| Town of Henniker |
.jpg) |
|
| Planning Board -
Minutes For the year 2003 |
|
||||||
Available Meeting Minutes
PLANNING BOARD
Approved Minutes
Town Hall
Members Present:
Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judith Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Board Member; Karen Makocy Philbrick, Board Member; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; James McElroy, Alternate; Gail Abramowicz, Alternate; Kristin Claire, Alternate; Laura Scott, Town Planning Consultant; Susan Thompson, Minute Taker.
Guests Present:
Terry Stamps, Bob Stamps, David Quinn, Tad Schrantz, Angela Robinson, Donald Chalmers, Joe Cox, Dan Berry, Chris Tattersall, Don Armstrong, David Reid, John Kjellman, Victoria Cater, Dorothy Williams, Mark Davison, Ruth Zax, Jay Zax, Jack Bopp, Barney Starmer, Joan O’Connor, Roni Hardy, Caleb Dobbins, Roger Gezelman, Roland Lemire Jr., Dennis McComish, Keith Testa, Todd Clark, Ellen Kjellman, and Christin Gauldey.
Meeting called to order by Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman at 7:00 pm.
Review of November 25, 2003 Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to approve the November 25, 2003 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Karen Makocy Philbrick and approved unanimously.
Public Hearings
1. Site Plan Review submitted by James V. Giarruso of Bohler Engineering PC. On behalf of Davison Service Center, Henniker, to revise the hours of operation the Mobil Station, 5 Bradford Road Henniker, map 2 Lot 96 B in the Medium Commercial (CM) Zoning District.
Laura Scott said the application is complete in reference to letter dated November 25, 2003.
Geoffrey Hirsch said that the applicant was proposing to change the hours of operation from 6 am to 9 pm to 5 am to 12 am. In addition to the application, the bright lighting of the location was discussed as an issue.
Thea Braiterman asked the applicants if they were open to discussing the lighting issue, and James Giarruso (applicant) and Don Barry (construction manager) agreed.
A motion was made by Cordell Johnston to accept the application as complete. Seconded by Thea Braiterman and approved unanimously.
James Giarruso opened the discussion with his insight into the industry. Convenience stores are traditionally open beyond the closing hour of 9 p.m., giving opportunity for the people of the community to access the services of the convenience store early morning and late night to meet their needs. James Giarruso pointed out that he was responsible for the hours of operation, not Don Barry, the construction manager. James Giarruso summarized by stating that the extended hours would provide a service to the community and allows his business to survive and grow.
James McElroy asked if they had an estimate of the increased sales percentage with the four additional operational hours. James Giarruso estimated this would increase his sales by 20 percent. Thea Braiterman stated that the extended hours of operation would mean customers would be frequenting the store and the lighting would be on for the additional four hours. Thea Braiterman expressed concerns that the lights were very bright and it appeared they were brighter than they needed to be. James Giarrusso responded by explaining the brightness of the light is intended for the safety and security of the customers. Further discussion pointed out that the brightness of the lighting negatively impacts the community. The lighting above the canopy is much brighter and it was thought this was a new fixture. Laura Scott explained this is not a new fixture that previously there were many bulbs burned out or missing and those have been changed and added to the existing fixtures. Further discussion pointed out that safety and security is important to the customers’, however it appears there is an illuminated halo radiating from the store, dependant upon atmospheric conditions. Soffet lighting does not appear to be shielded, and its design does not accommodate shielding.
James McElroy asked if there was a way to measure the mitigation of the light in order to effectively reduce the effect on the community. Additionally, James McElroy asked James Giarrusso how far they would they be willing to go in an effort to accommodate the community. They would be willing to remove half the canopy lights and add deflectors to shield the soffet lighting. Cordell Johnston had concerns with extending the hours of operation. He pointed out we would now have a convenience store open 19 hours daily. Additionally he pointed out it could generate increased traffic from Route 202. He was concerned about public interest and opinion.
Public Hearing Opened.
Roger Gezelman spoke and feels the Planning Board should not be concerned with business interests or lighting.
Don Armstrong pointed out that smaller wattage bulbs could be used. He feels very strongly that the lights are too bright. Additionally, he asked what happens when a new gas station and convenience store comes to town and wants the same consideration for extended hours. He further described this location as isolated and mentioned that this could be an element of increased crime such as robbery.
John Kjellman voiced concern about the glaring lights and was surprised that the wattage of the fixture had not changed. He further commented how the bright lighting was changing the character of the town.
Joan O’Connor said that the former owners were asked to please go easy on the lighting and they were accommodating.
Jay Zax removed unhealthy trees from his property. After the trees were removed it really struck him how the light carries. He wanted to know how many sockets are in the fixture of the canopy and what is the wattage of those bulbs in the sockets? Don Barry responded with 8 or 10 sockets. Each socket is filled with a 400-Watt bulb, which would be 4,000 Wattage in the early morning and late night hours.
Gail Abramowicz pointed out that with new construction, the size of windows was increased additional lighting would spill out from the inside of the store.
David Reid said he also had concerns pertaining to the hours of operation and lighting. He suggested a different type of light versus fluorescent. He thought the site could present itself as a meeting place for drug users and cause an increase in traffic. It is a landmark in the area.
Thea Braiterman assumed that the lighting issue could be worked out. She travels late at night and may need gas after 9 pm. She favors longer hours for convenience and pointed out that Pop Schultz is open until 11pm. She feels that consistency deems that the hours could be extended. She does not feel there is a legal basis for advising an existing business of the hours of operation, based on what might or might not happen.
Cordell Johnston advised that the original approval granted for the Site Plan included the hours of operation and the Site Plan application was needed due to the major changes that happened at this location.
Scott Osgood pointed out early morning hours would benefit early morning commuters.
Gail Abramowicz stated shift workers in Hillsborough working all hours might need gas at all hours.
Dennis McComish spoke about the history of the property and the role eminent domain played at this location.
Joan O’Connor wanted to know if there were any regulation of hours of operation for businesses of this nature on the town books. It was said that there were none.
John Kjellman is in favor of longer hours, rather than having the bright lights at this location.
Barney Starmer mentioned it appears that a compromise could be worked out that would benefit all.
Karen Makocy Philbrick questioned if they were open after 9 pm and how long that period had been. James Giarruso stated since the new Site Plan they were open until 11 pm for a period of 3 weeks. Karen Makocy Philbrick asked if there are any conclusions on the volume of business and if he could forecast the increase. James Giarruso said that they could not draw any conclusions, as the period of time was not long enough.
James Giarruso wants to work with the community. The current manager has worked this role in this industry for 15 years. The business is open to compromise and dedicated to work with the community.
Public Hearing Closed.
Board deliberations.
Judith Englander brought up a restaurant that the Planning Board worked with in the past and used a three-month trial period to work out the different issues. She suggested this might be an option.
Thea Braiterman suggested an interim period of 3 months, ½ wattage and extended hours 5a to 11 pm.
Geoffrey Hirsch asked how to quantify the lighting before and after? What would be a true measurement of the lighting?
Don Barry advised canopy wattage bulbs could not be changed without changing the fixture. He did say he could unscrew the bulbs and add shielding to the soffet lights.
Jim McElroy pointed out shielding would be good for the neighbors up and down the street.
Geoffrey Hirsch summarized a quick proposal of an interim period. The perimeter and canopy lighting would be reduced by 50% and the extended the hours of operation would be approved.
Jim McElroy asked if the applicant would need to file an additional Site Plan or could the Code Officer follow up with a letter and/or waiver?
Geoffrey Hirsch summarized based on the conditions of lightning discussed this evening follow up could be done with a letter and the Code Officer, no need for another Site Plan review application.
Karen Makocy Philbrick asked how the extended hours related to the trial period.
Geoffrey Hirsch mentioned the hours and lighting were interrelated.
Scott Osgood wanted to hear from the applicants their plan for solution.
Geoffrey Hirsch asked the applicants to specifically state their plan.
Don Barry advised that he could disable half the lighting (perimeter and canopy), and shields the remaining soffet lighting. He was asked how he would disable the lighting and Don Barry advised he would probably unscrew the bulb.
Geoffrey Hirsch reviewed the hours of 5 am to 11 pm. It was then clarified that 12 midnight was the requested time to close.
Scott Osgood said this would benefit the town and the commuters of the town.
Karen Makocy Philbrick agreed there is value to the community and concerns.
Geoffrey Hirsch asked if someone was ready to shape a motion?
A motion was made by Scott Osgood to approve a three-month trial period. The approved extended hours are 5:OO am to 12:00 am. The extended hours are contingent upon completion of canopy and perimeter building lights to be disabled by 50%. Additionally, the soffet lighting will need to be shielded. The follow up will be conducted by letter and under the direction of Laura Scott, Planning Consultant, and Roland Soucy, Building Inspector. Seconded by Thea Braiterman and approved. Motion passed 5 in favor and 2 opposed.
2. A continued Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review application submitted on behalf of Cheshire Oil Co., proposing to construct and operate a T-Bird Mini Mart at the corner of Hall Avenue and Post Office Place. The property is owned by Albert and Alice Norton and located at Map 2 Lot 187 A in the Medium Commercial (CM) Zoning District.
Scott Osgood and Judith Englander recused themselves. Gail Abramowicz became a voting Board Member.
Geoffrey Hirsch introduced Laura Scott to review the application. Laura Scott advised she is going to review two business items of the application and she will then ask Tad Schrantz to overview the project. Laura Scott said that water and sewer departments were awaiting information from the applicant.
Laura Scott further advised that many items have been received and are listed in her memo dated November 25, 2003. The second piece of business that Laura Scott needs to review was the need for an extension. On December 26, 2003 the 65 day time frame will expire and there is need to further discuss items after this evening. The Board and the applicant need to decide and agree on an extension. Applicant and Board agreed for an additional 65 days, which would bring us to 2/29/04. Lastly, there is a need to move the discussion of stormwater ahead of lighting to avoid a scheduling conflict.
Tad Schrantz briefly reviewed the project and highlighted the plans. He then turned the conversation over to Todd Clark, Town Engineer from HTA, to address storm water and landscaping. Todd Clark advised the developer has designed a system that adequately detains and contains the water from this site.
Public Hearing Opened.
Stormwater
Dorothy Williams explained that her land is lower by 3 ft and water currently flows into her yard. She currently uses sandbags to block cellar windows.
Todd Clark said that the developer has designed a system to contain the water from the site and this would not increase the water flow from the site.
John Kjellman was not sure if this problem pertains and / or is a contributing factor.
Jay Zax explains there is an 18 ft drop from the NW to the SE corner of this lot. This is a slippery slope and he does not believe you can design an entrance and exit on 114 that would not increase water flow on Route 114.
Dorothy Williams further discussed her water flow issue.
Todd Clark said he was not aware of a preexisting condition that was failing. It would be worth looking into.
Dorothy Williams explained the intensity of her water concern.
Geoffrey Hirsch suggested to Dorothy Williams that she could contact someone directly who could assess this concern. This Board cannot directly solve this concern tonight.
Caleb Dobbins discussed that the crown of Route 114. He further felt water from gas station would not run into Mrs. William’s property. However, with the widening of the road this will increase her problem. The crowning of the road is presumably in the middle allowing water to run off both sides of the road. Todd Clark advised there should be follow up to this.
Tad Schrantz advised that in this area there might be widening in her area but again it needs to be looked at a little closer.
Don Armstrong asked how much capacity in the pond retention has compared to your acreage? What rainfall amount would it take to exceed the volume of the pond retention? Tad Schrantz said this would need to be looked into and asked Todd Clark to further advise. Todd Clark advised the closed drain system was an emergency back up system. He discussed the steel white pipe closed system. Don Armstrong asked where does that pipe end up and how does that work if there is an emergency spill? Geoffrey Hirsch felt this was a good question and also wanted this answer. Tad Schrantz asked who or which department would have these answers?
Laura Scott will contact water and sewer departments to find this answer.
Caleb Dobbins asked if this system was to hold the material and would it wind up back in the ground water. Tad Schrantz explained that the on-site emergency spill kits have pads to pull the material from the top to avoid the material from entering the ground water. It was then asked if the emergency response plan needed someone available to put it in place. It was advised someone would need to be there to get the pads in place. There was discussion that this is a 24-hour gas station and a spill could be possible.
Eleanor Kjellman asked how the town answered these questions for the other gas stations in the town? Laura Scott said there have not been any gas stations new enough to answer these questions. Scott Osgood asked if these are questions that the state would ask? Don Armstrong asked if this system was pump driven? Tad Schrantz explained this system utilizes baffles and higher and lower pipes. Geoffrey Hirsch asked about the capacity of a spillage the system could hold. Tad Schrantz advised he would need to look into this.
Caleb Dobbins asked about the ratio of permeable surface and state regulations that would address this. Laura Scott said that there are no regulations of permeability versus impermeability surfaces, in the town regulations.
Tad Schrantz submitted info to Laura Scott for the water and sewer departments after meeting with them last week. Additionally, MSDS sheets for the car wash chemicals, and an analysis of wastewater after the cars are washed and where that wastewater goes was provided.
Landscaping
Jay Zax wanted to review the site map and the trees. Tad Schrantz advised the site walk was done and the property had been staked. Tad Schrantz talked about the history of this lot and what does the community want to see in order have this application approved. He further mentioned this lot was once an open field and within the last 50 years, have grown in and many of the pines have sparse limbs. Jay Zax explained he looked at the trees with pink ribbons along the road and he recalls there is a significant drop from trees to parking lot. He further believes if you have a 50 ft tree, the root system could fan out approximately 50 ft. Right now the root system for many of those trees could be under the road and the root system could be damaged. Tad Schrantz reviewed that they don’t own property that is approximately 10 feet beside the road edge. The trees marked were based on the curve edge and the size of the tree.
Jack Bopp asked if this is the final landscaping plan? Tad Schrantz explained it is the most recent plan. Gail Abramowicz interjected this was not the final plan and there is room for negotiations. It was further discussed that there has not been a landscape architect working on this plan. The civil engineer had worked out this plan.
Jack Bopp had further questions about the Dunkin Donuts microphone. How would the noise and exhaust be buffered through landscaping? Tad Schrantz advised that David Quinn would address the noise concern. Gail Abramowicz said that the microphone was about 100 feet from the nearest home. Laura Scott explained that there was information regarding noise is in the application file.
David Quinn spoke regarding the newer speaker systems and said they are designed to be low volume and key to prevent noise traveling. This has been done based on experiences of other Dunkin Donuts. The systems are designed to allow the noise to travel about 5 feet to avoid disturbances of noise. Older Dunkin Donuts have the old system. Tad Schrantz’s T-Bird in Antrim has the new microphone system and is finding it works well.
Jack Bopp asked if landscaping was going to buffer noise, fumes, and lights from cars. Are you trying to create an impermeable buffer for noise, fumes, and lights? Tad Schrantz said that 8-foot fencing should be used and would buffer the noise, fumes, and lights. Tad Schrantz also explained that they will repair the existing stonewall to enhance the appearance of the site.
Cordell Johnston clarified the type of fencing was shiplap fencing. It was further explained it is a tongue and groove style. Tad Schrantz further explained it looks like stockade, but is specifically designed to buffer. Tad Schrantz went on to explain that due to the height of the fence, the fence is what would be seen, not the dumpster and speaker. When viewing this area the community will see finished landscaping. Plant material will be placed strategically, used and replaced as needed, including annuals for color.
Barney Starmer asked for the dimensions of the canopy. It was discussed the canopy size is 14.6 feet and the thickness is 4 feet (top to bottom).
Ruth Zax shared that the Post Office stonewalls is a frequent location for mountain bikers to practice their skills. This becomes destructive to plant material and the stonewall. The police had to be called in to assist with this concern. With a place that is going to be open and lit, this will attract the mountain bikers; this concern needs to be addressed. Kristin Claire asked if a natural, thicker, and lower growth has been considered? Tad Schrantz said they were open to suggestions.
John Kjellman talked about taking down sickly pines down and providing healthy trees of size, with growth that will provide shielding to the neighbors. He further asked if they repair the stonewall, who will maintain the wall as it does sit upon town property? Ruth Zax shared the issue still exists at the Post Office. Cordell Johnston suggested the maintenance could be included as stipulations. Ruth Zax explained that it was suppose to be adequately maintained at the Post Office and has not been.
Jack Bopp suggested a more detailed landscape plan be submitted. Geoffrey Hirsch asked what specifically would he like to see. Jack Bopp explained he would like a firm landscaping plan printed clearly to protect the residents on three sides of the site. Jack Bopp further explained that he does not feel the Board has enough information. Don Armstrong advised that a good choice for a tree is the Leyland cypress, which deters kids from going through it. Don Armstrong further explained this tree is a great sound barrier that creates a great green wall that allows you to form its edges.
Tad Schrantz would like to schedule a landscape architect to discuss specific plans and plant material for the meeting on January 14, 2004. Gail Abramowicz agreed, as there is still room for discussion. Tad Schrantz asked if the public would like a wooded lot? Geoffrey Hirsch advised the SW corner would stay natural. Tad Schrantz advised he would need to bring back another landscape plan.
John Kjellman asked about the process for a new landscape plan. Does it need to go before the Selectman first due to the town property? If this is the case, and the Planning Board cannot make decisions to what happens with the town property, and wondered if this process be a waste of time for all involved?
Geoffrey Hirsch advised the Western line of the property and the corner where the sign is town property and will need to be excluded from the landscaping at this time. Thea Braiterman advised that the Post Office concern could be raised to the Selectmen.
Joan O’Connor said that a local business expert in natural plant life (Terra Designs) that could be helpful in the new landscaping plans.
Caleb Dobbins questioned where they are going to store their snow. Geoffrey Hirsch asked Tad Schrantz to review where the snow storage would be. Laura Scott said that the snow storage areas were depicted on the plans.
Thea Braiterman asked, based on overview of projects, how the unmanned car wash, money collection, and car on rails would happen. Tad Schrantz reviewed the process. Laura Scott offered examples of others in the area.
Geoffrey Hirsch asked if the car wash is voice activated for noise level? Discussion advised the level of noise was minimal quieter than common ATM machines.
Jack Bopp asked about the dumpster and the impact of the smell. Tad Schrantz explained that the smell usually mitigates in the direction of the wind and the fence would work for the residents abutting the property. Additionally, he reviewed the many guidelines associated with the dumpster to avoid Health Department issues, and of course they need to be cognizant of those in order to stay in business and succeed.
Joan O’Connor had questions regarding the soaps biodegradability? This will be included in the analysis with water and sewage, along with components of what they use and what could potentially be removed from the cars.
Jay Zax asked if the car wash could be accessed 24 hours? It will operate the same hours as the store, 5:00 am to 11:00 pm.
Gail Abramowicz asked if the car wash is size dependent? It is and is equipped with a bar to show the maximum height.
Geoffrey Hirsch asked if salt and other debris from cars would be in the wastewater? Tad Schrantz said the report to sewer and water departments reviews this. Don Armstrong asked if several communities were taken in account. Tad Schrantz used and reviewed data with seasonal differences and several similar communities with information from his existing car washes were taken into consideration.
Geoffrey Hirsch closed public hearing and state that it will be continued until January 14, 2003.
Correspondence
Laura Scott reviewed correspondence with the Board.
Planning Consultant Report
Laura Scott advised the need for someone to write the Planning Board section for the town report.
Geoffrey Hirsch volunteered.
Next Planning Board meeting is 12/22 with a large agenda, and an earlier start time of 5 pm.
Historical District Commission
Proposal of Zoning to put a Historic overlay district in place.
Conversation regarding the historic district tock place, it was decided Laura Scott would leave a note to the Historical District Commission encouraging the development of this idea but not for the 2004 Town Meeting.
Impact fees were discussed and once the methodology is determined those fees can be assessed, assuming the ordinance is passed at town meeting.
A motion was made by Geoffrey Hirsch to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Gail Abramowicz and approved unanimously.
Meeting Adjourned at 10:06 pm.
Respectfully,
Susan Thompson
HENNIKER PLANNING BOARD
TOWN HALL
Members Present: Geoff Hirsch, Cordell Johnston, Judie Englander, Jim McElroy, Scott Osgood, Gail Abramowitz, Thea Braiterman, Karen Makocy Phillbrick, Kristen Claire
Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott
Review of December 10, 2003 Meeting Minutes
The Board decided to postpone the review of minutes until their January 14th meeting
New Business
Building Code
The Board discussed the issue of having a residential building code. The Board reviewed the proposed language and made some language changes.
The Board will include this on the 1/7/04 public hearing schedule.
Scott O. will buy the 2 code books that will be available at the Town Hall and Library for public review.
Wetlands Ordinance
Mark Mitch and Martha Sunderland were in attendance for this discussion.
The ZBA and Conservation Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance at the ZBA meeting on 12/17 and the revised Ordinance was given to the Board.
The language was reviewed and some minor changes were made. The Conservation Commission members explained why the change would be helpful to them and the ZBA.
The Board will include this on the 1/7/04 public hearing schedule.
Impact Fee
The Board reviewed the proposed Zoning Ordinance and some editorial corrections were made.
The Board will include this on the 1/7/04 public hearing schedule.
Growth Management Ordinance (GMO)
The Board decided to review Option 1 and will not consider Option 2.
It was decided that a Findings of Fact will be developed and be presented with the Ordinance at the 1/7 public hearing by Kristen, with assistance from other member of the Board and Laura Scott.
Changes were made to the GMO, both grammatical and substantive. Substantive changes included the provision for elderly and affordable housing, multi-family developments, changing the sunset year, and the issue of already approved developments.
Laura will find out the total number of housing units in town through the year 2003 for the 1/7 public hearing.
The Board will include this on the 1/7/04 public hearing schedule.
Educational District Zoning Ordinance
The Board reviewed the proposed Ordinance changes.
The Board will include this on the 1/7/04 public hearing schedule.
Definitions
The Board reviewed the proposed changes, additions, and deletions to the Definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance.
It was decided that only a few changes would be proposed for the 2004 Town Meeting. The changes included those definitions that were recommended to be removed and the addition/modification of Elderly Housing, Drive-Through Facility, Structure, Student Housing, and Manufactured Housing.
Site Plan Regulations
The Board decided to table this item to another meeting.
Correspondents
DES is revising the rules for Bear Pond and is asking for a representative from Henniker to participate. Scott said that he would review and comment on the proposed rules and serve as the contact.
Planner’s Report
Laura handed out a copy of the letter sent to the Board of Selectmen and Peter Flynn requesting a meeting between the Selectmen and Cheshire Oil to discuss the landscaping/maintenance plan for the proposed site.
Submitted
Laura Scott, Planning Consultant
PLANNING BOARD
Henniker Community School
Members Present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Gail Abramowitz, Alternate, and Thea Braiterman, Selectmen Ex-Officio.
Members Absent: Karen Makocy Philbrick, Rachel Lehr
Alternative Members: James McElroy (voting).
Town Planning Consultant: Not present.
Guests Present: Kristen Claire, Joe Coronado, Lance Moulton, Jay Zax, Tony Lamarine, Terry Stamps, Angela Robinson, Kristen Senz, John J. Kjellman, D.J. Reid, Tad Schrantz, David Quinn, Sam Kjellman, Joan O’Connor, Peter Robichand, Tom Watman, David Janelle, Joe Cox, Vikki Cater, Kathryn Patenaude, Roni Hardy, Wendy & Neal Pearson, Dawn Nelson, Brian Mazerski, Caleb Dobbins, Keith Testa, Cathy Mayne, Eleanor Kjellman, Barney Starmer, Art Siciliano, Jack Bopp, Andrea Tindal, Brian McLosh, Pat Kovacs, S. Forster, Ted Parkins, Chris Smith, Michael Krilster, Ruth Zax, Peter Flynn, Luke Johnson, Ian Johnson, Candace Grendell
Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Mr. Hirsch stated that no new business would be considered after 10:00 PM. He noted that Jim McElroy will be voting in place of Rachel Lehr and Gail Abramowitz voting in place of Karen Makocy Philbrick.
Review of October 22, 2003 Minutes
The Board reviewed the October 22, 2003 draft minutes, and made revisions:
Page 1: change of business, should be change of use
Page 2 - under Public Hearing section; second arrow, should read "…waive dimension requirements for a proposed turnaround."
(same page) sentence beginning with Laura Scott….some of the town skateboard property is on the applicant’s property."
(same page) Karen Makocy Philbrick
Page 3 - top of the page, second to last arrow: Take out last sentence beginning with ED district….
(same page) under Public Hearing 4, there is a last #6 point: Planning Board approval
Page 4 - top of the page, first MOTION, the three abstentions should be Scott Osgood, Geoffrey Hirsch and Thea Braiterman.
(same page) under Correspondence: Marty should be Marnee; Hilltop Estates….signed off on..
A general review of the entire minutes to replace "Scott" with "Ms. Scott" was requested.
MOTION by Cordell Johnston to approve the October 22, 2003 minutes, as amended. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 7-0.
Public Hearing
A Minor Subdivision application submitted by Lamarine Technical Land Services, Inc. on behalf of Kristen & Jonathan Claire to consider a proposed two (2) lot subdivision. The property is located on 10 Locust Lane, Map 2 Lot 389, in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) zoning district.
Chairman Hirsch noted that Laura Scott stated in her review memo that the locus map is still needed.
Tony Lamarine explained that the minor subdivision application is to separate out 11.2 acres to create Lot 398B, with two buildings on it, for the purpose of re-sale. The Claire’s will then own Lots 389 and 389A for the purpose of protecting it from further development. He clarified the frontage meets all setback requirements.
Kristen Claire provided background history on Lots 389 and 389A. She and her husband originally purchased 25 acres of the 75 acre parcel. They now have purchased the rest of the 50 acres and would like to put all this property back together. However, they cannot afford to maintain the taxes on two housing developments, and therefore decided to subdivide out these 11.2 acres with the house and barn on it, and sell it. However, their goal is to eventually return this entire acreage of 75 to one owner. She noted that the current property line is the stone wall. The driveway by the stone wall is nonconforming but was already approved years ago, so will not be an issue.
Chairman Hirsch asked for a motion.
MOTION by Cordell Johnston to accept the subdivision plan as complete. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 7-0.
Chairman Hirsch said the application has been determined to be complete. He opened the approval phase of the meeting, including public comments and questions.
There were no questions or comments from the public or the Board.
Chairman Hirsch closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Judie Englander to approve the subdivision application. Seconded by Gail Abramowitz and unanimously approved 7-0.
Public Hearing
A Lot Line adjustment application submitted by Salus Enterprises and Keith Babb to move the lot line between Map 1 Lot 675A and 675B. The property is located on Weare Road in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district.
Chairman Hirsch opened the discussion.
Joe Coronado stated that this is a small site with a request for a minor lot line adjustment to swap .4 acres to improve the building envelope on 675A. This will move the lot corner about 70 feet, but will not create a new lot. There is a very nice plateau for a home site on tope of the hill on Lot 675A, but it is currently in the setback of the existing lot line with Lot 675B.
Geoffrey Hirsch asked about the designated wetlands on the map. Mr. Coronado said they are working on this issue for the building site project, but this adjustment does not affect that right now.
Scott Osgood asked about the contours, and Mr. Coronado noted they are steep. Chairman Hirsch noted that the frontage remains the same, so that is not an issue.
Chairman Hirsch noted the memo from Ms. Scott stating the missing locus map. Mr. Coronado submitted this map.
MOTION by Judie Englander to accept the submitted site plan application as complete. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved 7-0.
Chairman Hirsch opened the hearing for the approval phase, including public comment.
There were no public comments from the public or any further questions from he Board.
MOTION by Cordell Johnston to approve the site plan application, as submitted. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 7-0.
Public Hearing
A Continued Public Hearing for a Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Lance Moulton to consider a proposed subdivision of 36.25 acres to create nine (9) new lots at property located on Bradford Road, Tax Map 1 Lot 102X in the Medium Commercial (CM) zoning district.
Art Siciliano stated that the town engineering firm, Hoyle Tanner and Associates (HTA), recently sent a letter to the Board recommending acceptance of this application. The issues raised by HTA have all been answered and corrected, although they are still working on the bond. The Board noted one item regarding the mainline cross slope that was not fully addressed, but agreed this was not a substantive issue to hold up further consideration.
Mr. Osgood asked about the date of the maps. Mr. Siciliano stated these were the maps just issued by the engineers. The Board noted, however, that they are not the most up to date, and requested final plans be submitted. Mr. Siciliano stated these maps would be provided.
Chairman Hirsch noted that the application could not be deemed complete without the bond. Lance Moulton stated that their bottom line was that the bond will be an issue, but there are no concrete established guidelines for a bond issue; so they would like request the Board’s vote for final approval, contingent on bond approval, so they do not have to return another time for this vote, if the bond issue is resolved.
Gail Abramowitz stated that Ms. Scott has stated in her review of this application that these plans will not be signed until the bond is in place, so no action could be taken on the application until then.
Chairman Hirsch asked for a motion.
MOTION by Gail Abramowitz to accept the submitted site plan application as complete, contingent on the approval of the bond and the submission of updated maps. Seconded by Scott Osgood and unanimously approved 7-0.
Chairman Hirsch opened the hearing for the approval phase, including public comment.
Joan O’Connor asked where this subdivision will be and the Board stated it is north of the Harvester Market area on Bradford Road.
There were no further public comments. Chairman Hirsch closed the hearing to further public comment.
Chairman Hirsch opened the portion for Board deliberation. There were no further questions.
MOTION by Scott Osgood to approve the Major Subdivision application, as submitted, contingent on the approval of the bond and the submission of final plans. Seconded by Gail Abramowitz and unanimously approved 7-0.
MOTION by Gail Abramowitz to waive the 21 days for final subdivision application. Seconded by Cordell Johnston.
Mr. McElroy asked if this is setting a precedent. Ms. Abramowitz stated that the Board is working on removing one of these stages to streamline the process as long as all requirements are met.
The Board unanimously approved on a vote of 7-0.
Public Hearing
A Continued Public Hearing for Site Plan Review application submitted on behalf of Cheshire Oil Co., proposing to construct and operate a T-Bird Mini Mart at the Corner of Hall Avenue and Post Office Place. The property is owned by Albert and Alice Norton and located at Map 2 Lot 187A in the Commercial Medium (CM) zoning district.
Chairman Hirsch stated that Scott Osgood and Judie Englander recuse themselves from consideration of this Site Plan Review application. He stated that this application was deemed to be complete at the last meeting, pending a series of items to be worked on or fulfilled at this time. The town police department is reviewing the latest submission of information and the town engineering firm, HTA, continues its review. He noted to the public that the files are open for public review when town offices are open. He further noted that the water and sewer departments require additional information, a letter regarding fire codes was sent to the fire and rescue departments but has not yet been responded to, and NHDOT still needs information. He asked the applicant to present any new information.
Randall Bragdon said there are four issues remaining to address: 1) show crosswalks on plan; 2) and 3) receive comments back from water and wastewater departments about the car wash flows, of which the information has been sent; receive comments back from fire department regarding building codes, and 4) easement language, which we have presented tonight. So the only thing to show this evening is the crosswalks on plan and the easement language. The Board discussed the easements with Mr. Bragdon, who pointed out the DOT reimbursement language.
Mr. Bragdon displayed a copy of the submitted plan that shows the crosswalks. He also noted that they have located major trees on the back property and put tape on ones not to be taken down.
Chairman Hirsch asked if they have received a response from HTA and Mr. Bragdon said he has talked with their engineers but has not received anything in writing. Geoffrey Hirsch noted that HTA’s response addresses cutbacks and curb radii. Mr. Bragdon added that he has sent additional drainage information to HTA. He noted the change radius for the Post Office entrance, which was a traffic study recommendation.
Chairman Hirsch informed the public that the applicant is interested in moving forward on this application and receiving public input. There are some outstanding issues that were just reviewed, however, the application has been deemed complete, subject to these remaining items being completed. The process of this public hearing will be for people to come to the microphone, ask questions and the Board and applicant will respond, if necessary. He asked everyone to share time and not engage in a "back and forth" dialogue. It is not likely this application will go to the approval phase tonight. The meeting is scheduled to stop at 11 PM.
He invited the public to examine the posted plans. The application site plans were reviewed by the audience for 10 minutes.
Mr. Johnston asked if there will be 6 or 12 single fuel dispensers. Mr. Bragdon confirmed there will be 6. Mr. McElroy asked if the diesel station will allow room for the 18-wheelers trucks. Mr. Bragdon said yes, but not the large ones, the smaller sized field trucks.
Chairman Hirsch noted that the Planning Board has received several letters regarding this application and they are in the files and available to the public during town hall hours.
Chairman Hirsch opened the Public Hearing for public comment.
Jack Bopp said he is an abutter at 43 Hall Avenue, directly across from the building to be built. His living room and children’s bedrooms are directly across from this site. He wants to preface remarks with a few points that are useful and germane from the 1998 Supreme Court decision by Arthur Brennan regarding the prior application for property development. He asked the Board to keep in mind these few points: the scope and legal basis of this board’s authority; regulations are intentionally broad to regulate site development, however, there is great discretion in analyzing site plan reviews; an applicant can meet local regulations and still be denied approval. Planning Board members are obligated to rely on their experience, common sense to decide, and not just because legal experts say it is okay. The driveway entrance and exit onto Route 114 meets minimum requirements not unreasonable by experts; nevertheless, the reality of the area leads a reasonable person to question its safety. It is reasonable for the Board to not accept this application. It is a very intensive plan for this site. The Planning Board may permissibly consider aesthetics and safety in denying this application. Harmonious, open and green spaces are proper considerations; this is an asphalt jungle; the landscaping proposed is totally inadequate. These points all came from that important case law. His general points are to review standards. He does not believe the proposed landscaping is adequate, nor the buffers, in order to provide privacy of neighbors. He encouraged the Board to use common sense. Gas stations are meant to attract attention. It is absurd to allow 24 hour access to gas in a residential neighborhood. This should be consistent with the Master Plan. Seventy-five percent of the community survey said there were enough gas stations in town. A gas station/donut shop/car wash is not harmonious with this neighborhood.
Andrea Tindal of Depot Hill Road said she does not live in this sited area, but she has heard a lot of concern in the town, and her part in this is to share these concerns. Traffic is already bad in this area. Widening to three lanes as some propose will not necessarily work. This station will bring in traffic from 9/202, and then more traffic will go to Hall Avenue; she does not think Hall Street residents will like that because it is already a fast road. She asked the Board how this fits into the Master Plan; is this what the town wants to see? Landscaping will not be able to disguise this development. Do we need another gas station in town; think about the impact on local businesses. Do we need a Dunkin Donuts, when there is one in Hillsborough and Concord. She pays a lot of taxes to live in Henniker. There are traffic, safety, and visual concerns about this application.
Mr. Bragdon responded that the plan the board has pinned up for public review does not have the complete landscaping plan proposed for this site.
Mr. Johnston said he would like commentators to suggest resolutions to these concerns. He assumes that this is not an all or nothing proposed project. The applicant wants to work with the town to live with the final result. He would like to hear suggestions.
Mr. Bopp stated that it is not the public’s responsibility to help make this application acceptable. The Board’s responsibility is to administer town law. If the application is not fit, then it should be rejected. He takes great objection to this request.
Mr. Johnston said he was not stating that anyone should help the applicant, but only by identifying specific problems will these concerns help to provide reasons to reject the application, if that is the case. He urges all interested parties to not be general about their concerns.
Vikki Cater said she has lived in Henniker for 17 years, and during the Rite Aid case, she heard these same concerns. It concerns her as a town member because she is beginning to feel that Mr. & Mrs. Norton have property that will never be developed. Nothing will be good enough for the people living there. She has faced lines for getting gas at the Mobil Station in town. Maybe a car wash is not necessary for the town, but this area is not strictly residential; there is not much space left in Henniker to build a business.
Angela Robinson said she has lived here for 38 years and she hates to see it will become so cold and change the town atmosphere. This proposed application is a monstrosity. We do not need all this junk. You can go to Hillsboro for the car wash. It will attract traffic in for coffee and donuts and she does not think we need this. She proposed the town buy the land and turn it into a community center, she could have her concerts there. She loves this town and she wants it to remain as is. She is willing to give of her own savings to buy it. She urged all the audience to not give any suggestions to help the application.
Sam Shelby said he lives on Rush Road and he likes treed lots. In 1947 this was a wonderful town, but we operate by zoning laws, and he wants town rules to be applied in a consistent way. This is so obnoxious to waste a year on this application to then reject. It seems ridiculous to put this applicant through this process. We need to operate by the same rules and give our town integrity. If we go by the rules, this is a permitted use. If the application is complete, we are bound by the rules to say yes; that is what we are allowing with the expansion of Edmunds. If we did not want that then it should not be put in the zoning laws. If we do say no, we better have a good reason; otherwise this town has no integrity.
Dan Johnson of 21 Maple Street said he is a business owner in Antrim. He commutes 3 to four times a week and he has seen what has happened in Antrim with the T-Bird gas station there. Tractor trailers pull onto the side of the road; the traffic is packed in Antrim; sidewalk safety is an issue; but here it would be worse with no sidewalk. We will have more pedestrian traffic and it is obvious people will be killed here. He used to live in a planned community in Ohio; they would reject out of hand this proposal because it does not fit the gateway into town. He asked about paying for the water use for the car wash.
Tad Schrantz said they plan to pay for what they use. Gail Abramowitz noted that no water is metered in Henniker; it goes by unit and is monitored by the Water Commissioner. Mr. Johnson said this project will blow apart the whole water system for the town. He favors metered water, and does not know how the town will pay for this; the flow rate will be enormous; the whole town will be subsidizing the car wash. This application needs a lot of consideration and people should know the property next door to the T-Bird gas station in Antrim is heavily contaminated.
Mr. Schrantz responded that there is MBTE at the Antrim site. The NHDES is dealing with it; gas stations have been at this site for 45 years; remediation is done by state standards. Mr. Johnson noted that there was a leak there three months ago, but Mr. Schrantz disagreed, saying that there was recent work done on site, but it was not due to a leak. They are monitoring wells and have invested money in resolving this issue.
Mr. McElroy asked how Cheshire Oil plans to avoid this issue at the Henniker site, and Mr. Schrantz responded that installation is done by DES regulations, and the occupancy certification cannot be received until DES approves it. He noted that MBTE was required to be used by the federal government; it has been an issue for a long time. He added that MBTE levels can show with one gallon spill. No one really knows the hazards with MBTE but it is a big concern for everyone.
Mr. Johnson advised against this application, since there is no guarantee that this will not happen in Henniker. Mr. Schrantz responded by encouraging everyone to visit Antrim and look at their site. It is totally applicable and when you talk to the people you will find that they like it. Cheshire Oil had tried to change the traffic patterns with the town, but it was not agreed to; it is not perfect; but Henniker is a different situation. He noted that the neighbor’s failure to sell their house is for reasons other than the gas station. The MBTE contamination of gas station sites versus actual active gas stations is pretty darn small. Everyone is trying to find a solution. One option is to use ethanol, which is not a perfect solution. But this is not a situation of "who is the bad guy"; let’s resolve problems and move forward.
Neal Pearson asked about the traffic pattern with tractor trailers. Mr. Bragdon said the goal is not to have tractor trailers coming in, but rather the smaller field trucks. Ayer and Goss on Hall Avenue has diesel as well. Mr. Pearson asked for a guarantee that tractor trailers would never come, and Mr. Schrantz noted he could not say that. Mr. Pearson concluded then that this could become a huge problem. In addition, he was concerned about the drainage of the detention pond. Mr. Bragdon confirmed that DOT has asked for a 50-year storm event system to provide for excess overflow and that is being worked on. In answer to further questions, Mr. Schrantz confirmed that gas will be available from 5 AM to 11 PM, and the same with the donut shop. The opportunity to fuel will be 24 hours.
Caleb Dobbins of 27 Hall Avenue said the town engineer should be here to answer technical and specific questions. He is concerned about the detention pond. If one gallon of gas can cause MBTE contamination, and there is no server attendant there for 24 hours, then is seems likely that contamination will happen. If the detention pond is deep, then does it need a barrier? Will children be in danger? The crosswalk to the Post Office went away on plan; where did that go? He has issues with the traffic that will cross from the T-Bird to the Post Office, which will for sure happen. This is a dangerous intersection and it will be crazy for pedestrians to try and cross. The applicant says they don’t expect to be selling diesel more than gas, but they have a 10,000 gallon diesel tank and a 5,000 gallon unleaded gas tank. What is the accident history of this intersection? Traffic lights are taboo, but versus a death? There is also a driving circulation issue within the site itself.
Mr. Bragdon explained the detention pond will allow for overflow, based on the perk rate of the soil. The maximum depth is about 1.2 feet for a 25 year storm; and almost two feet for a 50 year storm.
Dave Janelle said Hall Avenue is a high traffic area and he is interested about the impact of this specifically for Hall Avenue. Has a no left hand turn from the gas station been proposed? The Board responded that this issue had not been raised to their knowledge. Mr. Janelle asked about the rationale for the no right hand turn sign from the Post Office. The Board stated that it was to keep traffic off of Hall Avenue. Mr. Johnston said there is no short answer about the traffic impact on Hall Avenue. The most recent report from the State is not in their materials. The applicant had people watching traffic at this intersection and counting the turns onto Hall Avenue.
Mr. Bragdon said the traffic study took existing numbers and projected them into the future; then generated two proposals for the town. The Highway Safety Committee had proposed Plan B. The Board noted that they would be seeking more information on this issue. Mr. Bragdon noted that DOT has said their proposed layout looks fine, and they will need to do the technical details once construction is proposed.
David Reed said he is not from Hall Avenue, but he believes the rural character of Henniker will be impeded by this project, you might as well replace it with Welcome to Citgo. He is willing to pay more to be in Henniker. This project is fine for Hillsboro, Warner and Concord, but he does not believe we need this in this location. He feels sorry for the property owner, but finds it difficult to believe that this would make all of us happy; it doesn’t fit with Henniker.
Eleanor Kjellman of Rush Road said she sympathizes with the neighbors on traffic and lighting; she has a neighbor next door clearing their area and building a home and their lights shine on her home. She also lives on a road that has the concrete and lumber companies, so there is a lot of traffic. There is all sorts of development and she is reminded of a poem about having a house in a village, and this is the town of Henniker, too. Mixed development is allowed. Since the applicant first filed, they have wanted to work with the town. Since then, the town has approved a new law office in a residential area. She likes the growth. She remembers reading the Henniker history her mother-in-law helped write about a bustling village. She thinks it is good that Harvester Market has grown, and that Edmunds has expanded. She likes the proposed traffic plan and believes it will improve safety here, because she does not believe it is safe now. This is real difficult for all of us and she hates to see such divisions as with Rite Aid; she hates to see factions building; remember we live in the village and no one can stop change.
Kristen Claire said she does not live in town, but thinks good points have been made here tonight. The town needs to look to the Board. There is a general feeling that maybe this is not the type of growth we want. The law office is a great idea but saying no to Rite Aid and a gas station does not mean we are against growth. She likes the active town and is glad Rite Aid was rejected. That case gives the Board leeway for reasonable questions. She is spending a lot of money to save a portion of town and would be sad if this was approved. It is up to the Board to make sure growth is appropriate to the town.
Mr. Dobbins asked about the specific car numbers that are expected for Hall Avenue if this plan is approved. According to the information he is reading, the traffic volume is not expected to increase and he totally disagrees with this expectation. The Board noted again that traffic information will be gathered.
Joan O’Connor said she lives three miles out of town and has been a property owner since 1977. She asked the applicant why they chose this site after Rite Aid? Mr. Schrantz said this is a very valid question. The location was available and in an area of moving traffic and other uses.
Ms. O’Connor said she is not speaking for the recycling committee, but she wrote a letter to the applicant asking about the trash generated, recycling efforts planned, and their waste management plan. The Town of Henniker pays for business garbage and will pay for all of this. Think of the garbage they will be producing. She is concerned about MBTE; this state is having a hard time with cleaning this up. She hates lighting and there should be some guidelines for this. Traffic is a big problem. The Board needs to look at the Master Plan. She does not want this in town.
Brian Mazerski said he lives two miles out of town but he believes development is coming and is a part of life. Yes, there will be traffic but it won’t be horrible. He believes the town sign at the entrance of town should be moved to 9/202. He asked about the employment and the sale of alcohol. He believes the town needs to employ the youth. David Quinn said Dunkin Donuts will be hiring adults and teenagers with the plan to have 4 to 6 employees working daily; about 25 people hired in total. Mr. Schrantz said the mini-mart will sell alcohol and there will be opportunities for all ages. They expect no less than 2 to 4 to be working on one shift. He noted that an employee must be a specific age to sell alcohol.
John Kjellman said there are competing interests here; the abutters have valid concerns, however his concern is fairness of process. The abutters, users, residents have legitimate owner’s rights. Five years ago the Norton’s wanted to sell this property. It is kind of late to now want to buy this by the town. In many respects, there is a lot of emotion that the Board needs to recognize, along with some knee jerk reactions. This property zoning is consistent with this project. Hall Avenue has commercial use, there is commercial activity, and there does need to be some trade off. Noise and lighting are good issues to discuss and this is what we should be doing. The applicant asked the Board a year ago if this was a realistic possibility to propose, and the Board unofficially said it was, so the applicant went and did a lot of work. One of the problems here is that planning is reactive. The Nortons expect to sell this as commercial property, and they have the individual’s property right to sell as is. The developer needs to meet the requirements of town. The opposition cannot have it both ways, if this is not needed in town, then there will not be a lot of traffic, so that will not be an issue. The town is growing and there are new houses all over. When he grew up here there were 5 gas stations, now there is fewer than that. This is a difficult issue and we must be careful in responding to emotional issues.
Mr. Osgood said as people point out, the town is changing. He has worked on the Master Plan, and this may be a flawed process, but he urged the Board to take a look at the regulations, in particular, the Standards of Review for the site plan review process. Can we approve this project under these standards? They have all been mentioned as an issue tonight. The car wash is a new issue for our sewage system, there is pedestrian/biking safety, fire safety. We need to be consistent with the Master Plan. It needs to be a harmonious development, and noise and smoke and erosion should be addressed.
Terri Stamps of 26 Fairview Road said she is concerned about the landscaping plan, which does not provide enough buffer for the residents. The Master Plan has several issues it encourages: 1) support existing businesses and add unique services; she is not sure this is the most attractive business to bring to Henniker; 2) areas of commercial development most appropriate to be zoned; this is a dynamic challenge; 3) conservation, preservation and open space; this is the entrance to our community; the community survey stated that 77% opposed gas and fast food businesses. She came from California and likes Henniker; she would be disappointed if this was here.
Mr. Bopp said the Planning Board has a thankless job; we appreciate your work. But a lot of what people are saying here tonight does not matter. What matters is case law, site plan review regulations, and board reasoning. This property is zoned commercial, and he encourages the Board to use common sense, judgment and their experience. We know what this will do. This will be a traffic hazard. It is damaging to abutters and the plan can be rejected on this alone. He cannot image what the applicant could do to make this better. He asked about the overhang for the station. Mr. Schrantz said it would be bigger than the one shown on the site picture, it will be longer for the actual building.
Mrs. Kjellman said this is a private property issue. This property does not belong to the town. The town had five years to make this town property. This is private property. She is tempted to cut down all the trees to make the issue go away. The Nortons own this land. She has a problem with members of the Board recusing themselves, and then freely participating in the opposition. We just heard one of them speak. When one of the active participants is a Board colleague, she does not believe this is ethical. It may be legal, but she believes we need to consider this kind of ethics for down the road. Ms. Braiterman said this has been discussed before. It was made clear to the Board that a recused person becomes a citizen free to discourse.
Barry Starmer of Hall Avenue asked how the tankers will come into the site. Mr. Bragdon said they will come in off of Maple Avenue, offload on the passenger side, then go around the building and go out the same entrance. He clarified that there is room to park when someone is fueling at the diesel station. Mr. Starmer noted that this will promote non-residential people to come into Henniker late at night. Police will have to respond to more issues, more vandalism, and more trash.
Mr. Bobbins noted there are three more engineering issues he has with this plan. He questions whether this will be an improvement of this development and to the intersection. He also questions the traffic numbers for the Post Office and Route 114. It is unrealistic to expect that value of this area will increase 20% but have the utilization of the area down 8%. He is a professional engineer and would like the town engineers to do their job. The Board has looked at these plans for months. He is willing to put up his own money to buy this property.
Ms. O’Connor said she knows someone who would be interested in purchasing this property. The Board stated this is a personal matter, not in their purview, and referred all such inquiries to the individual parties.
Chairman Hirsch asked about the five parking spots for the expected number of employees. Mr. Bragdon said there are eight designated on the plan, which the regulations require. He noted that the car wash is automatic and will have no attendant.
Mr. Starmer asked how thoroughly the Board members had read the traffic study. Chairman Hirsch noted that there are narratives, but it is a slow study with many details. Mr. Starmer asked how many more cars are expected to travel on Hall Avenue in two years. Mr. Johnston said at 6-8 am peak hours, it is a range of 73 to 85. Mr. Dobbins said this study does not address pedestrian traffic. He grew up in Henniker and moved into town to walk. Nothing in this report discusses the danger to pedestrians and the potential loss of life.
Mr. Pearson asked how the applicant obtained these numbers. Mr. Bragdon noted that their traffic engineers wrote this report and they would be happy to come in and answer questions. In general, the engineers take site projects, look at cars generated, and then measure town movement at each turn. Mr. Schrantz added that they take average numbers of businesses over history to see what the average expectation would be for each town. Mr. Pearson stated that traffic counts cannot take into consideration what is generated when that site is not yet developed. Ms. Englander referenced a chart from CNHRPC regarding a study completed in 1998 for Hall Avenue. That report states that 530 cars were using Hall Avenue before the Post Office was established and the 1998 count was 1,522 after it was built. The Board noted that they will look at current traffic studies in response to these concerns.
Mr. Bragdon noted the history of the traffic study for this intersection and said the public should hear from the traffic study safety person for their project.
There were no further public comments. Chairman Hirsch closed the public hearing, with the option to reopen it later after the Board has additional information to share.
Mr. Dobbins advised the Board to consult with tree experts, since the trees being planned for removal have surface roots. The ones remaining should be studied for survivability, since if they fall, they will fall on Hall Avenue and take out houses.
The Board scheduled a site walk with the applicant for Saturday, November 22nd, at 10AM. Minutes will be taken and the public is invited to attend. The notice will be posted at least 24 hours in advance.
The Board further agreed to hold their work session on November 25th; and to provide the applicant with a list of additional items they may request, in light of the discussion tonight. The Board planned that the public hearing may continue on December 10th, if necessary. They will request the town engineer and other parties to attend.
Mrs. Kjellman advised inviting the Chairs of the town committees that reviewed the applicant's report, in order to hear their reasons for approving the plan. The Board agreed to invite them to attend.
A motion to adjourn was made at 11 PM.
Respectfully,
Amy Jowers, Clerk to the Selectmen
TOWN OF HENNIKER
September 24, 2003
Members Present:
Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Karen Makocy Philbrick.Alternate Members: Jim McElroy, voting in Rachel Lehr’s absence, and Gail Abramowicz.
Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott.
Guests Present: Mark Hubbell, Jennifer McCourt, Rick Patenaude, Leon Parker, Dick Mower, Marylin Mower, Andrew H. Sullivan, Esq., John V. Kjellman, Barbara Abbott, Chris McAllister, Mike Damour, Jean Lewis, Joe Cox, Kirk Abbott, Lance Moulton, Art Siciliano, Patricia Skoby, Tami Kingsland Corbett, and Richard Uchida.
7:05 Mr. Hirsch called the meeting to order.
Mr. Hirsch reminded the audience the audio tapes were for the benefit of the clerk for transcription purposes. At a previous meeting it was decided the tapes are available to the public until the meeting minutes are approved. After that they are unavailable.
Ms. Abbott suggested the tapes remain available until the time lapses for an appeal to be made on an approved application.
Mr. Johnston read from NH State Right to Know – Section 91-A: 4 (8).
Ms. Abramowicz stated she was not obligated to record the meetings, but has done so to clarify her notes if necessary.
Mr. Hirsch also reminded guests that no new business would be taken up after 10:00 p.m. Any remaining business on the agenda will be continued to the next meeting. One noted exception was the last public hearing scheduled for this meeting. Mr. Hirsch stated the Board will consider the application for completeness, but may not get to the public hearing if it is past 10:00 p.m.
Review of meeting minutes
Members reviewed the draft minutes from the September 10, 2003 meeting. Minor technical and grammatical corrections were made. Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Englander seconded. The minutes were approved as amended.
Public Hearing #1.
Site Plan application for Mower Fitness LLC, d/b/a Curves of Henniker, submitted by Marylin Ash-Mower on behalf of K. Daniel Realty to create a new 1,386 sq. ft. business at 10 Main Street, Map 2 Lot 473 in the Commercial Village (CV) district.
Ms. Scott stated the Board would be reviewing this application on its own, and the issue of the possible increase in total square footage of the interior of the building at a future meeting.
Ms. Scott gave a summary of her review of the application, stating it meets all the requirements for completeness, with the exception of information regarding adequate parking.
Ms. Mower summarized the proposed business. Curves, is a fitness center designed for women for a 30-minute workout. Ms. Mower stated she has concerns about the parking situation in the River Lot. As noted in her narrative, she would need at least 16 spaces to accommodate her clients throughout the operating hours, but specifically during the hours of 6 – 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 – 6 p.m.
Ms. Scott stated with municipal parking, the idea is to park anywhere available and walk to your destination. It was discussed that the square footage ratio for parking would not apply in this instance. Ms. Scott also noted that the parking lot is not striped. Some of the parking issues in the River Lot could be alleviated if it was striped.
Mr. Parker, speaking on behalf of Mr. Daniel, and as a tenant with an office on the second floor, stated students are issued parking permits, but they are not required to renew them every year.
Ms. Abramowicz stated the police department, since the beginning of this school year, has put 2003/2004 on the stickers before issuing them. She will look into updating the permits issued to the present tenants.
Mr. Parker stated the renovations that have been made to the building have resulted in less rentable space. He restated that parking has been an issue in the downtown area for a while, and will continue to be a problem until more space is made available for parking.
Discussion continued on the ratio of parking spaces required per square footage of the business. It was concluded that 1 space per 500 sq. ft. was not applicable.
Mr. Johnston agreed that adequate parking is still an issue but also agreed that downtown is designed to have people walk to their destination.
Ms. Englander stated the busy times Ms. Mower stated might not be busy for other businesses, so it may not be a big problem for her clients.
Ms. Ash-Mower stated she has concerns about the building renovations. Ms. Scott stated she has spoken to the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Soucy, and he will be looking into the matter further.
MOTION made by Mr. Johnston to accept the application as complete. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.
The public hearing was open for comments about the application.
Mr. Osgood asked if the building renovation is complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Parker stated the work presently being done would address the entryway. The width of the corridors and doors already meet code requirements.
Mr. Ferguson spoke in favor of the application. He noted that people who attended the fitness center that was previously located on Bridge Street would walk down from the church parking lot.
Public hearing was closed for board deliberation.
Members again commented on the parking situation in the downtown area, and stated it could be a positive sign for the businesses, but also voiced it may drive the Town to make some changes to the issues at hand. It was noted businesses may have immediate issues with parking concerns in the River Lot . They may be able to sort them out with the landlords.
MOTION made by Mr. Osgood to approve the application. Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Makocy Philbrick abstained.
Ms. Scott will follow up with Mr. Daniel about the possible increase in total square footage issue, and will speak with Mr. Soucy about the building code issues. The highway department will be contacted about striping the parking lot. Ms. Scott will ask the Board of Selectmen to schedule a discussion on the downtown parking issues at a future meeting.
8:15 Public Hearing #2
A Final Major Subdivision application submitted on behalf of Mark Hubbell to consider a proposed six (6)-lot subdivision. The property is located at 74 Weare Road, Map 1 Lot 742 in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district.
Ms. Scott summarized the information received since the approval of the preliminary application. Ms. Scott said that town counsel responded to the questions the Board asked regarding the shared driveway. Counsel stated the proposed driveway violated zoning regulations. With that answer, Mr. Hubbell applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance and was denied. Mr. Hubbell is now proposing a private-road design for the subdivision.
Ms. Scott stated all state permits have been submitted. The town fire, highway, and police departments have signed off on the proposed plan, with no concerns or issues expressed regarding the application.
The engineer outlined where the easement right of way is on the plan. He also showed the adjustment to the boundary line at the back of the proposed lots. Mr. Hubbell stated the proposed private road would be known as Quarry Hill Court.
Members reviewed the draft of the Declaration of Private Road Easement and Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Sullivan noted the draft where the applicant and board members made minor changes.
MOTION by Mr. Johnston to accept the application as complete subject to the revision of the easement and boundary line shown on the final plan. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.
Public hearing was open for comments or questions regarding the application.
Mr. Parker spoke in favor of the motion. He stated, even though the ZBA denied the variance, it was more for semantics of the private driveway versus the private road. Having driven the dirt road as it exits now, he favored the changes being proposed.
There was a brief discussion about the homeowners association and the road maintenance agreement.
MOTION made by Ms. Englander to approve the application subject to receiving revised plans and the review of and approval by town counsel of the road easement and maintenance agreement.
Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was five members in favor of the motion. Mr. Osgood voted against.
9:10 p.m. Public Hearing #3.
A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Lance Moulton to consider a proposed subdivision of 36.25 acres to create nine (9) new lots at property located on Bradford Road, Tax Map 1 Lot 102-X in the Medium Commercial (CM) district.
Ms. Scott summarized her review of the application since the applicant’s submittal of revised plans from her first review for completeness. A letter dated September 24, 2003 from Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. was also reviewed. Ms. Scott reminded the members a request for a waiver regarding the turnaround design was before them to consider.
There was a brief discussion if there was a need for a Traffic Impact Assessment. Ms. Englander stated, from her observation at the site walk and knowledge of the area, it seemed apparent there was not a need for a traffic study. The Board will review the NHDOT evaluation of the proposal before stating a final decision.
Ms. Scott will follow up with fire, highway and police departments for additional comments on the application. Ms. Scott will contact the state highway department on the procedure for additional signage for road entryway at Route 114.
Ms. Scott outlined several minor revisions still required on the plan. Mr. Siciliano noted these for his engineer.
MOTION by Mr. Osgood to accept the application as complete subject to successful resolution of issues outlined in town engineer’s letter, revisions made as noted in Ms. Scott’s review letter, and the legend on the plan being corrected.
Mr. Johnston seconded. The vote for the motion was 2-4. Mr. Osgood and Ms. Makocy Philbrick voted in favor. The remaining Board voted against. The application was deemed incomplete at this time.
Mr. Moulton can present revisions to the application at the October 22, 2003 meeting. If the application is accepted as complete at that meeting, the public hearing may be open for public comment and questions.
9:46 p.m. Ms. Makocy Philbrick left the meeting. Ms. Abramowicz will be a voting member.
Public Hearing #4
A Final Major Subdivision application submitted by Jennifer McCourt of Keach-Nordstom Associates, Inc. on behalf of Patenaude Properties to consider the proposed twenty seven (27)-lot Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). The property is located on Davison Road, Map 2 Lot 95 in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) zoning district.
The applicant and members of the board took a few minutes to read letters recently received from abutters.
Mr. Osgood asked Ms. McCourt to clarify paragraph two in her letter dated 9/24/03, regarding lot sizing and property values. Ms. McCourt explained, with the proposed open-space design, the developer proposes to place a large home on a 1-acre lot; but with the open space figured in, the property owner will have the value of a 2+-acre lot and be taxed on that amount.
Ms. Scott stated that the information has been submitted that was required by her review dated September 17, 2003. The performance guaranty will need to be a condition of approval of the final plan.
There was a brief discussion about the homeowners association. Ms. Scott stated all technical requirements have been met.
MOTION made by Mr. Johnston to accept the application as complete. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.
The public hearing was open for comments and questions.
Ms. Abbott stated she was satisfied her recent letter has been submitted to the file, so she did not see the need to outline her objections again to the application as proposed.
Ms. Skoby stated she has concerns about the traffic on Pine Hill Road, is not happy there are three lots proposed to abut her property, and would rather have the two-acre minimum followed. She stated again she was not opposed to the development of the property, just the proposed design.
Ms. Skoby stated abutter Mr. Losik had similar concerns, but he was not able to stay for the public hearing.
Ms. McCourt addressed Ms. Skoby’s concerns by indicating on the plan where the no-cut zone is on proposed lots 95-A20, A19, A18 and A17.
Ms. Kingsland Corbett highlighted concerns voiced in her letter dated September 24, 2003 regarding traffic safety issues.
Ms. McCourt summarized traffic analysis and remarks made by the Police Chief. She stated the applicant has agreed to traffic-calming measures by offering to paint a double yellow line and fog lines from Pine Hill Road to Liberty Hill Road.
There was a brief discussion of the 50 foot buffer of trees between proposed lots. The applicant offered to add trees and bushes (conifers) to these areas.
Mr. Uchida suggested this item be added to the covenant agreement.
Mr. Damour spoke in favor of the application, but has reservations as to the continued maintenance of the access road. He further stated it may not be the best design, but commended the applicant on fulfilling all the requirements as stated in the regulation.
Ms. Kingsland Corbett asked if individual homeowners could disturb the wetlands at random. It was stated that legally they couldn’t, as there is a permit process required. Since this application has already been granted a special exception to impact wetlands, no further impact can be permitted, even through the regular process.
As there were no other questions of comments, Mr. Hirsch closed the hearing for Board deliberation.
Ms. Englander stated she is more comfortable with the proposed plan now that the buffer has been described in more detail.
Mr. McElroy asked if the revisions to the covenants agreement would be made quickly. Mr. Uchida stated they will be made the following day and a copy will be sent to town counsel.
Mr. Hirsch restated his past objections to the proposed plan.
Mr. Johnston agreed with Mr. Damour. Although not a subdivision plan he would like to see, it is the best the Board could do.
Mr. Osgood stated the neighbors are going to be impacted by the proposed plan, but credited the developer for working with the Board and offering the town a plan as outlined in the Master Plan. He
stated the animal corridor is a positive aspect in the open space design, and agreed the modified buffers is a plus to the proposal.
Ms. Abramowicz voiced no objection to the proposed plan.
MOTION by Mr. Johnston to grant final approval, subject to:
the same conditions as stated in the preliminary approval,
the addition of the covenant to prohibit the cutting of vegetation in the buffer, other than the dead and deceased vegetation,
to the performance bond for the road being established,
the review of the changes to the covenant document by town counsel and the planning board and the approval of the document by same.
Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was 5-1 in favor of the motion with Mr. Hirsch voting against.
Ms. Scott outlined the contents of the correspondence file. One noted item was the agenda item for the October 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting. They will address the no-right-turn sign at Post Office Street. Planning Board members were invited to attend.
NEXT MEETING- October 8 is a scheduled Work Session for the Board to review proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Gail Abramowicz,
Alternate Member
PLANNING BOARD
Members Present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Karen Makocy Philbrick and Thea Braiterman, Selectmen Ex-Officio.
Alternative Members: James McElroy (voting).
Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott.
Guests Present: Barbara Abbott, Joan O’Connor, Peter D. Mellen, Art Siciliano, Joan Stambaugh, Lori Womersley, Maurice Gagne, Diane Mallet, Ken & Theresa Richard, Lance Moulton
Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Review of August 27, 2003 Minutes
The Board reviewed the August 27, 2003 draft minutes, and made revisions:
(Page 1, after 6:03pm, add "than usual.") by Cordell Johnston.
Page 3, 2/3 down the page, Mr. Rick Patenaude (actually Luke Johnson) recess…"of the hearing." Next sentence Member continued…"during the recess."
Page 4, Old Business third line – "available to the Board and public."
End of paragraph, "Memo will be posted at Town Hall to outline this policy."
Correspondence, regarding the memo from Peter Flynn: "Proposals on town letterhead must be approved by the Town Administrator and/or the Board of Selectmen."
MOTION by Cordell Johnston to approve the August 27, 2003 minutes, as amended. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 6-0.
Public Hearing
A Minor Subdivision applicated submitted by Kenneth & Theresa Richard to consider a proposed two (2) lot subdivision. The property is located on 8 & 10 Peasley Road, Map 1, Lot 628, in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district.
Chairman Hirsch presented the letter from Ms. Laura Scott, detailing her preliminary review of the subdivision plan.
Peter Mellon, a landscaper from Hillsborough, presented the minor subdivision plan on behalf of Ken & Theresa Richard, explaining it is a standard subdivision requesting a division of Lot 628 into Lot 628A, 12 acres with 647 feet of frontage road, and Lot 628, 21 acres with about 1,200 feet of frontage road. The plan shows the existing buildings on Lot 628, with 5 foot contours from USGS, and soil types indicated.
Mr. Mellon confirmed he had reviewed Ms. Scott’s notes, and the Board reviewed the list: Note 1) Please explain note 2: Parcel A (not listed on the plan). Mr. Mellon said Parcel A is the 25 feet of land to be conveyed to the town, off the center line of the travelway. Thea Braiterman asked if the town requested this, and Mr. Mellon said this is the 25 foot easement required by town regulation for a right of way. Jim McElroy asked if the stone wall is included in the easement, and Mr. Mellon said yes. Note 2) provide revised addresses of the abutters for the recording of the plan; Note 3) provide date of soil survey for the plan. Mr. Mellon agreed to provide all of this information. Jim McElroy asked about the driveways. Mr. Mellon said there is an existing one on Lot 628A, with a 12 inch culvert, and two that will be built on Lot 628. Ms. Scott said this subdivision is complete, except for these minor issues.
Thea Braiterman asked if the abutters were notified, and Ms. Scott said yes. Cordell Johnston asked if there are already two houses on Lot 628, and Mr. Mellon said yes. Ms. Scott confirmed that this plan meets town regulations, setbacks, and lot sizes.
Chairman Hirsch reviewed the public hearing process for the guests, explaining that the first part is for the Board to consider the completeness of the submitted application; if complete, the Board then opens the hearing to the approval phase, including public comments and questions.
Thea Braiterman asked the reason for the subdivision, although this is not a need for the Board to know. Mr. Mellon said he believes the smaller lot is to be conveyed to construct a single-family dwelling.
Cordell Johnston asked about the difference in total square footage of the two lots, and Mr. Mellon confirmed that the square footage difference of Parcel A is what will be conveyed to the town.
Chairman Hirsch asked for a motion.
MOTION by Cordell Johnston to accept the subdivision plan as complete, subject to the revised abutter addresses and the date of the soil survey on the final submitted subdivision plan. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved 6-0.
Chairman Hirsch said the application has been determined to be complete. He opened the approval phase of the meeting, including public comments and questions.
Ms. Lori Womersley, as an abutter, asked where the house will be located pertaining to its septic system, since her lot, 566E, abuts this property and her well is at the back of it.
Jim McElroy asked if the house site is known, and Mr. Mellon said no. Mr. Richards indicated on the map the possible site, and Ms. Womersley was satisfied with this information. Mr. McElroy said there are specific offsets of existing wells on any property that have to be followed. Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked if this will be resolved in the building permit process, and Mr. Johnston said yes, in addition, the State will address concerns about the septic system.
Ms. Womersley asked about Parcel A and Mr. Mellon showed her where it was on the larger plan.
There were no additional questions or comments from the public or the Board.
Chairman Hirsch closed the public hearing at 7:27 PM.
MOTION by Jim McElroy to approve the subdivision application, subject to the three conditions for additional information. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and unanimously approved 6-0.
Public Hearing
A Site Plan application submitted by Joan Stambaugh on behalf of Maurice Gagne to consider a proposed retail business at 36 Main Street, Map 2, Lot 478, in the Commercial Village (CV) zoning district. The business proposed is a pet store/consignment shop.
Ms. Scott stated there is no written preliminary review by her, just a letter from Joan Stambaugh providing additional information for the submitted site plan application for the business, Feathers and Threads. The application is complete.
Jim McElroy asked if this is an application for a Change of Use, and Ms. Scott said yes; the abutters have been notified, state licensing information has been submitted as well as the business’s operational information. Ms. Stambaugh will need a Sign Permit from the Board of Selectmen when she changes the sign. Ms. Stambaugh stated she is just going to replace the current sign with a similar one. Cordell Johnston asked if a sketch of the interior plan is needed, and Ms. Scott said no, there are no interior changes.
MOTION by Karen Makocy Philbrick to accept the submitted site plan application as complete. Jim McElroy seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved 6-0.
Chairman Hirsch opened the hearing for the approval phase, including public comment.
Joan O’Connor said she has known Ms. Stambaugh for over 20 years; Ms. Stambaugh had a pet store in Bradford; she knows animals and she endorses her ability to have this business. The consignment part is a plus.
Cordell Johnston asked if there are concerns about parking for this business, even if this is an existing space. Ms. Scott said this is not an issue for a Change of Use, unless it would be a new building or if the Use would drastically change.
Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked if there is parallel parking for this business in front, as well as parking in back, and Ms. Stambaugh said yes, the back parking is accessed by the Pop Schultz store and is for the residents. Ms. Englander asked if there are designated spaces for the residents, and Ms. Stambaugh said yes, there are 10 spaces. Mr. McElroy asked about deliveries, and Maurice Gagne said they would be in front, mostly by federal express, and generally small, quick deliveries.
Ms. O’Connor said she favored more retail in town, in order to attract more foot traffic and to get people to come to Henniker as a destination.
Chairman Hirsch asked about the residents upstairs, and Mr. Gagne said they are mostly college students. Ms. Stambaugh said her birds can be noisy, and they will put up a curtain to reduce the disturbances to them from onlookers.
Chairman Hirsch asked about the classes she mentioned in her plan, and Ms. Stambaugh said it will be single events in the afternoon for such groups as the 4-H clubs; not a planned schedule; she did not plan to be open later than 5 or 6 PM.
Ms. Englander asked how many of the 10 parking spots in back are used by the residents in the building, and Mr. Gagne said there are 8 residents. They receive parking stickers from the Police Department and are told not to park out front.
Ms. Stambaugh added that she is planning to give 1% of all consignment net sales to the NEC or a high school of the person’s choice. She believes it is important to give back to the community.
MOTION by Karen Makocy Philbrick to approve the site plan application, as submitted. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 6-0.
The public hearing was closed at 7:45 PM.
The Board congratulated Ms. Stambaugh on her new business. She plans to open Monday. Mr. Gagne asked about information listing the types of businesses that can be opened in this zoning district, and the Board referred him to the Zoning Board’s information book. The listing is general, but could guide him.
New Business
Review Preliminary Subdivision Application submitted by Lance Moulton for completeness.
Art Siciliano distributed additional subdivision plans. Ms. Scott said she reviewed this application on August 28, 2003 and, at that time, it was not complete. Since then, more information has been submitted, so many of the issues on her list to the Board have been resolved. Because this information was submitted too late to schedule a public hearing, this is a preliminary review of the application.
The Board restated that this is the first time they have seen this information, so it will be a general review of this application. Mr. Johnston asked about Cressy Street, versus Bradford Road; Ms. Scott clarified that Cressy Street is the applicant’s mailing address, not the site address.
Ms. Scott reviewed the list of issues on the plan:
Under Submitted Plan: 1) resolved; 2) the site for the utility pole; Mr. Siciliano said this will be decided by PSNH. Under Procedure: five complete sets of the small plans are still needed for the Board. The last two items are resolved. Ms. Scott asked if the Board would like to schedule a site walk, which is necessary for this application.
Cordell Johnston asked if the road will be laid out, and Mr. Siciliano said that can be done by the time of the walk, but he also wants to make sure the Board will have a chance to review the plans before then. The Board assured him they would. Ms. Scott advised doing the walk within the next two weeks, in order to be able to schedule the public hearing for the next Board meeting. The Board agreed to do a site walk on September 24th, at 4:30-pm, with Mr. Johnston, Chairman Hirsch, and Ms. Englander. Mr. McElroy will be the backup.
Mr. Osgood asked if they have dug any test pits, and Mr. Siciliano said yes, and showed them on the property plan. Mr. McElroy advised reviewing the abutter information again, and noted the error with 49 Old Concord Road. Ms. Scott said she would review and correct.
Mr. McElroy asked about the status of the stone walls. Mr. Siciliano confirmed they will stay. Ms. Scott added that all stone walls can be moved, unless used as a lot boundary line, and even then they can be jointly agreed to be moved.
For the 202-7(B) issue, the Board requested the deed for the road Right Of Way (ROW). Mr. McElroy asked if the ROW on Route 114 is clear and Mr. Siciliano said yes. The Board requested Ms. Scott send this plan to the Highway, Fire, and Police departments, as well as send the road and stormwater plans to the town’s consulting engineer. Ms. Scott requested one more set of the big plans to send to the town engineer - Hoyle, Tanner & Associates.
Mr. Osgood requested the town engineer work up a cost of bonding this road. Ms. Braiterman asked if the town has to accept this road, and Ms. Scott said she would look into this issue. The Board discussed whether a new road has to be approved at town meeting. Mr. Siciliano said he believed that once the Planning Board approves this plan, the road is accepted by the town. It was noted that town regulations request the road deed, so Ms. Scott agreed to research this issue further. Thea Braiterman asked that this information be copied to the Board of Selectmen, as well.
One more copy of the drainage plan was requested. Ms. Scott said that the 207-B(10) issue is resolved, but for 207-C(1), the Board needs to decide whether or not to request a traffic impact assessment. The Board agreed that further research of the plan, and the responses from the town departments, were needed before making this decision. Mr. Siciliano asked how long it will be for these departments to respond. Ms. Scott said she would send the information to them, letting them know the Planning Board will have the public hearing on September 24th, and try to get their responses as soon as possible.
Mr. Osgood said he is concerned about the intersection details for this plan; that the State will want to know this information. Mr. Siciliano said those details have already been submitted to the State.
Ms. Scott mentioned one more correction for the abutters, and then said the last piece is for the site walk to occur. The Board discussed considering the completeness of this plan at this meeting, with the intent to take the official vote at the public hearing, but decided that full discussion of the plan’s completeness during the hearing will better serve the public.
The Board asked for a brief overview of the submitted plan, to be better prepared for the site walk. Mr. Siciliano explained the plan to build 10 lots on the 36.25 acres. The wetlands have been flagged, with no crossing of them planned. There is a proposed turnaround that has been discussed with the town Road agent, which will need a waiver. The length of the road is 1,300 feet and will be paved to town standards.
Mr. McElroy asked about the road elevation, and Mr. Siciliano said it climbs about 100 feet. The Board discussed the 1-acre+ buildable area the plan indicates, and agreed this part needs to be clearer on the maps. Ms. Scott noted that town regulations do not require a plan to that detail. Ms. Scott agreed to mark out the septic areas on the maps for the public hearing. Mr. Osgood asked about the radius of the road curve, and Mr. Siciliano said it was 200 at the center line, in order to avoid the surrounding wetlands.
Mr. McElroy asked about the state permit for exiting onto Route 114, and Mr. Siciliano said he has this. The Board discussed the possibility of a future bus stop at this entrance, and Mr. Siciliano said the road has a wide shoulder, should this be needed.
The Board asked about the houses being planned, and Mr. Lance Moulton confirmed he is building them with his business. Mr. McElroy asked if a driveway permit is needed for each one, and Mr. Siciliano said yes. Chairman Hirsch asked about utilities and Mr. Moulton said they will be underground. He has had experience with these and other issues with the building of several subdivisions in the state. There will be split entranceway; he plans to landscape with trees and stone; there will be a street sign, but not a subdivision sign.
Chairman Hirsch asked about soil types, and Mr. Siciliano said it is almost all Gloucester soil, and this will be put on the next map. Ms. Scott asked him to show the slope and soil indicators on a separate map, in order to clarify the details. Mr. Siciliano agreed.
Chairman Hirsch asked about the degree of the slope; Mr. Siciliano said it is mostly less than 25%, with 33% in one spot, which is the highest allowed. He agreed to mark this out.
Ms. Englander asked about the amount of traffic expected for this new area, and the Board discussed using the assumption of 10 trips per day per household, therefore, 100 trips to and from the subdivision. It was noted the speed limit drops to 35 at the subdivision entrance. The Board agreed to further discuss at the next meeting.
Ms. Scott said she will write up this new list of requests from the Board; get information out to them with the required applications; all before the site walk on September 24th. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Osgood noted that the road grade and the curve radius is at the maximum in this subdivision.
Correspondence:
Ms. Scott encouraged Board members to attend the NH Office of State Planning conference that will cover the responsibilities of planning boards. Chairman Hirsch said he would try to attend. Ms. Scott encouraged members to attend the NH Society for Protection of Forests event next week in Bow, NH.
Ms. Scott referenced a letter she sent to Mr. Jack Bopp about a business in his home; no action is necessary from the Board. Ms. Englander asked about the part-time person to be employed at this business, and Ms. Scott clarified that town regulations refer to workers, not whether they are full-time or part-time. The Board confirmed the Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for checking for any violations of home businesses, but will likely take action only from a complaint.
Ms. Scott referenced an inquiry from the New England College about changing a fraternity into a dorm building. The Board stated this is only allowed in an educational district, and invited the College to come in for more discussion. Ms. Englander asked about the district overlay issue; the Board said this was discussed, but not acted upon.
Ms. Scott noted that the NH Municipal Association bulletin is available for anyone interested. She also noted the NHMA can come in to discuss with the Planning Board their responsibilities and other issues. The Board agreed to a joint meeting with the town ZBA, with the date to be decided later.
Planning Consultant’s Report
Ms. Scott said there is an issue with the Harvester Market; the owner realizes he has left the storage lights on past 8 PM in violation of the site plan review restrictions. He would like to come in for another site plan review to withdraw this restriction. Mr. McElroy asked if this is because of security concerns, and Ms. Scott said yes, according to the owner. The Board agreed; Ms. Scott added that Roland Soucy, the town Code Enforcement Officer, has already spoken to him about the lights, in the meantime.
Ms. Scott asked about the work Mr. Kevin Daniel is doing in his building. Previous board minutes indicate the building permit in 2000 was approved only for the foundation. The site plan review was waived based on no new occupants, except on a one for one exchange.
The Board discussed the parking issues with this building and the fact that a lot of their review seemed to be after the work was already done. Ms. Scott said he is building new spaces within the building and new tenants are moving in. Mr. Johnston said the Board had only waived site plan review for one to one exchange of tenants. If new tenants are coming in, he will need to come in for a site plan review. Mr. Osgood noted that it is in the best interests of the town to make sure businesses downtown are fully utilized, not restricted.
Ms. Scott confirmed that a tenant of this building is coming in for a site plan review to open up "Curves", a fitness center for women. The applicant is aware she needs the building owner to give her a certificate of occupancy, which he cannot do until he has a building permit. The Board discussed the difficulty of considering this plan when it does not know the total square footage of the entire building, how many tenant businesses are expected to be there, and how much parking is required for them all. The Board agreed that the Building Inspector needs to review the interior work of the building in order to sign off on a building permit, even if after the fact.
Ms. Scott requested the Board read the September 3rd letter from Mr. Danny Aucoin, regarding the Advanced Towing business. Ms. Braiterman said the Board of Selectman approved this towing company as an option for the Police Department to call, but the issues now raised by Mr. Aucoin, and not raised at the meeting, questioned this decision.
Mr. Johnston said this is an exaggeration of the existing problem of this current business moving into the space of a non-conforming business in that zoning district, with the position that it is a continuation of that grandfathered business. The Board discussed this previous issue, and further agreed that this new use for storing towed cars is a violation of this non-conforming use, if not with change of use, at least with expansion. Mr. McElroy suggested that town counsel may need to assist with this issue.
Mr. Osgood requested assistance from the Code Enforcement officer; Ms. Scott noted that the person in that position at that time had said yes, too. The Board reiterated their
belief that it is their authority to determine whether a new business is a change of use of a non-conforming use. The Board agreed to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen in response to Mr. Aucoin’s issues, emphasizing that this new towing business will need to find another place to store cars immediately. It will be copied to all the relevant parties. Mr. Osgood noted the site work being done there currently, and the Board noted that Mr. Soucy needs to be aware of this issue, as well.
The Board agreed to send flowers to Marnee Saltalamacchia.
Ms. Englander asked about the sign for the new business, Dino’s Purple Moon, and the Board discussed requesting Dr. Belson to come in for site plan review.
The Board discussed the building site previously used for Wilmott Auctions, but now has a new sign for an auto repair and sales business. Ms. Scott said Mr. Soucy and her met with the owners, the Caldwells, and advised that they needed a variance; they are scheduled for this variance request at the next ZBA meeting on Wednesday, September 17, 2003. She will follow up on this possible illegal sign.
Ms. Makocy Philbrick noted correspondence advising against using emails to convey legal question and answers; Ms. Scott confirmed she puts all substantive issues in the appropriate files.
Ms. Scott said the next meeting would be fairly lengthy; scheduled are the Curves site plan review, the Hubble subdivision, the Lance Moulton subdivision, and Hilltop Estates. She did not know if they were all complete at this time, but rescheduling them would be difficult, since October 8th is a Work Session for the planning board.
The Board further discussed the Curves site plan review application and the interior work being done by Mr. Daniel. Ms. Scott noted that Mr. Soucy is following up with Mr. Daniel, but that leases are also being signed right now. The Board discussed the need to know total square footage of this building before reviewing any site plan reviews for businesses inside it; also the need to know how each business will affect the parking issue.
(Mr. Osgood left at 9:40 PM)
The Board advised Ms. Scott to tell the applicant for the Curves site plan review to bring her plan in for the next meeting, but that we will also be requesting information about the
entire building. The Board further agreed to request Mr. Daniel to come before the Board to discuss this issue.
The Board noted that new business will not be taken up after 10 PM, and Jennifer McCourt, representative of the Hilltop Estates, should be advised of the possibility that her plan may need to be rescheduled.
Ms. Scott reminded the Board that Mr. Hubble is applying for a variance on the driveway in his plan next week at the ZBA meeting, based on the letter from town counsel stating that his proposed driveway is illegal because it crosses setbacks. Chairman Hirsch said he will try to attend.
A motion to adjourn was made at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully,
Amy Jowers
PLANNING BOARD
Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.
Alternate members: Jim McElroy (voting) and Gail Abramowicz.
Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott
Guests present: Brian Dubreuil, Joan Stambaugh, Bob Richards, Mark Hubbell, Lisa Jutras, Barbara Abbott, Lloyd Henderson, Rick Patenaude, Thomas E. Fisher II, Kerry Coffin, Ken Skoby, Patti Skoby, Jacob Prever, Kirk Abbott, Tim Russell, Joyce Blythe, John Kjellman, Thomas Johnson, Doug Tackett, Ken Tackett, Frank Collins, Luke Johnson, Rob Howard, William Johnson, Chris McAllister, Jennifer McCourt, Wayne Patenaude, and Sally Patenaude.
7:05 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.
Mr. Hirsch announced that Ms. Lehr will be absent from the board until January, and therefore, Mr.
McElroy will be a voting member in her absence.
Informal Discussion
Ms. Stambaugh asked the board to consider a small-animal pet shop and consignment shop as a continued use of office space at 36 Main Street. She stated the pet shop will be for small birds and fish, with clothing and small home furnishings on the other side of the office space.
After a brief discussion, it was concluded by the board the project is a change of use and Ms. Stambaugh is required to apply for Site Plan Review. Ms. Scott gave Ms. Stambaugh the application and asked her to call the Selectmen’s office to make an appointment to review the completed application form.
Minutes
The draft minutes of July 23, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.
Public Hearing - Continued from July 23, 2003
A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Ron Burd of Burd Engineering, on behalf of Mark Hubbell, to consider a proposed six (6)-lot subdivision. The property is located at 74 Weare Road, Map 1, Lot 742 (after the voluntary merger is recorded), in the Rural Residential (RR) district.
Mr. Vanson gave an overview of the proposal, highlighting changes made to the plan since the last meeting.
Mr. Hubbell defined what a shared driveway is and presented a draft of the deed and easement that outlined the maintenance of the shared driveway, which will be the responsibility of the property owners.
There was a discussion on where the proposed individual driveways could be located, but Ms. Scott reminded the Board that was not a requirement because the shared driveway onto Route 114 is shown on the plan. It was also stated the applicant has met the State requirements for a driveway access onto the state road.
Ms. Scott then read a letter from the fire chief, which stated his concern of the width of the driveway. Mr. Hubbell said he resides at that site, and he is able to get his dump truck through there without any problem.
Police Chief Russell stated he saw no pedestrian traffic concerns, sight distance issues or vehicle traffic delays at the site. He did voice concern with regard to emergency services because of the number of homes sharing one driveway, and suggested a sign at the entrance from Route 114 indicating the multiple house numbers.
As the road agent was unavailable to attend the meeting, Ms. Scott informed the Board she had spoken to him and he stated his issues were answered since the July 23 meeting.
Board members further discussed the shared driveway. At present there is no regulation that limits the number of homes that can share one driveway.
Members suggested a common-driveway agreement that would give the property owner adequate information about how the landowners were responsible for the snow removal and overall maintenance of the driveway.
Mr. Hubbell stated language in the deed would inform the property owner(s) of their responsibility to collectively maintain the driveway.
As stated in Ms. Scott’s review dated July 31, 2003, per subdivision regulation 202-7 (A) (b), an on-site inspection of the property by at least three members is required. The site walk was conducted on
July 30th, with Ms. Englander and Mr. Johnston in attendance.
Ms. Englander stated she did not see any issues while at the site.
Mr. Hubbell asked the board to waive the requirement that three (3) board members be present.
Mr. Johnston made a motion to waive subdivision regulation 202-7(A) (b) that requires three members to attend a site walk.
Ms. Englander seconded the motion. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.
Public hearing was opened for comments and questions from abutters and guests. There were none made.
Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked the criteria difference between a private driveway and a private road.
Ms. Scott stated a private driveway does not have to be constructed to town road specifications. A proposed private road is required to follow town specifications in the event that it could be voted to become a town maintained road in the future.
There was additional discussion on this topic.
Ms. Scott reminded the members the road agent had no further comments about the driveway; and, since it will access a state road, the applicant will need approval from the State for a driveway permit.
Mr. Hubbell said the State is still reviewing his permit application, but he will submit a copy of the approval for the file when obtained.
Mr. McElroy and Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked additional questions about the driveway.
Mr. Hirsch stated it would be up to the individual homeowners if they wished to upgrade the driveway width or surface material.
Mr. Hubbell stated it would be a personal preference on how the landowner(s) choose to upgrade their personal driveway onto the common driveway.
Mr. Vanson stated, for those not familiar with the driveway, as it exists now, looks like a private road.
Ms. Makocy Philbrick suggested perhaps legal counsel should review the proposed common driveway.
Mr. Hirsch stated that because of the absence of any present regulation, there may not be sufficient reason to make that request.
Ms. Makocy Philbrick said because there is not a regulation is the reason a review should be requested.