TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
MAY 6, 2010
PRESENT: Peggy Chalmers, Chairman; Bruce Jennings, Vice-Chairman; Donna Davis; Daniel Schneider; Robert Stanley; Peter White; Emma Smith, ex-officio member; Michael Marquise, Planner.
ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Sullivan; John Chiarella; Clayton Platt; Ken and Arlene Adams; Caroline Humphrey; Rodney Gonyea; Katrina Hill; Kathy Mueller; Andrea Mador; Bill Larrow.
ABSENT: Charlotte Brown, ex-officio alternate.
Chairman Chalmers called the meeting to order at 7:03.
Changes to the minutes of April 1: Line 62, change “of” to “or”. Motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. White, to accept the minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously with one abstention.
MAP 104 LOT 20, RE-OPEN HEARING TO RECONSIDER COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION, SITE PLAN REVIEW, DONNA DAVIS, 15 PROSPECT HILL ROAD, GEORGES MILLS, CONTINUE TO OPERATE AN AUTO, MARINE RECONDITIONING SHOP AND WHOLESALE AUTO SALES UNDER THE HOME BUSINESS PROVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Ms. Davis recused herself from the case. Chairman Chalmers read a letter submitted by Ms. Davis stating that the application is withdrawn.
MAP 136 LOT 10, 2 LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AT 364 LAKE AVENUE, LAND OWNED BY TURTLE ROCK REAL ESTATE LLC.
Mr. White recused himself from the case. Mr. Marquise stated that the application falls under section 6.04 of the subdivision regulations and qualifies for waivers under 6.05B, as it is a minor subdivision. Items which could be waived are contour requirements, utility lines, plans for stormwater drainage and water supply facilities. Subject to that, the application is complete.
Motion by Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Stanley, to accept the application as complete waiving contour requirements, utility lines, plans for stormwater drainage and water supply facilities. The motion passed unanimously.
Clayton Platt presented the case. The property is a 2.5 acre parcel on Lake Avenue next to the stone church. There is a small house on the property serviced by an on-site well and on-site septic of unknown location. Town sewer is available on Lake Avenue and the owner is asking for conditional approval subject to tying in to the sewer line. The owner would like to sell the 1.1 acre lot with the house on it and retain the remaining 1.36 acres.
Mr. Jennings asked if the existing house would satisfy the setbacks. Mr. Platt said it would. Chairman Chalmers asked if it were on town water; Mr. Platt said town water is not available in that location. Chairman Chalmers asked if the wellhead had to be identified; Mr. Marquise said that state approval is not needed so that is not necessary.
Chairman Chalmers asked why the line is curved between the two lots. Mr. Platt said the owner is trying to maximize the second lot, which he intends to keep. Mr. Marquise asked if the wet area is delineated; it is not. Mr. Marquise asked if it would expand beyond what is visual; Mr. Platt felt it would not.
Mr. Platt stated that any future house on lot 2 would be hooked into town sewer.
Motion by Mr. Stanley, seconded by Mr. Schneider, to approve a 2 lot subdivision at 364 Lake Avenue with the condition that the house on lot one be hooked into town sewer by May 1, 2011 and any future house on lot two would also be hooked into town sewer. The motion passed unanimously.
MAP 129 LOT 73, CONTINUATION, SITE PLAN REVIEW, SONYA LAND INVESTMENTS LTD., 18 CENTRAL STREET, COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE AND ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT.
The case is a continuation. Chairman Chalmers stated that the application was accepted as complete on December 3, 2009 with the requirements that calculations for drainage were needed and the board reserved the right to discuss utility lines, toxic waste storage and hazardous materials. The use of the property is to be a 650 square foot apartment plus a 900 square foot professional office space. Two signs are being considered at a maximum of 24 square feet. Business hours would be from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. There was some discussion around safety and speeding in the area, as well as parking issues. The boats would not be able to be parked there if the application is approved. There was discussion about lights, specifically a light that was on all night.
Landscaping was discussed; the trees were to be between 5 and 8 feet to begin with. Parking spaces were allocated on the application for both the office and the one family dwelling.
Mr. Chiarella commented that additional, larger trees were added to the original plan; the trees will be between 8 and 10 feet tall. He said the light on the side of the building is operated by motion detector and the drainage calculations have been submitted. Business hours have been changed to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. The parking plan remains the same.
Mr. Marquise stated that there are very small outflows on the drainage; the goal is that the outflow is equal to the inflow and that has been accomplished. It appears that any runoff flow has been addressed.
Mr. Jennings inquired about parking spaces. Three employee spaces plus three customer spaces are shown for the office. Mr. Marquise suggested going with the maximum of two residential spaces. Eight spaces are necessary and nine are provided in the plan.
Chairman Chalmers asked if the flood light which was a prior issue is being removed. Mr. Chiarella responded that it was operated by a motion sensor and he felt it was necessary to the security of the property.
Ken Adams, Central Street, inquired if a resubmitted application is required to be different from the original version. Chairman Chalmers said it must to be dissimilar enough to be considered a new application and stands on its own merit. Mr. Adams said the original application was turned down because of safety concerns and because the plan would have too big an impact on both the lot and the neighborhood. He feels those elements have not changed, on the contrary, have increased. Mr. Jennings commented that applicants can come back and the board must to review each case independently. Mr. Adams feels this application makes the prior reasons for denial even more valid.
Mr. Schneider does not feel the traffic concern is an issue. Mr. Adams commented that the police and board of selectmen have acknowledged there is a traffic issue on Central Street.
Caroline Humphrey, Central Street, disagreed with Mr. Schneider. She said from her experience living at 18 Central Street, it is a dangerous spot for traffic to be turning in and out.
Arlene Adams, Central Street, said she spoke to the tenant that recently vacated 18 Central Street, who had two close calls pulling out of the drive. Her other concern is parking and she does not think the parking space between the house and garage qualifies as a spot.
Rodney Gonyea, Central Street, stated that the DOT is working with the town to reconfigure the intersection at one end of Central Street. He is concerned with the safety of children on skateboards, bikers, walkers, etc. He feels the floodlight has a large impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Chiarella said it is his right to have the floodlight. As far as safety is concerned, Mr. Chiarella feels the current plan addresses those concerns. He said he has submitted police reports to Mr. Marquise stating there have been no accidents at that intersection.
Mr. Schneider asked if the boats currently parked on the property prohibit parking in the driveway; Mr. Chiarella stated that if the plan were approved there would be no boats on the property.
Mr. Gonyea felt he was justified in being upset about the spotlight and suggested ground lighting. He feels the plan is much more intensive than the previous one.
Chairman Chalmers closed the meeting to the public. Mr. Jennings stated he personally preferred the previous plan, feeling it was superior to the current one. However, he thinks the current proposal is adequate in terms of meeting site plan requirements. He feels the activity proposed is appropriate in the district and fits in with the character of the neighborhood. In terms of conditions, Mr. Jennings would like to ensure that trees and shrubs are adequate and are replaced if they do not survive. He would also suggest that the lighting could be improved to satisfy the neighbors.
Mr. Stanley asked if it up to the planning board to determine the safety of the site. Chairman Chalmers referred to page 6 of the site plan regulations; number one is adequacy, safety and arrangement of vehicular traffic access.
Mr. White stated that he voted against the prior application, doing so because he felt it would be too much of an impact on the lot and the neighborhood. He feels this application makes a bigger impact and shows a meager attempt at landscape buffering, particularly given that it has been an issue with the neighbors. Mr. Jennings asked if Mr. White would be comfortable with the application if there were an improved landscaping plan. Mr. White feels there is too much use proposed in the context of where it is, in addition to feeling the applicant has not addressed the buffering aspect.
Mr. Jennings said he does not wish to mandate landscaping but agreed it is a sensitive issue in this case. Chairman Chalmers commented that there is nothing to soften the parking area. Ms. Smith said she is concerned with the comment that the lights were on because there was damage done to the property. Chairman Chalmers said while she appreciated the concern, the goal is to have it not look like a commercial property nor does she think floodlights are effective.
Chairman Chalmers reopened the meeting to the public. Mr. Chiarella said that under the current plan he has no need for the floodlight once the post light is installed. Mr. Schneider asked if the floodlight would be removed. Mr. Chiarella responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Adams asked about the lighting on signage. She felt that lit signs after 5 p.m. would have an impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Jennings asked if the applicant has his heart set on pine trees. Mr. Chiarella said he proposed white pine because they grow fast. Mr. Jennings commented that it would serve as a year round buffer. Beyond that, he would like to see something out front on Central Street. Mr. Chiarella said the road agent did not like that idea because of plowing.
Mr. Jennings feels this application meets the character of the neighborhood and would like to work with the applicant and the abutters to come up with a win/win situation. Mr. Adams felt that was up to the applicant to prove the plan is appropriate for the neighborhood.
Chairman Chalmers closed the hearing to the public. Mr. Schneider stated there is a balance to be met between the rights of the neighbors and the right of the applicant to use his property. He does not see the use as overly intensive but feels the use of the property should not disturb the neighborhood. He suggested listing specific things the applicant should do to improve the plan. Mr. White said that the board cannot design the landscape plan but they can respond to what is given. He reiterated that the buffer is not adequate and the applicant has not addressed the issue to the extent he knows is possible.
Mr. Stanley brought up the issue of safety and arrangement of vehicular traffic access. Mr. Jennings said there is a sign-off page for the road agent and police, who have not indicated it is an issue.
Mr. Stanley suggested approving the application subject to changes in lighting and landscaping. Mr. White said those changes need to be on the site plan. Mr. Marquise stated that if the case were to be continued again, it would have to be at the approval of the applicant since the case has already been continued beyond 65 days.
Ms. Davis said she knows adequate buffering is important in a business venture. She asked if the buffering could be added as a condition. Chairman Chalmers said it could not be a condition; a new plan would need to be reviewed. Ms. Davis asked if the board could give Mr. Chiarella direction for the landscaping. Mr. Jennings recommended saying the buffer should be adequate and double planted.
Chairman Chalmers brought up Mr. White’s issue with intensity of use. Mr. Stanley asked if they have a right to turn it down based on intensity of use if it fits the requirements.
Chairman Chalmers polled the board as to whether they wished to vote or make a recommendation and continue the case. The board members indicated they were ready to vote.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Stanley, to approve site plan review for 18 Central Street with the following conditions: that there be no lighting outside of the stated business hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., to remove the motion sensor light, and that the property not be used for boat storage and be restricted to the proposed use.
Motion amended by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Stanley, to have a time frame of six months to complete the site plan improvements.
Motion amended by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Stanley, to have as a minimum landscape requirements double planting of trees/shrubs from the edge of the Gonyea house to the back edge of house on the property owned by Sonya Investments and if the trees/shrubs die they will be replaced within one year with plantings of the same size.
The motion passed 4-3.
MISCELLANEOUS
MAP 104 LOT 86, MAP 104 LOT 3, MAP 104 LOT 001-001, REVIEW 3 STATEMENT OF PROPERTY USAGE APPLICATIONS TO PROVIDE PARKING AND STORAGE FOR LAKE SUNAPEE ROWING CLUB IN GEORGES MILLS.
Mr. Jennings recused himself. Katrina Hill and Kathy Mueller of Lake Sunapee Rowing Club presented the case. They said the board of selectmen okayed the used of the town beach by LSRC. The hours of use are 5:45 a.m. to 8 a.m. on weekday mornings. The rowers are on shore for about 20 minutes. There would be a maximum of 22 people and 2 boats. They have spoken to area property owners regarding parking. The doctor’s office on Holmes Lane has 19 approved spaces and Fletcher Ltd. has 4 available spaces. The boats will be stored at Sargent’s Marina and carried over to the beach. Mr. Stanley asked what would happen with parking if the doctor’s office is sold. Ms. Hill stated that they would pursue other areas for
parking.
Mr. Jennings commented that as a property owner he is concerned about people carrying boats past the house so early in the morning. Ms. Mueller thought they were in front of board for the parking issue. Mr. Jennings said it is a statement of property usage, which is more encompassing. Ms. Hill said the reason they went to the selectmen is to launch off the beach because the boat launch is rather steep, but they could launch off a trailer at the boat ramp. Mr. Jennings said if his tenants are woken up every morning that is a problem. Ms. Hill said the group does not have trucks, trailers, etc. and will be quiet and neighborly for everyone in the area. Mr. Jennings said that it is an issue of mutual respect and if it is done respectfully, it is fine. Ms. Hill
said he can contact any rowers if there is a problem.
Mr. White asked why the group is not launching from Sunapee Harbor. Ms. Mueller said the main issue is boat storage; there is no place in Sunapee Harbor to store the skulls. Mr. Marquise said the issue is whether the change of use would the use trigger site plan review on any of the three lots. Mr. White stated there is no change of use at the marina regarding boat storage. Mr. White observed that the proposal is outside of the approved site plan for the other two businesses.
Ms. Hill said the doctors office has 19 approved spaces for 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Mr. White asked what normally happens when there is a change in the approved hours. Mr. Marquise said if the operation had different hours it would be subject to site plan review; in this case, it is the hours of parking not the hours of operation.
Mr. Schneider felt using the properties for parking for this purpose was a change of use. He feels it is a potential disruption to people’s sleep and use of their own property. Ms. Hill commented that all of the properties are in the village district. She would suggest the parking of the cars is less noisy than the cars on Route 11. She reiterated that they do not want to disrupt any of the neighbors.
Ms. Davis asked if the application is just for this year. Ms. Hill said that it is just for this summer. Ms. Davis commented that theoretically they could be back next year to renew. Ms. Hill said she is not sure what will happen. Ms. Davis asked if the approval is in perpetuity. Chairman Chalmers commented that there could be a time constraint on the approval.
Motion by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve statement of property usage applications through the end of the calendar year. Mr. Marquise commented than nothing is really being approved, the board is just waiving site plan review. Motion to amend by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Ms. Smith, to waive site plan review through the end of the year. The motion passed unanimously.
MAP 133 LOT 19, STATEMENT OF PROPERTY USAGE, 45 MAIN STREET, CHANGEOVER OF HAIR SALON AREA TO A KITCHEN AND BATH DESIGN AND A RESTAURANT.
Andrea Mador presented. She is a tenant, not the property owner. She would like to do small kitchen and bath design showroom and a restaurant.
Mr. Jennings stated that he feels she is changing the use. He is concerned about parking and wondered if the use of municipal parking is being considered. The property has 2-3 spaces plus a driveway in the back. There are five apartments the building and a 20 seat restaurant is being proposed. Mr. Jennings commented that a few people in a hair salon are different than 20 people in a restaurant. He stated a site plan review is in order.
Ms. Mador asked if she can move forward on a statement of property usage for her kitchen and bath showroom.
Mr. Jennings suggested approving the statement of property usage for kitchen and bath and the applicant can speak with the zoning administrator regarding the application process for a restaurant. The hours of operation would be Monday-Saturday, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Motion by Mr. Stanley, seconded by Mr. White, to waive site plan review for 300 square of space as a kitchen and bath design showroom. Motion amended by Mr. Stanley include hours of operation of Monday – Saturday from 9 a.m. – 7 a.m., seconded by Mr. White. The motion passed unanimously.
MAP 133 LOT 26, STATEMENT OF PROPERTY USAGE, 5 GARNET STREET, CHANGEOVER OF BEST OF N.E. BUSINESS SALES TO ARTISAN’S WORKSHOP.
Barbara Sullivan presented the case. The hours, number of employees and activities are to remain the same.
Motion by Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Schneider, to waive site plan review. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Richardson
______________________________________________ ______________________________________
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman Bruce Jennings, Vice-Chairman
______________________________________________ ______________________________________
Donna Davis Daniel Schneider
______________________________________________ ______________________________________
Robert Stanley Peter White
______________________________________________
Emma Smith, ex-officio member
| 
