TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 3, 2011
PRESENT: Bruce Jennings, Chairman; Donna Davis Larrow; Daniel Schneider; Bob Stanley; Peter White; Erin Andersen, Michael Marquise, Planner, Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
ABSENT: Emma Smith, ex-officio member.
ALSO PRESENT: Clayton Platt, Sandy Alexander, Charlie Hirshberg, Brian Garland, Jonathan McNeal, Margaret Schneider, Kristen Begor, Steve Jesseman, Nate Fogg.
Chairman Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
Changes to the Minutes for the October 6, 2011 Planning Board Meeting. Change Line 64 to read “Claremont Savings Bank will not file”. Change Line 107 to “Donna Davis Larrow”. Change Line 118 and 119 to read “Donna Davis Larrow responded to Vicki Davis of the Upper Valley Regional Planning Committee regarding the Zoning Ordinance”. Motion made by Robert Stanley to approve the minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Daniel Schneider. The motion passed unanimously with one abstention.
MAP 211 LOT 10, SITE PLAN REVIEW, KJK WIRELESS FOR AT&T ADDING 6 ADDITIONAL TOWER MOUNTED AMPLIFIERS AND 1 12X20 PREFABRICATED SELF CONTAINTED POWER & CONTROL MODULE AT THE TOWER BASE, MARGARET DUNBAR, 1103 ROUTE 11, SUNAPEE
Mr. Peter Marcott of KJK Wireless for AT&T presented the plan. AT&T is already located on the tower on Stagecoach Lane and they are looking to improve their network by proposing to go on the tower on Route 11. The tower currently has two carriers: Verizon and US Cellular. AT&T is proposing adding six antennas to the towers, the amplifiers are a little piece of the antennas. Everything is already at the site and the only things that will be added are the six antennas and the components that go with them such as the amplifiers.
Mr. Marquise stated that as a formality the application should be accepted as complete. It was noticed and posted as an amendment and there are no real changes to the site plan. Peter White made a motion to accept the application as complete. Robert Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Jennings moved on to the merits of the application. Chairman Jennings asked if there were any abutters present, there were not. Mr. Marcott was asked if AT&T would be using the existing power and Mr. Marcott said that was correct. Chairman Jennings asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Marcott and if the Planning Board wanted to discuss the application. There was a general discussion about the straightforwardness of the application. Mr. Marcott was asked if everything was already on the site and he responded that they were not changing anything. Mr. Marcott was asked if another carrier could go on the tower. Mr. Marcott responded that there are different frequencies and it would be determined by engineers, however, technology changes so
there is a possibility. There was a general discussion as to where AT&T would “work” in the area and as to whether in the future AT&T would be back requesting putting up another tower which would depend upon usage and so forth. Chairman Jennings discussed some items on the original site plan review such as if the site was abandoned that if the new site plan review was accepted that would want to be referenced in the acceptance. Michael Marquise said that it wouldn’t hurt to state that all previous conditions will carry with the new approval.
Motion made by Daniel Schneider to approve the application as stated subject to prior conditions of previous approvals. Motion was seconded by Robert Stanley. Motion passed unanimously.
MAP 123 LOT 2, SITE PLAN REVIEW, MT ROYAL ACADEMY, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING “INN” BUILDING AND REPLACE WITH 8736 SQUARE FOOT – 2 STORY CLASSROOM BUILDING, 26 SEVEN HEARTHS LANE
Michael Marquise stated that the application was filed in advance, fees were paid, abutters were notified and notices posted. The application falls under Article 5 of the site plan review regulations. Michael Marquise had some comments for proposed signs that might be there that is not on the plan and for toxic waste / hazardous materials might not be applicable but that can remain as a topic of discussion if needed. Michael Marquise was asked if the toxic waste / hazardous materials were regarding the demolition of the building or the operation of the new building. Mr. Marquise answered that it can be for any part application as it is one of the checklist items and though it is usually not ever specified on the site plan it can always be kept open for discussion.
Motion made by Daniel Schnieder to accept the application as complete subject to signage and toxic waste. Motion seconded by Robert Stanley. Motion passed unanimously.
Steve Jesseman from Jesseman Associates, the authorized agent to represent Mount Royal Academy and his associate engineer, Nate Fogg, presented the case. Mr. Jesseman gave a description regarding the current state of the “Inn” building. It is deteriorating rapidly, the spaces are chopped up and the new building will have slightly more square footage than the current building, however, the rooms will be much more spacious. They will go from 23 total rooms to 18 total rooms at the school. The present attendance is 110 students. The new building will have the Pre-K through 6th grades. The number of teachers will not change. The improvements are mostly due to the deterioration of the building and the Broom’s have decided that it is
appropriate to demolish the “Inn” and build a new building. Mr. Jesseman said that the Planning Board may have a question from the past project to the new project. They have met with Tony Bergeron regarding the road as there was a slight amount of damage that was done during the last project and that they will have more equipment on the road for this project. They had a bond for $10,000 which was released at the end of the first project and the Broom’s have a letter of credit for $10,000 for the new project. They will work with Tony Bergeron to repair the road so they don’t have to fix the road twice, which Mr. Jesseman said that Mr. Bergeron is agreeable to. Chairman Jennings asked if there was anything from Mr. Bergeron. Roger Landry stated that there was not. Mr. Landry explained there is damage to the road which Mr. Bergeron has identified. Mr. Bergeron wanted the damage repaired which he also wanted a 1” coat of topcoating which would cost roughly $10,000. However it
was examined as why to do the topcoating before the new project was completed though Mr. Jesseman should do a temporary repair where the road is damaged. Mr. Landry said that Mount Royal would be responsible for the repairs as well as the topcoat, however, it is unknown if there will be further damage on the road beyond the school. Mr. Landry said that Mr. Bergeron is supposed to put a report together on what he believes could happen. Chairman Jennings wondered if the road is in a condition that it interferes with the abutters getting to their properties. An abutter, Brian Garland, answered that the road, though broken, does not interfere with them getting to their property. Mr. Jesseman wanted to assure the Board that they are aware of the issue and are going to address it. Chairman Jennings asked if the increased size of the classrooms will increase the number of students and what the final number will be. Mr. Jesseman responded that the
total number of students is proposed at 210 over a period of time and that the student to teacher ratio will increase overtime without having to increase the number of teachers. Mr. Jesseman stated that the number of parking spaces would need to be increased but they frequently have families with three to four children which would allow an entire family to attend the school. Roger Landry asked if there was a temporary or conditional approval for a septic system from the State during the last project which was based upon the projected flow which expires in the upcoming months and if there was a limit of the number of children that could attend the school on the permit. There was a discussion about the original system and flow of the system and water usage and if they would need to get the projected flow redone. It was asked if the septic system was original to the Inn or to the school and Roger Landry stated that they modified the septic system when they set
up the school. Chairman Jennings requested that the Board hear from Mr. Jesseman during his presentation of the site plan if they double the capacity of the school, what the implications are to the impact of the new building, not just during school hours, but for games, for functions, etc. Nate Fogg from Jesseman Associates presented the technical aspects of the building. The original “Inn” building is 8115 sq ft. The new building is a more efficient use of space with a total square footage of 8736 sq. ft. with a decreased footprint. The building orientation changes slightly to make the area feel more like a campus setting. There is a change to the drainage that is currently utilized as there is a slight decrease which is 1/100 of a decrease to the impervious surfaces on the site. The existing water supply permit which is valid through July and the subsurface /sewer disposal permit which was approved last year for the new gym
building and is good for four years. The permit was approved for 995 gallons per day and they are currently using about 240 gallons per day. They are monitoring the flow to ensure they are not near the design capacity of the existing septic system. There is a place on the site that is capable of meeting all the criteria including the design flow size if the current septic system fails. They don’t need a site specific permit from the State as the total disturbed area is about 15,000 sq ft and they would have to be at 100,000 sq ft to kick in that permit. There are no wetlands in the area and there is no change to the driveway access. Landscaping will be similar to the current buildings with shrubs and small trees planted around the yard. Exterior lighting will utilize the existing pole lights around the area they are proposing additional lighting to each of the entrances of the building. The fire alarm panel will be just
inside the front door and sprinklers are not required because of the concrete construction. There are currently 36 parking spaces for the site which is plenty for the normal day to day activities. The utilities will be located underground. The whole water system is from the new gym building. The potential to go to 210 students exists with the current building and will not increase with the new building. Chairman Jennings feels that as a Board they need to look at the maximum capacity for the site plan review and the impact that the maximum capacity will have on the site. Further, how is the school prepared to handle the issue of parking during events so that they don’t fall back on the Highway and Police Departments to enforce? Mr. Fogg asked if the Board was asking them to create more parking which would in turn create more impervious surface. Chairman Jennings replied that that is not what he was asking them to do; he was
asking them to address how they would handle the situation so that in the future it would not become an issue and what the impact would be on the neighbors. Mr. Jesseman addressed the issue as with the current plan they can add more parking spaces in the future should they be needed. Mr. Jesseman suggested that a condition of the approval be that if in the future the Police and/or Fire Departments have an issue that the school would have to take the steps necessary to create more parking on the campus. Michael Marquise believes that the parking goes by the largest sized assembly area, such as if the largest assembly area was large enough for 60 students, it is 1 space for every 3 students which would be 20 spaces. However, it could also default back to the number of employees, whichever is greater. There was further discussion about the parking issue. Mr. Fogg said that he will put the one sign that he believes is a traffic sign on the plan.
Also, in regards to hazardous materials, they did an abatement study to check for hazardous materials on the Inn building and found a little caulking around the chimney that will need to be abated before tearing down though there were no other asbestos or lead paint. Mr. Jesseman addressed that though the building is concrete and does not require sprinkles they do maintain a waterline to a cistern and in the past project they put in a fire hydrant that is in a location for the fire department to have access to immediate water. Mr. Garland, an abutter on Seven Hearths Lane had a comment regarding the traffic flow. He stated that there are routinely cars parked along the road picking up children and he requested that there be a double lane in front of the school for the cars picking up children to prevent cars from stopping in front of the school rather than going through the circle so that cars can go around them so they don’t create a single file line
that goes down the road. Mr. Fogg replied that the road is 22 feet wide which is a typical size for a secondary road and should be big enough for a car to pull to the side and have another go around them. He also suggested that a traffic control person be addressed in the parking plan they are discussing. Chairman Jennings and Michael Marquise believed that the parking on Seven Hearths Lane was addressed in the previous site plan review. Roger Landry asked which side of the road the parents were parking on and Mr. Garland said they are parking on the side closest to the school. Mr. Landry said that during the last site plan review, one of the conditions was that the ditch line be improved to the Road Agent’s specifications and currently it has not been touched. Mr. Landry believes that the improvements to the ditch line would help prevent the parking on Seven Hearths Lane. Chairman Jennings stated that the ditch line and the parking
are two separate issues. There was a discussion regarding the ditch line and its location. The Planning Board had a discussion on the parking issue as it is a violation of the site plan review when parents park on the road for every day events such as drop off and pick up. Different solutions were suggested such as a pull off space, widening the road, etc. Chairman Jennings suggested that control of the issue be taken back by the school. Roger Landry has asked Chief Cahill to put a traffic counter in to count the number of cars that are going in and out of the site as there has been concern over the amount of traffic that is going on and off of Route 11 into a 50 mph zone. Mr. Jesseman said that they have been talking with the State and the States’ biggest concern has been the passing lane and they are trying to address the different issues. Michel Marquise asked about the waste water and septic and if the 240 gallons per day was an
average usage for the system. Mr. Fogg and Mr. Jesseman agreed that it was an average under current enrollment. There was further discussion regarding the water system and septic as the current system does not meet State design flow requirements for 210 students. Mr. Fogg said that he would talk to the State to get the permit updated. Further, the permit states that he metered flow results are supposed to go to the Town and the Planning Board would like to see copies of the results. Mr. Jesseman was asked when they would like to take the building down and replied that they would like to begin construction in March and have the new building ready for August 1st to be ready for the new school year. With the current number of students, they will use the current buildings for the remainder of this school year. Chairman Jennings asked if there were any landscaping measures that could be taken to prevent drop off and pick up to be done
anywhere other than the circle. Mr. Jesseman replied that the slope of the lot prevents this. Mr. Garland’s concern is the cars in front of the Inn and children that are going across the road to use the Town property. While the Planning Board doesn’t want to prevent this, perhaps a crossing area should be designated. Roger Landry wanted to update the Board with the issues that are outstanding which are: an updated septic approval, giving Tony Bergeron the time to put together a report on the road, giving the Police Department time to put together a traffic report, and reviewing a report from the State on the traffic with Seven Hearths Lane and Route 11, the parking situation and lastly the department signoffs. Michael Marquise added that the sign he was talking about a sign board that the school is installing between the two driveways that they do not have a permit for which measures 123 by 47 inches and exceeds the Town’ sign
regulations. Michael Marquise asked if there was a permit from the water supply division being as it a public non-transient water supply. Mr. Jesseman will check with the State to see if a permit is needed. Mr. White asked if other than two trees that appear to be staying, in terms of landscaping are they planning on putting anything for buffering. Mr. Fogg said that there will be shrubs. Mr. Jesseman stated that any of the landscaping that was usable was taken from the “Inn” building and transferred to the “Gym” building. The Planning Board is concerned that there is no landscaping on the plan.
The discussion was closed to public comment. Chairman Jennings stated the conceptually the plan is fine; however, there are specific things that are lacking that need to be put together. The Board discussed the parking, the number of students, the landscaping and the issue that the conditions of the prior site plan review are not being met. The Board discussed approving the site plan review or asking the applicant to address identified issues and return to the Board. The first issue is the parking issue, not just with day to day but with event parking as well as children crossing the road. The second issue is student pick up and drop off and how that will be handled whether it is widening the circle, creating a pull off, etc. The third issue is traffic on Seven
Hearths Lane and Route 11, which might not be something the Town can deal with immediately. The fourth issue is approvals for septic systems and water supplies and obtaining permits that are applicable. The fifth issue is the signs including the stop sign to be added to the plan. The sixth issue is the ditch line as something should have happened from the last site plan review. The seventh issue is the lack of a landscaping plan. Michael Marquise added that they might want to consider some added bonding to cover the issue with the drainage or other issues. Mr. Marquise was asked who determines the dollar amount for a bond and for the road issue it was believed to have been Tony Bergeron.
Chairman Jennings opened the meeting back up to public comment. Chairman Jennings explained to the applicants that the Board would not make a decision on the plan at the current hearing and the site plan review hearing was going to be continued to the next hearing. The Planning Board asked the applicant to address the issues that they discussed during the non-public part of the meeting and to have the materials submitted for review a week prior to the hearing. Mr. Jesseman requested that there be one exception is that he does not believe they will have an answer from the State of NH Department of Transportation. Mr. Jesseman asked for a letter from the Town regarding the traffic concern. Mr. Landry responded that he will work together with Mr. Jesseman and Chief Cahill to
try and address the issue.
MAP 112 LOT 8, MINOR SUB-DIVISION, JAMES LYONS, MARY J. & ELIZABETH KEEFAUVER LYONS, 3 LOTS, JOBS CREEK ROAD & WOODLAND ROAD
Michael Marquise stated that the application was filed in advance, the abutters were notified, the notices were posted and the fees were paid. The Application falls under Article 6.04 of the subdivision regulations and is a minor subdivision. As such, the Planning Board may waive certain items and the two that could be waived are the storm water drainage and the water supply facilities.
A motion was made by Peter White to accept the application as complete with the exception of the storm water drainage and water supply facilities. Motion seconded by Robert Stanley. The motion passed unanimously.
Clayton Platt presented the case. The proposal is for two 3.39 acre lots and one 6.75 acre lot. Mr. Platt explained the road frontage is on both Jobs Creek Road and Woodland Road. The land is dry with the exception of a wet area at the corner of the roads. The ground gently slopes up and town sewage runs along the road. Michael Marquise asked if Mr. Platt believed the lots met the4:1 depth to width ratio which he believes they do. Chairman Jennings asked if the depth to width ratio was a rule or a guideline. Mr. Marquise explained that it is a Zoning Rule that is able to be waived by the Planning Board it is the average depth by the average width. Mr. Platt explained that all accesses were off of Woodland Road as it is the most practical as Jobs Creek
Road is steep and has a culvert. Kristen Begor, an abutter at 68 Woodland Road, stated that she has a stream that goes through her property from runoff and asked the Planning Board to consider what tree cutting, blacktop and other impervious surfaces would do to the sand runoff. Chairman Jennings explained that any future development of the lot would be discussed when an applicant took out a building permit and the application is for a simple subdivision. Roger Landry said that any runoff issues should be discussed with Tony Bergeron as perhaps there are things they could or should be doing currently to prevent the sand from running off into the stream such as a catch basin.
A motion was made by Robert Stanley for the property owned by the Lyons family to be divided into three lots consisting of 3.39 acres, 3.39 acres and 6.75 acres as per the plan. Motion was seconded by Donna Davis Larrow. Motion passed unanimously.
MAP 237 LOT 25, DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PRESERVE AT MT SUNAPEE
Charles Hirshberg of CLD Engineering was present to discuss with the Planning Board the possible revocation of the subdivision approval for the Preserve at Mt. Sunapee. Michael Marquise gave a brief description of the lot which is a 24 lot subdivision which was approved 6 to 7 years ago that is located on Brook Road. The issue that has come up is a letter from the State of NH Department of Transportation regarding several deficiencies that were supposed to be done both down by Brook Road as well as on the site itself which includes culverts and erosion control matters. While the State Department of Transportation did not say the Driveway Permit was being revoked, they did imply that the seven or eight issues needed to be corrected. The owner first said that they were not
responsible for the changes but currently Michael Marquise believes they are going to work on the issues. Roger Landry stated that before the foreclosure auction, he went with Tony Bergeron to the project and from the approved drawings inspected the property and found numerous things that were not done as per the conditions such as: no top coat on the road, missing guardrails, drainage completion issues, etc. on the road itself. They did not look at the intersection of Brook Road and the development road. Mr. Landry and Mr. Bergeron were unaware that the 43” culvert and another culvert that were supposed to cross the street and that were provided by the State and were required for the road were not put in properly. When they inspected the road, Mr. Landry and Mr. Bergeron were addressing the issues with the Road which they knew about and the Town went to the bonding company and asked for money from the bond for the Town to address the road
issues. The new owner had said that the issues belonged to the former owner and that he was not going to fix any of the issues, however, he has since called to agree to bring the road back into compliance both with the Town and with the State. Mr. Hirshberg was asked by the owner to look into what the issues were and how they could be addressed. There was a discussion about if timeline should be made and met with progress so that the Planning Board does not have to revoke the approval. Mr. Hirshberg stated that he has to talk to DOT and if they are to fix the culvert issue they must get a new DES wetlands permit as the old permit has expired though there is a possibility that DES might grant an emergency permit. The bond is for the non-State part of the road which can either be drawn by the Town to fix the road or it can be required for the new owner to fix. Regarding the rest of the project for the State, the Planning Board should give a
timeline to have the issues resolved. The Planning Board is asking for an update in 90 days and from that date the Board can decide on the next requirements.
Roger Landry addressed the Board regarding pre-existing non-conforming businesses. Businesses are allowed to increase their business by 50% without coming to the Zoning Board, however, 50% of what? Michael Marquise pointed out that any change of use required going to the Planning Board for a site plan review. Mr. Landry asked what is considered a change of use and what constitutes a change an increase in business. He asked if the Planning Board can ask the pre-existing non-conforming businesses to submit a base to notify the Board of what they are doing and then it is in a file so that if at any time in the future it is needed, the Board can determine if the business changed. There was a discussion held regarding the issue such as should size increase be done per square
footage, employees, etc. The discussion continued as to what a change in use would be. The Planning Board feels that decisions should be on a case by case basis determined by the Board as they feel as though they don’t want to take people’s rights from them to use their properties as already allowed.
Roger Landry had another question regarding the height limit of 5 feet for fences. Mr. Landry requested that the limit be changed to 6 feet as FEMA requires 6 feet and there are two properties that must apply for variances to meet the FEMA requirement. There was a discussion regarding the fence issue and if the ordinance should be specific to the type of fence, the reason for the height, etc.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Pollari
____________________________________________ _______________________________________
Bruce Jennings, Chairman Robert Stanley
____________________________________________ _______________________________________
Erin Andersen Daniel Schneider
____________________________________________ _______________________________________
Donna Davis Larrow Peter White
____________________________________________
Emma Smith, ex-officio member
| 
