PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 04, 2011
Call to Order: 6:34 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present – Chairman; Tim Moore, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray, Charles Lanza, Vice Chairman; Steve Ranlett and Joyce Ingerson.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick
Item Two:
Minutes of April 20, 2011
S. Ranlett motioned to approve as written the minutes of April 20th, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-2, J. Ingerson and S. Ranlett abstained.
Item Three:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a 3-Lot Subdivision Plan application for property located at 22 Witch Lane, Tax Map 42, Lot 23, totaling 7.10 +/- acres with 188.83 feet of frontage in the Medium Density Residential District. The proposed 3-lot subdivision involves the construction of 590 feet of new road and will be suitable for single-family or duplex units. The owner(s) of record is Arthur K. Wicks.
Item Four:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment as a result of a 3-Lot Subdivision Plan for properties located at 20 and 22 Witch Lane, Tax Map 42, Lots 22 and 23, totaling 7.10 +/- acres with 188.83 feet of frontage and .58 acres with 152.04 feet of frontage respectively. Both properties are located in the Medium Density Residential District. The lot line adjustment will result in the addition of .49 acres to Tax Map 42, Lot 22. The owner(s) of record are Arthur K. Wicks and Glen and Heidi Peabody.
Present for the hearings was Kevin Hatch, Cornerstone Survey Associates.
R. Gray asked T. Moore if back when the where accepting plans as complete and then they were continued on, was the date the PB accepted the plan as complete on the public notice.
T. Moore replied that he thinks they used to do that.
L. Komornick stated it was accepted as complete on the last meeting in March (March 16th).
K. Hatch handed out site plans to the Board members. He stated that these are the plans for the Wicks property on Witch Lane. He explained that since the last meeting they have sent revised plans with the engineer’s comments back to CLD and they sent back a few more questions and comments. He stated that all the comments have been addressed but they could go through them if the Board wished. K. Hatch added that there were no design changes, just adding notes and labeling details.
L. Komornick clarified that the CLD letter in front of them was dated May 2nd, and was the newest letter. She added that they sent back a few of the requested items including soil calculations and some revisions on drainage calculations. She said that some of the other items she has gone over in the staff report. L. Komornick explained that CLD received the third set from K. Hatch today but a final letter would not be received for another three weeks. She spoke with K. Hatch earlier and they discussed that maybe they could address these items tonight and the Board could conditionally approve the plan.
T. Moore said they would go thought each item in the letter:
1. The soil calculations have been sent to CLD and a copy provided to the PB office.
T. Moore stated that they were provided and reviewed by CLD and their check on the initial calculations showed that lot 23-1 is equal to 0.96 lots.
K. Hatch stated that they were taken care of prior to the last meeting with a slight angle in the lot line between 23-1 and 23-2.
4. Septic Design Conflicts and Utility Design Conflicts
K. Hatch explained (4. a) that septic designs need to be reviewed by the Town and State before they can pull a building permit on the lots, and that is what CLD was pointing out. He explained that 4.b is about a hold harmless agreement, when a well is closer than 75 feet to a right of way. He added that they agreed to it at the last meeting, but he commented on it to CLD anyway.
R. Gray asked if 4b was written on the plan and K. Hatch replied probably not.
R. Gray stated that it should be a condition of approval.
L. Komornick noted that it is a form that they need to sign.
5. Drainage Design
K. Hatch explained that (5.a) CLD asked if the plan meets the Wetlands Board requirements and is there an additional permit needed from them. He spoke with Steve Cummings to ask if there were any new requirements he was not aware of. Steve Cummings spoke with someone over at the Wetlands Board and was told there is no requirement for anything they are doing. K. Hatch went on to say that they are not increasing the volume; no additional water is going to the wetland. It is just getting there a little quicker that bit does now. They are treating the water prior to it getting to the wetland, they water gets to the wetland as it does now and eventually makes it to the river. They do not need a permit and they did check with DES.
L. Komornick stated that she did speak with CLD and added that they are concerned that the applicant has not met the requirements of the new DES regulations and that it needs to be verified.
K. Hatch said he could get L. Komornick the name and number of who Steve Cummings spoke with at DES.
L. Komornick said that that is what she would need so she can verify the information. There is more discussion on this issue and PZO 220-117 that came out in March.
K. Hatch stated that they applied in December and so predated this regulation. There was discussion over whether the application needed to be accepted as complete to predate this regulation or if just applying before it was ok.
There was more discussion on the issue and the Board decided that they can conditionally approve the plan with L. Komornick making a call to DES Wetlands to verify the plan is following the regulations.
K. Hatch explained that for 5.c) they needed to remove a word from the drainage report that said they’d also analyzed a two year storm. He said that 5.d was that updated detail and design notes have been added.
6. Erosion Control/Wetland Impacts
K. Hatch noted that CLD reminds them again that the site is on the Shoreline Protection Zone. He has stated both on the plan and in his note to CLD that this project does not propose any work in the zone, and he references the recorded sheet (sheet 1) note 14 which states that. He added that anyone who buys it is on notice and anyone who turns in any proposed work; it will get picked up in other checks.
L. Komornick noted that they still do not have verification on whether they would need a permit for the disturbance putting a well in would cause and if they need a permit for stump removal.
K. Hatch agreed that you may need a permit if you were cutting trees there.
L. Komornick explained that under the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, timber activity is exempt, but is not exempt when it is involved in a development. She added they do not have verification of what trees have been cut or what distance, but the trees stumps of those trees cannot be removed without a permit at this point. There was more discussion on this issue and L. Komornick stated that it needs to be clear to people who may buy the property what land is buildable and what is not. She suggested that maybe it be put on the deeds.
R. Gray asked for K. Hatch to show him in the plan where the stump dumps are located.
K. Hatch replied sheet two, station 1 +50, on the right hand side of the road, 850 feet from the river. He added that it was logged a few years ago, but that the stumps are still in the ground.
T. Moore read note 14 on the plan that stated “no work is proposed within 250 feet of the river. A permit is required for any future work within 250 feet”. He added that it covers it, but noted that they could add a sentence to note 14 that’s says “future work to include stump removal”.
There was more discussion on the issue and it was suggested that the 250 foot line be shown on the plan and the note is added as well as being recorded on the deed to make future buyers aware of the rules.
K. Hatch clarified that the Septic Bureau and the Shoreline Protection Bureau work together, that nothing gets approved, including the septic, without a SPA permit.
L. Komornick responded that as long as it is everywhere along the steps it is ok.
C. Lanza added that the DES Inspector will also come out after the system is installed and reviews the site.
8. Federal, State, and Local Permits
K. Hatch noted that item 8.a references the shoreline Protection Act.
9. Other
K. Hatch stated that in 9.a CLD is looking for detectible warning devises. He explained that if you are visually impaired and in a wheel chair the warning devise will let you know you’re near the street. He added that they have a flush side walk and it does not enter into a cross walk nor does it drop quickly into the street. He stated that he checked ADA’s website and they require it if there is a ramp entering into a dangerous situation, a cross walk or another ramp. K. Hatch said they have a flush sidewalk and have chosen not to install them.
L. Komornick stated that this was why she called CLD this morning. She was told that their firm has been sued by a lawyer and that was why they wanted a rumble strip to let people know they are coming to Witch Lane.
K. Hatch told the Board about a law suit pending in the NH Supreme Court. A person from Tilton NH sued the Town of Tilton and the DOT because they were not maintaining their sidewalks in the winter. He stated that his client has asked him to ask the Board if they would consider a motion to waive the sidewalk, to cut down on maintenance, lawsuits, and not have a sidewalk that leads to nowhere.
The Board discussed the five foot grass strip requirement between the road and the sidewalk.
L. Komornick stated that they did that so there would be a separation without curbing, to provide people a way to get off the road and still be able to plow.
R. Gray stated that he would need to discuss it with the BOS. He asked L. Komornick to get him a copy of the ADA lawsuit in Tilton NH.
S. Ranlett stated that he would entertain not having the five foot grassy strip, but instead attaching a four foot strip to the road, having it wider there for kids with bikes and such, white stripping that lane. The Board discussed the issue further.
S. Ranlett expressed concern over the location of the stump dump stating that he does not like it because of the proximity to the road. He added that when it settles and there is erosion it will take part of the road.
K. Hatch noted that new regulation, 221-117 stated that he needed to locate where the stumps would be buried. He added that what he doesn’t like about the regulation is that all the stumps need to be in one area. He added that he could keep the area longer and thinner up adjacent to the lot line along the power lines.
There were no further questions from the Board and there were no questions from anyone in the audience.
T. Moore noted they had already accepted the plan as complete.
S. Ranlett motioned to approve with the following conditions;
- Subject to the Hold Harmless agreement for the well radius to be signed
- Verification of flows directed toward wetland with the Wetlands Bureau
- Verification of soil calculations
- Addition of the note and detail about the waiver for the sidewalk
C. Lanza second the motion.
T. Moore clarified that this is for the sub-division.
R. Gray stated that he would vote in favor of approving it with the sidewalk. He added that if the Board makes a separate motion about it he will abstain until he finds out the BOS’s position.
T. Moore stated that they should have dealt with the sidewalk waiver first.
The Board tabled the motion.
S. Ranlett motioned to waive the five foot grassy area from the side walk and attach the four foot sidewalk to the road and delineate it with stripping, second by C. Lanza. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-1, R. Gray abstained.
K. Hatch clarified that he will make the plans reflect that motion.
L. Komornick asked if it will change the drainage and K. Hatch answered no.
The Board took the first motion off the table.
L. Komornick read the motion back to the Board. There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-1, J. Ingerson abstained.
R. Gray motioned to approve the lot line adjustment, second by S. Ranlett. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-1, J. Ingerson abstained.
Item Five:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA
House Bill 409
T. Moore told the Board about House Bill 409 that was introduced this year in the legislature. He explained that originally it clarified that no more than one member of the PB could serve on the same commission/committee. He added that there had been a lot of confusion about it. He said it was not the intent to restrict PB membership on all committees, but it was intended to restrict PB members on Land Use Committees. The Bill was supported and what came out of it was that PB members were specifically excluded from being on the Conservation Commission. T. Moore explained the bill further saying the Senate Committee will remove the Amendment and recommend to the Senate that the original 409 be approved. If that happens it will go to the House and then the Governor and if not it is dead in the
water.
Letter from RPC
L. Komornick asked T. Moore if he needed to be appointed by the Board.
T. Moore replied that they are four year terms. The PB recommends to the BOS and then they approve for a four year term.
L. Komornick stated that the letter from the RPC said that T. Moore’s appointment expired on May 2009 and that Larry Gil’s in May of this year.
T. Moore replied they took care of that last year. He said he would take care of it again.
Project Status Spread Sheet
L. Komornick told the Board their packets contained the Project Status Spreadsheet.
Letter from NH Land Surveyors Association
L. Komornick referenced a letter received from the NH Land Surveyor Association that stated that surveyors are the only ones who can stamp plans and have them recorded at the registry. The Board discussed this issue and what prompted the letter.
ZBA Notice of decision
L. Komornick told the Board that Century Leasing was approved by the ZBA for a variance and that they will be in at the next meeting
C. Lanza asked if they needed to do anything regarding the Project Status Spreadsheet.
L. Komornick replied that they needed to get in touch with Dave Hoyt and Steve Lewis about the Chandler Ave. Project. She added that the spreadsheet is just a summary of what the Board voted on in January.
S. Ranlett asked about the Chandler Ave. Project and the Board requesting a response by February 16, 2011.
L. Komornick replied that she needed to send an e-mail.
The Board agreed that L. Komornick should send a certified letter and if S. Lewis does not respond then it is out.
Item Six:
Master Plan Workshop
The Purpose of this workshop was for the Board to discuss and prioritize what sections of the Master Plan they want to update this year and to come up with a plan/timeline to accomplish it.
The Board discussed the Existing Master Plan Update Schedule. It was decided that they would:
- Review and update the Introduction, Vision Statement, and History sections
- Put a cultural/ historic slant to the History section and review it only every ten years as regulations require.
- Have a closer link between the CIP and the MP; reorganizing each chapter with a chapter and item number to make it a more specific linkage.
- Start recording the date of the last time each chapter was updated/ reviewed, possibly having a table in a separate chapter.
- Change the Vision Statement chapter to be reviewed every five years instead of every year, it can be updated ahead of schedule if need be.
- Land Use and Vision chapters are the two chapters required by the RSA to be in the MP
- Have chapter on Population and Housing updated and ready for review in June’s work session (to be completed by T. Moore)
- Add into the list of recommendations who is responsible for implementing them (an Implementation Section)
- Update the Community Facilities Chapter (to be completed by R. Gray)
- Sections that should be added to Community Facilities chapter are Road Surface Management Plan, Cemeteries, Historical Society Building and the Court House
- Need to add an Aging Infrastructure Chapter that outlines an economic path/timeline for how they will review Town buildings; whether they will need to be updated or replaced and how often each one should be reviewed. (R. Gray would like to add pictures of the Town facilities in this chapter for reference)
- Splitting Natural Resources into two sections, one being Water Resources
The Board discussed the plan/timeline for the completion of the MP as follows:
- Come up with a bonding schedule
- Have department heads submit their sections of MP to PB for review
- Send out draft and memo to department heads with a date for their sections to be returned to PB for review
- R. Gray will have Community Facilities graphs ready for the June 1st meeting for review
- T. Moore asked Board members to review the Introduction, Vision Statement, and History section to check for updates for the June 1st meeting.
- L. Komornick will send out the three chapters to Board members for review and will work with R. Gray on draft and memo for department heads
- T. Moore asked Board members to pick one of the other chapters left; Transportation, Natural Resources, Open space, Recreation, and Future Land Use, and to review it and be ready with updates for July 1st meeting
- Natural Resources may be worked on by summer Intern Kyle
- C. Lanza stated he would review future Land Use
- Review possible new chapters and RSA description of each one and see if any of those chapters can be combined with an existing chapter
- After July’s meeting the Board will try and formulate how much effort will be required to update each section; what can be done this year and what will wait until next year
- Hold a Public Hearing, after MP is updated and PB in comfortable with the language, inviting department heads to answer questions on their sections
- Need to budget into next year the portions of the MP update that will be done then or contracted out
- Per RSA 674:33, hold more public hearings to solicit Public opinion
Item Seven
J. Ingerson thanked the Board for their votes and confidence in having her serve on the Board.
There is no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
