MINUTES
CHARLESTOWN PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 20, 2004
Members Present: Sharon Francis – Vice-Chair; Steven Neill - Ex-Officio, Robert Frizzell, Fred Poisson, David Sussman
Alternates Present: None
Staff Present: David Edkins – Planning & Zoning Administrator
Regina Borden – Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER & SEATING OF ALTERNATES – Vice-Chair Sharon Francis called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. She noted the absence of regular members Robert Beaudry and Gail Fellows. Alternate member Roger Thibodeau was also absent. It was acknowledged that the five members present constitute a quorum to conduct Board business.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004-05: Mrs. Francis observed that the Planning Board has expressed a desire to conduct the election of officers when all regular members are present; therefore the election of officers was postponed until the next meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2004:
David Sussman moved to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2004, meeting as printed. Fred Poisson seconded the motion. With five 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): Mrs. Francis advised that there were several matters to be followed-up after the last meeting; they included the drainage design for a 25-year storm, confirmation that no more than 50% of the lot would be impervious surface, 10 foot paving set-backs from all property lines, and security fencing and prevention of entry after hours. Randy Rhoades of M & W Soils Engineering, Inc. spoke on the letter and revised plans that were provided on April 16th. On the bottom left-hand corner of the revised plan there is a calculation of the
impervious area indicating that it is 48.5% of the entire parcel. This meets the requirements of the Site Plan Review Regulations.
Letters of April 6th and April 8th from Warren Stevens at M & W Soils Engineering address the drainage concerns. The underlying soils are all clean sands. Looking at the 25-year storm event about 50% of the rainfall falls in one hour. The design can easily handle that amount of rainfall and over the next 23-hours this system is more than adequate. Warren Stevens said that this system is more than adequate to contain the run-off of a 25-year storm without any drainage leaving the site. Mrs. Francis asked if the site is going to be graded so that the run-off will run toward the dry wells? Mr. Rhoades responded “yes” toward the four dry wells; the calculations are based on only three dry wells on the site. They did everything conservatively.
The dry wells are basically there for when the surface is frozen; in the summer time the lawn areas will absorb most of the water. Mr. Sussman asked what needs to be done to maintain the system? Mr. Rhoades responded that they just need to keep the channels clear so the run-off can get into the dry wells. It will be paved so they can control the plowing and the flows.
Mrs. Francis said another issue is the setback of the paved area from the property lines. Mr. Rhoades replied that he believes that the paved area can be within 10-feet of a property line; the areas in question are paved travel surfaces, not parking areas. Mrs. Francis read the section from the Site Plan Regulations, stating that it sounds as though the intent is to address vehicular activity near property boundaries rather than just parking. Mr. Frizzell noted that this Board already established that there isn’t going to be very much traffic. Mr. Rhoades noted that there has to be enough turn radius for a van or truck to come in without having to go back-and-forth; this avoids the beeping noise that could be a nuisance for the abutters. Mr. Nickerson also has delivery trucks coming in
for his electrical business.
Mr. Poisson asked Mr. Nickerson if he made any changes to the front fence line? Mr. Nickerson responded “no” the fence will begin at the telephone pole on the left side of the driveway and go all the way around the property to the other front corner. Mr. Sussman isn’t satisfied that the whole project isn’t being shielded from the abutting property owners’ views. The fence should totally enclose the site and there should be a security gate. Mr. Poisson noted that Mr. Nickerson is proposing a 6-foot fence; if he puts up a 7-or-8-foot fence it will not be very attractive and will not help anybody’s property values. Mr. Rhoades noted that “shielding” would only effect two abutters. The Brunelles will still see what they are looking at now; the
Lockharts will be looking at the new business. Mrs. Francis asked Mr. Nickerson if he would consider some kind of partial fencing. Mrs. Nickerson said they talked to Mr. & Mrs. Lamontagne and the people across the street and they both agreed that they weren’t in favor of a chain link fence and it won’t shield anything. The Lockharts have no objections about the proposed project.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept the application as complete. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion. With five members in favor, the motion carried.
Judy Royce noted that this will be a very congested site; it is putting a lot into this property. The Nickersons will make their money back but abutters won’t get their property values back. The fence will look awful and it won’t shield everything. She isn’t concerned about the front fence but is concerned about security. Maybe a small fence in the front with a gate across it for security would be okay; people won’t be able to drive in and out.
Christine Perkins said she is also speaking for Serena Lamontagne who was unable to attend this meeting. Their concerns are lighting and security cameras. Mr. Nickerson is changing over to a digital camera system that is state-of-the-art; it will beep if there is an intrusion during the night. The lighting will be 70-watts and tilted downward.
Christine Perkins asked about the rules and regulations of the operation and hours of operation. Mr. Edkins noted that this was discussed at the last meeting. The rules and regulations include: Leave nothing outside your unit, remove own trash, no living in units, no operating business out of the unit, access to units from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and a 5 MPH speed limit. The Lease Agreement contains a clause that “that Lessee will not store explosive or highly inflammable material or goods, hazardous waste materials or chemicals in or on said premises”.
Christine Perkins asked what the time frame would be? It was noted that Mr. Nickerson will wait for the survey from Wayne McCutcheon before beginning any work. After they obtain the financing and the survey, it is anticipated that the work will take about three weeks maximum.
Judy Royce questioned the pin at the corner where several properties meet. Mr. Rhoades said the survey is important for them also; at this time several pins are missing. The fence will be two feet inside the property line.
Mr. Edkins suggested the possibility of putting a few large trees, maybe four or five arborvitae, in the front for the visual effect; these would break up the view of the buildings and put in some green color. They could be a part of the flowerbeds. He also suggested that a single bollard on the open side of the entrance with a cable crossing the driveway after hours would solve the security issue. Christine Perkins isn’t on the front of the property but felt that the cable and trees would be okay; the cable would deter people from going in at 3:00 AM. Mr. Sussman would like to see the plan modified to include the vegetative buffer area, what kind of trees will be planted, where they will be located and to show the posts with the cable. Mr. and Mrs. Nickerson were agreeable to the
trees and single cable.
Mr. Poisson moved to accept this for final approval with the revisions for the addition of the vegetative buffer, the cable gate and fence to be indicated on the final plan for recording. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion.
Mr. Neill felt that the parking issue had not yet been resolved. When you use one of the units, you will back up to the door and park there. Mr. Edkins said, as he reads the regulations, the 10-foot front setback is only applicable when the property across the street is in a residential or different zone. On the corner there is 3-to-4 feet of pavement encroaching into the setback. Mr. Rhoades said the parking has to be parallel to the building in that corner. How can somebody be parked there and be within 10-feet of the property line? There was discussion pertaining to the sizes of the units and possibly changing the size of the building near that corner or eliminating a few units. Mr. Poisson noted that the Board has the right to waive the 5.7.4-J parking/paving restriction.
The regulation was read.
Mr. Poisson moved to amend the motion to waive the 5.7.4, paragraph J, parking setback as it pertains to this application. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion.
Mr. Sussman asked if there is any way that they could shift the buildings over to avoid the waiver? Mr. Rhodes said “no” the separation between the two buildings is needed for truck traffic – Mr. Nickerson’s delivery trucks. To shift the buildings would be a hardship. They have already gone through all of the scenarios. Mr. Edkins asked what would be accomplished by moving the parking area back another 4-or-5 feet from the property line; the fence will be there providing screening of the area so there is no impact on the neighbors as currently designed. He added that this is not a parking area but rather a circulation path. Judy Royce felt that the Nickersons could reduce the buildings in size, why waive anything. Mr. Frizzell felt that this isn’t a
parking area so it won’t affect anything. Mrs. Francis asked if someone is coming around the corner of that building, how much space will they have? Mr. Edkins responded about 15-feet from the corner of the building to the outer edge of the pavement.
Vote on the Amendment: Mr. Poisson and Mr. Frizzell were in favor of the amendment. Mr. Sussman, Mr. Neill and Mrs. Francis were opposed. The amendment was defeated.
Mr. Neill goes by a lot of self-storage units in other towns and said there will be u-hauls, trucks and trailers there and they just park anywhere so that area will become a parking area for short periods of time. Mr. Rhoades suggested a striped no parking zone. Mr. Poisson felt that eliminating one storage unit on the southwest corner would take care of the issue but it is not up to the Board to come up with the modifications to the plan.
Vote on the Motion: Mr. Poisson withdrew the motion. Mr. Frizzell agreed to the withdrawal.
Mr. Frizzell moved to table further consideration of the Nickerson application until the applicant comes back and addresses the landscaping and setback issues. Mr. Poisson seconded the motion. With five members in favor, the motion carried.
The Planning Board took a recess from 8:18 to 8:23 PM.
JOHN PELLERIN, cont’d – Retail Ice Cream Shop in Existing Building – 62 Main Street – Map 28, Lot 69 – Zone E (Mixed Use): Mr. Edkins reported that he had not received any additional information from Mr. Pellerin, who was not present at the meeting.
Mr. Frizzell moved to table Mr. Pellerin’s application until the next meeting. Mr. Poisson seconded the motion. With five members in favor, the motion carried.
JOSEPH & PATRICIA PICKUL and JETTCO GROUP – Boundary Adjustment Between Previously Subdivided Lots – Old Springfield & Hammond Roads – Map 20, Lots 28-1 & 28-2 – Zone A1 (Rural Residential): Robert Palmer, Surveyor, representing the applicants advised that they are requesting this minor boundary adjustment between Lots #1 and #2 in order to satisfy the Department of Environmental Services septic approval requirements. This adjustment involves moving a single corner pin 10 feet to the north, giving Lot #1 the required 20,000+ square feet of total area.
Mr. Frizzell moved to approve this boundary adjustment as presented. Mr. Sussman seconded the motion. With five members in favor, the motion carried.
PLANNING, POLICY & REGULATORY ISSUES:
Board Vacancies: It was noted that there is a vacancy on the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a regular member. There are also vacancies on both the Planning Board and the ZBA for alternate members. The State Statutes limit the number of alternates to five but traditionally the Planning has utilized three. Regional Planning Commission representatives are also needed.
MASTER PLAN: Mr. Edkins advised that Vicky Boundy is away right now. He has lined up use of the school for the June 12th “visioning session”. He met with CEDA yesterday afternoon and called their attention to the process; they are prepared to fund this portion of the project. Rather than “Visioning Workshop” it was agreed to title it “Community Goals Workshop”. Mr. Edkins is open to suggestions for workshop facilitators. Jason Rasmussen from the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission will be at the next meeting to discuss the Build-Out Study with the Board.
Junk Yard: A few weeks ago Gail Fellows mentioned a junkyard that is redeveloping on the Ox Brook Road. Bob Rivard talked to the property owner and Mr. Edkins asked our attorney to write a letter to the owner.
Morningside Park: The Hearing for Morningside is scheduled for August. Mr. Edkins will check with the attorney on the status of their beginning the flight park operations.
Zoning Board of Adjustment: A meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 28th at 7:00 PM to review two variance applications.
ADMINISTRATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr. Edkins reviewed the following correspondence with the Planning Board:
· Received a copy of the Vital Communities, Spring 2004 Newsletter.
· Received an invitation for membership from the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance and a brochure regarding their “Saving Community Landmarks and Landscapes” Spring Conference to be held on Friday, April 30th, 2004, at the Concord High School in Concord.
· Received an e-mail from Vicky Boundy recommending that the Planning Board set Thursday, June 10th as a volunteer facilitator training meeting.
· This is the last reminder for board members to sign up to attend the Office of Energy and Planning’s Spring Planning and Zoning Conference to be held on Saturday, May 8th, 2004, at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH.
There being no other business, Mr. Poisson moved for adjournment. Mr. Frizzell seconded the motion and with five members in favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Regina Borden, Recording Secretary Minutes Filed 4-23-04
(Note: These are unapproved minutes. Corrections, if necessary, may be found in the minutes of the May 4, 2004, meeting.)
| 