MINUTES
CHARLESTOWN PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 6, 2004
Members Present: Sharon Francis – Vice-Chair; Steven Neill, Ex-Officio, Gail Fellows, Robert Frizzell, Fred Poisson, David Sussman
Alternates Present: Roger Thibodeau
Staff Present: David Edkins – Planning & Zoning Administrator
Regina Borden – Recording Secretary
Others Present: See Attached List
CALL TO ORDER & SEATING OF ALTERNATES – Vice-Chair Sharon Francis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. She noted the absence of regular member Robert Beaudry and called upon alternate member Roger Thibodeau to sit in his place.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004-05: Mrs. Francis observed that the Planning Board wanted to conduct the election of officers for 2004-05 when all regular members are present and suggested that the election be postponed until everyone is here.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2004 AND MARCH 30, 2004 MEETINGS:
Gail Fellows moved to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2004, meeting as printed. Robert Frizzell seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Gail Fellows moved to approve the minutes of the March 30, 2004, special meeting as printed. Robert Frizzell seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
ROBERT MacNEIL & WALTER HARRINGTON – WESTERN REGION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) FOR SULLIVAN COUNTY: Walter Harrington introduced himself as a Charlestown resident, a member of CEDA and the Western Region Development Corporation (WRDC) and a Sullivan County representative to the Capital Region Development Corporation in Concord. He explained that the State has encouraged WRDC to work on a CEDS Program in Sullivan County and compile necessary data. Once the document is approved, it opens a lot of doors for grants and federal funding to communities in the County. If an area doesn’t have a CEDS program in place that door is not open. The information that is developed in the process will also be helpful to communities
in updating their Master Plans.
He then introduced Robert MacNeil of West Lebanon who is the Chairman of the WRDC’s CEDS Program. Mr. MacNeil explained that this program is long over-due. It is not an overlap of the Master Plans. The study is contracted out to the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC). WRDC members are going to the different communities and asking for people to become involved. The first Public Meeting will be held on April 29th at the Sugar River Savings Bank in Newport, NH from 6:00 to 9:00 PM (a flyer had previously been distributed to Board members). Mr. MacNeil distributed two handouts entitled “Economic Development Administration – Summary of EDA Investment Awards” and “U.S. Department of Commerce – Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (CEDS) Guidelines – November 2002”. Feedback is important and critical for a good plan. There will be another informational mailing soon.
Mrs. Francis asked what the time frame is? Mr. MacNeil responded that they are looking at September for the completion. The key to this is that it should be a living document and should continue to be up-dated. Mr. Harrington added that with the uniqueness of Sullivan County it would be better to have our own document rather than join in with Keene that has totally different demographics than this area. Mrs. Fellows asked what an individual member of the community needs to bring to the meeting? Mr. MacNeil responded that there are different levels of participation; initially one could come to the first meeting with nothing, as they will spell things out. They will be looking for people to volunteer information, people to work on an Advisory Board, look at population trends, look at
building permits for the last year, etc. It is a regular planning tool. The UVLSRPC will have a lot of information but we need to fill in the holes.
Mr. Neill questioned that the CEDS Committee is partially funded by the county; at some point will you come back to the towns for support to maintain it? Mr. MacNeil noted “yes” by the Western Region Economic Development Corporation; one thing that is being studied is when these economic development corporations were formed there was an attempt by the state to reach out and there were block grants issued through these economic development bureaus. Now the State is discovering that these could be consolidated into regions. The county budget allocated $48,000 to this organization last year and through the consolidation it seems that it would be one-half of that. Mr. Harrington said they are trying to negotiate a commitment out of Capital Region Development that they will keep an office in
the county that may be staffed by multiple persons. Mrs. Francis asked about marketing in the county for the smaller communities. Mr. MacNeil responded that if we develop this plan there might be a recommendation to look at it. There is now a little more emphasis on the western side of the state. Mr. Harrington noted that the western side of the state is getting more attention; they are seeing more people at their meetings. This is where the future opportunities in the state are going to be and this makes it more positive for everyone involved. Mr. MacNeil requested that a copy of the minutes of the meeting be Faxed to him.
PARTY TIME FAMILY FUN ZONE, cont’d – Sign Permit – Change Copy on Existing Sign – 3848 Claremont Road – Map 2, Lot 2, Zone E (Mixed Use): Patricia Cormack was present and noted that this is a free standing sign. A copy of Mr. Edkins’ letter dated March 18th to Mr. and Mrs. Cormack regarding signs was noted. Mr. Edkins advised that when the application initially came in there was a question about the size of the sign and if it complied with the regulations; the regulations state that there can be one free standing sign per business and it is limited to 50 square feet. The existing sign that was there comes out to just under 50 square feet. One concern is the side bar that reads “Party Store”, as it adds about 7 additional square
feet to the 49.25 square feet sign that takes it over the 50 square foot maximum. If there is more than one business on the property the regulations require a directory type sign – it shall be in proportion to the size of the building and the number of businesses therein. Mr. Edkins feels that this Board doesn’t have the authority to approve something bigger than the present sign but Mrs. Cormack can make application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. There is an additional sign on the building that meets the town’s criteria. Mrs. Francis said a concern is the traffic picking up speed at this point and the amount of copy to read on the sign. It was noted that there are also flags on the property. Mrs. Fellows took issue in the fact that this is the second time this Board is dealing with “after the fact” sign permits on this property. Mrs. Cormack responded that the add-on was not ordered or paid for but it was
a gift to them by the maker of the sign.
Mr. Poisson moved to approve the sign as presented without the “Party Store” side bar. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
Mr. Poisson moved to write a letter to the sign maker outlining the Town’s regulations. Mrs. Fellows seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
CHARLESTOWN ANIMAL HOSPITAL PLLC – Dr. Claire Lindo and Reza Marukelli – Sign Permit – 23 Main Street: Dr. Claire Lindo and Reza Marukelli were present. Mr. Sussman asked about the lights. Mr. Marukelli responded that their original plan was for ground-mounted lights but because of the winter snow they are requesting lighting mounted on the sign. The lighting would be from the top of the sign downward. The sign will be green slate with wood framing and white lettering. Hours of illumination will be as specified in their Site Plan as well as during off-hours emergencies. Fred Poisson questioned the distance from the traveled way – it should be 6’ from the sidewalk.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept this Sign Application as presented with the correction of the distance to the traveled way and the lighting from the top of the sign downward. Mr. Sussman seconded the motion. With seven members in favor, the motion carried.
PAUL NICKERSON, Cont’d – Warehouse & Assembly Work in Existing Industrial Building and Add Two Self Storage Buildings (30’ x 80’ and 30’ x 100’) – 31 Baldwin Court – Map 28, Lot 31 – Zone E (Mixed Use): Mr. Nickerson indicated that he provided everything that the Board requested at the last meeting; a revised set of plans, a proposed lease agreement and other additional information. A letter from Warren L. Stevens, P.E., of M & W Soils Engineering, Inc., addressing drainage concerns was distributed at this meeting. Mrs. Francis read the observations from this letter dated April 6th, 2004. Mr. Poisson felt that the letter answers the questions noted in the motion made at the last meeting. Mr. Edkins said the letter
addressed the 2-year storm and 10-year storm, however, the town’s regulations that drainage systems be designed for a 25-year storm. Mr. Stevens is talking about storing the 10-year storm in the detention area around the storage of the dry well. Mr. Thibodeau questioned what does this do with the freezing? Mr. Nickerson responded that is what the dry wells are for; he will instruct the person plowing on where to put the snow so it is not stored on top of the dry wells. The Board researched the location of the dry wells on the plan. Mrs. Francis noted that the Board has two questions: what additional capacity is provided by the dry wells and what storage capacity will be needed for the 25-year storm.
Serena Lamontagne said at the last meeting the neighbors had voiced their concerns. She is not opposed to the proposed use of the existing building but is opposed to the new storage units. Mrs. Lamontagne is looking at the proposed 6-foot solid vinyl fence – it does not go all the way around. Why not have it go all the way around and have a security gate? Mr. Nickerson said he has a 24-hour surveillance camera system that will be above the ground about 7-feet. Mrs. Lamontagne asked then who is supposed to be enforcing the off-hours? Mr. Edkins said that the applicant may not be able to stop someone going in there at 11:00 PM but it will be on the film and he can revoke their privilege to use it in the future. Mrs. Francis asked for an explanation on where the fence will be? Mr. Nickerson indicated that it will start at the driveway, run left down the property to the corner, follows the property around to the front of the road on the other side. If he goes all around the
property the fence would have to be a chain-link fence plus he wants people from the street to be able to see his business. Mr. Nickerson described the vinyl fence as being like a stockade fence but it is flat white boards. Mr. Edkins noted that we see more and more of the vinyl fences because they are durable and almost maintenance free. Mr. Frizzell asked if Mr. Nickerson had a gate would he still have the cameras? Mr. Nickerson responded “yes”. Replying to Mrs. Perkins concern about the camera infringing on the privacy for her pool, Mr. Nickerson noted that the southeast camera might catch just the corner of her pool. Mr. Poisson did not feel that the cameras are going to infringe on the privacy of any neighboring properties.
Judy Royce owns two adjacent properties and feels that the properties need to be surveyed, as there are no markers where Mrs. Mentor and Mrs. Royce’s properties meet. Mr. Nickerson is going to have Mr. Wayne McCutcheon survey the property before he erects the fence. It was surveyed last in 1994. Mrs. Royce asked if there would be any outside storage? Mr. Nickerson said “no” only his own trailer. Mr. Edkins advised that Mr. Nickerson is showing the fence as being 2-feet off the property line; it has to be set back from the property line to allow room for maintenance.
The Planning Board took a break from 8:10 to 8:15 P.M.
Christine Perkins asked what a dry well is and can a kid fall into it? Mr. Thibodeau explained that it is a piece of corrugated pipe put into the ground 5-feet deep but the grate is usually about 150 pounds. There will only be water in it when it rains. Mrs. Francis said it is important to have the water go back into the ground. Mrs. Perkins asked why it is 5-feet deep? Mr. Nickerson responded that it has to be deep enough so it will not freeze.
Mrs. Francis asked what the square footage of the paved area would be as the regulations state that not more than 50% of the area can be impervious? Mr. Nickerson was not sure but he could cut back if need be. Reference was made to the Site Plan regulations on page 24 – 5.7.4. Mr. Poisson felt the plans indicate about 60% impervious surface. Mrs. Francis said this is important because the Board is talking about drainage where the abutters already have problems from this property. Mr. Nickerson said his property is lower than the others.
Mr. Frizzell asked if this project might require bonding? Mrs. Francis said the Board might ask for bonding as a part of the project construction but they can’t do bonding for the on-going effectiveness of the design. Mr. Poisson felt that the Board has to rely on the New Hampshire engineer’s opinion. Mrs. Royce questioned what would happen if Mr. Nickerson fails in this business? Is there any kind of bond? Mrs. Francis explained that the Board does not have in their regulations anything that address the “what ifs” Mrs. Royce is raising – it is beyond their authority. Mr. Poisson noted that Mr. Nickerson has been in this Town for a good number of years, the banks will want to be reasonably sure that this will fly. If he fails the bank will not let it
sit there and deteriorate.
Serena Lamontagne feels that the applicant is cramming a lot of stuff into a multi-use one-acre lot in a residential area. There will be three businesses; originally it was one business. Mr. Sussman explained that this property is in Zone E so any use is permitted. There are no statutory restrictions. The Planning Board can only try to set conditions that make it compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Edkins said that the Board does not look at the number of businesses but at the impacts of whatever is taking place on the lot – drainage, lighting, traffic, security, etc. and the Board has to start with the premise that the use is permitted.
Mrs. Nickerson said they will close on the building on Friday. Will they be able to clean and move their stuff into the building before the balance of the project is finalized? Mrs. Francis responded “yes” but you still won’t know the decision on the storage units. Mrs. Nickerson advised that the assembly business is circuit boards – she picks them up on Monday and takes them back the following Monday.
Mr. Poisson noted that Mr. Thibodeau found another area in the regulations that state that the paved area must be set back 10-feet from any property line. Mrs. Francis summarized the unresolved issues as follows:
· drainage design for a 25-year storm,
· the plans must show no more than 50% of impervious area on the lot,
· 10 foot paving set-backs from all property lines,
· security, fencing and prevention of entry after hours.
Mr. Nickerson should consider something other than the cameras, maybe a combination fence. Mr. Sussman felt that the engineer should provide something a more definitive maintenance or operational plan so the Board knows precisely what will be done to keep the drainage system working right. Mr. Nickerson felt he had provided everything that the Board requested at the last meeting.
Mrs. Perkins asked how bright would the lighting be? Mr. Nickerson responded that the present pole and spotlight is going out Friday, the new lines will be underground. The lights will be 70-watt sodium and aimed downward. The lights will be between 7 and 8 feet high. Mrs. Cormack has similar lights on her property and suggested that people drive by at night to see what they look like; they are good for security.
Mr. Frizzell said that turning the buildings, as indicated on the revised plan, gets the unit a lot further from the Perkins property line near the pool area.
Going back to the fencing, Mr. Edkins noted that if Mr. Nickerson leaves it open there is no guarantee that somebody won’t come in at 2:00 AM but he provided the Board with his rules and regulations that will be given to each renter. Most tenants will abide by the rules. Mrs. Francis suggested placing a small sign at the entrance with his hours. Mr. Sussman asked if Mr. Nickerson would take security deposits? Mr. Nickerson said “yes”. Mrs. Cormack advised that motion detection devices could be installed to alert the owners when someone enters the site after hours. Mrs. Fellows feels that Mr. Nickerson is doing the best he can to make the property look nice by putting in flower beds and the white fence; it is a business lot and has been for a number of years. It
is a shame to block view of the electrical business.
Relative to the traffic, Mr. Edkins referenced the Trip Generation Manual from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They determine how much traffic is generated by various land uses. They did do studies on mini-warehouses and calculated that based on square footage, traffic should average between 12.5 and 13.5 trips per day. This is based on a vehicle going in-and-out or about six-to-seven cars per day visiting the facility. Based on 50 units, the traffic averaged to between 12-1/2 per day on a Saturday and 14 on a weekday. By comparison, a single family detached house generates about 9-1/2 trips a day, equivalent to between four-and-five cars visiting. This is based on between 50 and 100 studies; trucks account for about 2%-15% of that traffic or about 1-a-day. Mr. Frizzell
said that Mr. Nickerson would probably make more trips than that himself.
Mr. Neill asked if this is a minor or major Site Plan. Mr. Edkins said, in this case, Mr. Nickerson has provided information for a major Site Plan; by definition it appears to be a major Site Plan. Going down the checklist, he has provided virtually everything for the major Site Plan. Mr. Thibodeau asked if the Board is satisfied with the quantity of screening on the street side? Elizabeth Norton can see this property from her property as her driveway is across the street from the Nickerson driveway. She would like some privacy. Mrs. Nickerson said they are trying to make the property look as nice as possible and do not want it to look “dumpy”; the units will be a nice color.
Mr. Poisson moved to table this application until the next meeting for further discussion. Mr. Neill seconded the motion.
Mr. Edkins summarized that for the next meeting Mr. Nickerson has to provide information about drainage in a 25-year storm, show no more than 50% of an impervious area on the lot, show 10-foot paving set-backs from any property line, look into possible alternative security measures like motion detectors, and the issue of screening from the property across the street is still open.
Mr. Frizzell moved to move the question. With six members in favor, the motion carried. Mr. Sussman was opposed because he didn’t feel the Board answered some important questions.
With six members in favor of the main motion, the motion carried. Mr. Sussman was opposed.
This agenda item is continued until the next meeting on Tuesday, April 20th, 2004.
JOHN PELLERIN – Retail Ice Cream Shop in Existing Building – 62 Main Street – Map 28, Lot 69 – Zone E (Mixed Use): Mr. Pellerin advised that the ice cream shop will operate from May 15th to October 15th. They make their own ice cream and wholesale to three different locations. The application indicates about 90 customers a day but in May he won’t do that much business. During the season there may be about 45 cars with an average of two people. The hours of operation will be from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm except for May to June 15th when the hours will be 2:00 pm to 8:00 or 9:00 pm. Mr. Edkins advised that the abutters were notified and there was no communication from them; the railroad responded with their typical letter. Mr. Poisson noted that there was a similar ice cream operation on that site a number of years ago. Mr. Frizzell asked if there are sufficient parking spaces. Mrs. Royce responded that the parking lot is never full and the vehicles are never there very long.
Mr. Edkins stated that there are 15 parking spaces shown on the Site Plan. Mrs. Fellows asked if this is an exclusively walk-up operation? Mr. Pellerin said “yes”.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept this Site Plan application as complete as presented. Mrs. Fellows seconded the motion.
Mr. Thibodeau asked if there would be tables outside? Mr. Pellerin indicated that he would like to have 3 or 4 tables that will be beside the cabana. Mrs. Francis said this should be shown on the plan. Mr. Sussman questioned the lighting. Mr. Pellerin would like to have two fluorescent lights. Mrs. Francis requested that there be no glare on the neighbors property or the roadway and Mr. Pellerin will have to let the Board know where the lights will be located. Following a discussion, Mr. Edkins asked Mr. Pellerin to contact Mr. Duquette to be sure that what he is putting down the drains is acceptable.
Mr. Neill said we need the Water and Sewer Departments to sign-off on the project. Mrs. Fellows indicated that Mr. Pellerin will have to go through the Health Service so the Planning Board will need copies of any State permits or licenses. Mr. Pellerin will take empty soda cans and trash to the Transfer Station on a daily basis.
With seven members in favor, the motion to accept the application carried.
This agenda item is continued until the next meeting on Tuesday, April 20th, 2004.
PLANNING, POLICY & REGULATORY ISSUES:
Master Plan: Mr. Edkins advised that Vicky Boundy sent us some supplemental material and her notes from the March 30, 2004, meeting. She also sent a draft invitation letter for the Visioning Workshop, a revised outline for the Visioning Workshop and a Master Plan Workplan Summary that were distributed. There was discussion relative to having a different name for the workshop other than “visioning”.
Regional Planning Commission Representatives: Mr. Edkins advised that the Town is looking for two Regional Planning Commission representatives. Aare Ilves and Jim McClammer’s appointments have expired.
Vacancies: The Planning Board has vacancies for Alternate members. If anyone is interested, contact Mr. Edkins.
Application Acceptance and Hearing Procedures: Mr. Frizzell questioned when public input should be taken. During the St. Pierre, Inc. hearing the meeting was not opened up to public input until it was voted as complete yet during the Mr. Nickerson hearing the two meetings were opened up for public input and it has not yet been accepted by the Board as complete. Mr. Poisson feels this Board needs to develop a firm set of rules to determine an application complete and then open it up to the public. It was agreed that consistency is important. Following a lengthy discussion, there was a consensus to have Mr. Edkins review all the documentation, go over the checklist, and make a recommendation to the Planning Board as to whether or not it is complete and, if not, what issues are
questionable or missing. Mr. Edkins noted that the Board has a well-defined checklist for minor applications but the list of requirements for major applications does not lend itself well to a checklist.
St. Pierre, Inc.: The Planning Board acknowledged receipt of a letter from Priscilla Erisman, dated April 1st, 2004, regarding the St. Pierre, Inc. project. Copies were included in the Board’s packets.
ADMINISTRATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Edkins reviewed the following correspondence with the Planning Board:
· The memorandum, agenda and registration materials received from the Office of Energy and Planning’s 11th Annual Spring Conference for Planning and Zoning Board members was mentioned at the last meeting. This will be held at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH, on Saturday, May 8th, 2004. The Town will pay the fee for those Board members wishing to attend. If a member wishes to attend please contact Mr. Edkins by the end of the week.
· A copy of the Granite State Planner, Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2004, was received. The New Hampshire Planners Association 2004 Spring Conference will be held on May 20-21, 2004, in Waterville Valley Conference Center.
· A request was received from the Public Service Company of NH to list the roads in Charlestown that have been designated as Scenic Roads. Mr. Edkins replied to this correspondence.
· A “Sustainable Communities 2004” conference will be held on July 11-14, 2004, in Burlington, VT.
· The New Hampshire Preservation Alliance will be holding a “Saving Community Landmarks and Landscapes” spring conference on Friday, April 30, 2004, in the Concord High School in Concord, NH.
· The Upper Valley Community Foundation is holding an Upper Valley Creative Economy Summit in Woodstock, Vermont on April 26th, 2004.
· Mr. Edkins wrote a letter to a property owner on the Old Claremont Road regarding junk motor vehicles.
· A Notice of Hearing was received for August 25th, 2004, in the Sullivan Superior Court in Newport regarding the Morningside Flight Park case.
· A copy of the Standard Dredge and Fill Application for Whelen Engineering was received. This is to fill in a small ravine resulting in impacts to approximately 7000 square feet of adjacent forested wetlands, and culvert approximately 350 feet of seasonal stream.
There being no other business, Mr. Poisson moved for adjournment. Mr. Neill seconded the motion and with seven members in favor, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Regina Borden, Recording Secretary Minutes Filed 4-12-04
(Note: These are unapproved minutes. Corrections, if necessary, may be found in the minutes of the April 20, 2004, meeting.)
| 