DRAFT
TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
TOWN HALL
May 4, 2006
PRESENT: Peggy Chalmers, Chairman
Derek Tatlock
Allan Davis
Bruce Jennings
John Wheeler, Alternate
ABSENT: Philip Porter
Barbara Hollander
Emma Smith, Ex-Officio
Frederick Gallup, Ex-Officio Alternate
Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
Staff: Michael Marquise, Planner
Darlene Morse, Secretary
OTHERS: Gretchen & Jamie Lewis, John & Patti Johnson, G. Adam White, Yvonne Evans, Carolyn Dube, Jeanne Circosta, Peter Constantineau, Steve Longtin, James & Ann Jackson , Kevin Richard, Cliff Richer and Clayton Platt.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Peggy Chalmers at 7:07 PM.
The minutes of the April 6, 2006 meeting were reviewed. Motion was made by John Wheeler to accept the minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Derek Tatlock. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
Peggy Chalmers asked John Wheeler to vote in place of Barbara Hollander.
P. Chalmers asked Michael Marquise if he had anything to report to the Board. M. Marquise stated that he had the mylar of the Downey subdivision for the Board to sign. Also he reminded the Board that a Master Plan meeting will be held in two weeks and has advertised to request attendance from the public for input. He hopes all members of the Board will be able to attend.
M. Marquise informed the Board that Robert Rieseberg did not want to have a dinner for his leaving the Planning Board due to health concerns. M. Marquise stated that a dinner should still be planned as John Wheeler is moving. John Wheeler reported to the Board that due to his moving, he will be resigning his position as alternate.
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL HEARING:
1. Map 225, Lot 66: John & Patricia Johnson, 77 Route 11, Site Plan Review – Store for the Sale of Pool, Spa & Antique Related Items and Seasonal Selling of Christmas Trees:
Peggy Chalmers informed the Board that this was a continuation as it was accepted the last time the Board met with the Johnson’s. M. Marquise stated that the Board had accepted the application as complete. John Johnson explained the map submitted for review. He stated that the parking area has been cleaned up and includes a handicapped parking spot as required by law. They have also put up fencing. P. Chalmers asked what would be in the display area. Mr. Johnson responded that there may be a trailer with a hot tub on it for a short period of time. There may also be a display pool, but only for two to four weeks. It may also serve as additional parking. Private parking for the residence is in back of the house. The display area will also be used for
the seasonal Christmas tree sales. J. Johnson stated that the summer hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM. Winter hours on Saturday will be from 9 AM to 3 PM. Summer hours on Saturday will be from 9 AM to 8 PM and Sunday 10 AM to 1 PM. The Christmas season will be from the 1st of December through to the 24th of December from 9 AM to 8 PM John Wheeler suggested that the Johnson’s make the hours much broader because if they should change, the Johnson’s would have to come back before the Board for another Site Plan Review. J. Johnson then stated he would like the hours of operation to be 7 days a week from 7 AM to 9 PM. Motion was made by John Wheeler to approve the application with the hours of operation from 7 AM to 9 PM 7 days a week. The motion was seconded by Allan Davis. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
John Johnson wished to show his appreciation to Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator, for all of his assistance with the application.
2. Map 206, Lot 2: New Liden Realty Trust, Prospect Hill Rd., Two Lot Subdivision:
New Liden Realty Trust requested to continue this hearing to the next meeting. The Board granted the continuation to the June 1, 2006 meeting.
3. Map 147, Lot 19, Rosemarie Digilio & Douglas McCahon, Rosie’s Restaurant: 563 Rte. 103, Site plan Review Seasonal Ice Cream Stand:
As the applicant was not present to represent the application, the Board continued the hearing to the June 1, 2006 meeting.
4. Map 218, Lot 8 & 12: New Liden Realty Trust: Sargent Road, Annexation:
Surveyor, Cliff Richer, was present to represent the applicant. Michael Marquise explained that this was a two part process that New Liden must do. First an annexation and the second process would be a
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
subdivision. Should the annexation be approved, then the Board will act on the subdivision. M. Marquise informed the Board that the application was filed three weeks in advance, the fees were paid, abutter’s notices sent and the notice was posted. The application meets the requirements of 6.04 of the Subdivision Regulations subject to waivers that are allowed in 6.05 (b) for boundary line survey, contours, utility lines and storm water drainage. M. Marquise believes that the application is complete subject to the normal waivers, and in this case that would be the boundary survey of the entire parcel, which is contained on another map, existing contours, utility lines, storm water drainage and water supply facilities. M. Marquise stated he felt those items could be waived as
no building is planned on the lot at this time. Motion was made by John Wheeler to accept the application as complete subject to the waivers as recommended by Michael Marquise. The motion was seconded by Derek Tatlock. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed.
James Jackson , an abutter and a resident of Chippendale Road, was present to address the application. He stated he objected to the annexation proposal and subdivision proposal to follow. Mr. Jackson stated that he thought the two proposals should be heard together as they are integrated. P. Chalmers explained to J. Jackson that this requires two separate hearings as one application is an annexation and the second a subdivision.. P. Chalmers asked Cliff Richer to explain the proposal. C. Richer explained that the applicant wishes to add additional square footage onto an existing lot of 2.44 acres. The land to be annexed is from the common land area of 2.81 acres. After the annexation, the lot will have 2.1 acres. The common area lot is from the Tucker Brook subdivision of which no lots have been sold. The Tucker Subdivision and Chippendale Subdivision are both owned by New Liden Realty Trust. Peggy Chalmers questioned what the common land area was, is it a
separate lot and who owns it? Bruce Jennings asked if it was declared common area because the four to one ratio could not be met. Cliff Richer stated he didn’t know because he did not do the Tucker Subdivision. Michael Marquise informed the Board that the common land area was created for three reasons; one to create the four to one ratio, the second reason was because there are common septic areas on the far end of the subdivision and the third is that the lot is not useful because it contains power lines and wet lands. Cliff Richer stated that the three existing houses in the Tucker Subdivision have been leased. P. Chalmers asked what the lot number was on the common area land. She believes it should have one. Cliff Richer believes the map and lot number is Map 218, Lot 12-3. P. Chalmers stated that this should be on the map. M. Marquise questioned if the common land is used to
house septic systems. Peter Constantineau, an abutter from 22 Chippendale Road, stated that there are 3 septic systems on the common land, all serving three houses. M. Marquise explained that the three lots in this subdivision had an easement to the common land area. Allan Davis stated that if the annexation is approved, new deeds will have to be drawn up for those three lots. P. Chalmers questioned if the subdivision approval was based on that common land area, was there any requirements satisfied by the land that would preclude taking a portion of it away? M. Marquise stated that he looked into that but could not find anything but reminded the Board that they sometimes require common land for two reasons. One is when a cluster development is planned and the second is the 15% requirement. He stated that it doesn’t look like the Board evoked the 15% requirement in Tucker subdivision. If the .8 acres is
taken away from the common land, the Board must make sure that the 15% requirement is made in the the Tucker Subdivision. Steve Longtin, an abutter from 30 Chippendale Rd., spoke against the annexation due to the land containing septic systems.
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
J. Jackson’s neighbor, Michael Ripley, 38 Chippendale Road, could not be present and asked him to express to the Board his opposition of both the annexation and subdivision applications. Michael Marquise expressed concern that the common land was a sewage disposal requirement. C. Richer stated that he asked the engineer that question and he was told no. M. Marquise recommended the Board get something in writing stating this. C. Richer will get something from Charlie Hirschberg in reference to this. Allan Davis suggested that this hearing be continued to the June 1, 2006 meeting as there is missing information that is needed, but since many abutters showed up, he felt discussion should continue for them. John Wheeler asked about opening up the
second hearing at this meeting so that the abutters may address that one as well. M. Marquise stated concern that the cases might cloud each other. C. Richer stated that if the hearing was opened for the subdivision, he would recommend that the notes be taken to refer to concerns with the annexation as “A” and the subdivision as “S”. Bruce Jennings felt that would be confusing and asked if the annexation was contingent on the approval of the subdivision. C. Richer responded that his client wanted to do the annexation before doing the subdivision. B. Jennings stated he wouldn’t mind hearing the two together, but would prefer not to. Both Derek Tatlock and John Wheeler wished to hear the presentations separately. Peggy Chalmers returned to the annexation hearing.
James Jackson again spoke in objection to the annexation and subdivision. He noted that C. Richer stated he was doing the annexation so that he could have a 3 acre lot to subdivision. He stated that he could not subdivide the lot as it stands now as there are restrictions on that land. With the 3 acres, he could subdivide the property into two lots of 1.5 acres each. Restrictions were placed on the land restricting any subdivision to lots of l.5 acres. These restrictions were placed in 1972 on the original plat. J. Jackson stated that even with the annexation, that land cannot be subdivided as that would be breaking the restrictions. P. Chalmers stated that this would be something raised when the Board hears the application on the subdivision.
J. Jackson stated that he would like to hear both the annexation and subdivision as they intertwine. P. Chalmers explained that doing an annexation to get a proper lot size is not unique and comes before the Board quite often. J. Jackson stated he researched the Tucker subdivision and it was heard in January of 2004. At that time, the proposal was for four house lots. Objections were raised as far as one of the lots being developed. Questions were raised as to the wetlands and the driveway because it was too close to the brook. J. Jackson explained that because of these questions, a proposal came before the Board in July 1, 2004. That proposal was approved with the following restrictions “three lot minor subdivision with common land”. J. Jackson stated that all of the septic systems for the three houses are located on the common land. J. Jackson believes that because it is common land
and is used by the other three lots, it should not be further broken up. He feels it is unbuildable land constitutes a dedicated use to the public. The land is under the power lines, is wetlands and was used as part of the proposal for the three lot subdivision. He feels that the developer should not be allowed two years later and try to use any portion of this land for another subdivision.
J. Jackson further stated he objected to the subdivision because Sunapee Subdivision Regulations, specifically state in Section 1A states “the first purpose is protecting and preserving the rural character of the town”. He feels that Chippendale Drive represents the rural character of the town. He is afraid the area will become suburban with the building of more homes.
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
Cliff Richer stated that the common land area is noted as being a part of future development
in a plat recorded in 1973 and shows lots on that common land area. The 1.5 acre restriction has been discussed and has been applied to the three lots in the Tucker Subdivision. That is why all three lots contain 1.5 acres or more and this is applied to all of the original Higgins property. The subdivision is not taking .8 acre from the Tucker Subdivision to be attached to the land as it was part of the Higgins property.
C. Richer stated that New Liden is bringing the property into compliance. Bruce Jennings summarized what the Board was doing. This hearing was to discuss annexation and will this annexation improve the new lot as a single property. He cannot see a reason why the annexation should be disapproved.
Allan Davis wondered if the remainder of the land being annexed would be able to contain the septic systems. P. Chalmers stated that this is one thing that the Board has to know. Cliff Richer stated that the engineer said that it was not an issue, but will get a letter from the engineer for the Planning Board.
Bruce Jennings stated that he would not feel comfortable on voting on the annexation unless the Board has a letter from the engineer. Allan Davis made a motion to continue the hearing to the June 1, 2006 meeting where documents on sewage disposal can be viewed. The motion was seconded by John Wheeler. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
5. Map 218, Lot 8: New Liden Realty Trust, Sargent Road, Two Lot Subdivision:
M. Marquise informed the Board that the application was filed three weeks in advance, the fees were paid, abutter’s notices sent and the notice was posted. The application meets the requirements of 6.04 of the Subdivision Regulations subject to waivers that are allowed in 6.05 (b) for boundary line survey, contours, utility lines and storm water drainage. He feels all items except for storm water drainage can be waived. He noted that the contours will be provided. M. Marquise feels the application is complete.
John Wheeler made a motion to accept the application with a waiver subject to 6.05 (b) for utility lines and no waiver for storm water drainage. The motion was seconded by Derek Tatlock. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
Cliff Richer explained that if the annexation in the prior hearing is approved, the owner would then subdivide the parcel into 2 lots of 1.5 acres each. One lot has an existing house and well. Frontage would be on Chippendale Drive and is ample. Michael Marquise asked where the driveways would be. C. Richer replied that they would be off of Chippendale Drive. M. Marquise informed the Board that he had no comments on the application as it meets the zoning requirements and set back regulations. Peggy Chalmers commented that she did not like the shape of one of the lots. John Wheeler termed it a “Z ‘ shaped lot. Discussion was held on the areas of the lots. M. Marquise asked about wetlands. Cliff Richer replied that there were no wetlands in the
building area.
The hearing was opened to abutters. Jeanne Circosta stated that she had a list of covenants she received when she purchased property in the development in 2000. She read from the list of covenants which does not allow lots of less than 1.5, no lots shall be re-subdivided, on each lot no more than one family dwelling is allowed, which will not allow a duplex. John Wheeler raised discussion on the enforcement of covenants. The only ones who can enforce covenants are the property owners themselves, not the town. The town can only enforce planning and zoning regulations. James Jackson stated that he drafted
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
the covenants in 1972. He feels that what the owner is trying to do violates the restrictions. J. Jackson feels that what the owner is trying to do subverts the restrictions by cutting and pasting his property to create the needed 1.5 acres. He again stressed his concern that the area will become a suburb and lose its rural character.
Abutter Steve Longtin stated that he did not feel it was a good plan and did not like the “Z” shaped lot.
He agrees with J. Jackson that the plan is not a good plan with such an odd shaped lot. Bruce Jennings responded that the Planning Board does see a lot of weird shaped lots. Sometimes this is done to maximize the density. B. Jennings asked M. Marquise how much flexibility does the Planning Board have if the letter of the law is satisfied with regard to lot size. M. Marquise responded that the Board has very little. P. Chalmers questioned if the lot satisfied the 4 to 1 ratio. She also remembers that the Planning Board did turn down some odd shaped lots in the past. J. Jackson stated he thought it would be a travesty if the Planning Board approved this lot. M. Marquise asked J. Jackson why, when he wrote up the covenants, he didn’t put in that there will be
no further subdivision instead of allowing 1.5 acre lots? He also added that the Planning Board cannot enforce covenants. Bruce Jennings stated that the Planning Board looks at plans for subdivision to see if it meets the requirements. Allan Davis added that the requirements allow for one acre zoning in that area. P. Chalmers stated that the Planning Board can’t refuse a subdivision because they don’t like it. B. Jennings would like Town Counsel to be asked for his opinion. M. Marquise suggested that the applicant be encouraged to get rid of the “Z” shaped lot. Cliff Richer stated that he designed the subdivision and has seen odd shaped lots all over. The purpose of this design was to get the square footage and to work around the existing septic system for the house.
Abutter Peter Constantineau expressed his concern about clear cutting the lot and is afraid every tree will be gone. He stated that the property also contains a lot of rock. Derek Tatlock wondered what would happen to the slope if the property is cleared. C. Richer stated that the final plan will contain contours. Motion was made by Allan Davis to continue this hearing to the June 1, 2006 meeting. The motion was seconded by John Wheeler. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
Cliff Richer was reminded to get a letter from the engineer regarding the capability of the land to hold the three septic systems and add the contours to the plat. Also, M. Marquise will check with Town Counsel to see what flexibility the Planning Board has with relation to the design of lots. P. Chalmers suggested to C. Richer that he try to refigure the “Z” lot and that the applicant check the covenants of his deed.
6. Map 138, Lot 22: James & Catherine Fadden, Winn Hill Road, Two Lot Subdivision:
M. Marquise informed the Board that the application was filed three weeks in advance, the fees were paid, abutter’s notices sent and the notice was posted. The application meets the requirements of 6.04 of the Subdivision Regulations subject to waivers that are allowed in 6.05 (b) for boundary line survey, contours, utility lines and storm water drainage. He believes the application is complete and the waivers be granted. Motion was made by John Wheeler to accept the application as complete and to
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
grant waivers as suggested by Michael Marquise. The motion was seconded by Bruce Jennings. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
Clayton Platt, Surveyor, was present to represent the applicants. The property is on Winn Hill Road and it is planned to subdivision it into two lots; one lot will be 1.64 acres and the second 1.79 acres. The purpose of the subdivision is that Mr. Fadden’s brother wishes to build a home. There is a septic system for the house on Lot 1. The application meets all of the zoning requirements which allow one acre lots.
The Fadden’s have received State subdivision approval. P. Chalmers asked what is not allowed in a well radius. M. Marquise responded that no leach fields or septic tanks are allowed. M. Marquise explained the 65% rule where the lot has to be free from wetlands, deep slopes, and unbuildable areas to 65% of the minimum lot size. He asked if the lots were covered. C. Platt explained that they were.
Motion was made by Allan Davis to approve the application as submitted. The motion was seconded by John Wheeler. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
7. Gretchen Lewis & Dayle Finn: Map 138, Lot 11, Stagecoach Road, Two Lot Subdivision:
M. Marquise informed the Board that the application was filed three weeks in advance, the fees were paid, abutter’s notices sent and the notice was posted. The application meets the requirements of 6.04 of the Subdivision Regulations subject to waivers that are allowed in 6.05 (b) for boundary line survey, contours, utility lines and storm water drainage. M. Marquise recommends that waivers be granted for the utility lines and storm water drainage. All others are on the map. M. Marquise stated that he feels the application is complete except for the State septic system approval. Motion was made by John Wheeler to accept the application with the waivers as noted by Michael Marquise and subject to the receipt of State septic system approval. The motion was seconded by Derek
Tatlock. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
Gretchen Lewis was present to explain the application. She explained that the second owner of the property is her mother, who is in Florida so could not attend the meeting. She presented the Board with a letter from her mother stating her approval of the subdivision. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide the lot between her and her mother. Lot 11A will be her mother’s lot and Lot 11 will be G. Lewis’ lot. The septic design is presently in the works. M. Marquise sees no problem with the application. Tony Bergeron has okayed the placement of the driveways. Motion was made by Allan to approve the application as submitted subject to the receipt of State septic system approval. The motion was seconded by John Wheeler. The vote was unanimous and
the motion carried.
CONSULTATIONS
Kevin Rickard was present discuss a matter he is working on with the Zoning Board.
The first item he wished to discuss is Section 3.50(b) which allows street set backs to be reduced to 10 feet with the stipulation of the 25 foot height rule. The Zoning Board has been interpreting this to be the lot that an exception or variance is being applied for. Michael Marquise checked the original ordinance and found that a typo existed and the word should be “lots” not “lot”. Motion was made by John Wheeler that it was the intent of the Planning Board that Section 3.50(b) should read “Where structures that do not meet front setback requirements exist in proximity to and on the same side of the road as the lot for which a certificate of compliance is being sought, the ZBA may allow a lesser front setback. The proposed structure shall be no closer to the road
than the structures on such lots and in no case closer than 10’ to the right-of-way line of the road. The portion of the proposed structure encroaching on the front setback shall be no higher than 25”, and that the original ordinance be corrected to reflect this. The motion was seconded by Bruce Jennings. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
K. Rickard’s second concern is the definition of “dwelling unit”. He explained a case he took before the Zoning Board for a property owner that has been required to rip out the entire kitchen (stove, refrigerator, cupboards, etc.) to satisfy the ZBA that their building was not a dwelling unit. K. Rickard believes that this is a bit of overkill. P. Chalmers remembers that the Board decided that someone could have a hot plate or a microwave. She remembered that it was stated that “no one would live there full time with just a hot plate and microwave”. K. Rickard agreed with P. Chalmers and will relate this to the Zoning Board. M. Marquise feels it should be up to the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator as he actually sees the structure and
makes the inspections. M. Marquise recommended that K. Rickard speak to the Board of Selectmen as this is an enforcement issue and Roger Landry is an employee of the Selectmen and not the Zoning Board.
K. Rickard’s third concern is a change in the definition of structures. He designed a pergola on a structure. This is for the growing of vines, etc. and creates shade, and he feels that is not a structure but after the Zoning Administrator read the definition of structures to him, he had to agreed with him that it is considered a structure. K. Rickard stated that next year he will be submitting a change in the definition of a structure, to exclude pergolas, arbors, awnings, etc. John Wheeler stated that he feels a pergola is a structure. P. Chalmers agreed stating that they can be pretty large. There is no size definition on a pergola or an arbor. Allan Davis stated that dimensions could be written into the definition.
K. Rickard asked if the Master Plan Committee took minutes and if so, are they posted. He would like to see them, maybe on the web site. It was agreed that edited versions will be placed on the web site and posted in the Town Hall.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Map 211, Lots 3 & 4: Adeline Bell & Kevin Warner, 13 Trowhill Road, Merger:
Motion was made by John Wheeler to accept and sign the merger. The motion was seconded by Derek Tatlock. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
NOTE: The above minutes represents a summary, not a verbatim transcript of the tape.
Planning Board
May 4, 2006
NOTE: Any hearings now open and under consideration by this Board are continued to the next meeting of the Sunapee Planning Board.
Submitted by, Darlene Morse Approved_______________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman Barbara Hollander, Vice-Chairman
_______________________________ _______________________________
Bruce Jennings Derek Tatlock
_______________________________ _______________________________
John Wheeler, Alternate Allan Davis
_______________________________ _______________________________
Philip Porter Emma Smith, Ex-Officio
_______________________________
Frederick Gallup, Ex-Officio
| 
