Chichester Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
October 7, 2010
Members Present: Chairman Thomas Jameson, Vice-Chairman Richard Moore, Richard Arell, Stanley Brehm, Allen Mayville, Thomas Houle, and Jamie A Pike, Secretary.
Chairman Jameson called the meeting to order at 6:35pm.
The minutes of September 9, 2010 were reviewed and a motion was made by Mr. Brehm and seconded by Mr. Mayville to approve the minutes as written. Motion passes.
The Planning Board welcomed Building Inspector John Freeman. The Planning Board asked Mr. Freeman for his assistance in making sure development was completed in a manner consistent with approvals. Although not responsible for zoning enforcement, Mr. Freeman will bring items forward that he recognizes.
Re-Subdivision: Frank Merrill, Map 9 Lot 32 and Map 10 Lot 2, Off Healy Pasture Road
Frank Merrill and Surveyor Dave Collier were present to speak on the merits of the application.
Mr. Merrill explained that the primary purpose of this re-subdivision is to remove the elderly restriction from those lots located on Lottie Lane and to succeed from the previously approved condominium subdivision. The re-subdivision will also merge prior lots Map 10 Lot 2A Sublots 10 & 11 to provide frontage for Sublot 11 as Healy Pasture Road is proposed to end at Bradley Way. The connection of Healy Pasture to Perry Brook Road is still proposed as part of this re-subdivision. There is a ROW shown on the plat for future expansion of Healy Pasture Road, should further development occur on the land currently owned by Brandon Giuda.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum acreage requirement with the Open Space Conservation Development Ordinance of 0.75 acres. This re-subdivision also reduces the total number of units from 38 to 26. Although there is a reduction in units there is no reduction in traffic impact as there is a change from elderly housing to family housing.
Mr. Plunkett, Road Agent had previous submitted requests for the design of the turnaround at the end of Healy Pasture Road, and considerations have already been put in place upon the plat. Mr. Quimby, acting Fire Chief, was present and inquired about access to the fire suppression ponds. Mr. Merrill explained that drafting pits will be constructed similar to those on Kara Drive.
Being no further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Moore and seconded by Mr. Arell to accept the application. Motion passes.
Chairman opened the Public Hearing to hear abutter and citizen comment on the proposal.
Abutters Present: Paul Adams, Map 9 Lot 41, 23 Kelley’s Corner Road
Mr. Adams expressed his concern about the added wetland contamination through the 26 leaching beds associated with the lots. Mr. Adams also pointed out that the lots area unbuildable due to the high percentage of wetlands present on each lot and feels that future owners will not comply with zoning regulations regarding the impact on the wetlands and buffers.
The Board rebutted, stating that the 10% rule does not apply to this subdivision as incentives are provided to the developer under the Open Space Conservation Development Ordinance where the developer is required to set aside certain acreage with restrictions upon future development.
Further, the subdivision has previously received DES approval and does not need further approval as the septage load has been reduced.
Mr. Adams also stated to the Board that RSA 674:21 provides that any development prescribed as an Innovative Land Use requires the development of Workforce Housing. This finding was not determined to be accurate by the Board, after a review of the statute.
Being no further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Moore and seconded by Mr. Mayville, to approve the application with the following precedent conditions:
1. The submission of DES approvals relevant to the subdivision, and
2. The calculation data previously completed showing the number of acres within the subdivision and the determination of the number of lots allowed.
Preliminary Conceptual Discussions
Home Occupation: Scott Marston, Map 8 Lot 37-A, 23 Carpenter Road
Mr. Scott Marston was present to speak on the merits of the proposal.
Mr. Marston is before the Board to modify a previous approval granted on April 2, 2009. The previous approval permitted the in-home business with the conditions that there be no signage and no on-site customers and the business was solely internet based. Mr. Marston would like to allow on-site customers, as meeting with local customers at other locations has been a hindrance. Mr. Marston does not anticipate the visitation of more than 24 customers annually, as the business is still primarily internet based. Such customers would only be allowed during the day, as this is also his home for his family.
Mr. Marston was directed by the Board to submit a formal application in order for a Public Hearing on the amendment to be scheduled. It was also recommended that Mr. Marston provide a new sketch of the property providing for customer parking within the site.
Home Occupation: Mary Finlayson, Map 3 Lot 72, 14 King Road
Ms. Mary Finlayson was present to speak on the merits of the proposal.
Ms. Finlayson is before the Board to modify a previous approval granted on April 1, 2010. The previous approval conditionally permitted the home occupation of a dog grooming and training business. Due to unforeseen issues with their insurance company, the Finlayson’s are proposing the addition of a new structure to the site to be used as a training facility. The grooming business will occupy the existing garage which will require a substantial up-fit. The newly proposed structure will be a 2-story 40 foot by 40 foot building with the second floor primarily used as storage and mechanical space. The Finlayson’s are also proposing a stockade fence along the frontage of the property.
Ms. Finlayson was directed by the Board to submit any proposed changes in accordance with notification deadlines so that a Public Hearing on the amended application may be scheduled. Ms. Finlayson was also reminded to submit signage and lighting plans.
The Board discussed the budget proposal for the ensuing year. The Board of Selectmen have requested a reduction of 2% as compared to the 2010 budget.
The following budget shall be submitted to the Board of Selectmen:
The Planning Board will meet with the Board of Selectmen and the Budget Committee on Tuesday, November 23rd to answer any questions they may have regarding the proposed budget.
The Planning Board discussed a question received from the Board of Selectmen. The question is whether ZO Section 3.05 applies to a landlocked parcel in regards to its being buildable, with frontage on a class VI road but also has a deeded driveway easement to a class V road in another town. Section 3.05 is extracted below:
Adopted 3-13-1962 Amended 3-14-1969, 3-10-1970, 11-5-1974, 3-10-1981, 3-11-1986,3-12-1994, 3-11-2008
Area, Frontage, and Yard Requirements:
A) A building lot shall have a minimum area of 87,120 square feet (2 acres) with a minimum frontage of two-hundred (200) contiguous feet on a State or Town maintained highway. Where a lot of record at the time of passage of this ordinance does not conform to the area and frontage requirements, such lot may be occupied by any use permitted by this ordinance, in the zoning district in which it lies with the following exceptions:
I. A two family building lot must meet the minimum acreage requirements for a two family dwelling
II. An industrial use must meet the minimum frontage and acreage requirements for an industrial use
III. All Commercial-Industrial/Multi-family use must meet General Requirements under District CI/MF
B) No new building shall be located nearer than fifteen (15) feet to abutter's property line and thirty (30) feet from the edge of the State or Town maintained highway. Except in district CI/MF all general requirements must be met
C) In all districts except CI/MF no building lot shall have more than one (1) two family dwelling thereon and will be known as a two family building lot. A two family building lot must contain a minimum area of three (3) acres with a minimum frontage of 300 contiguous feet on a State or Town maintained highway.
The Board has chosen to refer this question to counsel as there is divided opinion amongst the members.
The Board briefly reviewed the motion for rehearing filed by Signs 4 Jesus in regards to the claim of zoning invalidity with respect to the prohibition of electronic message boards due to enactment procedural error.
The Board reviewed those changes made to the proposed signage ordinance by Mr. Moore. The Board members were asked to bring any recommendations and discussion items to the table at the November meeting.
Being no further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Arell and seconded by Mr. Moore to adjourn the meeting at 9:35pm. Motion passes.
Jamie A Pike
Approved as written November 4, 2010
Thomas Jameson, Chairman