TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
June 16, 2011
PRESENT: Bruce Jennings; Donna Davis Larrow; Peter White; Erin Anderson; Daniel Schneider; Robert Stanley; Michael Marquise, Planner.
ABSENT: Emma Smith, Ex-Officio Member
ALSO PRESENT: Arthur Fedis
Chairman Bruce Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.
There was general discussion regarding various administrative issues.
Per Michael Marquise, the Planning Board has no jurisdiction to give permission for anything to be placed on town land. This must go through the Selectboard.
The Board discussed general requests for placement of picnic tables at various locations in the harbor.
The following changes were proposed to the minutes of June 2, 2011.~ Line 74 –Seconded by Bob Stanley rather than Bruce Jennings.~ Line 89 – eliminate “summer” - redundant.~ Line 99 – eliminate “no”; replace with “minimal”.
Motion by Robert Stanley to accept minutes as amended. Seconded by Daniel Schneider. Motion accepted unanimously.
MAP 115 LOT 22 – WILLIAM SINATRA – 11 NORTH SHORE ROAD
REVIEW APPLICATION TO CHANGE GRADE MORE THAN 12” ON LOT LOCATED WITHIN 50 FT. OF WATERFRONT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IV SECTION 4:33-B-8-b-VII
Arthur Fedis presented the issue for review by the Board, as the representative for Bill Sinatra.~ The work entails a wall on the property that will be reconstructed in front of the residence.~ The grade drops drastically in front of the deck steps.~ Length of the wall is approximately 40 ft. and is located 8 ft. from the deck steps.~ The proposed work changes the grade of the area. Mr. Fedis explained that the plan is to build a boulder wall in front of the steps with granite steps in between the walls – again, 8 ft. down to the bottom grade.~ Finishing landscaping is to be done following this work.~ Bruce Jennings explained the process of review.~ He then questioned whether fill would be brought in connection with the proposed work. Mr. Fedis explained that approximately 24-30” of fill would be
added to the area.~ Chairman Jennings questioned whether there was any concern with erosion control. Mr. Fedis explained that a fence would be installed prior to work being done in order to protect the nearby wetlands. It was noted that there was no setback in the proposed area. Peter White questioned whether there would be a wall to increase the grade on the house side. Mr. Fedis said there would be and reiterated that there would be no disturbance to the wetland/lake side of the property.~ Daniel Schneider questioned the wall location. Mr. Fedis further explained that the wall was to be placed 8 ft. out - extending straight across the property to a post on the deck.~ He explained that Mr. Sinatra is seeking to have a flat area off~ the deck landing.~ Proper drainage would be completed and confirmed.~ Wall is proposed to be 32” at its highest point.~ In addition, the PVC pipe presently located on the shoreline would be removed; this was in
existence before Mr. Sinatra purchased the property and has been approved for removal.~ This was confirmed to have passed State wetlands approval per Arthur Fedis.
Motion made by Bob Stanley for a grade change of 12” on the lot located within 50 ft. of the waterfront in accordance with Article IV Section 4:33-B-8-b-VII located at 11 North Shore Road, Map 115 Lot 22 to William Sinatra to approve application as presented.~ Seconded by Donna Davis Larrow.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
Bruce Jennings gave details on the Coalition Meeting that he attended recently which dealt primarily with culvert/road issues.~ Discussions entailed at the meeting that related to planning boards in connection with future issues with prospective developments.~ Sunapee seems to be the least impacted – there are only three culverts as noted as, perhaps, needing improvement in the future.
MISCELLANOUS PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION
IV Planning Laws
RSA 674.41
Michael Marquise reviewed the various issues in regard to planning. No subdivision is allowed on a Class VI road or landlocked parcels – the town must guarantee that there is frontage to a lot.~ Class VI roads are owned by the town, but not maintained by the town.~ In regard to subdivisions, it is an implied warranty that the town will maintain the road.~ Daniel Schneider brought forward a previous issue that had existed wherein the town had to agree to move a right-of-way due to house location.~ The right-of-way was required because a house was located on the back section of an
area that was landlocked.~ The permit of private roads is allowed, but does not have to be town maintained road.~
Building permits are allowed on Class VI roads with waivers.~ They must obtain Planning Board and Selectboard approval and a maintenance waiver must be filed stating that the town is not responsible for maintenance of the road.~ Criteria for the decision include approvals, waivers and discussion of the road condition.~ It must be assured that there is access and the road has been built to a specific specification so that emergency vehicles have safe access.~
General discussion entailed in regard to specs required for roads by Peter White, Michael Marquise and Bruce Jennings.~ Important note regarding acceptance of new roads: A platt (approved by the Planning Board) with road shown (signed mylar) must be reviewed by the Selectboard who have the right to accept or deny. If new proposed roads are not shown on a platt, then it must be reviewed at the Town Meeting.
In regard to the retroactiveness of Zoning Ordinances, once an amendment has been posted for public hearing, the amendment becomes a temporary law until the voting process determines the end result.
In regard to zoning ordinances by petition, there was discussion by Peter White and Michael Marquise.~ It was confirmed that the same vote must take place for the same warrant.~ General discussion took place among board members regarding district changes and use of petitions. Example per Michael Marquise: village commercial district – petition is received for no more restaurants. A specific number of people in a specific district can come back with two-thirds vote petition in order to overturn original petition. Then, this must pass via the Town Meeting process.
V Procedures
Per Michael Marquise, three hearings are allowed for an application in regard to Site Plans.~ (1) Conceptual – essentially, show and tell with rough sketches where applicant can seek guidance but Board will request that applicant explains what they are seeking – it is considered a non-binding hearing.~ This gives the applicant an opportunity to discuss general plans.~ It is important that the applicant states what they are seeking.~ At this time, the applicant is allowed to clarify ordinances.~ (2) Preliminary -~ Standards must be presented and are required at this point.~ This is an opportunity for the applicant to present plans; abutters have been notified – this is also considered a non-binding hearing.~ (3) Final – binding phase.~ Once the Board accepts an application as complete, they have 65
days to accept or deny.~ If the case goes beyond this allotted time period, an extension can be requested via the Selectboard of up to 90 days. Bruce Jennings presented a specific example/question – the Woodbine property. It was initially proposed that this site would be utilized for a restaurant with residential condos also located on the site.~ The impact was considered to be “too heavy”.~ The application was withdrawn before a decision was made by the Board.~ There were no technical reasons by the Board to deny the application, however, it was felt that bias existed in regard to this project. Michael Marquise stated that if a plan is denied, the reasons must be presented (without bias) as they can become the basis for court issues.~ Daniel Schneider questioned landscaping, buffering – issues that are not measurable and how the Board can deal with these. Michael Marquise stated that if it is felt that attempts are not adequate, the
plan can be denied with reasonable issue.~ Peter White stated that he felt completeness was key with landscaping plans in connection with an overall Site Plan. Michael Marquise stated that if any element addresses shrubs etc. on a proposed plan – it should be viewed as landscaping.~ Further, he stated that as the Administrator he can make recommendations, but the Board must determine if it is complete on a case by case basis.~
Visitation of property, as well as discussions, must be done singularly outside of any meetings; applicants may be questioned on technical details.~ There must be no prejudice with issues.~ No joint visits are undertaken without declaration of a public hearing.~ Even though a final hearing may be closed to public discussion for further discussion by the Board and voting, the actual voting process can take place later – even at future meetings.~ Michael Marquise covered the area of conditional approvals (precedent and subsequent).~ Most approvals are considered conditional.~ The two types of approvals were covered. Example:~ permit from wetlands or a bond issue (precedent); (subsequent) follow-up issues such as planting specifics etc. ~~Final approval involves the signing of the (plan) mylars.~ Mylars usually only
have to be submitted with subdivisions.~ In regard to the “four year allowance” – if a subdivision is approved and a mylar is filed/recorded, everything is exempt from zoning changes for four years (from date of recording) provided that improvements have begun on a substantial basis within one year. This only applies to development of a subdivision.
DISCUSSION TO ADOPT POLICY ON NUMBERING TECHNIQUE ON NEW SUBDIVISION LOTS
In regard to tax numbering, it is noted that maps need to be numbered accordingly (in succession) with the existing home lot of an original property.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Caron
Bruce Jennings, Chairman~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter White, Vice Chairman
Erin Anderson~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel Schneider
Donna Davis Larrow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert Stanley
| 
