TOWN OF CHICHESTER
PLANNING BOARD
54 MAIN STREET
CHICHESTER, NH 03258
(603) 798-4350
MINUTES OF MEETING
AUGUST 4, 2005
Present: Chairman Tracy Scott, Stan Brehm, Joanna McIntosh, Tom Jameson, Mike Stamowlaros, Mike Paveglio, Steve MacCleery, Skip Lawrence and Secretary Andrea Deachman
Chairman Scott introduced the Board and requested the Board Review the minutes of July 7, 2005, and asked for corrections.
The Following corrections were made: Page 2, Canterbury Cove Development, second paragraph, 5th line, after regards fix “to the” to read “to the” add the following after third paragraph: The Board was in agreement that the developer should contact State of New Hampshire, Department of Transportation, District 5 in Hooksett again concerning the traffic entering Route 4 at Smith Sanborn Road and at their proposed new entrance on to Route 4. This proposed subdivision can have 6 house lots if no connection is made to Hillview Drive in Chichester, but if the connection is made then 26 house lots would be created by this proposal.
Page 3, Merrill Subdivision: Second paragraph, second line after fire department end the sentence and begin a new sentence with, The large.
Page 4, Drew Subdivision: Fix 171/2 acres to 17.5 acres.
There being no further changes to the minutes of July 7, 2005 a motion was made to accept the minutes with the above changes.
Paveglio/McIntosh (Passed)
DISCUSSION: Amanda Arnold
Central NH Regional Planning
Amanda presented to the Board her proposal on reviewing the towns site plans, subdivision and other material that the Board felt necessary. Amanda left documents with the Board for review. The Board thanked Amanda for the information. The Board will review the information at a later date and respond to Central NH Regional Planning regarding what they expect for services.
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 2
DESIGN REVIEW: Canterbury Cove Development
Subdivision – Epsom
Possible Hillview Drive Connection
Epsom Map U6, Lots 9 & 9-1, Dover Road
Continued from July 7, 2005
ABUTTERS PRESENT: See attachment #1
Other attachments are: #2 Selectmen’s Position Paper, #3 e- mail from Peter & Cheryle Kollett, Highland Drive, #4 Mike Porier, Smith Sanborn Road, land owners from 5 Hills Estates and #5 Report from the Town Engineer, Bill Rollins, of Vollmer Associates
Tracy Sweeney surveyor for the project presented to the Board the proposal and explained to the Board that they are just in receipt of the findings from Vollmer the Town Engineering firm and have not had a chance to review the entire report. Chairman Scott requested Selectman Steve MacCleery read the Position Paper from the Selectmen after the paper was read it was requested that it be included as an attachment to the minutes.
Some specific questions were asked by members of the audience:
Rebecca Suomala would like the Board to know that she supports the Selectmen’s position.
Norm Larochelle asked who makes the final decision, Chairman Scott and Selectman MacCleery responded that if the Planning Board denied the proposal they would then be allowed to ask for an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and if that was also denied then they could take it to the New Hampshire Court system. If approved by the Planning Board then the Board of Selectmen have a public hearing to alter Hillview Drive.
Kelly Nickerson asked when a decision will be made? Chairman Scott answered that we could approve or deny tonight, however the developer has not had the opportunity to review the Town Engineers’ findings.
Chairman Scott asked Bill Rollins from Vollmer to present his findings for the project attaching to Hillview Drive. Mr. Rollins had several items that had issues with poor site distance and safety issues. Not only on Hillview Drive but also on Highland Drive, Smith Sanborn and Lane Roads. Mr. Rollins also was concerned with road width on Smith Sanborn Road and a concern is that Smith Sanborn Road is a Scenic Road and it is unknown what if any improvements could be made. All the deficiencies of the road system in 5 Hill Estates was presented.
Major points of concern are first on Hillview Drive is following up the road from the cul-de-sac a sharp curve, after the corner there is a steep grade of about 8% at the crest of the hill there is a sharp curve to the left, on Highland the only concern is where it attaches to Smith Sanborn Road, to try to enter Smith Sanborn Road there is a large double crest which the site distance is very poor. Smith Sanborn Road is only about 16 to 17 feet that includes the travel surface and each shoulder there are some places on the road that are narrower than that. There are several dips in the road that have very poor site distances.
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 3
Canterbury Cove Development continued..
At Fred Wood Drive the identical issue happens as entering Smith Sanborn Road at Highland. It would be very difficult to do much on the road trying to raise or lower the road to attain site distance with the amount of homes on the road. The entrance to Smith Sanborn at Burnt Hill is actually a three road intersection with Lover’s Lane there is a large sharp corner at that intersection. Smith Sanborn approaching Lane Road has little site distance to the stop sign at the intersection of the two roads.
Mr. Rollins will continue extensive review if requested by the Board, that review will include all improvement that must be made within the existing infrastructure of 5 Hills Estates and all roads that would be involved not only to meet state road specs but also life safety issues, including costs of upgrades.
Mr. Rollins was asked about the speed limit on Hillview Drive without any improvements and Mr. Rollins response was 15 to 20 miles per hour.
Mr. Sweeney is requesting that the rest of the audience be allowed to speak on the issue, but would like to have the Public Hearing continued as to allow the developer time to review the large amount of information it has received tonight.
Jim Marsh is concern with the proposal and the exiting of the development, Mr. Marsh feels that the traffic would go to Smith Sanborn and out onto Route 4, the Board is in agreement with Mr. Rollins when there is traffic issues the general population will find its way to Horse Corner Road and either go to the lights or to the other end of Horse Corner Road to avoid the traffic.
Eddy Drouse is concerned with the increasing traffic will increase the accidents on the roads and would like life safety issues to be addressed. Chairman Scott agreed that life safety is a large issue in considering this and if the Board is to move on with the project life safety will be considered during the process.
Cindy Naiditch is also concerned with traffic and Hillview Drive.
Sharon Dugas life safety issues should not just be a concern only on Hillview Drive, but all the roads within 5 Hills Estates there are a lot of families with young children and the increase in traffic could create even more accidents.
Lou Barker is concerned with the blind drive right after the cul-de-sac and people increasing their speed to try to get up the hill. He feels all the driveways on Hillview will have an issue with any increase in traffic. Both Hillview Drive and Highland Road have seen accidents where people have rolled their cars going around some of the sharp curves, not due to negligence but due to lack awareness of the layout of the roads.
Steve Grafton agrees with the selectmen and the attachment of such a road would have no inherent value to the town just increase in expense and would request that the Board deny tonight.
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 4
Canterbury Cove Development continued…
Chairman Scott felt that because of the new information the developer has received in the last few days and the comments and concerns spoken tonight that the Board would need to continue the hearings to the September 1st meeting.
Selectmen MacCleery stated that the people on Hillview Drive purchased their property for the dead end road and this development would change the character of the road as well as their neighborhood, and possibly could change house values.
Members of the Epsom Planning Board were asked if they had anything to add and at this point in time they did not.
Chairman Scott tabled the hearing to allow the developer to review all of the new information they have received.
Heather Barker made a statement that the developer stated the attachment would improve the quality of life for 5 Hill Estates. Heather completely disagrees, she loves her little road maybe it is not in the best condition but there are only 10 houses and she enjoys seeing her neighbors with their children and dogs walking that road and it is a great neighborhood and to increase traffic to 6 or 7 hundred cars a day going over that little road would not improve the quality of life. She does not want Epsom driving thru Hillview Drive not just because of those safety issues she doesn’t want to change the character of that area of Chichester and that is just as important as the safety issues.
The Board was requested to not table the hearing by the general audience.
A motion was made to table the hearing to next month. Per the request of the developer to review information.
Brehm/Lawrence (Passed)
The proposed subdivision is continued to September 1, 2005.
DESIGN REVIEW: Joe Austin
Site Review – Garden Center
Map 3, Lot 68B, Dover Road
Continued from July 7, 2005
Abutters present: Kimberly Kenneally
Mr. Austin presented plans to the Board. This is a site review for one unit only. Joe read the items that had been discussed at the last hearing addressing each item.
He will have a sign out front and one on the building. The pond had not been constructed at this time it is not part of this project. Question about signage Mr. Austin stated that
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 5
Joe Austin continued..
there will be someone in the small building during open hours to send customers to the top lot.
After review the following items are needed to complete the proposal:
· A statement on the plan that the Road/Driveway and parking will be paved prior to the business opening.
· Square footage on for the Model and small building for parking calculations
· Remove the no left turn sign
· Fix the word Chichester within the title block
· Increase the top parking to 10 spaces
· The hatch marks need to be noted as display areas and not wetlands
· Fix title block to read Garden Center and Model Home not White Birches Homes
Mr. Austin stated that the Model is 50 feet by 50 feet it will be on the plan.
Design review closed
PUBLIC HEARING: Joe Austin
Site Review – Garden Center
Map 3, Lot 68B, Dover Road
Continued from July 7, 2005
Abutters present: Kimberly Kenneally
Mrs. Keneally was asked to review the proposal and the only issue she had was possibly loosing her water pressure, Mr. Austin assured her that if he tapped into her water supply that he would rectify the situation.
Being no further discussion for this project and the amount of outstanding items a motion was made to table the hearing to next month.
Brehm/no second
Discussion was that each of the outstanding items are direct yet minor revisions.
Motion withdrawn.
Motion was made to accept the site review with all of the requests met from the design review as noted above with bullets.
Jameson/Paveglio (Passed)
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 6
DESIGN REVIEW: Klia Ververidis/Elias Pizza
New Business – Auto Dealer Office Only
Map 4, Lot 159, Dover Road
Abutters present: None
Ms. Ververidis presented the Board with plans for the new business, it will only be office space, and no automobiles will be on site except for the personal cars of the employees.
All aspects of the site review have been met.
Design review closed.
PUBLIC HEARING: Klia Ververidis/Elias Pizza
New Business – Auto Dealer Office Only
Map 4, Lot 159, Dover Road
Abutters present: None
There being no further discussion for this project a motion was made to accept the site review.
Brehm/Stamowlaros (Passed)
DISCUSSION: Jonathan Kalinoski – Fred Moses Property
Subdivision
Map 2, Lot 8, Horse Corner Road
Peace Kalinoski came before the Board tonight to create a family estate off of Horse Corner Road. The property has 51.3 acres of land but only 50 feet of road frontage.
Chairman Scott explained that each home would need frontage on a town maintained road, they would need to subdivide and create a road to acquire adequate frontage.
Mrs. Kalinoski thanked the Board and will discuss it with her husband.
DISCUSSION: Cameron Hebert
Creating a Private Road to access property
To build a home
Map 3, Lot 36, Dover Road
Mr. Hebert is here to request that he be allowed to create a private road to access a piece of backland to build a home on. As in the last discussion the Board read from the zoning which clearly states that you must have the required frontage on a town maintained road.
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 7
Cameron Hebert continued..
Mr. Hebert presented to the Board RSA 674:41, III then move to I (a), (b) or (c). The Board was in agreement that this property does not fit any of the criteria as stated in the RSA, the road is only a paper street, the development never became vested the lots only have a 50 foot right of way and the only way to build on any of those back lots is to put in a state spec town maintained road.
DISCUSSION: Paul & Michelle Carter – Fox Property
Site Review – Capitol Glass
Map 3, Lot 14, Dover Road
The Carters would like to move their glass service business to Chichester and keep the larger home on the property as well as build a 50 by 100 foot building to house the business. The Board was in agreement that this business fits within the Commercial Village Zone and explained to the Carters about the aesthetic structure that they would like to see within this zone.
The Carters will go to Design Review in September.
DISCUSSION: Eugene & Marie Mongan
Home Occupation – Hypnobirthing
Ferrin Road
The Mongans would like to move their business into their home. The business is run by 4 employees the Mongans being 2 of those employees. All of the contact work is done either on the computer or over the phone the Mongans train off site at practitioner’s offices.
The Board was in agreement that this meets the home occupation requirements. Public Hearing is set for September 1st.
DISCUSSION: ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE
Changes to zoning and Site Review &
Subdivision Regulations.
Wetlands & Lighting
Tom Jameson presented to the Board the items that need to be changed both within the zoning and site review and subdivision regulations.
See attached proposed changes to site Review Regulations and proposed Wetlands ordinance.
The Board thanked the attending members of the subcommittee and will the proposals to go to public hearings next month.
TOWN OF CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 8-4-05 PAGE 8
Motion was made to adjourn.
McIntosh/Paveglio (Passed)
Meeting adjourned at 11:20pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tracy Scott
Chairman
ATTACHMENT # 1
ABUTTERS PRESENT: 5 HILLS ESTATES LAND OWNERS HAVE COMMON PROPERTY AT THIS PROPOSAL SIGHT ALL LAND OWNER PRESENT TONIGHT ARE LISTED HERE:
Heather & Lou Barker, Hillview Drive Holly & Norm Larochelle, Deer Run Road
Tony Musto, Highland Drive Al Scarine, Highland Drive
Harold Ames, Highland Drive Joe Gattuso, Highland Drive
Jeff & Gloria Andrews, Burnt Hill Road Richard & Donna Moore, Fred Wood Drive
Rebecca Suomala, Smith Sanborn Road Jean Danzelli, Burnt Hill Road
Lari Jewett, Burnt Hill Road Sharon Dugas, Burnt Hill Road
Dave & Lisa Rounds, Lane Road Gary & Phyllis Cole, Highland Drive
Sara Sawyer, Burnt Hill Road Regina Mattrella, Burnt Hill Road
Mike Eaton, Burnt Hill Road Neal & Gail Scott, Burnt Hill Road
Kelley & Ian Nickerson, Hillview Drive Charles Noyes, III, Hillview Drive
Cindy Naiditch, Hillview Drive Frank & Ruth Quimby, Dover Road, Epsom
Mike Marchand, Highland Drive Eddie Drouse, Hillview Drive
Jim & Ingrid Marsh, Hillview Drive Mark & Linda Desfardeis, Fred Wood Drive
Donald Rott, Hillview Drive Steve Grafton, Burnt Hill Road
Attachment Zoning changes:
Proposed Changes to Site Review Regulations
Section IV. Required Exhibits and Data.
1. Change the existing #12 to #13 and add the following new #12:
The following minimum lighting information shall be included on all submitted
site plans for the Commercial-Industrial/Multifamily Zoning District:
§ location of all proposed lighting fixtures,
§ mounted height of each light above ground level,
§ fixture type, light source, rating, number of lumens,
§ shielding characteristics
§ type of timing devices used to control on/off and the hours set for illumination
The Planning Board may also require the applicant to submit an Isometric Footcandle
Distribution Diagram.
2. Replace the existing #7 with the following:
The location, size and design of proposed signs and other advertising or instructional
devices, to include detailed information on all proposed external and internal
illumination, if applicable.
Section V. F. Illumination. Replace entire section F, with the following:
F. Outdoor Lighting:
1. Outdoor lighting shall not cause glare onto public highways and streets. Light trespass from outdoor lighting onto adjacent or nearby properties shall be limited as outlined in Article III, Section R, "Outdoor Lighting," of the Zoning Ordinances.
2. Lighting used to illuminate outdoor advertising signs, if not internal lighting, shall be fully shielded or directed to the sign structure so as not to cause glare and to minimize light trespass.
3. Moving, fluttering, blinking, or flashing lights or signs are not permitted. Electronic message signs may be permitted as outlined in Article III, Section R, "Outdoor Lighting," of the Zoning Ordinances.
Proposed Wetlands Ordinance
P. WETLANDS AND WETLAND BUFFERS
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate the use of wetlands and the land surrounding wetlands, in order to provide areas for, among other things, flood water storage and control, wildlife habitat, maintenance of water quality, and groundwater recharge.
2. Wetland Delineation.
a. The Chichester "Zoning Map" delineates wetlands based only on soil type and is considered only a guide for determining wetland areas.
b. Site specific delineation of wetlands shall be based on the statutory definition of wetlands, currently RSA 482-A:2, X.
c. All site plans and subdivision plans submitted to the Planning Board for approval shall delineate wetlands, if any, and shall be signed by a certified wetlands scientist. Specific wetland soil types are not required on submitted plans.
d. All wetland delineation fees shall be paid for by the applicant.
e. Drainage systems built for the purpose of conveying or treating storm water runoff from public and private roadways and driveways, including roadside ditches, grass or rock lined swales and detention ponds are not considered wetlands and are excluded.
3. Wetland Buffers.
a. Wetland buffers shall be:
i. 100 feet from ? ? ? order streams and any ponds located on or within 100 feet of the thread of said streams.
ii. 50 feet from wetlands greater than .25 acre, including areas of contiguous wetlands on adjacent parcels.
iii. 25 feet from wetlands less than .25 acre, including areas of contiguous wetlands on adjacent parcels.
4. Permitted Uses in Wetlands and Wetland Buffers.
a. Forestry activities and agriculture, including tree farming, using best management practices, with proper notification to the NHDES Wetlands Bureau, when required.
b. Wildlife and fire ponds that meet the requirements of the NHDES Wetlands Bureau.
c. Recreational uses consistent with the intent of this Ordinance.
d. Docks and beaches on private ponds.
e. Septic systems, leach fields, and other waste disposal facilities that meet the requirements of the NHDES Subsurface Systems Bureau.
f. Water supply wells.
g. Necessary access roads that meet the criteria for "Minimum Impact Project," as defined by the NHDES Wetlands Bureau.
h. Pre-existing uses, however no pre-existing non-permitted use may be altered without a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
5. Roads and Drainage Systems in Wetlands and Wetland Buffers That Do Not Meet the Criteria for "Minimum Impact Project".
Planned roads and drainage systems in wetlands and wetland buffers that do not meet the criteria in 4.f. above shall meet the following conditions:
a. The proposed road shall be essential to the productive use of the land not part of the wetland area.
b. Road design, construction, and maintenance methods shall minimize detrimental impact upon the wetland or wetland buffer, and shall maintain the site as close to the original grade and condition as possible.
c. No feasible alternative route which has less of a detrimental impact is available. Financial impacts and constraints may be considered when determining feasibility.
d. Drainage systems shall be designed to minimize impacts on the wetlands and wetlands buffers.
The Conservation Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal prior to Planning Board approval. At the discretion of the Planning Board, the Town Engineer, at the applicant's expense, shall review all plans that contain roads and drainage systems in wetlands and wetland buffers.
| 
