Planning Board
February 19, 2013
Approved April 16, 2013
Members Present: Bruce Healey, Chair; Bill Weiler, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alternate; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Healey called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Healey appointed Mr. Geddes as a voting member for this meeting, replacing Mr. Vannatta.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of August 21, 2012 and made corrections. Mr. Geddes made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of September 18, 2012 and made corrections. Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes of February 5, 2013 and made no corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mylar Signing
The Board reviewed and signed the mylar for Great Island Realty Trust/1085 Broadway LLC, Map/Lot 016-761-212 & 005-002-227, Case 2012-011.
Gravel Pit Oversight
The Board discussed the Planning Board’s oversight of gravel pits following the receipt of a letter pertaining to the gravel pit at Willow Pond on Village Road. The letter was an FYI to the Board regarding ongoing NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) requirements for Willow Pond gravel pit plans as part of the permitting process.
Mr. Weiler noted that the Board regulates gravel pits in the town. He added that the Willow Pond pit existed prior to those regulations and, consequently, the plans do not have the Board’s approval. However, Mr. Weiler noted that the Board should nevertheless maintain ongoing oversight and documentation of the pit. Mr. Powell questioned how the Board would proceed with oversight. Mr. Weiler suggested ensuring that the Board has copies of the pit’s plans and documents for placement in the Board’s file. Discussion followed.
Mr. Powell suggested contacting DES and requesting a copy of the Willow Pond documentation for the Planning Board file. Mr. Healey suggested the documentation should also be placed in the property file. Mr. Weiler agreed.
Ms. Ruppel referenced RSA 155:e which regulates local excavations. She noted that a DES Alteration of Terrain permit is required when excavation of a specific amount of square feet of earth is involved.
CASE: Case 2013-003: Conceptual – Lot Line Adjustment – Kevin Carr and Mike Beaton. Map/Lot 047-614-312 & 047-624-266. Adjust boundary to allow Mr. Beaton to build a barn in the field next to his house.
Kevin Carr was present to meet with the Board. Mr. Healey referred to Mr. Carr’s previous conceptual application submitted in August 2012 which read as follows: “My neighbor Mike Beaton and I wish to adjust our boundary. Hereby, I will grant him approximately 1.5 acres along Nelson Hill Road and he will grant me approximately 3.5 acres along the western border of my existing lot. The purpose is to allow him space to build a barn in the field next to his house.”
Mr. Carr said the conceptual presented at this meeting is the same conceptual submitted at the Board’s meeting in August 2012. He noted that this plan includes items requested by the Board last year, namely specific boundary lines, abutter property lines, the signature lines for the Board, and a clear depiction of the “before” and “after” configuration of the lots.
Mr. Carr said the plan is a fairly simple land swap but it becomes complicated because it is on the town boundaries of Newbury and Sutton which means the plan is affecting four different lots. Mr. Carr explained the plan as a lot at the end of his property that will go to Mr. Beaton while the lot on the western boundary goes to Mr. Carr. He said Mr. Beaton wants the barn because his daughter wants a horse.
Mr. Weiler said the current plans appear very understandable and added that the table included in the plan makes the transaction clear. Mr. Healey suggested that Mr. Carr include a “before” and “after” depiction of the lot configurations in color for presentation at the final application. Mr. Carr agreed.
Ms. Ruppel noted the inclusion in the “Notes” section of the plan that no new lots were being created. She also suggested using dotted lines to show the property lines that will “disappear” with the lot line adjustment.
Discussion followed regarding lot lines along the Newbury/Sutton town lines. Mr. Carr said he intends to have two mylars – one for Newbury and one for Sutton – and file the two transactions separately.
Mr. Weiler noted that the plat needs to be included in the final application.
Mr. Carr questioned whether the mylar could be signed by the board at the final application hearing. Ms. Ruppel said it has been the Board’s practice to have a 30-day appeal period before signing a mylar. Mr. Weiler said the 30-day appeal period is not a requirement and it is the applicant’s decision to begin work on an approved project prior to the 30-day appeal period.
Ms. Ruppel noted that the Board’s policy of waiting 30 days before signing a mylar reflected the need to make sure that items requested by the Board at final approval were actually included in the mylar.
CASE: Case 2013-001: Conceptual – Site Plan Review – Newbury Plaza LLC wants to move the location of the lake Sunapee Bank within the plaza to the former Tackle Shack location and install a drive-up window. Map/Lot 020-200-298.
Athanasios Katsanos, property manager and operation director, Newbury Plaza LLC, and Jim Bruss, Bruss Construction, Bradford, were present to meet with the Board.
Mr. Katsanos said his family purchased the Newbury Plaza in 2008 which contains retail spaces. He said Sunapee Bank wants to relocate from its current position in the Plaza to the end unit formerly occupied by the Tackle Shack. The bank desires a larger space for walk-in traffic and wants to include a drive-up window.
Mr. Healey commented on the current traffic pattern at the Plaza and noted that the proposed drive-up window will present a challenge regarding safely moving traffic in and around the Plaza. He added that truck deliveries are made to the back of the building which will have an impact on the traffic flow for the drive-up window. He added that Mr. Katsanos must show how the traffic patterns will flow safely, especially during the summer season when parking issues arise.
Mr. Katsanos said he believes the elderly will use the drive-up window and the rest of the bank’s customer base will welcome a larger walk-in banking space. He said he met with the town Fire Chief regarding parking, adding that the bank doesn’t require deliveries so all the spaces in back of the building can be used for parking.
Ms. Ruppel noted that the previous tenant, the Tackle Shack, was a retail store and the zoning reflected that. She added this would constitute a change of use from retail to financial institution.
Mr. Weiler noted that the proposed parking changes are significant and need to be considered in light of the original site plan. He also suggested that Mr. Katsanos focus on thoroughly addressing the elements of the site plan including the front façade, any utilities that can be seen, traffic flow, parking, signage and exterior elevations. Mr. Weiler further suggested including photos.
Mr. Healey asked if an ATM is planned. Mr. Katsanos said there will be an ATM inside the building in the first entrance in an air lock because an outside location would cause the ATM to freeze up in the winter.
Mr. Geddes asked about a roof covering over the drive-through window, noting that most drive-through windows have a roof covering. Mr. Bruss said there will be a 3-foot cantilevered overhang at the drive-through window.
Mr. Geddes noted that the proposed footpath between the Newbury Elderly Housing project and the back of the Newbury Plaza property will probably be located behind the proposed location of Sunapee Bank. He suggested including a provision for the footpath in the site plan for the bank. Mr. Healey agreed. Mr. Katsanos said that would not be an issue.
Mr. Weiler said it would be inappropriate for the Planning Board to request a provision for the footpath in the site plan because it is not connected to the business cited in the plan.
Mr. Geddes requested a description of the traffic pattern pertaining to the drive-through window. Mr. Bruss said it will most likely be a 90-degree intersection design but the traffic patterns and proposed designs are just conceptual at this point. Mr. Healey suggested including the traffic pattern designs in the preliminary application.
Ms. Ruppel noted that the zoning ordinance does not address drive-up service as an issue.
Mr. Bruss asked about trip data documentation. Ms. Ruppel said parking requirements are based on square footage. Mr. Weiler said it is five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Ms. Ruppel asked if there will be changes to the exterior lighting. Mr. Katsanos said there will be exterior lighting all around.
Mr. Healey asked about a change in signage. Mr. Katsanos the signage exists on the current sign board. Mr. Weiler said that if there are plans to place a sign on the bank then that must be included on the site plan.
There was discussion about the benefits of a preliminary site plan review prior to the final review. Ms. Ruppel told Mr. Katsanos and Mr. Bruss that the application and all materials must be submitted 21 days prior to the scheduled Planning board hearing.
CASE: Case 2013-002: Conceptual – Site Plan Review – Baker Hill Golf Club wants to install a “Sandstor” silo-type structure to house their topdressing sand. Map/Lot 038-785-501.
Robert Turcotte, maintenance director, Baker Hill Golf Club, was present to meet with the Board. He said the golf club has a need for storage for 50 tons of kiln-dried sand for maintenance of the greens. He described the proposed sand storage unit as a sand silo that will not be an eyesore. He noted that the Sandstor Silo is half the cost of building a stand-alone building and the only anticipated problem is plowing snow around the silo. He added that any water runoff from the silo will go into an adjacent drain. He added that the silo fill pipe is 1 ½ feet higher than the existing building.
There was discussion about whether a public hearing should be held on the proposed sand silo since the location of the Golf Club is in a residential area. Mr. Turcotte asked if he could contact abutters himself and get letters signing off on the project and if that would be sufficient. Ms. Ruppel noted that a public hearing requires abutter notification of all abutters, per state law.
Mr. Weiler suggested that an amendment to the existing site plan may be sufficient providing it includes a summary description statement, photos, a large version of the submitted plan showing the larger property and the maintenance building. The Board agreed.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
