| Planning Board Minutes 05/12/11 |
| Written by Lisa Fellows-Weaver | |
| Thursday, 09 June 2011 | |
|
Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2011 Official as of May 26, 2011 Chairman Robert Strobel calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Tim Jandebeur, Selectmen’s Representative Scott Bryer, Rick Wolf, Babette Morrill, Joe McCaffrey, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver. VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Tim Jandebeur, Scott Bryer, Rick Wolf, Babette Morrill, Joe McCaffrey, and Alternate Victoria Parmele. ABSENT: Herb Johnson and Alternate Pat Bell. MINUTES: 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 8,000 sq. ft. retail store to include Family Dollar. (Property currently owned by Beth Grimes, and Gregory Lalish.) Application accepted as complete on 2/25/10; 65 day 5/1/10. Continuances successively granted; to 5/12/11. Chris Berry is present representing the applicant. Also in attendance is Sandy McPhee, representing the sellers. Ms. Planchet states that the board continued this case from the April 14 meeting to tonight with the expectations that revised plans would be provided within the following week. She states that the board had authorized the applicant to send the revised plans directly to the engineer. She states that on April 26, one copy of revised plans was submitted with supporting documentation to the town hall and she believes that at that time the materials were also sent to Underwood Engineering for review. She explains that there were not sufficient funds in the escrow account for the estimate provided by Underwood. She states that she provided the $1,200 estimate to Mr. Berry on May 2 and the check was received this past Tuesday and Underwood could not begin their review until the funds were provided. She states that is why there are no results yet on the review. She explains that additional copies of the plans and other materials were provided the previous day. She explains that this is really the first time that the board has had an opportunity to review the revised plans because at previous meetings, the applicant had explained that the plans were going to be revised. Mr. Strobel asks if Underwood is still operating under their two week time frame. Mr. Berry replies that it did take an additional week until he was comfortable with the plans. He explains that he called Ben Dreyer at Underwood and discussed the water quality issue proposed on site and discussed a time frame. He states he requested that the review be expedited if possible and he will check on Wednesday to see if there has been any progress. Ms. Planchet states that the standard practice is that the decisions are brought to the planning board not through the engineering firm and that the actual decision making needs to come to the planning board, not between the applicant and the engineering firm. Mr. Berry provides an overview of the changes. He states that the plans were revised per discussions last month. He states that structurally on the site nothing has changed. He states that the sidewalk was moved about 1½’ to the east and that the outgoing radius has been increased for trucks transversing the center line so that the back end will not access onto the sidewalk. Turning diagrams are provided for review. Mr. Berry states that the delivery vehicle has not changed and is typically a concern for small sites such as this site and that he has provided templates and radius to Underwood as well. Mr. Berry states that Underwood’s comments had a lot to do with notations and constructability, adding notes to the details, and correspondence to the details to allow for proper construction. He notes that Underwood does do a lot of NHDOT design and construction maintenance and drawings. He states that a lot of the comments are relative to those designs. He states that private site design is not the same. Stormwater Mr. Berry explains that the first row of the chamber system is called the isolator row. He states that small rain events capture these chemicals and this is called the first flush theory, anything between ¼” and 1” of rain. He states that all of the first flush has been designed to be directed to this one row. Mr. Berry explains that on every object there is a maintenance period or as it gets closer to the end of the maintenance life it stops working as efficiently as it is supposed to. He adds that with the isolator row, UNH has found that as you are closer to removing the material, it works more efficiently because water is moving through and filters more efficiently. He states that the lifetime of the matting on the row is 4-5 years and it is recommended that cleaning be done at least once per year as noted in the maintenance plan. Ms. Parmele asks what the changes are in the design. Mr. Berry replies that on the outlet to the pond there was a storm tech chamber intended to clean to the town’s regulations; however, the manufacturer does not perform as well as to what the regulations require and they decided to replace that with the isolator row. He states that this is superior and is a better product. A discussion is held regarding structures and if the infiltration pond is a structure. Mr. Berry states that the man made pond is not a structure. Ms. Planchet reads the definition of a structure from the ordinance and states she believes that is an item that should be addressed and confirmed one way or the other. Mr. Berry states that in his experience it is not a structure. Further discussion is held and Mr. Berry sketches the area out and adds that this area will be lined with crushed stone. Mr. Strobel states that this item will be furthered researched and addressed at the next meeting. Ms. Planchet refers to plan notes and states that the NHDOT approval is required. Mr. Berry states that he will be filing with NHDOT within the next few days. Ms. Planchet notes the easement and off site improvements. She suggests that the easement could be a condition of approval and satisfactory review from the engineer and review by town counsel as well. Ms. Planchet states that all waiver requests need to be provided in writing with their rationale. Mr. Berry states that this will be provided prior to the review from Underwood. Ms. Planchet asks about the stormwater operations and maintenance manual. Mr. Berry replies that this will be provided to the board. Ms. Planchet states that the agricultural soils overlay district sheet shows test pit numbers and corresponding soils. She asks if this is everything within these particular soils. Mr. Berry replies yes. Ms. Planchet states that the agricultural soils restriction does not apply to this application but that it just matters where it is. Ms. Planchet states that it is referenced on page 8 that there is no proposed fire suppression system associated with the project. Ms. Planchet states that the fire department comments are still outstanding. Ms. Planchet states that note 7 specifies the impervious ratio to be 48.5% and asks if this figure has been recalculated to be the current ratio. Mr. Berry states that it is close to 50%. Mr. Berry states that it is the current figure. Ms. Planchet states that there have been some discussions about delivery times and the note does not specify a time. She asks if it is the intent of the applicant to keep it open ended. Mr. Berry replies yes. Ms. Planchet asks whether the edge of pavement is the line near the dumpsters. Mr. Berry replies yes. Ms. Planchet asks why there are three dumpsters proposed. Mr. Berry explains that typically the tenant requires 3 dumpsters with one for cardboard. Mr. Jandebeur asks if there is a compactor. Mr. Berry states that the tenant does not generate enough waste to warrant a compactor. Ms. Planchet asks whether the hours of operation are proposed as written on the current plan, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days per week. Mr. Berry replies that these are the proposed hours and typically the employees arrive earlier. Ms. Planchet notes that the property line is not on the plan. Mr. Berry states that this will not fit on the sheet but that the setback is shown on the existing conditions plan. Mr. McCaffrey states that there are many items that have been clarified and justified. Ms. Planchet replies that the engineers will review and provide a report. Mr. McCaffrey states that based on the prior reports from the engineers it appears that items are greatly satisfied. Mr. McCaffrey states that he is interested in the turning radius and the larger truck proposed for deliveries. He states that the radius was increased on the east side. Mr. Berry states that the plan shows the entire progression of the truck. Mr. Strobel asks about the snow storage and adds that there is a light pole in the middle of the area. Mr. Berry states that there will be very little snow storage on site. Mr. Strobel also asks about the vegetation for the rain garden. Mr. Berry states that the front area is only grass and will be undisturbed. Ms. Planchet asks for signage information to be provided in a larger font. Discussion is held regarding the proposed landscaping. Mr. Berry states that the trees in the front area are to be decorative and tend to stay 6’-12’ small and that the red maples will be larger. He states that these are intended to break up the view; however, they will not block views. Ms. Parmele notes that the plan shows perennials on site. Ms. Morrill asks about the variance granted from the zoning board for the pavement. She asks if it is necessary for a variance for the riprap apron since it is on the abutter’s property. Mr. Berry replies that he believes that the variance was granted for paving, grading, and drainage structures. Draft Revision of Subdivision Application Form Ms. Planchet refers the board to two options of wording for authorization for allowing the board members to access the property. Discussion is held and Mr. Bryer suggests that the paragraphs be reviewed by town counsel. Ms. Planchet suggests that this document be a working draft and the item be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Jandebeur suggests that the board consider the entire first line of the top paragraph and then add the entire second paragraph. Mr. McCaffrey asks about the pin inspections and the fee. Discussion ensues. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Ms. Planchet provides information from the Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) handbook regarding the CIP. She explains that according to the statute, the planning board is in charge of the CIP and then it is a recommendation to the budget committee and selectmen. She notes that state law allows for the option of a capital improvements planning committee; however, the Town of Northwood has authorized the planning board to do the CIP. Mr. Bryer states that he thought that the CIP was a planning board item. Ms. Planchet replies it is and the town has delegated this responsibility to the planning board who is now delegating to the subcommittee; however, the planning board role in each instance is to provide recommendations to the board of selectmen and budget committee as part of the budget process. Mr. Jandebeur states that the town administrator provided the budget committee with a synopsis of SB2. He explains that one issue that was addressed was “No Means No”. Mr. Jandebeur states that the suggestion of the town administrator is that many items are big items and it is very hard to come back and address them. He states that Mr. Lemire explained that you cannot later move into the budget and pay for an item if it fails therefore he suggested that the items be put into the CIP and in the budget as capital reserves. Mr. Jandebeur states that if used correctly, SB2 creates better or could create better planning and it works well if done right. Ms. Planchet asks for the board’s intention in appointing interested individuals to the subcommittee. It is determined that the planning board will authorize members to the CIP subcommittee. Transportation Committee Mr. Strobel states that SRPC was to contact NH DOT District 6. Mr. Strobel states that he would like to do more plan development and there are two other town entities that deal with roads. Ms. Parmele will follow up with SRPC. She adds that she will be attending transportation sessions at the OEP conference.
Mr. Jandebeur recuses himself for this item. Ms. Planchet states that as requested, she prepared a status report on this property which is provided in the member’s packets. She refers to her memo dated May 11 along with a document noting conditional approvals that have been granted since 2005. She states that it is her understanding that there is no role for the planning board to take at this time regarding conditions of an approved site plan. She states that if the board wants to open the case and discuss issues and compliance then a compliance hearing is required which requires notification of the applicant and abutters. Ms. Planchet recommends that if the board has concerns about the conditions being met, that the board send a letter to the code enforcement officer (CEO) requesting he enforce the regulations and if the board deems necessary, they request that the selectmen back up the CEO decisions. Mr. Bryer states that if the code enforcement officer feels that there is something that needs to be addressed, it should be presented in writing to the selectmen and the town administrator. Ms. Planchet states that the board should determine whether they want to ask code enforcement to enforce the regulations and if necessary ask the selectmen for support. Discussion ensues as to the process of how to address this and the role of the planning board. Ms. Planchet states that it may be better for the board to request as a board that the CEO enforce the regulations for this property due to the fact that questions have been asked. Mr. Strobel requests to further review the case. Mr. Bryer expresses concern that there may be hearsay in the minutes and suggested that if a memo were provided it be attached to the minutes. Mr. McCaffrey makes a motion to request the CEO to update on the status of conditions of approval; in compliance or not. Ms. Parmele seconds. Discussion ensues. Ms. Planchet asks what then the board would do with that information. Mr. McCaffrey asks why this item is on the docket for the meeting tonight. Ms. Planchet explains that all cases once approved are included in the meeting agendas under “Signature/Pending” until final approval and the plans are signed. She states that plans for conditional approvals are not signed until all conditions are met. She adds that she was not at the last meeting, but was requested to provide a status report on the property. Ms. Planchet states that once approved, it is the role of code enforcement to make sure that the items required by the planning board are done and enforced. The motion and second and are withdrawn. Mr. Bryer makes a motion that the planning board contact the code enforcement officer and request he determine if the applicant is compliant with the planning board’s requirements and if not what is needed to be done to make the approvals compliant. Ms. Morrill seconds. Motion passes; 6/0. The board directs the planner to draft a letter to be sent from the planning board chair to the CEO and copied to the town administrator. Mr. Jandebeur returns to the board as a voting member. Ms. Planchet states that the revocation notices have been sent out for the Misty Leah Cottages condominium subdivision and the public hearing is scheduled for May 26. Ms. Planchet states that she is proceeding with the data collection for the ETAP energy audit process and will provide to Strafford Regional. Ms. Parmele states that she is concerned with transportation, specifically safety. She feels that a corridor study is a good idea. Mr. Strobel agrees and states that this issue will be continued. Mr. Jandebeur mentions that he learned at the economic development committee that Mr. Bojko will not be pursuing the three options he had proposed in a preliminary conceptual consultation. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted |