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. The public hearing is opened and the abutters list is read. No abutters are present. Ms. Planchet reads a letter into the record from abutters Bob Jean and Allison Kent in support of the business. Mr. Cavarretta explains that the proposal is for a seasonal farm stand. He states that they propose to sell garden plants, produce, Christmas trees and wreaths. Mr. Cavarretta states that there will be no construction to the site; there will be moveable display benches. Mr. Cavarretta states that there has been mention relative to the parking. He states that he has the space available for the current working plan. He states that he is proposing to remove some of the softer loam area and add hard pack with gravel for additional parking. Mr. Strobel makes a motion, second by Mr. Bryer, to grant a wavier for VII(B)(1)(a) plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor, and VII(B)(1)(b), site plan to be done by a professional engineer. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. Ms. Planchet distributes a revised plan, drawn to scale, which the applicant prepared in response to the board’s request as a result of the work session. A discussion is held regarding the parking. Mr. Strobel states that there are four parking spaces delineated in front of the garage and five at right angles to Rte. 4, off of the driveway. Ms. Planchet reads the comment received from the police chief noting parking concerns. Mr. Jandebeur asks what the concerns are with the parking. Mr. Strobel explains that the area on Rte 4 is a 45 MPH zone which requires accelerating into the driveway rather quickly. Mr. Caveretta states that at the peak of his sales during the holiday season in 2010 he only had 3 cars at the most, at one time. He states that the time frame was around 20 minutes per car. Mr. Strobel states that he also is concerned regarding backing out onto Rte. 4. Mr. Johnson asks about the private parking area. Mr. Cavarretta states that there were spaces for three cars. He adds that after discussions, he changed to propose the spaces at the Rte. 4 side. Ms. Planchet states that if this were a minimal impact application there would be no need for this amount of parking and the need for the discussions. Mr. Cavaretta states that there is ample room and he could expand, if necessary. Ms. Planchet states that the regulation for the amount of parking depends on the use proposed; retail use requires 1 space for 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Mr. Jandebeur expresses concern with safety and the fact that the garage appears to be unsafe and he would prefer to not have any public parking near the structure. Mr. Jandebeur states that if there is no parking near the garage then he is not concerned at this time. Mr. Strobel states that it appears to not be a concern at this time, based on what the applicant has provided. Mr. Cavarretta states that he has 0 sq. ft. of indoor floor space and has provided 5 spaces. Ms. Planchet states parking standards provide that a similar use could be determined by the board if necessary. Mr. Cavarretta states he will come back to the board should there be a need to add additional parking. Brief discussion is held regarding enough room to back up without having to be on Rte 4. Mr. McCaffrey states that it appears that there is enough room in the driveway to back up. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. McCaffrey, for those five proposed spaces for parking is adequate. Discussion ensues relative to parking and Mr. Jandebeur offers an alternative plan for parking on the side heading east, rather than at the Rte. 4 side. He asks if there were to be a change in the parking design would the applicant need to reapply to the board. Mr. Cavarretta would like to see the parking in motion. Mr. Strobel explains that if the design changes than the approved plan is an issue for code enforcement. Ms. Planchet states that it would be beneficial to have the parking designated with traffic control devices. Mr. Cavarretta states that he may decide that there is a need for more spaces and may need to turn them and would come in again. No vote is taken. Mr. Strobel states that waiver requests should be addressed prior to voting on the application. Ms. Planchet reads the waiver requests that must be acted upon as follows: IX-D(1)(a) – All developments to make adequate provisions for storm water disposal facilities. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to grant the wavier requests as defined by the town planner. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to approve the site plan application, with the following conditions: Case 11-03: Lisa Hill, 674 First NH Tpke., Map 222; Lot 14. Applicant seeks a site plan review application for retail gift shop in an existing building. Mr. and Mrs. Hill are present. Ms. Planchet states that she believes that this application is truly a minimal impact application. She adds that there is a site plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor on file for an autobody shop that had been withdrawn. All 14 points are addressed and have been met. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to accept the application as complete as a minimal impact application. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. Mr. Strobel reads the abutters list and opens the public portion. There is no public present. The plan is explained by Ms. Hill. A brief discussion is held regarding ample parking. Mr. Bryer asks about the fire department’s notations regarding bringing the garage up to code and detailed architectural drawing. Ms. Planchet states that she spoke to David Wakeman about his comments who explained that he needed to know that the codes have been met. Mr. Strobel explains that should there be a fire they need to have the information showing any egress, the access, etc. Ms. Planchet adds that this is a different use from a garage to a retail store and there may be different requirements. Mr. Hill states that the garage is detached and dry walled. He adds that they will be updating the structure, wires, safety lighting, and replace the garage doors with bay windows. Ms. Planchet adds that the local permitting condition would cover these issues. Ms. Planchet read a letter received from an abutter, Frank Albert, supporting the proposal. A revised list of waivers is provided and reviewed. Ms. Hill has indicated that she does not need a waiver for IX (C) and IX(H). Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to approve the request of waivers. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. Ms. Planchet states that a separate waiver for a portion of the fee has been requested. Ms. Planchet explains that the planning board has recommended that the selectmen establish a $50 fee for the minimal impact application. Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Johnson, to waive Mr. Bryer motions to approve the application with the following conditions: OTHER: Vice-Chairman Mr. McCaffrey makes a motion, second by Mr. Wolf, to nominate Tim Jandebeur as vice-chair. Ballot votes are held. There is a tie; Mr. Johnson receives 3 votes and Mr. Jandebeur receives 3 votes. Mr. Johnson withdraws his name as vice-chair. Mr. Jandebeur accepts the nomination. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. Economic Development Committee Representative Mr. Dave Tousignant is present and he asks the board to appoint its representative to the Economic Development Committee. Discussion ensues. Adjournment Respectfully submitted |