TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
July 21, 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:~~ Michael O’Mara; Stacy O’Mara; Sue Mills; John Quackenbos
~Chairman Bruce Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM.
Minutes of June 16, 2011 were reviewed by the Board.~ Motion by~Daniel Schneider~to accept minutes as amended. ~Seconded by Robert Stanley.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
New Zoning Ordinance books were handed out to Board members by Michael Marquise as the district information was not included in the previous edition.~ Bruce Jennings brought forward the subject of property usage and how it is being implemented.~ He met with Donna and Roger regarding this.~
VAN WEBB – CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Van Webb, Chairman of the Sunapee Conservation Commission presented the issue for review.~ The Conservation Commission is seeking approval by the Planning Board in order to move forward with additional approvals required. Location was specified of the project by Mr. Webb. The property is a gift to the town - 2.23 acres. The parcel of land indicated on the east side of the map opposite the Garnet Hill Road is the referenced area. In regard to this proposed conservation parcel, they are unsure whether it will be annexed to the Dewey Woods Lot or if a conservation easement will be placed upon this area – as yet. Feels this area is a strategic area that completes the “loop”. Maps were presented for review. Mr. Webb further stated that the owners would
like the “gift transaction” to occur this year. He asked the Board if there were any questions. Donna Larrow questioned whether there were wetlands. Mr. Webb stated that approximately half of the area was considered to be wetlands and explained how this parcel connects with existing wetlands in the Dewey Woods parcel. Mr. Webb further stated there may be a small portion of buildable space available. Road frontage was questioned. Mr. Webb stated that he believed it was in the range of 250 – 325 ft. of road frontage. Chairman Jennings stated that he believed the goal of the town was to put a certain percentage of land into conservation. Mr. Webb stated that the New Hampshire guideline states 25% and Sunapee is at approximately 16-18% at the present time.
The Conservation Commission is seeking commentary “on the record” that there is favor and that the Planning Board has reviewed this and will accept the parcel.~ Chairman Jennings questioned whether any Board members had objections. Mr. Webb stated that they were only seeking approval and that a motion was not necessary. Daniel Schneider stated that the sense of committee is that this is a favorable proposal for the town.~ All Board members were in favor of this project.~ Unanimous support given by the Board.
MAP 225 LOT 43 – MICHAEL AND STACY O’MARA – 17 PARADISE ROAD – HOME BUSINESS
DS recused himself from this issue.~ Michael O’Mara is seeking to place a sign for commercial advertisement only at his home business location.~ Bruce Jennings asked if a sign permit had been obtained. He commented that a new business needs to be reviewed via the process of a Site Plan Review, and stated that if the business was in existence, previously, that no Site Plan Review would be required. However, Chairman Jennings stated that notification is required to ensure appropriate usage requirements are met.~ Mr. O’Mara explained to the Board that his LLC business was established five years ago.~ Further, he is set up to work on multiple computers at his location.~ The only change being requested is that he be allowed to install an exterior sign.~ Peter White stated that a statement of
property usage requires that use is similar so that it can be determined that a Site Plan Review is not required by the Planning Board.~ Chairman Jennings questioned the fact as to whether this is a home business or home occupation. Michael Marquise stated that changing the classification from a home occupation to a home business would require site plan approval. He questioned whether there would be traffic at the location in future. Mr. O’Mara stated that the nature of his business entails that he picks up equipment and delivers to client locations. There are no customers/clients at his location. Again, he stated that the sign would be for recognition and advertisement purposes only as noted. He further explained that there would be no outside employees and that he spends approximately three to five hours per day working the business. Peter White questioned whether there would be employees at any point. Mr. O’Mara stated
there may be family members involved, but no outside hires. Bob Stanley questioned the issue in regard to classification. Michael Marquise stated that his understanding was that the sign intent was not to draw people to the location so the classification could remain the same and a Site Plan Review/approval would not be required.~ There was general discussion regarding classification by Board members.~ Michael Marquise stated that the concept of a sign, in most cases, triggers a “home business” classification.~ Peter White asked if a conditional approval could be given.~ Michael Marquise stated that any decision would have to state the specifications of the approval in order to retain the home occupation status/classification.~ Bruce digressed regarding the Planning Board and reviews.~ Mr. O’Mara stated, once again, that the business would continue as it has with pickup and delivery only to and from the location.~
No abutters were present for comments. Donna Larrow brought forward the issue in regard to the guideline which states that no outside displays are allowed for a home occupation.~ She questioned whether this could be an exception.~ The sign was presented to the Board for review by the applicant.~ Peter White questioned whether this issue should be reviewed by the Zoning Board He expressed his concerns about approving this as other people may request the same in future.~ He stated that his understanding is that a home occupation classification does not allow any employees or on-site signs/advertising displays as specified in the Zoning Regulations (Page 49).~ Bob Stanley stated that this has been a business for years, but without signage.~ Mr. O’Mara stated that business will continue to
function as it has over the last five years – with no changes.~ There was general discussion among the Board members regarding whether this is, in fact, a Zoning issue.~ Michael Marquise noted a conflict in the definitions stated by Zoning and Planning. In this case, no variance is required per the zoning definition.~ However, the planning definition indicates an issue. Bruce Jennings asked if there were any further comments from the applicant. There were none. At this point, he closed the public portion of the meeting.~
Bruce Jennings stated that there is confusion with intent of the sign in connection with the definition of a home occupation.~ Peter White expressed his concerns stating that he does not feel a determination can be made by the Planning Board.~ Again, he is concerned that future applicants will request signs and there will be issues with the determinations that are made.~ He further stated that he feels a Site Plan Review must be done according to town specifications.~ His understanding indicates that a home occupation is “low impact”; home business is “more impact” to the neighboring properties.~ It was noted that there is a conflict in definitions between the Zoning and Planning guidelines.~
The Board reviewed the details of the request. The business takes place in the basement of the home.~ No clients will be present at the home location.~ Bruce Jennings stated in general discussion that they would need to ensure another case is not forthcoming that is similar.~ Michael Marquise stated that the Planning Board guideline does fit with the request and that he feels this trumps the Zoning definition and that it would be appropriate to allow the sign installation.~ Peter White expressed his concern regarding the Planning Board’s position, in future, and the possibility of further issues, specifically in regard to the requirements as stated within the Site Plan Review paperwork (Page 1).~ Peter White questioned the item - “outdoor display”. Donna Larrow questioned the
“function” of the sign as “advertising”. Mr. O’Mara stated that this was true – that the sign would serve as advertising to anyone driving by the property.~
Motion made by Bob Stanley~to approve application as presented to post sign without a Site Plan Review.~ ~No Board members seconded the motion. Per Chairman Jennings, a Site Plan Review must be done in order to move forward, which could be presented at the September Planning Board meeting.~
MAP 133 LOT 91 – SUNAPEE HARBOR RIVERWAY – 31 RIVER ROAD – SINGLE PERSON OFFICE
Sue Mills of the Sunapee Harbor Riverway presented the issue. They are seeking to allow utilization of the rented space that was previously “Pins & Needles” to a one person office on a seasonal basis. The space would be used approximately three hours per day. They are asking that the space revert to office space. Chairman Jennings stated that approval was previously given in a prior meeting in connection with another approval. He stated that an approval “list” exists which would cover this request.
Motion made by Daniel Schneider to approve the request as presented.~ Seconded by~Donna Larrow.~ Motion accepted unanimously.
MAP 133 LOT 87 – SUNAPEE HARBOR RIVERWAY – 68 MAIN STREET - RESIDENTIAL
Sue Mills presented the issue to the Board. This pertains to the house that has been previously occupied by local school administrative unit. The unit has moved to another location. The Sunapee Harbor Riverway would like to revert to renting this property as a residence, as before, rather than as commercial/professional space.~ She explained that the SHR Board felt it would be best suited to revert to residential space. Daniel Schneider expressed his concern regarding items that might be present if rented as a residence.~ Chairman Jennings noted that a Site Plan Review was done previously and questioned whether parking would be an issue.~ Total parking area would have to remain as a singular space.~ Sue Mills stated that three spaces would be allotted to the residence. Chairman
Jennings stated that this would be considered “low impact” use.~ All uses are potentially approved for this property per Chairman Jennings. Michael Marquise stated that the grandfathered policy trumps reverting back to previous usage so the issue is clear. ~However, it should be noted that if they decide, in future, to revert back to commercial use – it would have to be reviewed by the Planning Board.~ General discussion entailed regarding all appropriate uses for the property. No voting was required for this issue.
MAP 133 LOT 93 – SOO-NIPI REALTY TRUST – 36 RIVER ROAD – REAL ESTATE SALES TO RETAIL FOOD TAKE-OUT SERVICE
John Quackenbos presented the issue.~ Mr. Quackenbos stated that he would like to revert the referenced property use to a take-out food service establishment rather than a real estate business at the referenced location.~ He explained that the location was originally a food service location in 2002 (Marzelli’s). Michael Marquise stated that the issue previously with this location was to change from retail to food service. He further stated that he was not sure if the sale of food was finalized in regard to seating issues at that time.~ Mr. Quackenbos stated that they would like to have take-out windows only with picnic tables in back of the building for the time period from Memorial Day to Labor Day.~ A change of use, specifically, is required.~ Per Michael Marquise, there is concern about
previous issues and if tables/restaurant usage was, in fact, approved.~ Chairman Jennings stated that this would be considered a “restaurant” – and that no previous paperwork had been found. Mr. Quackenbos also said that no paperwork had been found when he consulted Roger Landry on this issue in regard to Marzelli’s previous usage (The Sweet Shoppe).~ At that time, the tables placed outside triggered a Board review.~ Chairman Jennings asked if it would be appropriate to revert to the previous usage. Michael Marquise stated the Planning Board cannot allow the property to revert to a use which was not created in a legally conforming manner at the time.~ Bob Stanley questioned the site plan issues.~ Michael
Marquise stated that he could do further research in attempt to find the previous paperwork.~ Chairman Jennings commenced a general discussion regarding usage and whether a Site Plan Review must be done. Mr. Quackenbos stated that the property had already been used with tables located inside.~ Michael Marquise stated that he would need to investigate whether tables inside were ever approved in regard to usage specifications.~ It was determined that this issue would need to go through the Site Plan Review process if no information can be found to support the approval of tables prior to this proposal.~~Chairman Jennings stated that they need more clarity in regard to this issue.~ Another option per Michael Marquise is to go to the Board of Selectmen to see if this issue was grandfathered.~ However, this does not seem to ever have been approved other than for retail, which evolved without approval.~ The issue will be reviewed again in two weeks to see if paperwork exists.~
Chairman Jennings explained the Site Plan Review requirements.~ Mr. Quackenbos further stated that he would like to add a porch to the structure. It was noted that with any additions that would affect setbacks that are not presently in existence, the applicant would be required to go to the Zoning Board.~ Per Michael Marquise, this issue to be tabled to the next scheduled meeting of the Planning board on August 4th with the item noted on the agenda as a continuation of discussion in regard to the statement of property usage.
General discussion ensued among the Board members regarding various issues. In regard to the O’Mara sign issue, Daniel Schneider feels that the abutters should be notified.~ Donna Larrow stated that this is part of the criteria of a home business as stated on the agenda.~ It was noted by Michael Marquise that the Planning Board regulations need to be updated.~ General discussion entailed regarding requirements/differences of home occupation vs. home business.~ The Board agreed that the process should be explained in more detail to applicants.~ Donna Larrow stated that she felt that more specific criteria are needed in order to specify home occupation vs. home business.~ Michael Marquise stated that there is a change of “character” issue in regard to home occupation vs. home
business.~~
The Board feels there should be more detail or a set plan/process in determining whether a Site Plan Review is required before an item becomes an agenda issue.~ General discussion entailed regarding this.~ They feel that there should be a more conservative/strict interpretation, in order to fulfill all requirements beforehand – and not at the meeting level.~~
General discussion took place among the Board members regarding various pending town projects.
The meeting was adjourned at~9:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Diane Caron
~
Bruce Jennings, Chairman~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter White, Vice Chairman
Erin Anderson~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel Schneider
Donna Davis Larrow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert Stanley
| 
