Planning Board

Minutes

July 28, 2011

Official as of August 11, 2011

Vice-Chairman Timothy Jandebeur calls the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Tim Jandebeur, Selectmen’s Representative Robert Holden, Joe McCaffrey, Rick Wolf, Alternate Victoria Parmele, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith.

ABSENT: Herb Johnson, Babette Morrill, Alternates Pat Bell and Adam Sprague.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Chairman Robert Strobel, Vice Chairman Tim Jandebeur, Selectmen’s Representative Robert Holden, Joe McCaffrey, Rick Wolf, and Alternate Victoria Parmele.

MINUTES
Mr. Holden makes a motion, second by Mr. McCaffrey, to approve the July 14, 2011 minutes.
Page 2: Delete: …unless there are 7 members present.
Page 2: Change: …provided… to …provides…
Motion passes; 3/0/3.  Mr. Holden, Mr. Wolf and Ms. Parmele abstain.

VOLUNTARY MERGER
VM 11-01: William Boddy; 1471-1481 First NH Turnpike, Map 108/Lots 1 & 2. 
Mr. Jandebeur asks if members did drive-bys.

Ms. Planchet states that all necessary information was distributed at the July 14 meeting. She explains that this is a request for the voluntary merger; the same owner owns the lots that abut each other.

Mr. McCaffrey makes a motion, second by Mr. Holden, to approve the voluntary merger. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0. Members sign the form.

OTHER
Showing of the Green Fire Film; re: Aldo Leopold 
A discussion is held as to whether the board would like to have a showing of the Green Fire Film, which was offered by Carl Wallman. Mr. Jandebeur states that it would be great to host the showing and invite who ever would want to come.

Ms. Smith states that the conservation commission had sponsored a showing of this film in the winter. She suggests that the planning board, zoning board, and conservation commission sponsor a showing as a land use department event.  She suggests that the film be shown at the community center.

Mr. McCaffrey states that making the film available is fine; however, the use of town facilities is something to be considered as there would be a cost to staff. He adds that this has already been shown in town a few times as well as in Concord. He states that the film does have a special interest to it. Ms. Planchet replies that she does not think that it is only a private interest and could be used as an educational tool that provides information about land use. Mr. McCaffrey states that the film is more about Mr. Leopold who is a conservationist; however, the film does go a bit further and may be of some value.  Mr. Strobel asks if the planning board wants to endorse the showing of this film and asks if the conservation commission would sponsor showing the film again. Ms. Parmele states that this is a land use ethic and does not see why the film cannot be shown as it addresses land use issues.

Further discussion continues on the potential educational factors of the film. Ms. Parmele asks what the reasoning was for Mr. Wallman’s offer to the board for the film.  Ms. Planchet replies that Mr. Wallman suggested the film be shown as an educational piece for the planning board and also mentioned the ecological and conservation aspect. Ms. Smith states that there appears to be a difference of opinion as to the approach for how to present the film and that
members do not seem to be opposed to watching the film. She suggests asking the conservation commission or the board of selectmen if they will hold a showing for those interested. Mr. Holden makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to send a request to the selectmen requesting the film be shown, as appropriate. Motion passes; 5/0/1. Ms. Parmele abstains.

2012 Budget
Ms. Smith provides a proposed 2012 budget for the board to review and explanations for each line of the budget. Mr. Holden makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to approve the planning board’s operating budget for 2012, in the amount of $34,824. Discussion ensues. Mr. McCaffrey asks what Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) provides for their dues of $4,800. Ms. Smith states that the amount of the dues is based on the population of the community and Northwood is designated to be a part of the SRPC by the legislature. Ms. Planchet states that SRPC is an additional resource for information. Ms. Parmele states that the more we ask for, the more SRPC provides to the town. She adds that Northwood does not request much from them. She suggests that Mr. McCaffrey contact SRPC for more information. Mr. Strobel states that SRPC also reviews the town’s regulations.

Discussion ensues.

Mr. Jandebeur asks if there is a contract for the planner position. Ms. Planchet explains that the planner position is hourly, and that she is an at will employee. She explains her schedule of 20 hours per week. Mr. Jandebeur asks if the selectmen are planning to level fund all of the employees this year. Mr. Holden replies that the selectmen will not be addressing the budget until August 13 and he is not sure as to what the selectmen’s position will be.
Mr. Holden explains that he believes that the effects of the state’s actions (particularly retirement) are yet to hit the town and he believes that the effects will be a significant impact to the town. He adds that there are issues regarding salaries as well as bigger issues with retirement and health care. He states that the board will need to address these three major items. Mr. Holden states that as the selectmen address these items, then the supplies and printing costs should not be increased. He states that his recommendation on August 13 will be to level fund the budget and then once the figures are put into the budget, then there will be discussions held regarding increases to raises, retirement, and health care. He notes that if increases are proposed, then the final number will be unmanageable. 

Ms. Smith explains that if the planning board receives applications, state law requires public notices regardless of whether there is appropriate funding in the line. Mr. Holden states that he understands and the selectmen will find the funding, if necessary.

Mr. Strobel states that the difference between the 2011 adopted and 2012 proposed budget is $318. Selectman Holden adds that raises, retirement, and health care costs are not included. Ms. Planchet states that heath care and retirement are not a part of the planning board budget as she does not receive these items.

Ms. Smith states that she would be remiss if she did not provide a responsible budget for what the needs of the board are. She states that she believes that submitting a copy of last year’s budget is an irresponsible approach in looking at numbers to not define the areas that could and should be reduced and the areas where there is a need for an increase. She states that to not do this is not proper budgeting.
 
Mr. McCaffrey mentions the SRPC again and asks if there may be different plan options for the board to participate in. Ms. Planchet replies that she believes the options are to pay the dues or not. Mr. McCaffrey states that there is an overall situation that is getting out of control for all communities. Ms. Parmele suggests that before there are discussions or decisions about cutting the SRPC, there needs to be more information as to what SRPC does for the board. Mr. Holden states that he is not sure as to what the SRPC is and also that he is not sure as to how much value they give the town. He states that based on what he is hearing, it is not a lot so the SRPC needs to be used more or there is a savings of $5,000. Mr. Jandebeur agrees.

Mr. Jandebeur states that should the board agree to go along with Mr. Holden’s motion, he asks where the cuts will be taken from. He suggests that the $318 be removed from the advertising line. Discussion ensues to address specific line item amounts. Mr. Holden states that his intent with the proposed motion is to level fund the 2012 budget, and he is okay with changes within the lines.
Ms. Parmele states that a benefit with the regional planning is the town is eligible for grant funds. She states that her goal for next year is to be an advocate and SRPC is aware of this now and the town needs to follow through. Mr. Holden agrees and adds that you must look at the return on the investment. Discussion ensues relative to transportation and improving safety in town.
Motion passes unanimously; 6/0

Mr. Jandebeur states that he would like to have some additional information regarding SRPC. Ms. Planchet states that she will contact the director and request information as to their services, what the town receives for their dues, examples of possible projects, and what has been done in Northwood. She adds that Scott Martin has been the town’s representative for years. Ms. Parmele offers to assist with the request. 

Capital Improvements Program Subcommittee
Mr. Jandebeur states that he will get together with other board members before the next meeting. Ms. Planchet notes that Hal Kreider has been sworn in and suggests how a meeting could be set up.

Draft Revision to Rules of Procedure for Alternates
Mr. Jandebeur states that changes have been made to the draft. Ms. Planchet states that the revisions have been based on the discussions that were held a few weeks ago.

Further discussion ensues as the board reviews the revisions and additional changes are made. Mr. Holden makes a motion, second by Mr. McCaffrey, to approve the draft revisions to the Rules of Procedures for Alternate Members, as discussed. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0/1. Mr. Holden abstains.

Ms. Planchet notes the requirement for adoption to read the proposed amendment at two meetings; this will be scheduled for the next two meetings. 

15 Day Requirement for New Information
Mr. Jandebeur states that he requested that this item be added to the agenda. He explains that a portion of the 15 day requirement is from RSA 676:4(b) and then there is the board policy. Mr. Wolf requests to see the RSA.  Mr. Jandebeur states it was provided in members’ packets. Mr. Jandebeur reads the RSA aloud and states that, while the RSA is for the initial application, the intent of the 15 day rule is to give staff, the board, the public, and the abutters the opportunity to review new information. He states that he believes that when new information is provided the board is obligated to review new materials. He states that on occasion the board has waived this and if the board continues there will be ramifications. He states recently the board waived this rule for two applications. He further explains the scenarios for these two applications and adds that on neither case did the board hold the applicants up. He states that there is precedence here and he feels that the board needs to stick to the rules. He notes that the job of the planner is to review applications in a professional manner and the town pays for this service. He states that the board is not allowing the planner the time to do her job properly. He states that he feels that the 15 day rule is important and believes that the board should make this a policy, which the board can choose to waive, if applicable.  

Mr. Wolf states that he disagrees. He states that one of the instances that Mr. Jandebeur referred to was when an applicant needed one little statement put on a piece of paper, which the representative was going to do the next day. He adds that this applicant wanted to begin building his home as soon as possible and there is no need to hold someone up for 15 days for something as minor as that note. He states that he understands if there were a change to the plans, but this applicant was only waiting for a letter that pertained to how much area were agricultural soils. Mr. Wolf adds that building began on that lot two days later.

Mr. Jandebeur states that it is the applicant’s job to come in prepared with all of the necessary information and in this case they did not do that. Mr. Wolf states that this specific information was not requested in the original application. Mr. Jandebeur explains that the applicant hired someone to represent them and he feels that the representative did not do his job completely and then the applicants asked the board to break the rules.

Mr. McCaffrey states that there are distinctions between minor and major matters. He states that there are certain discretionary positions that this board has and he feels that it is important to follow the rules if every applicant is required to have the basic application submitted 15 days prior. He adds that there are areas that the board should not allow an issue to prolong and hold up an applicant.

Mr. Strobel states that with regard to a recent subdivision case, the plans that were submitted were unclear as to the type of land.  He states that if it were just the need for a letter, it could have been a condition of approval. He explains that there were issues with the plan and there were burdens being added to staff that the board agreed not to do, which is why the board continued the case to the next meeting in two weeks.

Mr. McCaffrey states that there were a few other instances and it seems to occur in almost every application where there seems to be an item needed and it is not a key item. Mr. Jandebeur states that his issue is strictly for new information that comes in; the board needs the 15 days to allow the planner, public, and abutters time to review.

Mr. Jandebeur refers to another case in which there was a sales agreement with a time frame that the board accommodated to their schedule. He states that this was not such a large issue but he is uncomfortable with an applicant requesting the board to go against policy and procedures because they have made other arrangements and agreements.

Discussion ensues regarding the applicants providing information.

Ms. Smith asks Mr. Wolf to clarify his statement relative to an applicant beginning to build a home two days later. Mr. Wolf states that the applicant began digging the hole and they did have a building permit. Ms. Smith states that if that is the case, it was done in error and she is not sure how they obtained the building permit. She explains that the plan is not signed and the new lot has not been created. Mr. Wolf comments that he does have another question relative to that and you will not want to hear it. Ms. Smith replies that there is a process to be followed and it may not move as fast as people like.

Ms. Smith states that it has been her experience for many years with the planning board that town counsel has emphatically recommended that when substantive new information come in such as new plans, in fairness to abutters, the board reviewing the materials, and the professional staff, that the board allow time - the 15 day period - to review the information. She states that there have been late night meetings when late night decisions have been made. She explains that with the issue of the agricultural soils, this item is actually a zoning ordinance requirement and is not something that the board can waive. She states that the planning board does not have the authority to waive a zoning ordinance. She states that the agricultural soils were a requirement of the plan that needed to be shown and were not. She states that in this case, the professional who did the plan should have provided the information or the applicant needs to appear before the zoning board. She states that it appeared that the planning board was acting without knowing if they had the required information and thus making a decision not knowing if the requirement was met. She states that the board could not waive this; however, could make a decision that it is a requirement to have this information and the board would then require the applicant’s licensed designer to sign off prior to the final signing of the plan. She states that it is easier to make good decisions when there has been time to review the material. She states that the wisdom of the legislature that looks at planning boards’ decisions allows planning boards 65 days in which to act from the time the application is accepted. She strongly suggests that the board consider adopting the 15 rule and she adds that this has been past practice of the board for many years. Ms. Smith notes that if the issue is something within the regulations and deemed minor, the board can waive it.

Mr. Holden asks what the chairman is looking for relative to the 15 day issue. Mr. Jandebeur states that he would like the board members to consider the issue and further discuss this at the next meeting. He states that the board has a procedure that should be followed allowing all the time to review and do their job. He adds that if the board chooses to not agree with a zoning regulation, then it is their job to solicit votes to change the ordinance; it is not the board’s decision.

Ms. Planchet explains that the RSA is for new information when an application is filed.  She states that the practice of the planning board has been that the same 15 day time frame has been applied to new information coming in once a case has been accepted and continued. She adds that the Office of Energy and Planning has recommended that since it is a procedure, it is better to have it in the rules of procedure.         

Mr. Holden asks if it is that this is currently a practice and now it is being recommended to make it a procedure. Ms. Planchet replies that is correct.

Mr. Wolf states that this is just a recommendation when it comes after the first 15 days. He states that for some reason the staff interprets this as being a law and that is not the way it is. He adds that the staff keeps insinuating that it is law and he is tired of this. He adds that at that planning board meeting the numbers being provided were coming from the staff end of the table and that has got to stop. He adds that members did not provide any percentage numbers and he told staff to not point fingers. Ms. Planchet replies that the numbers being provided at that meeting were being read from the town’s ordinances. 

Mr. McCaffrey suggests that this matter be tabled and addressed at a future meeting.

Ms. Parmele states that Ms. Smith explained the rule being pertinent to substantive information. She states that one problem is with the smaller applications that the applicants provide information on a more gradual scale. She asks if there is any way to provide some flexibility.

Mr. Strobel replies that a lot of times information is provided at the beginning of meetings and the board is asked to make decisions on that new information. He states that this is part of the problem.

Mr. Wolf states that he agrees with Mr. Strobel and the 15 day rule if new plans are provided at a meeting; however, that night at that meeting that was not the issue; it was a minute problem. He states that it was blown out of proportion.

Ms. Smith states that this discussion of the soils percentages was held at the first public hearing. Mr. Wolf states that the applicant had been here before the board twice before that.  Ms. Smith states that when they met with the board prior, it was a conceptual meeting; the board did not have a plan in front of them until the public hearing.  Ms. Planchet adds that the preliminary consultation with the board is non binding and the other time they were present was at the board’s work session. She adds that this case had a one month turn around time from the board.

Mr. Strobel reads from the regulations regarding days for specific information.  He adds that the board should add when new information is to be provided in the motion. He states that he tries to have the work session be for legislative items not for cases. Ms. Planchet states that these requirements are for subdivisions.

Further discussion ensues as to time of submissions. Mr. Holden cautions the board as they are operating under past practice and if this is adopted in procedures then the latitude would be gone. He urges the board to consider this as to how they proceed.

Ms. Planchet states that if the requirements are in the site plan and subdivision regulations then the items can be waived by the planning board; relief from zoning ordinance requirements is by the zoning board.

Mr. Wolf states that he feels that 15 days is excessive after the first 15 day time frame. Mr. Jandebeur states that the timing depends on what comes in for new information.

Ms. Smith states that as far as abutters, they do come into town hall to review information and sometimes they may not be familiar with the review of plans or the impacts they may have to their property. She states that if a plan changes there may not be ample time for abutters to understand additional impacts or how the plan may affect them. She further explains timing for a review by the town’s engineer and perhaps a traffic study when the turn around will be longer than a day. Mr. Wolf states that he was not referring to major applications.

Ms. Planchet states that if the board is consistent in following the practice and regulations, then the chair would specify at the time new information is requested, the date by which it must be provided. She states that this may help the situation.

Master Plan
Mr. Strobel states that updating the Master Plan is a charge of the planning board. He states that the recommendation is for the Master Plan to be updated every 6-10 years and that it may be time. He states that some of the information needs to be updated. Ms. Planchet notes that she has some figures from the 2010 census and that the population in Northwood has increased.

Further discussion is held regarding updating demographics.

Mr. McCaffrey makes a motion, second by Ms. Parmele, to start the process of updating the Master Plan, at least the demographics and current numbers. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Ms. Smith states that the town’s economic development committee was eager to update the Master Plan and had offered to assist. Mr. Jandebeur states that he will address this item with the committee.

FYI: Rowland Conditions/New Public Hearing
Ms. Planchet states that there was an open space feature on a previous plan which was reviewed at the time of the conditional approval of this case two weeks ago. The board included two open space conditions; however, it was noticed later that the open space plan was not the one that was approved and recorded.

Ms. Smith explains that the previous property owners had gone to the ZBA and were denied relief from the open space requirement (for lot of 10 acres or greater). She states that the file was misfiled for this property which included that information and also that the conditionally approved plan was revoked. She states that the open space requirement (for 10 acres or greater) was subsequently removed from the zoning ordinance. The applicants then received subdivision approval without the open space as it was no longer a requirement and the recorded plan does not show open space. Ms. Smith states that a public hearing must now be held in order to remove the two conditions, which should not have been added to the current approval.  

Correspondence
The board reviews all correspondence.

Adjournment
Mr. McCaffrey makes a motion, second by Mr. Holden, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary