TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
May 5, 2011
PRESENT: Bruce Jennings; Donna Davis Larrow; Daniel Schneider, Peter White; Erin Andersen; Robert Stanley; Emma Smith, Ex-Officio Member; Michael Marquise, Planner.
ALSO PRESENT: ~Lorraine Mathiesen, Richard Mathiesen, Brian Mathiesen, Heather Nelson, Richard Kelley Sr., Todd Whipple, Richard Curtis, William Ostrom, Charles Hirshberg, Roger Landry
Chairman Bruce Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.
Changes to the minutes of April 7, 2011. Change Line 51 – Zoning Administrator rather than Zoning Board. Motion by Donna Davis Larrow to accept minutes as amended. Seconded by Peter White. ~Motion accepted unanimously.
It was brought to the attention of the Board by Daniel Schneider that the dumpster location behind the Smokehouse Restaurant is an issue.~ Roger stated that it is noted on the Site Plan, but it may not be in its determined location. Parking is also an issue.~ It was determined that if any issue arises whereas the Planning Board visually notes that there may be issue against a previous Site Review Plan that Roger Landry should be contacted for verification.
Michael Marquise presented a change to the Zoning Ordinance. Page 9 should state the following - 340G 1 “OR” – should be located between 1 and 2. Also, Roger stated that all ordinances should be dated 3/11/2011.~ Maps will be obtained for board members and uploaded to the website.~
Board members were informed that training will be conducted at the next Planning Board Meeting scheduled for May 19, 2011.
MAP 145 LOT 19
SITE PLAN REVIEW LORRAINE MATHIESEN SEEKING APPROVAL TO OPERATE A CUSTOM & CANVAS FABRICATION BUSINESS FOR OUTDOOR GEAR, BOAT COVERS ETC. AT 417 EDGEMONT ROAD
Michael Marquise stated that the application was filed, abutters were notified, and fees submitted per Site Plan Review, Article 5, Item D requirements including receipt of a sketch of the property.~ No state permits noted.~ Open issues that have not been addressed as yet include lighting, signs and display, as well as days/hours of operation. The application was deemed complete for review by the Board.~ Motion by Robert Stanley. Seconded by Peter White. Motion accepted unanimously.~
Lorraine Mathiesen explained the nature of the business to the Board.~ The business will encompass sewing/fabrication of various covers including snowmobiles, tents, etc.~ Hours of operation are intended as 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, five days per week (varying days) or by appointment.~ Business will conducted in the building presently on the property.~~ Her son, Todd, will be the only employee working at this location at the present time.~ Bruce Jennings indicated that all details should be reviewed in order that no issues arise in the future.~ Roger Landry indicated that special exception has been obtained from the Zoning Board in regard to home businesses in connection with State approval.~ Lorraine stated that there would be no additional lighting for signage.~ She asked if there would be any restrictions in regard to sign
sizes.~~ Michael Marquise stated that the Zoning Board would have to approve this.~ He also asked about outside displays and storage.~ Lorraine Mathiesen stated that all work should be conducted within the existing building, but a larger vehicle such as a boat may have to be parked outside at various times.~ No excessive outside noise is expected.~ Roger Landry stated that a maximum 48 ft. square foot sign is allowed per Zoning Ordinances. ~Bruce Jennings asked if there were any abutters who would like to make comments.~ No comments were received. Donna Davis Larrow asked about parking issues.~ Lorraine Mathiesen explained how parking would face the existing building and that approximately ten vehicles could be accommodated.~ A larger vehicle, such as a boat, could be parked on the side of the building as stated previously.~
Bruce asked if extended hours should be requested in the event they are required at a future time.~ It was determined that a request for extended daily hours of 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM would be acceptable. Motion made by Daniel Schneider to approve plan subject to the acceptance of operating hours of 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM daily as presented.~ Seconded by Robert Stanley.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
~MAP 232 LOT 21 SUBDIVISION/MAP 225 LOT 42 ANNEXATION
RICHARD KELLEY JR. and RICHARD KELLEY SR. SUBDIVIDING .25 ACRES MAP 232 LOT 42, ANNEXING TO MAP 225 LOT 21 AT 15 PARADISE ROAD
It was noted that all application issues are covered under Article 6.04 Subdivision Regulations – Eligible for Waivers per 6.05B. Michael Marquise reviewed all details regarding the application including waivers in connection with boundary survey, existing and proposed contours, utilities, storm water drainage and water supply utilities. Motion to accept this application subject to waivers by Daniel Schneider. Seconded by Donna Davis Larrow.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
Richard Kelley Sr. presented information regarding the property issues. One parcel was previously annexed from Gary Jackson in 2005.~ He is asking that the smaller parcel be returned via annexation to him, to be added to the property already under his ownership. Both lots are conforming per Michael.~ Daniel Schneider requested the reason for annexation.~ Property is to be sold by his son and lot returned to Mr. Kelley so that further development does not take place.~ This parcel will serve as a buffer for Richard Kelley’s home by providing subdivision and annexation of
this parcel of land.~
Bruce asked if any abutters had any comments.~ No further comments were received from Mr. Kelley. Motion by Robert Stanley to approve request to move .25 acres from Lot 42 to Lot 21.~ Seconded by Emma Smith.~ Michael Marquise expressed terms of a condition, stated that the deeds be rewritten.~ This must be executed within 60 days.~ Motion amended to accept sixty (60) day period for executed deeds to be registered.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
Roger Landry stated that a mylar is required and should be provided by Richard Kelley Sr. to him for sign-off.
MAP 137 LOT 3
SITE PLAN REVIEW WILLIAM OSTROM SEEKING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING ON MAPLE STREET.
Michael Marquise reviewed the application requirements per Article 5, Site Plan Review. Per the Site Plan Review regulations, it was determined that signage needed to be discussed.~~~ Motion by Peter White to accept application as complete except for sign issue. Seconded by Donna Davis Larrow.~ Motion accepted unanimously.~
Issue presented by Charles Hirschberg with William Ostrom. He outlined the plan in detail. There will be four apartments, 2 bedrooms each on the 1+ acre lot which will be served by town sewer and water.~ Two parking spaces are allotted per unit with access off Maple Street between two abutting properties across the street. Point of access has been reviewed as appropriate as 24 ft. wide; the driveway will be 22 ft. wide. Front entrances are shown on the plans with a covered porch at the back of the property. The setbacks are as follows: 40 ft. off center with 40 ft. beyond the setback from Maple Street; 50 ft. setback off Beech Street.~ Snow removal is adequate as explained by Charles Hirshberg.~ Lighting is shown at five locations – at the entrance, either side of the building, and rear of
building which is similar to other properties already in existence nearby.~ The tree line is shown on site maps; landscaping plan is aggressive.~ The plan is to heavily shield the road side with trees.~ Already in existence are trees on Spruce Street to alleviate light issues.~ Plantings along Maple Street include various spruce trees, cedar, and flowering shrubs.~ Along the perimeter of the property there will be new landscaping.~ Regarding drainage, there will be a full basement.~ The site will be built up for adequate drainage.~ The Maple Street side and parking on the left hand side of the building will flow under the entrance; a sediment basin will flow toward the wetland area, as well as the parking area.~ Stone drip edges will be installed around the entire building.~ The foundation drain will direct water toward the right corner of the building to a stone-filled reservoir.~ The non-dry portion of the site will be a grassed area.~ Sewer will be extended from an
existing manhole to a new manhole placed in front of the new entrance.~ Options for water include service from Maple Street from a hydrant that is approximately 200 ft. north of the proposed building.~ Either a new service line or an artesian well could be installed on the property.~ Bruce Jennings asked if a water line was, in fact, extended in the future if they would then be required to utilize town water if they chose a well at this time.~ Current water does extend on 103B but not on Beech Street at this point.~ It is not in the immediate plan but is under consideration.~ Two existing options are either to bring the water supply from another property nearby or to install an artesian well.~ ~Roger asked if they would be ready to connect to a water source by March. William Ostrom responded that they would like to be ready before that time.~ They are presently exploring possibilities and options due to cost.~ Also, there is an abandoned line available, however, it is thought
that it would need to be replaced before usage – if it was determined that water would be obtained from this source.~ Power would come in overhead from Beech/Maple Streets.~ Charles Hirshberg reviewed smoke detector/dumpster requirements.~ Daniel Schneider asked regarding height of building. Per William Ostrom, the building will be two stories high with a footprint slightly larger (36” x 72”) than previously built structures. The entrances to this new structure will be different from the previous buildings. Regarding signage, they are proposing the same format as for the other buildings already in existence on Maple Street.~
Heather Nelson, an abutter to the proposed property, expressed concern as she lives across the street.~ Concerns include the impact of increased traffic on the subject area.~ She noted that the building will be quite visible from her property.~ Heather Nelson is also concerned about the lighting, the direction of the driveway and the water issues as she has a well and does not want to be required to accept town water. Robert Stanley directed the water issue to Roger Landry who stated that he did not believe she would be required to connect to town water if the water line is extended.~ It was stated that the abutter is on town sewer already.~~ The new building would also be with town sewer services.~ Heather Nelson addressed the issue of lighting and if it would be obtrusive to her property.~ Charles Hirshberg explained
that due to recessed lighting and the subtlety of lighting, it should not be an issue.~ Bruce Jennings stressed that it needed to be adequate, but not a negative issue for neighbors.~ Daniel Schneider asked if lighting could be altered so there would be no issues.~
Michael received input regarding water issues – as to who would be responsible for funding the extended lines.~ Charles Hirshberg stated that the Water/Sewer Department had been interested in extending the lines. Roger stated that there are several lines that they would like to extend in continuous loops throughout the area as to cut down on the number of people affected when there is~a line break.
Bruce Jennings expressed that the developer and any abutters should seek to have conversations regarding landscaping and other issues before hearings.~ ~Heather Nelson expressed concern with the guideline regarding seasonal plantings and with any change of ownership.~ Peter White expressed concern with existing trees on the property – as to what would remain and what would be removed.~ Heather Nelson asked about the height of the building. The proposed building would be 32 ft. in height and the tallest tree to be planted will be 6-7 ft. in height.~ Landscaping issues were discussed at length.~ Heather Nelson stressed that police have reviewed the plans in order to assess additional traffic issues.~ Daniel Schneider questioned sign-off on the plan by the Fire Department.~ Bruce Jennings stated that they would like a
site plan that would address all issues that would be contingent with any change in ownership.~
Heather Nelson reiterated her concerns regarding lighting, traffic and landscaping. Bruce Jennings requested that the public portion of the hearing be closed. Motion by Donna David Larrow to close.
Daniel Schneider expressed concern about the landscaping and lighting issues.~ Robert Stanley stated that there could be issues with planting and height issues.~ Peter White stated that he feels the plan is well qualified.~ A condition was suggested that trees will be replaced for perpetuity.~ Daniel Schneider requested information regarding parking area lighting.~ William Ostrom explained that they are subtle lights, rather than flood lights.~ At this time, the hearing was re-opened for public discussion.~ William Ostrom explained that lighting is photocell lighting.~ Motion detector lighting is located on the front of the building.~~ Daniel Schneider suggested that the lights be moved away from the Nelson house to point toward the parking area.~ Charles Hirshberg suggested that there be a recommendation that light is not
projected out toward the street or minimized. Peter White reviewed the possibility of making this part of the motion.
Motion by Robert Stanley to approve site plan conditional on Fire Department approval with the stipulation that plantings not surviving be replaced on perpetuity within one calendar year and that the lighting on the side of the building be placed in such a way in order to minimize the impact across Maple Street with a time frame of the building permit being obtained by the builder within eighteen (18) months.~ Seconded by Daniel Schneider.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
William Ostrom stated that plants would be installed within six months of project start.~~ Roger Landry stated that when a building permit is obtained that construction must be initiated within one year.~ William Ostrom stated that stonework and some landscaping could be done before any construction is done.~ Roger Landry stated that a building permit must be obtained before any actual construction is begun.~ If going beyond the eighteen month time frame, an extension would be required.~ Roger Landry stated that a Zoning Compliance Approval would be done upon completion of the project.
~MAP 211 LOT 14
REVIEW SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY COOPER STREET PARTNERS AS PART OF THEIR CONDITIONS ON OUTSTANDING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
Michael noted that information is available for review by the Board.~ Documents have been presented to the town for review in connection with conditional approval. This is in regard to drainage improvements with concern about crossing over of other lots.~ Town counsel has reviewed this and only concern, at this point, is that Fire Department approval is obtained. The Homeowner’s Association must be in agreement with maintaining the system.~ A bond hearing will need to take place in regard to this.~ Michael Marquise suggested a maximum time frame of six months for a bond hearing so that approval can be executed.~ Motion by Peter White to set six month time frame for applicant to apply for bond hearing.~~ Seconded by Emma Smith.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
Map 104 Lot 80/01
STATEMENT OF PROPERTY USAGE FOR SIGN PERMIT FOR UNITED CONSTRUCTION AT 1294 ROUTE 11
Roger Landry gave details regarding this issue. A real estate sign was already in place at this location. However, due to the fact that United Construction is a different type of business it is required that a review by the Planning Board be done before a new sign is allowed to be put in place.~ The sign that had been installed was removed due to Roger Landry’s request.~ A letter was received from United Construction to have their business and signage at this location.~ The Planning Board must determine if a Site Plan Review is required.~~ Richard Curtis stated that due to the change in businesses that less people would be at this location, therefore, less traffic.~~ The building has houses offices for 25 years.~~ ~Todd Whipple explained the functions of the Corbus Group – three agents on the lower level
with an office on the second floor for one person.~~ The office in question is for construction~administration purposes only.~~ Roger Landry again explained that the issue is that it will be a different type of office, so approval is necessary.~ United Construction has been in business for 51 years in business. Todd Whipple will be the only occupant in the upstairs office.~ This will be a point of sales office only.~ Clarification was given as to the type of office that will be in the building per Bruce Jennings request.~ Todd Whipple explained that it would be low traffic – consistent with real estate inquiries.~ Michael Marquise stated that this is a grandfathered building due to the nature of business similarities that have occupied the building previously.~ There will be a total of five agents downstairs intermittently.~ Daniel Schneider questioned whether there is a requirement for public notice. Roger Landry stated that it is not necessary due to the statement of
property usage.~ ~It was reiterated that because it is a construction business office – it creates an issue and it is necessary for the Planning Board to discuss as it is a different type of office than in the building previously.~ Robert Stanley stated that it seems to be a similar type of business but the name confuses the issue.~ Motion by Daniel Schneider to approve statement of property usage subject to the requirement that the property be used for office and administration purposes only and shall not be used in any way for construction operation purposes.~ Seconded by Robert Stanley.~ Motion accepted unanimously.~
Following review of the presented cases, Roger Landry expressed concern as to timing of accepting agenda items for meetings.~~ Michael Marquise suggested that final agendas be posted by Monday at 5:00 PM, before Thursday meetings.~~ Robert Stanley expressed concern that there may be emergency cases. All applications not requiring public notice must be submitted no later than 12:00 Noon on the Monday before the Thursday meeting.
Roger Landry expressed concern as to which set of plans was approved for the Smokehouse Restaurant last year.~ Board expressed that the plans including the dumpster and its proposed location were the appropriate set.~ Issue with the dumpster is a concern.~ Bruce Jennings expressed the fact that the dumpster was discussed but plans have not been signed off by Peg Chalmers.~ It was noted by Donna Davis Larrow that the dumpster is mentioned in the June 3, 2010 meeting minutes (Line 94).
Roger stated that “as per approved plan” must be added to Decision Sheets for the Planning Board.
Roger Landry asked about the Site Plan for William Ostrom’s proposed project. It was again reiterated that the Fire Department must approve this in order to sign off on this plan.
Michael Marquise brought forward the issue of the Pizza Market, which took over community store. Previous issues included parking lot changes and a 50% increase in non-conforming use. They have made a new request to install an ice cream area in the building (on vacant left hand side of the interior space) in order to produce more income to make improvements as originally planned.~ Per Roger Landry, approximately three months ago, they requested opening the store part of the operation again. It was reiterated to them that the parking lot would have to be changed according to the original site plans in order to move forward with this in addition to numerous other issues such as a split entry being required in the parking lot and appropriate signage. Michael Marquise noted that it had been a substantial
proposal. Decision was made per Roger Landry after conferring with Michael Marquise that no expansion would be allowed until original improvements to the parking area were completed. A letter was received after that requesting the ice cream area. There is a concern with space issues and change of use issues in connection with allowing this to move forward. Pizza Market is requesting the installation of an ice cream area in order to produce income to move forward with parking improvements. The original plan was for a community store and gas station. Bruce Jennings stated that there had been no formal restaurant request previously. Per Roger Landry, they have exhausted the 50% rule/ordinance by increasing a non-conforming use (restaurant) to the current restaurant size. Again, the building was previously approved for installation of a general store within the building if parking was changed as mandated.~ Roger Landry expressed that the
plan has now been abandoned for two years so that it is now null and void. Michael Marquise expressed that another Site Plan Review should have been triggered previously. Originally, there were issues from abutters in regard to noise if tables were placed outside. No information is available in regard to seating etc. Bruce Jennings stated that the number of staff members was also an issue. The Board feels that a Site Plan Review must be done and/or revisited.
Roger Landry discussed the recent Flanders Properties/Subdivision (located near Mt. Sunapee) sale and bond issues.~ Inquiries have been received over the past few weeks in regard to use of the property. Bond was set to expire as of 5/15/2011 per Roger Landry. Actions have been taken in regard to this. One duplex was complete with the connecting unit 80% complete at the time of sale. This issue is ongoing.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Caron
Bruce Jennings, Chairman Peter White, Vice Chairman
Erin Anderson Daniel Schneider
Donna Davis Larrow Emma Smith
Robert Stanley
| 
