CHICHESTER PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
January 3, 2008
Members Present: Chairman Brad Towle, Ex-Officio Richard DeBold, Richard Arell, Stan Brehm, Joanna McIntosh, Tom Jameson, Fred Ruoff, David Kenneally (alt), Richard Moore (alt), Chris Weir (alt), Secretary Jamie Pike.
Chairman Towle called the meeting to order at 6:35pm.
The minutes of December 6th were reviewed and the following correction was made:
Page 4 Paragraph 3 The Cavaccos are also proposing an addition a 20 foot extension to the existing office/store building
Being no further corrections, a motion was made by Mr. DeBold and seconded Mr. Arell to accept the minutes as corrected. Motion passes.
Chairman Towle reviewed those amendments received by petition with the members of the Board. Board discussion ensued concerning various aspects of those amendments in regards to applicability, empirical basis data, and the allowance of restrictions with in the wording of a definition. Also, the Town Counsel review of the proposed amendments was reviewed in regards to each of these amendments. Mr. Towle requested the Board be prepared for detailed discussion of these amendments during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
The members of the January review committee posed a few questions to the Board that arose from the plan reviews that occurred on December 26th. One question that arose was; what parameters are used to determine if a checklist is complete, specifically in regards to the requirement for all applicable permits. Do they need to have been previously approved, or only an acknowledgment of their necessitation? Through discussion, the Board determined that any applicable permits should be noted on the plan to include the date applied and the status of such.
Chairman Towle introduced the Members of the Board to the public in attendance.
DESIGN REVIEW: Tom Sanoth
763 Second Street, LLC
Site Review –
Vehicle Sales & Repair
Map 4, Lot 159, Dover Road
Mark DeGrace of Holden Engineering presented the application to the Board on behalf of the applicant, Tom Sanoth, whom was also in attendance.
Mr. Degrace explained to the Board that the current proposal is primarily the same as the application which was denied at the December 6th Meeting. The current proposal is for a vehicle sales and repair facility which features an underground storm-water detention area and the use of the existing water supply and septage. The current plan shows the elimination of a previously proposed retaining wall along the property of Lakeside Trading. It was explained to the Board that the current plan maintains a 3:1 state mandated slope from the existing leach field on the abutting property. It was also explained to the Board that the plans provided for a wooden stockade fence with evergreen shrubbery as screenage along the abutting property line.
Mr. Towle entered into discussion of concerns from the review completed on the plans by members of the Board on December 26th. There were certain items on the application checklist that were found to be deficient or incomplete.
Checklist Item #12 Other required exhibits or data, any permits specific to site.
The applicant stated the a DOT Driveway Permit has been applied for and that no further communication has been made with DOT regarding the approval of the permit application.
Checklist Item #14 ….,proposed water and sewage facilities and provisions for expansion of water and sewage facilities.
The applicant stated that it is the intent of the site to use the existing water supply and sewage disposal facilities. A note is to be added to the plan that shall explain that there is no proposed future expansion of the water and sewage facilities.
Checklist Item #17 Gas, electric, telephone, CATV utility lines.
The reason this item was found to be incomplete is that there is a proposed propane tank of the site with no provision for a utility line connecting this tank to the building. Mr. DeGrace explained to the Board that such connection would be underground and that the location of such connection would be added to the plan.
Mr. Arell raised concerns about the existing building on the site. The plans only show the existence of a foundation. The applicant was requested to remove the word “proposed” from the application when used in reference to the building.
Ex-Officio DeBold asked the applicant if there was any proposed signage on the building. The applicant stated that the only signage proposed was that which is to be on the pylon at the roadside. Mr. DeBold also questioned the applicant if there were to be any Heavy Equipment sales on the site as in the previous application. The applicant stated that he will not be selling any heavy equipment and shall only provide for the sale of vehicles, light trucks and vans.
Fire Chief Vien raised concerns about fire apparatus access to the rear of the building and the load strength of the catch basins located in the driveway. It was requested that the applicant provide for an 8 foot gate in the fence between the dumpster and the building. The applicant also stated that a note will be added to the plans indicating that the proposed catch basins on the site are capable of supporting a vehicle weight of not less than 35,000 pounds.
Mr. Weir stated that Checklist items #14 and #17 are applicable to the applicant and need to be addressed on the plan.
Ex-Officio DeBold questioned the completeness of Checklist Item #12 concerning the DOT Driveway Permit. Mr. DeBold feels that the Driveway Permit has been addressed, and each of the other items have been addressed and are to be corrected on the plan. Mr. DeBold feels the Board should accept the application as complete and move forward into public hearing.
The Board was in agreement that the applicant needs to address these items on the application.
Mr. Weir requested to be on the record stating that the application is not complete.
Chairman Towle called for a roll call vote to accept the application with the condition that the 3 Checklist Items #12, 14 & 17 be addressed by the applicant.
Stan Brehm Yes
Fred Ruoff Yes
Joanna McIntosh No
Brad Towle Yes
Richard DeBold Yes
Tom Jameson Yes
Richard Arell No
The application is accepted as complete with the above noted items needing to be addressed by the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING: Tom Sanoth
763 Second Street, LLC
Site Review –
Vehicle Sales & Repair
Map 4, Lot 159, Dover Road
Mark DeGrace of Holden Engineering presented the application to the Board on behalf of the applicant, Tom Sanoth, whom was also in attendance.
Abutters Present: Don Peterman
Mr. Peterman was questioned if he had any concerns about the proposed site plan. Mr. Peterman stated that he had not viewed the plans. Mr. DeGrace explained to Mr. Peterman the screenage provided at the property line was to include a wooden stockade fence with evergreen shrubbery. Mr. Peterman stated that he had no objections to the proposal as described.
Discussion ensued among the members of the Board as to any conditions that would be required upon the granting of an approval to the applicant.
It was opinion of the Board that if a conditional approval were to be granted that the conditions of such approval would be:
The provision of a gate for Fire Department access to the rear of the building.
The provision of catch basin designs suitable to withstand vehicular weight of not less than 35,000 pounds.
The provision of the location of the proposed propane utility line from the proposed propane tank location to the building.
The provision of an approved DOT Driveway Permit.
The provision for the future expansion of water supply and septic disposal facilities on the site in the form of a note on the plan.
Mr. Weir requested to be on the record as stating that he is not in favor of granting any conditional approvals.
Mr. DeGrace pleaded with the members of the Board to make a decision on the plans as submitted with conditions.
Chairman Towle called for a motion to be made to approve the plans as presented with the above mentioned conditions; hearing none, the Public Hearing shall be continued to a Meeting of the Planning Board on February 3, 2008 at 7:00pm at the Grange Hall.
DESIGN REVIEW: Edward & Vickie O’Brien
Subdivision-
Map 3 Lots 43 & 45
Chris Tymula of MHF Design Consultants presented the application to the Board on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Ed O’Brien, whom was also present.
The Board discussed with Mr. Tymula those items that were found to be deficient by the review committee on December 26th.
The first of these items is the proposed subdivision name. It was noted that the plans state Primax Properties and the application states Tractor Supply Company. It was decided by the Board that the Subdivision name should be that of Edward and Vickie O’Brien.
The second point of consideration was that there were no proposed lot numbers shown on the plan or within the application. Mr. Tymula stated that in other Towns he has done business with, the assessing department determines these lot numbers and that after discussion with the secretary, he understands that the lot numbers assigned are to be 43 and 43-1. These lot numbers will be present on an updated set of plans.
The third point of consideration was that note regarding the lot areas was incorrect, and Mr. Tymula stated that this was an intra-office clerical error and shall be corrected.
Another point of consideration was the location of existing water mains, sewers and culverts. The plan set shows only one well but no septic for the existing lot. Mr. Tymula explained that the location of the O’Briens septic system is unknown. Mr. Tymula stated that an approximate location would be noted on the plans.
Mr. Tymula explained to the Board that the proposed means of providing water supply and disposal of sewage and surface drainage is shown on the site plan and will overlayed onto the subdivision plan.
Mr. Tymula also stated that USGS Datum elevation lines will be put on the plans.
The Board raised concern as to the access of the property. It was explained to the Board that the driveway access will be shared between the 2 parcels and will remain in the possession of Mr. O’Brien due to the fact that Primax Properties does not wish to be held responsible for the liabilities of any persons entering the property of Mr. O’Brien.
Being no further concerns brought forward from the Board, the Design Review shall be continued to a Meeting of the Planning Board on February 3, 2008 at 7:00pm at the Grange Hall.
DESIGN REVIEW: Primax Properties, LLC
Site Review-
Retail Sales
Map 3 Lots 43 & 45
Chris Tymula of MHF Design Consultants and Frank Alexander of Primax Properties presented the application to the Board.
The Board discussed with Mr. Tymula those items that were found to be deficient by the review committee on December 26th.
The first of those points was the owner of record on the plan. It was directed by the Board that this should be corrected to be Primax Properties as this would be the name the Plan would be recorded under.
Discussion arose as to the allowable signage upon the site. The proposed signage is in excess of 120 square feet. It was determined that the allowable signage of 64 square feet be increased by 16 square feet to a total of 80 square feet of allowable signage due to the excess size of the structure as allowed in the Chichester Zoning Ordinances Article III Section G:I(b)
Mr. Tymula also stated that the revised plan set shall provide for the certification of the Wetlands Delineation by a soil scientist.
Mr. Tymula addressed the remainder of the features of the site plan to the Board indicating that there are 97 parking spaces of flush grade without curbing. The outside display area adjacent to the structure shall be fully fenced and gated for security reasons. The site plan allows for areas of snow storage and adequate storm water drainage. The well and septic design are shown on the plans and all utilities are to be underground. It was noted that 30 feet of existing screenage along the abutting property shall remain intact.
Fire Chief Vien stated that he had previously entertained conversation from the applicant and that any concerns of the Fire Department had been alleviated with the provision of a fire suppression system and an adequate cistern.
Being no further concerns brought forward from the Board, the Design Review shall be continued to a Meeting of the Planning Board on February 3, 2008 at 7:00pm at the Grange Hall.
PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Amendments
In the interest of the public members present, those amendments brought forward by petition were to be heard and discussed first.
Amendment #5
Mr. Paul Adams addressed the Board with those points of why this petition was brought forward. Mr. Adams stated that currently all available building permits have been requested through 2009. Mr. Adams shared with the Board that in 2006, of the 12 permits available, 11 were provided to developers and only 1 was issued to a resident of Chichester, and the same was true for 2008. The intent of this amendment is to provide for the equitable distribution of permits between residents and developers.
Town Counsel’s (Bart Mayer, Esq.) comments were read to the petitioner:
“Amendment #5. I am concerned that the reservation of nine (9) building permits for ‘residents’ will meet with resistance in the courts. A cardinal rule limiting government authority is that the government may not treat similarly-situated individuals differently. The point of the growth management ordinance is to limit the impact of growth upon governmental services. This impact is the same, whether it is a resident or non-resident (e.g., ‘commercial developer’). The court may view this provision as a denial of equal protection under the New Hampshire Constitution and, therefore, invalidate it.”
The Board requested Mr. Pike locate the Town Counsel opinion on the segregation of building permits at the time of the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance.
A motion was made by Mr. Brehm and seconded by Mr. Jameson to not approve of this amendment. Motion Passes.
Amendment #6
Town Counsel has “admonished the Board that it is critical that there be empirical and objective support for numerical limits contained within a growth management ordinance. This amendment seeks to limit the number of lots that may be approved in a subdivision to three (3), on an annual basis.” The Board asked Mr. Adams what his basis for this number was. Mr. Adams was unable to present support for this number.
A motion was made by Mr. Jameson and seconded by Mr. Arell to not approve of this amendment. Motion Passes.
Amendment #12
This amendment proposes to define the term “Open Space” as land in a natural and undisturbed state along with other restrictions as prescribed.
The Board asked Mr. Adams what he feels this amendment is fixing. Mr. Adams chose not to address this question.
The Board feels that the definition of “Open Space” does need to change and scheduled a work session of the Board on January 14, 2008 at 6:30pm at the Grange Hall to work on section 6 of the Open Space Conservation Development Ordinance and present an additional amendment to the Town for adoption. Mr. Adams was invited to attend this meeting to provide input.
A motion was made by Mr. Jameson and seconded by Mr. Arell to not approve of this amendment. Motion Passes.
The remainder of the Amendments were reviewed by the Board; any proposed changes to these amendments is described below:
Amendment #2
The Board decided to change the wording of this amendment to be:
Amendment No. 2
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Town Zoning Ordinance as follows: amend Article II Establishment of Districts, Section D Purposes, Permitted Uses and Special Exceptions, particular to the requirement of Site Review?
YES NO
Article II Establishment of Districts
D. Purposes, Permitted Uses, and Special Exceptions
District CI/MF: Commercial-Industrial/Multi-Family
I. General Requirements
~ A. All new or altered uses shall require: Any development or expansion or change in impact (as determined by the Planning
Board) of use of tracts for nonresidential uses or for multi-family dwelling units shall require:
~ I.~~~~~ Site Plan review by the Planning Board
II.~~~~ Public Hearing
III. Building Permit as required
IV.~~~ Occupancy permit
District CV: Commercial Village
General Requirements:
1. All new or altered uses shall require: Any development or expansion or change in impact (as determined by the Planning Board) of use of tracts for nonresidential uses or for multi-family dwelling units shall require:
a. Site Plan Review by the Planning Board
b. Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board, if applicable
c. Public Hearing
d. Building Permit as required
e. Occupancy Permit
Amendment #3
The Board decided to change the wording of this amendment to be:
Amendment No. 3
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Town Zoning Ordinance as follows: amend Article III General Provisions, Section A, Rebuilding After A Fire, to provide for the clarification of necessary permitting?
YES NO
Article III General Requirements
A. Rebuilding After A Fire
No owner or occupant of land shall permit fire ruins to be left. The owner within one year of the fire shall remove, rebuild, or replace the structure, upon the issuance of any and all applicable permits; unless the insurance adjuster(s) requires, in writing, an extension beyond a the period of one year. Any increase in size development or expansion or change in impact (as determined by the Planning Board) of the foot print of any building use of the tract in the CI/MF and CV zones shall require Site Review.
Amendment #4
The Board decided to remove Section 2. Special Exceptions from the proposed amendment.
The Board had no further comment on Amendments 1, 7 – 11, & 14.
Being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. DeBold and seconded by
Ms. McIntosh to adjourn the meeting at 11:10pm. Motion passes.
Respectfully submitted,
Jamie A Pike, Secretary
Approved as Corrected
_____________________________
Bradley J Towle, Chairman
| 
