TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SAFETY SERVICES BUILDING
February 1, 2007
PRESENT: Barbara Hollander, Vice Chairman
Bruce Jennings
Derek Tatlock
Philip Porter
Emma Smith, Ex-Officio
Michael Marquise, Town Planner
Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
Darlene Morse, Recording Secretary
ABSENT: Allan Davis
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman
Greg Vigue, Alternate
Frederick Gallup, Alt. Ex-Officio
OTHERS: Catherine Busheuff, Jim Williams, Raymond Teague, Robert Morgan, Rosie Digilio, Midge Eliassen, Lindsay Collins, Norm and Jean Nilton and Holly Ehrbar.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Vice-Chairman Barbara Hollander.
The minutes of the January 4, 2007 meeting were reviewed. A motion was made by Emma Smith to accept the minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Derek Tatlock and approved with one abstention.
Administrative Matters
Michael advised that the annual Planning and Zoning Conference will be on April 28, 2007. He stressed that it is a very worthwhile program and more information will be forthcoming in February. He also reminded the Board there will be another Master Plan meeting in two weeks. He advised that he is revising the community survey with some new ideas that have come up since the last meeting, especially with the Old Town Hall.
He noted that the first case on the agenda, the Library, has been withdrawn. They will reapply at a later date.
Michael stated he has the mylar for Boyce and he has received a letter from the Water and Sewer Department indicating that they could access the sewer line. They have completed their conditions. The other condition was the one acre lot and that has been revised.
Roger Landry advised that the Selectboard approved the changes in costs for subdivisions and annexation of properties, and also building permit fees. The change for the building permit fees was for the square footage costs and the cost on subdivisions were on per lot costs.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL HEARING
Map 147, Lot 19
Rosemarie Digilio & Doug McCahon Site Plan Review, Rosie’s Restaurant
Setting up a trailer for the sale of soft serve ice cream adjacent to the existing parking lot. 563 Route 103.
Michael stated that the application was filed three weeks in advance, abutters were notified, fees were paid, and notices were posted. This fall under Article 5 of the Site Plan Review Regulations. The Board will have to talk about what the impact is and whether it needs more as the sketch would not meet the Article 5 requirements ordinarily, However, this is an amendment and the Board may feel it does not need more than that. Before he can recommend completeness the Board would have to waive quite a bit in Article 5. It is an addition to an existing site. Roger explained that they are just planning to put in a trailer with a couple of soft serve machines. A motion was made by Philip Porter for approval for purposes of discussion. The motion was seconded by Derek Tatlock. Michael questioned if he is recommending that the sketch be accepted as is in order to go to the hearing? Phil questioned what is missing from this and Michael explained that, ordinarily, in a site plan,
you would have something that is to scale. This is not to scale. Also, you would have parking spaces delineated. They show where people park, but we do not know how many spaces are available, there is no ground conturing, and no details of the new building size. If they feel it suitable, it can be discussed on this basis. If not, they will have to do more.
Roger stated that Mr. McCahon would like to try this for one year to see how it goes. If the Board decides this is acceptable, perhaps they would like to consider it as a conditional approval for one year and then he would have to come back if they decided to keep it there longer.
Bruce stated that he would have to understand some things such as trash removal, where would a dumpster be, picnic tables, etc. What are we really looking at in addition to the trailer to complement the customers? He stated he may be okay with the restaurant, but it may come back to wanting a more detailed drawing before he would feel he could sign off on something. A number of issues could come up. Michael explained that it is possible they could accept it as provisionally complete subject to a better detailed drawing. The owners stated that it would be seasonal. Phil Porter amended his motion to accept the application as complete subject to more detailed drawings. Barbara questioned the hours of use and Michael advised that is something they would need to discuss. The motion was approved by the Board.
Rosie Digilio advised that this will be seasonal. It will be a mobile food unit and will probably operate for three months of the year and probably from 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM during the summer. It will be hooked up to the water from the restaurant. They have a separate food license for it. Roger questioned if it would just be ice cream and she advised yes, she believes so. He also questioned whether the septic was adequate for washing dishes. She advised that the dishes would be carried inside to the restaurant. It will be a totally mobile unit. She stated that the parking lot is gravel. Bruce advised that what the Board will be looking at is what it is going to be, not what it is probably going to be. They will want to know how many people are going to come
in at any one time. Are people going to be sitting in the parking lot eating the ice cream? Will it be a drive in, take out? Ms. Digilio advised that it will be drive in, take out. Bruce advised they will need a better description of what’s really going to happen so they can understand the impact to the lot. What is this going to mean regarding additional traffic, additional parking requirements, and people coming on and off the lot.
Barbara questioned how many people would be working here. Ms. Digilio stated that she would have to find out. Previously they had four employees for the restaurant, but she thinks that, initially, he will not be opening the restaurant, but just running this. Bruce explained that if they state they will not be opening the restaurant, but decide to reopen it later, they would have to have another Site Plan Review to look at the impact to the total site.
Barbara questioned if there are lights there now and Ms. Digilio stated she believes there are. Phil questioned signage and she stated there is a sign there now for the restaurant on the building, but they do not have one for the ice cream stand. Michael advised there is a letter from Rye and Crawford of Harding Hill. It is quire long and will be passed around. It adds to some of the concerns and advises that on several Saturdays in 2005 the restaurant parking lot was overflowing which caused parking to be on Route 103 and Harding Hill Road. So, if both uses were to be together it would be important to see where all the parking is going to take place.
Ms. Digilio advised that the restaurant was approved for 36 seats. The parking lot has expanded from what it originally was, but they don’t have lines. Barbara stated that it looks like there may be a visibility problem for people coming off of Harding Hill Rd.
Michael stated that if the applicant does not use the restaurant and just uses the trailer seasonally, if the Board has that in writing then there is probably a comfort level that they are not going to exceed the parking with the restaurant closed. If both uses are in place, we would at least have to see a site plan showing parking spaces because you don’t want to make a bad situation worse.
Bruce questioned if they would be serving just ice cream or other food also. Ms. Digilio advised “quite possibly. Bruce questioned if there would be picnic tables or would people be eating in their cars. Ms. Digilio advised that it is supposed to be take out, but she imagines they could eat in their cars if they want and there’s not anyplace for them to sit. Phil Porter questioned bathroom facilities and she advised that they could probably leave the side door open, but she does not know for sure.
Bruce advised he does not know how they can make a decision based on the information they have. He thinks they need a better plan. Michael question if the Board would be comfortable approving it on a one year temporary basis if they have it in writing that the restaurant would not be open?
It was suggested that Mr. McCahon come to the next meeting.
Concerns that were cited were: entrance and exit to the lot, a dumpster, outside lighting, signage, toilet facilities, picnic tables, parking spaces for cars, number of employees, hours of operation, and a visibility problem coming off Harding Hill onto Route 103. A list of the issues will be given to the applicant.
Attached to the minutes is a list of items needed for the Digilio McCahon application
noted by Barbara Hollander.
The application was continued to the next meeting on March 1, 2007.
Map 137, Lot 19 & Map 132. Lot 17.
Round Rock Properties Inc., Site Plan Review
Convenience Store, Gasoline Sales, & Eating Facility with 31 interior seats and 39 exterior seats.
474 Route 11
Michael advised the application was filed three weeks in advance, abutters were notified, fees were paid, and notices were posted. The application falls under Article 5 of the Site Plan Review Regulations. A couple of things that were not on the plans were a perimeter boundary survey, a question on site specific, and water supply division. They can be discussed. He believes the application is complete if they can get the boundary survey and leave open the discussion on the hazardous materials.
Roger advised that they have approval for a special exception on increasing the number of seats. Charlie Hirschberg advised that it is for 70 seats. Roger advised it is for the 31 seats inside and the 39 seats outside.
A motion was made by Phil Porter to accept the application as complete subject to the boundary survey and addressing hazardous materials. The motion was seconded by Bruce Jennings and approved unanimously by the Board.
Charlie Hirschberg advised that this is the former Community Store which will reopen with restaurant facilities and gasoline pumps. The footprint of the store has not changed. The restaurant facility is both eat in and take out. He advised that based on the parking requirements, 34 spaces are needed to accommodate the square footage for retail, seat requirements, and staffing. There are 39 spaces shown. They are currently looking at outside seating of 20, but based on the parking, they could accommodate up to 39.
Charlie explained the delineated wetlands. There is a substantial hillside which has sub-surface and surface drainage that comes off of it. The intent is to not disturb those areas in terms of construction. There is about 70,000 square feet of paved area. The back area will not be paved. It is a combination of bluestone and stone. That area will be used for the dumpster and employee parking. Bruce questioned if there will be a cement pad for the dumpster and Charlie explained that right now it is stone. It is an enclosed dumpster. It is a roll-off container. He explained that this plan shows a canopy for the gas pumps. There are two aisles which would accommodate 4 vehicles total at a time. Bruce questioned the existing use of the pumps.
Charlie advised there was an existing grandfathered use. The site previously had contamination. They were required to remove their tanks and pumps and they were required by DES to do a series of remediation measures by OSHA and it still has to be monitored. They put a series of monitoring wells in. Kingsley Smith came to the Planning Board twice to continue the use of the gasoline pumps, but because of the contamination issue, certain things had to be addressed before he could establish the physical placement of the pumps. There was contamination that migrated off site. Due to the migration off site and exceeding a certain level, they couldn’t put the new pumps in until that level either was removed or reduced below a safe level for drinking water. They continued the monitoring, within the past year, and it is reducing down below a certain standard. They had to maintain a series of sampling periods showing that it stays
below the standard before they could reestablish the pumps. DES has found that the levels are down in such a way that they could have the reestablishment of fuel there.
Bruce expressed concern that this is a continued use versus a new use as it has been several years. Michael explained that the Board is not in the position to determine the use, whether it is grandfathered or not. That was determined by the Board of Selectmen. Charlie advised that the one condition DES had was, because of the monitoring wells, they didn’t want new tanks to go in the same location. The permitting for that is being handled by a third party. At this point he is showing the new pumps. The monitoring wells have to stay in place. Bruce advised, as one of the conditions, they should be added to the plan. At Phil’s request, Charlie showed the run-off retention basin. A new driveway permit has been filed with DOT and the State Highway Department is
reviewing the drainage. There is an island to direct the flow of traffic. There is a retaining wall at part of the hillside. He also showed where snow will be pushed on. The gas pumps will have a canopy with down lights. Lights on the building will be down lights directed at the parking. They are allowing for 6 employees.
Charlie advised that the water will be supplied by a well. An upgrade is needed and will be addressed. It is currently tied in to the town sewer and they will need a grease trap in the building.
Roger expressed a concern for the amount of rainfall we had recently. Charlie explained that they are designing for higher events. It will spill over to the highway culvert.
Charlie advised that they would like the hours of operation to be 5:00 AM to midnight.
They would like to serve breakfast.
Holly Ehrbar stated that, as an abutter, one of her concerns is the lighting. Charlie explained the down lighting and the canopy and lighting at the gas pumps. She also questioned noise with the outdoor seating area and if they are going to have music. Charlie advised they will not have music. The outdoor seating is not intended for nighttime use. There will be a series of shrubs to screen noise.
Robert Morgan questioned any Zoning permits and what came before the Board of Adjustment. Roger explained that it went from 10 seats to the 31 inside seats and 39 outside seats by a Special Exception. R. Morgan also questioned the employee parking spaces and the ingress and egress and their safety and site view. He suggests there may be a safety situation. He also questioned the grandfathered use as it was a discontinued use. He thinks the use was discontinued about seven years ago. He doesn’t think the Planning Board can approve it as it is a non-conforming use by definition. Ordinarily, if something lasts that long, by definition, there is almost an intent to abandon if nothing has been done to revive it. When something has been shut down due to an environmental
problem, you can’t have a situation where someone trying to absolve, going to the DES, and it is simply taking a long time to get fixed, it is clearly established the lack of intent and it might toll whatever two year period might apply. But, there is no evidence, as near as he can tell, that any of that pertains at all. It is his suggestion that this is an issue and needs to be presented to the DEA to see whether or not it a discontinued and abandoned or just a discontinued non-conforming use. One other minor thing is not just the 71 seats, it is the 71 seats and continual traffic and the intensity of the use of the gas station use that adds to the problem. He thinks there is an engineering safety problem with ingress and egress in the place and a question about the grandfathered use. This is an expansion of use and not a permitted use. He also stated that the site is zoned residential and the appropriate solution is to get the zoning
changed and would not be spot zoned.
Roger explained that the grandfathering situation is within the parameters of the Board of Selectmen. The Select Board, after two meetings and consultation with the town attorney, determined and voted that it is a grandfathered use after looking at all of the facts. It is not a matter for the ZBA to consider. If one person or a party disagreed with the Select Board decision, they had 30 days to appeal the decision and they did not do that. So, that decision is stayed and approved. Mr. Morgan stated that was a horrible, incorrect, and outrageous decision in terms of land use planning and management and its own rules. The other problem is when you can take a two year rule and extend it to this extent, and that’s all right, and you find it acceptable, if you want to make your town
subject to corrupt decision, whether revealed, direct money, or other influence, you give your people the ability to change a two year policy, in writing, to arbitrarily change, particularly on the minutes, there was no evidence involved, there was no evidence what so ever, he is not sure how challengeable it might be, it is not a good situation and it is certainly ought to be censured. Roger advised there has been some concern about our two year policy and no one has tested and he believes the attorney is concerned about it as well, because it could be determined as illegal because grandfathering policy in New Hampshire goes forever and not just two years. We do have a two year policy which has been approved by the Select Board and it has never been tested in court. Mr. Morgan stated that what he meant if that if any Board can make that kind of decision arbitrarily, maybe it’s okay to make that decision because they certainly could have found evidence in
order to do so or not do so depending on their policies, in this case they didn’t unless the minutes do not reflect what happened.
Charlie addressed the site distance and stated that it is fairly substantial beyond the minimum in both directions. There is clear visibility as you exit the site in both directions. There is not a high intensity in terms of short intervals. The use on this highway is spread out so you have a good traffic flow through this area. By adding the left and right turn lanes both in and out you’re reducing the cueing over any situation you have now. It is not an increase in the number of pumps. There is a drive permit filed based on the new ownership. The property immediately across from this is a commercial zone. The property abuts residential in the back but the area being used is pretty much isolated.
Jim Williams question that if new gas tanks are put in will more monitoring wells be put in below those? Will there be a barrier area between the old section and the new section? Charlie advised that he talked to the State about that. The requirements today, in terms of what you put in, between the double wall and monitoring devices, he thinks the hub of the intent is that because you don’t have single wall tanks anymore, you shouldn’t have that kind of situation. Jim Williams questioned since they are excavating a new area, is there a possibility that could transfer over? Charlie explained he supposes it could be a possibility, but when they placed the monitoring wells they tried to do it to define all the drainage. Mr. Williams also questioned, the travel issue around the
gas tanks, did they take into consideration tankers coming in and out to bring the fuel? Charlie explained that the tanker drives in and then backs up to the pumps. Mr. Williams also questioned if there is a place for other delivery trucks and Charlie advised, in hearing some of the comments, he thinks they should eliminate two of the spaces in order not to have delivery trucks in front of other vehicle parking.
Bruce questioned how many square feet would be retail and Charlie advised 1520. Bruce questioned square footage for the restaurant and Charlie advised 464 for the eating area and 470 for the kitchen plus there are large storage areas for the store. Michael stated he thinks the question on the double stacking of the parking on the north side of the building is an issue for several reasons. The inconvenience of having to move cars to get employee parking out, also a dumpster back there which has to be accessed, and we have not gotten comment from the Fire Department yet, but normally, they like to have access around a building. He recommends opening an alley way somehow, losing two or three spaces to do that. Charlie advised he met with Dan and he did not comment on that. Charlie
advised they could eliminate some spaces and still accommodate the employee parking.
Bruce asked, adding all these up, the employee, retail, and restaurant parking, how many spaces do you need and how many do you actually have? Charlie advised that, based on 20 outdoor seats, 34 would be needed and on the plan they have 39, not counting the spaces at the gas pumps. What he would like to do, based on the parking, is to go slightly beyond the 20. Phil questioned the well and Charlie explained that it will be the same well, but they need to provide base line data on the well. Catherine Busheff questioned what the requirements would be in terms of usage. What is that standard that this is looking to meet? Charlie explained it is related to the type of use, for a restaurant, part of it is the yield and there are different parameters for the samples. She
questioned if it has been tested and Charlie advised that it has been tested for contamination and it wasn’t showing problems. Catherine encouraged the Board to consider the land use regulations and how they are implemented, so they are implemented in a consistent and methodical way, so our community, as is grows, grows in a sensible fashion. Also, whether it is a non-conforming use and going back to the ZBA, it is in residential and how it is getting back to an expanded and more intensified use. She also questioned if there are turn lanes from the highway and Charlie advised there are not. Charlie advised it will be evaluated by the State. Holly Ehrbar expressed her concern with lights and noise and the outdoor eating area and Catherine also encouraged being careful with lighting and vegetation. Charlie advised that he can see if he can get some more specific information on the canopy and its lighting.
Michael advised it might be best to have Charlie get more information and continue this to the next meeting. They also need comments from the town departments. Charlie questioned if it would be possible to continue it to the April meeting and Michael advised it is, but the only problem is if the Board is not ready to decide on that date, we could, in our mutual agreement, agree to extend it 90 days, but beyond that 60 days would be the last night. Charlie requested that right now, continue it to the March meeting and then if it is agreeable extend it to April, which would mean an extension of 65 days. Michael advised as soon as he lets them know, they will post it on the agenda.
Jim Williams questioned the proposed opening date and Charlie advised part of that is subject to this process. Charlie questioned if the store could function as a continued use?
Michael and Roger advised that they can.
The case was continued to March 1, 2007.
Map 210, Lot 9.
New Liden Realty Trust
12 Lot Subdivision and One Open Space Area
Trow Hill Rd.
Michael advised that the application was filed three weeks in advance, abutters were notified, notices were posted, and the fees were paid. The application falls under Section 6.04 of the Subdivision Regulations. This is a major subdivision, so there is really nothing that can be waived. Michael asked if there has been an application filed with the State for the septic systems and Charlie Hirschberg advised that is in process. He also advised that what is ongoing is the site specific, the wetlands, and the State subdivision. Michael advised that with those items in the process, he believes the application is complete.
A motion was made by Bruce Jennings to accept the application as complete. The motion was seconded by Phil Porter and approved unanimously by the Board.
Charlie Hirschberg explained that this is a 12 lot subdivision with lots of 3 to 7.2 acres. The zoning is for 1.5 acres per lot. The lots are set up so that there could be single houses or duplexes. The size of the lots is based on 65% of the area being under 25% slope and no wetlands. The area has some 25% slopes. There is 18 acres of open space. Phil questioned how the open space would be managed. Charlie advised it could be done in several different ways. One would be by the Association. Another option is it abuts property that the Town of Sunapee owns which is landlocked, and the open space has two points of access, so it could be made conservation and part of the other piece that the Town owns. It would also give protection to the wetlands on the other
piece. There are 71 acres above that drain down onto the property. He explained the drainage plans. Now they use arch pipes. The bottom is big and the top is small and is set below the stream channel. The sediment that comes down settles into the bottom of the pipe. You set them below the stream channel. You want some sediment to fill the pipe in to create a more natural bottom. Typically, the pipes are wider than the channel. The whole idea is that you don’t create a dam situation. The whole idea is to promote the continuous habitat and not disturb it so much that you change the whole balance of things. They are trying to maintain the natural flow and the biological activity; not confine it. They are trying to preserve the natural drainage that is there now. Roger questioned if there are any detention areas. Charlie explained that there are 71 acres above this and if you put in detention ponds, you
are actually holding the water. You want to keep it moving. You have to file a notice with the EPA and the people who are building the development could be fined if they don’t follow the plan they’ve developed. You have to notify EPA when you start and when you finish.
The lots are spread out and are wooded sites. Phil questioned one driveway for Lots 9 & 10. Charlie explained there is an open field and they don’t want to put a house there as other houses would look down on it. There are a lot of stone walls and they are working on identifying them so they can preserve them. There will be some shared driveways. Charlie explained that some of the houses will be walk outs so that they don’t have to change the slope of the land that much.
Michael questioned the length of the road. Charlie advised it is 1800 feet. Michael advised we would have to look back at the minutes to see if 1800 feet was approved. The criteria for the road is 10 ¾%. The project can’t go at 10%. The fill for the road would extend to the edge.
Charlie advised that the site specific has been submitted to Wetlands, the Conservation Commission will address it on February 7, 2007, and the State Subdivision consideration of it is still in progress. The site specific is not expected until May. The possible start up date would be June.
The application was continued to the April 5, 2007 meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30PM.
NOTE: The above minutes represent a summary, not a verbatim transcript of the tape.
NOTE: Any hearings now open and under consideration by this Board are continued to the next meeting of the Sunapee Planning Board.
Submitted by,
Joan Bleau, transcription from tapes
Darlene Morse, transcription from notes
DATE: _________________ PLANNING BOARD
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman Barbara Hollander, Vice-Chairman
Bruce Jennings Derek Tatlock
Philip Porter Allan Davis
Greg Vigue, Alternate Emma Smith, Ex-Officio Member
Frederic Gallup, Ex-Officio Alternate
| 
