SUNAPEE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
July 17, 2008
Town Hall
7:00 PM
*****DRAFT***** *****DRAFT*****
Present: Allan Davis, Vice-Chairman
Bruce Jennings
Philip Porter
Peter White
Emma Smith, Ex-officio
Michael Marquise, Town Planner
Absent: Derek Tatlock
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman
Fredreick Gallup, Ex-officio Alternate
Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM by Vice-Chairman Allan Davis.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
The review of the minutes of June 19, 2008 will be done at the next meeting.
Windmills: Michael Marquise reported that the Zoning and Planning Boards will have a joint committee to look at developing regulations for windmills. The committee will consist of 3 members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, 3 members of the Planning Board, Roger Landry – Zoning Administrator, and Michael Marquise – Town Planner. He advised that this committee will not be limited to one subject (accessory uses). There may be other things to discuss. Volunteers from the Planning Board are needed to serve on the committee. Peter White, Allan Davis, and Bruce Jennings volunteered to serve. The first meeting is tentatively set for the third Thursday of August at 6:00 PM.
Mylars: The mylars for Sunapee Center need to be signed. They are the condominium documents for the complete building, required by the Secretary of State. They will be filed with the Registry of Deeds. They mylars were signed by the Board
7:16 PM – CONTINUATION
Map 129, Lot 73 Sonya Land Investments OTD
18 Central Street
Site Plan Review
Converting 4 BR Home into 1 BR Apartment and Real Estate Office
Bob Anthonyson and Atty. Anthony DiPadova were present. Bob Anthonyson handed out photos and a new plan. He stated there was some concern with regard to adequate buffering to 22 Central St. and concern about the parallel parking spaces at the last meeting. He stated that, currently, there is no privacy between the two buildings and the plan submitted ensures a visual buffer. Along the curbside there will be a dog bone shaped area with heavy plants, including a crab tree. In the center of the dog bone shape will be a pedestrian path. At the edge of the property line with 22 Central St. will be 7 arborvitae 6’ to 8’ tall. He feels this is directly responsive to the concern regarding buffering. Bruce Jennings asked what the size the crab tree would be and Mr.
Anthonyson stated it will be of 2” caliber, but he doesn’t know the height. Allan Davis noted that they have eliminated 2 parallel parking spaces.
Bruce Jennings asked who will be maintaining the rain garden. Mr. Anthonyson referred to a letter previously submitted from Charlie Hirshberg and stated that Mr. Hirshberg recommended that the property owner maintain the rain garden. Michael Marquise got the letter from file and Mr. Anthonyson read from his copy (see letter in case file). Phil Porter stated that the Board had some language about maintenance being done 6 months apart. Bruce stated that there are concerns from abutters that maintenance has been an issue in the past. He asked if they could have the maintenance of the property done by a landscaping company. Bob Anthonyson stated that the landscaping company that drew up the plan will do the maintenance and they will have the company adhere to the maintenance outlined in the
letter.
Bruce Jennings asked about the lighting hours for the signs and Mr. Anthonyson stated they will be from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Bruce also asked the total number of parking spaces and Mr. Anthonyson advised there will be 9. Allan Davis stated that he does not see a reason to remove the grass in the area between the garage and the road. Bob Anthonyson advised that they would prefer to leave it as it is. Phil Porter questioned the one bedroom apartment being removed from the application and Mr. Anthonyson confirmed that it was removed. Bruce Jennings asked what the number of employees will be and Bob Anthonyson stated they anticipate 5. Michael Marquise questioned a change for sign A and Bob Anthonyson advised that it has been moved to the planting area by the road, close to the pedestrian
path.
Atty. Howard Dunn, representing the abutters, presented a folder of information (see copy in case file) and stated that the focus of the Board should be attending to the needs of the abutters. He highlighted some Superior Court cases regarding undersized lots and non-conforming use and stated that this case is non-conforming use. Peter White noted that the house now is a non-conforming use. Mr. Dunn stated that this application is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and they are only permitted to change from what it was originally by 50%. He cited the Zoning Ordinance and the Site Plan Regulations. Mr. Dunn asked how many parking spaces were there before and how many employees were there and stated these are the reasons it is a change in use and should be denied. He
stated that Article 2 of the Site Plan Regulations say that the Board cannot approve the site plan unless it conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he highlighted various things he would ask the Planning Board to do and stated that the last one mentioned from page 6 Article 6H, is if the abutters object to commercial development because they find it objectionable, the Planning Board has the right to deny. He also stated that the first paragraph of Article II provides for a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing environment and the Planning Board is entitled to look at aesthetics and make a judgment based on that. He referred to landscaping requirements and stated that the Board can require anything it wants. He also stated there is language about buffer requirements, noting a buffer area 25’ back from the street and the width should not be less than the setback. He stated he measured 25’ from Central St. and that would eliminate
the cross driveway. He stated he wants to reserve the rights of the abutters and thinks the law requires the Planning Board to deny this application. It is a different kind of use with different impact on the abutters.
Allan Davis asked where he got the 25’setback standard as the setback line is 40’ from the center line of the street. Michael Marquise asked if he is saying it should be maintained as a buffer and Mr. Dunn said yes. Michael stated that it says it should be maintained. It does not address new. Michael asked how you can have a rule restricting all the way back to the building. Mr. Dunn stated there are 2 driveways already there.
Arlene Adams, abutter, advised the Board that she would like this application to be denied. It is a non-conforming lot. She stated that the existing use is not in dispute. It is going from a single family use to a real estate office. She stated that Section 1.33 of the Zoning Ordinance says that changes have to be consistent with the ordinance. The applicant did not get a variance from the Zoning Board. It needs effective screening from day one and in the future. The proposed screening in the front is not effective from across the street. It is changing the character and nature of the neighborhood and the values of homes will go down.
Atty. Dunn stated that pedestrian safety is one standard that is in the Site Plan Regulations and nobody has addressed it. He also stated specific dates for the maintenance of the rain garden were given, plus a log must be kept. He stated that the maintenance should be monitored if this is allowed to go through. He also stated that they need to require the height and depth of the trees on a continuing basis, with the branches down to 2’ and height at 7’ and no trimming from 2’ to 10’. He advised that Mr. Gonyea will be asking for 2 more trees.
Arlene Adams stated that 7 parking spaces are required and asked that they eliminate parking spaces 8 & 9. She also stated that the lights should not be on before 8:00 AM and after 5:00 PM when the office is not open. She stated that the boats are clearly advertisements. There should be no parking on the pavement and it should be strictly enforced.
Rodney Gonyea, abutter, stated that at the second meeting, when the application was for an apartment and an office, there were 9 parking spaces. Michael Marquise advised that there were 11 on the plan and Bob Anthonyson confirmed that is was increased from 9 to 11. Mr. Gonyea advised that he would like to see 7 spaces if it is passed. He stated it is a privacy issue. He also asked about snow plowing and pushing snow in front of the building as there is no place to put it there or to the right of the current driveway. The only place to put it is the side of the yard. It is 25’ from his house to the property. He also stated that the regulations say boats, recreational vehicles, etc. should be stored in an inconspicuous location and there is no backyard at this location.
He stated his concern for safety and changing the beauty of the street.
Caroline Humphrey, abutter, expressed a concern for safety. She owned the property for 7 years and says it was not a safe location. There are vehicles towing boats which go very fast. She also stated that the aesthetics will impact the neighborhood and the arborvitaes will block the vision of people going up and down the street.
Joyce Buswell, abutter, stated this is not a place for a business. It is a treacherous spot and there should be minimal activity in and out of the driveway. Two driveways and a parking lot change the use of the land. There is a lot packed on to a small piece of property and they are changing the use of the land the building sits on. She stated that the safety issue is a serious one to consider. This would be a change of activity on the property.
Steve White, observer, stated that the Board needs to look at the laws and regulations in making a decision. He stated there are other streets in the Village District and they get traffic which can be dangerous.
Peter White advised that the Board never said this is not a change of use. It is a change from one permitted use to another permitted use. The point of argument is what that change requires.
Mr. Gonyea stated that he had submitted 2 letters, one from a realtor and one from a certified appraiser, stateing that this would lower the value of his property, lower the number of people who might be interested in his property, and that privacy would be lost. He doesn’t think the buffer will cover the view from the windows in his house.
Arlene Adams stated that she has a petition from the residents of Central St. asking for a change from Village District to Residential District.
Bob Anthonyson responded that, in regard to the discussion on the character of the neighborhood, the neighborhood is more than just the abutters. SooNipi Publishing, Northcape, and Harbor Light Realty are on either end and previously there was a pub. There have been all types of uses on this street. He stated that in Article 5 M, 3 (a) of the Site Plan Regulations there are more strict guideline which states that a landscape buffer shall be no less than 5’ wide and it was used as a guide. He stated that the 3 mile loop has more pedestrian traffic and the property values depend on the abutters who come and go. He noted that there are other nuisances such as dogs and loud music and a real estate office would not generate noise. He asked if it not safe for children, what can it be
used for?
Atty. DiPadova, representing the applicant, stated that Atty. Dunn is requesting that it be sent back to the Zoning Board for a variance or special exception. He noted that the Zoning Administrator reviewed and acted on the application and determined that a special exception or variance is not required and the application should go to the Plamning Board. He also noted the 5’ wide buffer reference in the Site Plan Regulations. He stated that this is a permitted change of use. He stated that the change of use is consistent. It is a change from one permitted use to another permitted use.
Atty. Dunn stated that he has worked with the Zoning people in the past and respect them. However, the Zoning Clerk does not make decisions for the Planning Board. The regulations say the applicant can apply for a zoning compliance certificate which he did not do. He stated that it is a permitted use and the Zoning Ordinance does not apply unless there is a change..
Michael Marquise advised that the Zoning Administrator accepts every application and sends it on to the Planning Board if applicable. He believes that is a decision in and of itself.
Atty. Dunn stated there are a lot of changes going on in the building and on the lot and no permit has been issued.
Mr. Gonyea stated that the regulations say they shall not change the residential character of the building. He noted that plowing and the closing of doors are noises.
8:46 PM – The public hearing was closed.
The Board members discussed the application. Bruce noted that the house is already there and asked why there should be a buffer in front of the house. He stated that the issue is around parking spaces and the rest will look that same as it always has. He thinks buffering is a huge issue for the neighbors and that the Board can make conditions for privacy screening. A bigger tree than the crab tree should be used. He stated that when the Board was considering the Village District, they considered the entire neighborhood. It is not a separate residential neighborhood. Peter White stated there is no doubt the proposal will have impact on that neighborhood and wonders if it is too much. He stated the concern is the buffer and how much can be provided to be adequate. He
thinks 9 parking spaces might be too much and have a negative impact and asked what would be a fairer solution.
Phil Porter stated that the Zoning Board looks at criteria for a special exception and because something is permitted doesn’t mean it is a good idea. He has concerns for safety and thinks it is too intensive a use for that lot and he has a concern for the community.
Emma Smith stated that she agrees on safety. She also stated that she is interested in the fact that if it is built on .38 acres and has to be .5 acres to be conforming, does it need more investigation.
Michael advised that the basis is that the lot exists as non-conforming and they have permitted uses. A mixed use is not allowed, which is the legal opinion from the town attorney. It was felt that a non-conforming lot could accept a permitted use. Bruce stated that lots of uses existed before Zoning and were allowed to continue.
Atty. Dunn stated that this was not a vacant lot when Zoning went into affect and Michael responded that he is passing on what the town attorney has consistently said.
Bruce stated that the boat is not on the site plan and if it shows up it would become a condition of enforcement. He stated that he is bothered by the overlap of the safety of children. Kids go to the harbor and that’s what happens when you have a Village District. He suggested that the Board address walk ability and increasing safety for the master plan
Peter White stated that his issue is more about the amount of development on the lot and feels there is too much parking and not enough screening. Michael advised that they have to decide on this site plan and base the conditions on that.
9:07 PM – A short recess was called.
9:14 PM – Sonya Land Investment LTD Site Plan Review (continued):
A motion was made by Bruce Jennings to approve the application of Sonya Land Investments LTD with the following conditions: 1. Remove the turnaround space to the east of the garage. 2. Rain garden needs to be maintained and a log kept on site and up to date as previously told,twice per year done by a minimum of a professional landscape company, and available to the town to review. 3. The arborvitae hedge adjacent to 22 Central St., at a minimum, include 6 arborvitae planted as to screen the dining room windows and the planting maintained 2’ and upward, if dies replaces within a calendar year. 4. The dog bone perennial garden include a flowering crab to a scale greater than 2” so as to provide screening at a width of 5’. 5. Perennial garden be
included in the maintenance – if in poor health or dies, be replaced within a calendar year. 6. Hours of operation from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. 7. Sign lighting as per the notes on the plan. 8. No more than 5 employees. 9. Sign A changed and moved to the front planting area. 10. If an issue with excess snow to keep parking spaces open, excess snow be removed. The motion was seconded by Peter White. Michael advised they need to address 850’ of office use only and the concern about removing space at the garage. The applicant has stated they prefer to leave it as grass. Bruce Jennings amended the motion to add: 11. 850 sq. ft. of office use space only. The amendment was 2nd by Peter White. Phil Porter stated that they need an amendment to the motion to address the hours of sign lighting. Bruce Jennings amended the motion
to add: 12. Hours of sign lighting to be 7:00AM to 9:00 PM. The amendment was 2nd by Peter White. A vote on the motion with amendments was taken with 2 in favor (BJ & AD) and 3 opposed (PW, PP, & ES). The motion failed and the application was denied.
Reasons for denial: Peter White – too great an impact as proposed for the site and neighborhood. Phil Porter – too intensive a use for the size of the lot, a concern for traffic and safety, and detrimental affects on the neighborhood. Emma Smith – same as Phil Porter plus the safety of children.
9:20 PM – Public Hearing – Central St. Residents, Discussion for Rezoning Central St.
Michael Marquise advised that he has been discussing with Arlene Adams the issue to potentially change the zoning of Central St. to Residential District. There are two methods that may be done and then it goes to the town voters. The usual is that the Planning Board makes a recommendation, holds a public hearing, and then puts it on the ballot or a petition article is submitted. He advised they could go either route, but suggested that they come in and talk to the Planning Board.
Arlene Adams stated that she didn’t realize what the Village District meant until recently. She has a petition signed by almost every resident on the street to change it to a residential neighborhood. She stated that the Master Plan seems to want to address growth and change so it does not have a negative affect. There are a lot of recommendations such as preventing commercial uses from entering a predominantly residential area. She noted that SooNipi Publishing was there before zoning and does not have an impact on the street because of the way it is situated and the vegetation between it and her property. At the other end of the street is Northcape which has maintained the old atmosphere. It does not look like a commercial property. In between those 2 businesses it is all
residential. She stated that they do not have an historic district in Sunapee and that Central St. has the largest amount of historic houses on one street. They are older victorian homes and the street is a gateway to the harbor area. She asked that the Planning Board consider designating it as residential and, perhaps, as historic. She does not want a commercial area there as there is very little area for parking and no sidewalks.
Rodney Gonyea stated that other cities have done the same thing. He pointed out Savannah, GA and San Francisco, CA and advised that it has improved the tourism.
Caroline Humphrey stated that one of the things to be considered would be safety issues. She feels it would be good to have sidewalks, keep the historic nature, and an area people would feel safe walking.
Joyce Buswell stated that the street is a little narrow and to encourage commercial development would not to too wise, but they could put in a sidewalk and encourage people not to walk in the road.
Allan Davis advised that he thinks they need to address safety. Bruce Jennings stated that the problem is the process and trying to be fair to everybody. It is possible they could have had an application for another business that would have been acceptable. Allan stated that they have to look at what they would like permitted and they have to define what they mean by residential and what the boundaries are. Mr. Gonyea asked it this is where the historical district would come in and Bruce advised that they tried to identify historically significant things in town when they did the master plan. Arlene Adams stated that they looked at permitted uses and are in agreement that they want to keep it as residential. She stated that historical areas may have further restrictions. She asked
if they need to draw lines, etc. and Michael stated that with either route they would have to do that. They can’t just request that Central St. be residential. They would have to determine what should be included and it should be looked at as a little less intensive use. Ms. Adams questioned an historic district and Michael advised there are limits as to what you can do with the property. Bruce advised that they could be talking other areas such as all of Lower Main St., etc. Michael stated that one goal of the master plan is to redraw district lines. Ms. Adams asked if there are different intensity levels for areas and Michael advised there are and they have to look at what they would be.
Ms. Humphrey asked how to move forward with items such as sidewalks and Allan Davis advised that the Selectmen could do sidewalks. Peter White asked about other areas such as High St., Beech St., etc. and Allan stated they would take the proposal for Central St. and consider how it would apply to other streets. Michael advised that, at this stage of the game, it is coming up with general ideas; not rewriting the Zoning Ordinance. He asked that they come back to the September Master Plan meeting. He stated that after the Master Plan is done there would probably be zoning changes in 2010.
10:12 PM – The meeting adjourned.
NOTE: Any hearings now open and under consideration by this Board are continued to the next meeting of the Planning Board.
NOTE: The above minutes represent a summary of, not a verbatim of the tape.
Submitted by, Joan Bleau Approved_____________________
Recording Secretary
______________________________ _____________________________
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman Allan Davis, Vice-Chairman
______________________________ _____________________________
Bruce Jennings Derek Tatlock
______________________________ _____________________________
Philip Porter Peter White
______________________________ _____________________________
Emma M. Smith, Ex-Officio Frederick Gallup, Alt. Ex-Officio
| 
