TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 6, 2010
PRESENT: Peggy Chalmers, Chairman; Bruce Jennings, Vice Chairman; Donna Davis Larrow; Daniel Schneider; Robert Stanley; Peter White; Michael Marquise, Planner; Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator; Donna Nashawaty, Town Manager.
ABSENT: Emma Smith, ex-officio member.
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Wood; Gerry Shelby; Bill Roach; Michael Simpson; Jim Gruber; Ted Gallup; Tony Bergeron; Richard Lee; Christine Walker; Tim Fleury; Dave Bailey; Midge Eliasson; Charlie Hirshberg; Brian Garland; Dave Thibault; Steve Jesseman.
Chairman Chalmers called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
LAKE SUNAPEE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION ON STORMWATER UPDATES ON LAKE SUNAPEE AND FUTURE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR SURROUNDING TOWNS.
Mr. Wood introduced the project, which is federally funded. Its purpose is to study ways of adapting stormwater infrastructure to development on landscape and evolving storm patterns. Historical data shows an increase in both storm intensity and frequency, particularly in the fall and spring. The group is studying how adequate the existing stormwater infrastructure is and developing a cost comparison as to how much money proactive measures can save over the long term. Data has been collected on over 170 culvert sites. The grant period ends in July of this year.
Mr. Simpson narrated a PowerPoint presentation of the data. The study looked at the economic and ecological impact of stormwater management. The group reverse engineered culverts to determine if they are adequate. Sunapee is slated for few culvert replacements; Mr. Simpson felt this was due to both the topography of the area (more permeable soil, less steep slopes) and the fact that culverts have been upgraded over the years. A full report of the data will be available end of May.
Mr. Gruber reviewed the outcome of a Feb. 17, 2009 task force meeting which studied Development and Zoning, Water Retention and Impervious Surfaces, and Local Government and Infrastructure. He led a discussion focused on potential actions for Sunapee to consider and actions that all four towns in the watershed might want to undertake collaboratively.
Suggestions for Sunapee: continue culvert replacement plan; assess impact of road salt and sand in runoff and their impacts on the environment; access resources to evaluate the effectiveness of various runoff techniques; continue improving development practices; developing an impact fee policy; awareness that stormwater plans be designed for contingency; make LID (Low Impact Development) techniques simplified and cost effective for small projects.
Suggestions for multi-town action: recognize commonality on the issue; organize representatives from the planning boards of Newbury, Springfield, Sunapee and New London for collaboration; initiate local communication with state agencies regarding regulations.
Next steps: Mr. Marquise felt there would be value to having a presentation on LID techniques in the upcoming months. Mr. Landry said he would be interested in having seasonality results presented to the planning boards of all four towns. Mr. Marquise felt it necessary to use updated data for accurate planning and future design. Mr. Shelby suggested the four towns combined would be more effective in updating regulations than would each town operating on their own. Mr. White pointed out that the establishment of LID techniques would be a tough sell because of their cost. It was suggested that the town work with Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission on LID implementation and development incentives.
MAP 123 LOT 2, SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 12,000 SQUARE FOOT FIELD HOUSE WITH CLASSROOMS, ETC. SUPPORTING AN ENROLLMENT INCREASE IN MOUNT ROYAL ACADEMY AT 26 SEVEN HEARTHS LANE.
Mr. Marquise stated that the application falls under Article 5 of the site plan regulations. It was filed in advance, fees were paid, abutters were notified and notices were posted. Up for discussion are fire alarms and sprinklers, toxic waste and hazardous materials. The application is complete as submitted subject to discussion of those items.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Stanley, to accept the application as complete subject to discussion of fire alarms and sprinklers, toxic waste and hazardous materials. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Jesseman presented the case. The student population is currently at 100 and no significant change is anticipated in that number. The purpose of the building is to provide a venue for sports, assemblies and a laboratory, not for increased classroom space. Parking will be brought into conformance with original plan (three additional spaces). The existing basketball court will be turned into grass.
The building would be 11,900 square feet. Mr. Jesseman stated that buildings 12,000 feet and over require sprinklers. This will be a concrete building with a wood truss roof. The construction area will be completely enclosed in order to provide a safe site. The parking area is primarily for staff; there is no planned increase in parking. Events take place after school hours when staff vehicles are gone.
Mr. Jennings asked if there is a concern about the number of students or square footage of the building in terms of having an approved use. Mr. Marquise said originally there were originally 50 students and 5 staff members. In 2000, the property was not zoned for that district and there was a limitation on growth. Now it is included as an approved use in that district. The number of students will be relevant in terms of wastewater.
Mr. Jesseman addressed the issue of wastewater. Water flow in the system has been monitored for the past six weeks. The water flow is not as high as the approved septic was designed for. They have gone to the state and understand that approval will be given on the condition that an alternate area for overflow is specified. For future planning, they are looking at alternatives for sewage disposal. State approval is expected in about a week. Mr. White asked if facilities will be increased i.e. more bathrooms.
Ms. Jesseman, septic designer engineer, stated that they are coming in at about a quarter of the flow. They are adding showers in the gym and, according to the state, will have to monitor flow for six months once the building is up and running; if they are within regulatory limits, they are fine. If not, they will have to build a new septic system. There is an area indicated on the plan where an additional septic could be put in.
Mr. Landry said the school is approved for 90 students and 8 staff. Ms. Jesseman said there was a peak flow of 235 gallons a day with 100 kids. The allowed peak flow is 995 gallons a day. Mr. Marquise asked how many people are currently on staff; there are 15, some are part time. Some of the students are part time as well, such as those in the preschool program.
Mr. Jesseman said the water has been tested and a pump test on well has been completed; there is more than adequate water supply. Mr. Jesseman indicated where power would be coming from. The building will not be sprinkled because of size and design. The existing parking will remain; there is overflow parking available on site. There are a few events a year where on-street parking may take place. The science lab will contain chemicals in a locked cabinet; drainage from that will go into a glass jug and no chemicals will go into the wastewater system. Chairman Chalmers asked if there would be any other toxic waste; there will not.
Mr. Marquise referenced the stormwater management plan which indicates the same or less flow. He asked what methods will be put in place to make that happen. Ms. Jesseman said the existing soil is somewhat impervious. They will use a 2 foot wide, five foot deep stone drip edge with perimeter drain around the building. She stated that method has been used successfully in one other building on the property.
Mr. Landry said he was concerned that some of the runoff will be going onto the town roadway. Ms. Jesseman said there will be less overall runoff that there is presently. Mr. Landry said the road agent would like a culvert installed on the corner and the fire chief had some concern about the cistern and availability of water. Mr. Marquise said the fire chief would like the building plans to give to the fire marshal.
Mr. White said it appears that the plan is to catch water and drain it offsite. Ms. Jesseman said the water will drain where it presently does and since there will be less runoff there should not be a problem. Mr. White said he assumed it would be a lined drip edge whereby water will be run off site. Mr. Jesseman said some will leave the site, some will be absorbed into the ground, and overall runoff will be decreased. Chairman Chalmers stated that this system would be slowing down the flow.
Mr. Jennings asked if there is any right of way on the field side of Seven Hearths Lane and if the field was needed for parking, could it be accessed from Seven Hearths Lane. Mr. Jesseman said the field could be accessed through the parking lot if need be. Mr. Jennings wanted to clarify that the field could be used for overflow parking. Mr. Marquise said that the lack of parking was the police chief’s concern. There are 37 spaces in the existing lot.
Mr. Landry asked if parking was calculated. Mr. Marquise said in terms of staff, the parking is adequate. Parking for a function would be in question. Mr. Landry said he understood there would be an increase in enrollment and staff. Mr. Jesseman clarified that the increase was up to 100 students. Mr. Landry asked if enrollment is frozen at 100.
Mr. Thibault said the school will comply with whatever they need to comply with. Mr. Broom asked how many parking spots are needed for 100 students. Mr. Jennings pointed out that functions involving additional people would take place outside of school hours. Mr. Marquise stated that the board is bound by the numbers given them.
Mr. Broom want to clarify that enrollment is not capped at 100 students. Mr. Jennings asked if the school could assure the board that parking is adequate for events involving additional people. Mr. Landry said there is a formula that correlates between the number of students and the number of spaces. Mr. Thibault said the current parking is adequate for games and school functions. Generally, one large bus or two small buses bring in opposing teams for soccer games. School events have not been problematic in terms of parking either. For the current use and the use of the new building, the parking is adequate.
Brian Garland, abutter on Seven Hearths Lane, said there are cars at times on the road, though not frequently. He has more of an issue with people pulling out of school without looking for oncoming. As an abutter, he has concerns with vehicles at a basketball games since there are typically a lot of vehicles at Sherburne Gym for basketball games. He would also like to know if there is a lighting plan. There will be one down lit security light for the doorway and one down lit light in the back of the building. Mr. Garland would like to know how much blasting there will be. Ms. Jesseman said blasting will be done safely, however, they cannot be sure the amount needed until they begin. Mr. Jennings said he thought blasting and how it affects the neighbors would
be a civil issue. Mr. Garland asked about silt fence and runoff. An erosion control plan and silt fence are planned. Mr. Garland asked how many trees will come down and will they be replaced. There are probably ten trees that will come down and some will be replaced; there is a landscape plan. Mr. Garland said the elevation gain is a concern. Mr. Jesseman said the building will not be much higher than the existing fence on the basketball court. Mr. Garland said the school is a great neighbor; he is just trying to understand the scope of the project. The visibility of the new building is a concern; if there is anything in terms of landscaping that can be done on the soccer field side he would appreciate it.
Mr. Jennings asked when the lights would be shut off at night; Mr. Thibault said he thought the timed lights were off by 8 p.m. Games or practices are generally done by 5 p.m. Mr. Thibault clarified that the school belongs to a league with other small schools and games are not scheduled for nighttime.
Mr. White said he counted a total of 36 spaces. He has a concern with the parking being adequate for a 12,000 square foot building and would like to know what the anticipated enrollment is. Mr. Schnieder said he is not concerned with enrollment; he does not want a congested area. He wanted to know how the school felt about no on-street parking. Mr. Thibault said he felt that was reasonable.
Mr. Marquise said state septic approval will give a student enrollment number and the board is bound by that. In terms of parking, he thinks the day to day parking will be fine. For night time use, one space for three seats is needed or they have to provide other parking on site. He thinks those limitations would clarify the issues.
Chairman Chalmers suggested indicating, as part of motion, the area the fire chief would like to see used for on-street parking. Mr. Landry said there is a formula the board must go by for parking. Chairman Chalmers also thought the culvert replacement should be part of the motion.
Mr. White said it would make sense to indicate bus parking on the plan. Mr. Jesseman said they would do so.
Mr. Jennings asked if the space would be rented out for other functions. Mr. Thibault said there are no plans for that and indicated the only request was for town recreation department use of the gym.
Chairman Chalmers closed the public hearing.
Mr. Stanley said the main issue is parking and felt the board can approve with the condition that enrollment not exceed 100 full time students. If they exceed that number, they need to readdress the parking. Chairman Chalmers said she is not sure that the issue is the number of students as much as the number of people at events. Mr. Stanley said it sounds like parking issues would arise only occasionally and he does not want to see the school add additional impervious surface for parking. Mr. Jennings said he would like to know how many people will use the gym at any one time and would rather not put a limitation on number of students. He would like enrollment to be limited by the state approval. Mr. Marquise said the number of staff could be used as a limiting
factor. Chairman Chalmers suggested adding a buffer to the 100 students and have the school revisit parking above that number. Mr. White would rather define the occupancy load of the building. Chairman Chalmers opened the meeting to the public.
Mr. Thibault said they will have bleachers to hold 50 people. Mr. Jesseman stated the fire marshal will determine the number of people that can be in the building.
Mr. Landry suggested the case be continued to February, since additional information will become available that will answer a lot of the questions.
Mr. Jesseman said they would like to move forward with the project and requested the board consider voting tonight.
Chairman Chalmers closed the public hearing. Ms. Davis Larrow asked if there was something else that needed to be a condition besides parking. Chairman Chalmers said the ditch at the end of the driveway, on-street parking and the plan to go to the fire marshal.
Motion by Mr. Stanley, seconded by Mr. White, to approve site plan review for construction of a new 12,000 square foot field house with classrooms, etc. supporting an enrollment increase in Mount Royal Academy at 26 Seven Hearths Lane subject to the following conditions: that the ditch at the end of the egress be improved per the road agent’s specifications, that the fire marshal give approval to the plan and that if the student body exceeds 100 full time students an additional parking plan be applied for.
Motion amended by Mr. Stanley, seconded by Mr. White, that approval also be subject to the reception of state septic approval and fire chief approval.
Motion amended by Mr. Stanley, seconded by Mr. White, that approval also be subject to the condition that all parking be contained on site for any use and that outdoor lighting be down lit. Remove the condition limiting the student body to 100 students.
Motion amended by Mr. Stanley, seconded by Mr. White, that the project be completed with one year.
The motion passed unanimously.
MAP 211 LOT 14, REVIEW REQUEST FROM TTG ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST, LLC. ON BEHALF OF COOPER STREET PARTNERS FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSION TO CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON SUBDIVISION, ROUTE 11.
Mr. Marquise reminded the board that this was the thirteen lot subdivision off of Route 11, which received approval on March 4. The board gave six months and approved an extension that allowed them to go to Dec. 18. They still have not received legal documents and are looking for a three month extension. Mr. Marquise stated this would probably be the last extension.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Jennings, to approve a three month extension to conditional approval on subdivision on Route 11 for Cooper Street Partners; it is the sense of the board that this is the final extension. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Richardson
____________________________________________ ________________________________________
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman Bruce Jennings, Vice Chairman
____________________________________________ ________________________________________
Donna Davis Larrow Daniel Schneider
____________________________________________ ________________________________________
Robert Stanley Peter White
| 
