STRATHAM PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Agenda: The
Town of Stratham, Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on
The
petition is requesting the Town extend the General Commercial Zone on the
eastern side of
Day-Care Facilities: To add a new Section 5.11 Day-Care Facilities to the Stratham Zoning
Ordinance to address the location of Day-Care and Childcare facilities with the
Town of
Expansion
of Industrial Zone
To amend the Official
Zoning Map of the Town of
Expansion of Retirement Planned Community
Zone
To amend the Official Zoning Map of
the Town of
New
Business:
1. Map 6
2. Map 7
Map 1 Lot
13-12 Nissan of Stratham, Request for 45 day Extension of Site Plan Approval
& Lot Line Relocation (Map 1 Lot 13)
Members Present: Chair Janet Johnson; Jeffrey Hyland, Gordon Barker, Martin Wool, Bruno Federico, Mary Jane Werner, and Charles (Chuck) Grassie, Town Planner.
Ms. Johnson said the Board had not
read the
Petition to Rezone Properties on
Portsmouth Avenue to Bunker Hill Avenue:
The petition is requesting the Town extend the General Commercial Zone on the
eastern side of Portsmouth Avenue northward to the centerline of the intersection
with Bunker Hill Avenue from it’s current Professional Residential Zone
designation. The district would be 800
feet in depth or follow closely the rear boundaries of the parcels affected. Parcels affected include Map 9 Lots 10, 11,
12 and 13.
Ms. Johnson read the description
aloud. Jim Cushman was present to speak
in favor of this petition. His family
owns the property on the corner of
Several members of the audience spoke
against recommending this petition. Anne
Sloan stated that two of the houses on the parcels they want to rezone are
historical. Building Inspector Terry
Barnes informed everyone that he had received a Demolition Permit for the house
on the corner of
Mr. Grassie noted that the Board had copies in their packets of comments from Town Attorney Lynn Morse regarding the proposed zoning changes discussed on the following pages.
Signs: To Amend Sections 2.1 Definitions and Section 7 Signs of Stratham Zoning Ordinance to address real-estate signs, contractor signs, snipe signs, yard sale signs, agricultural signs, and other off-site signage issues. The amendment would restrict the off-site location of real-estate signage, would address other types of signage, and would provide for the enforcement of the ordinance and removal of any illegal signage.
Mr.
Federico asked if the Town had a definition of a snipe sign. Mr. Grassie said this ordinance provides a
definition. Mr. Federico said he was
comfortable with the proposed sign ordinance.
Mr. Grassie indicated that a business owner had called regarding banner
signs. The business owner uses banners
several times a year for sales. Mr.
Grassie reminded the business owner about Special Promotional signs that are
available for a total of 8 days a year, but no more than 4 consecutive days in
a row. The business owner than asked if
that could be expanded to 10 days/4 times a year. Mr. Grassie had spoken to Code Enforcement
Officer Terry Barnes about this suggestion.
Mr. Barnes was concerned about abuse of the additional days. Mr. Deschaine noted that the sign ordinance
that people have before them tonight incorporates changes that were discussed
at previous meetings. He suggested that
the changes to this ordinance be read aloud so people will know what the
specific changes are. Mr. Grassie
explained what had been changed.
There
were discussions on: prohibited and allowed contractors signs; signs on trucks;
Special Promotional permits; the length of Special Promotional permits; and
banners. Mr. Grassie stated that if they
wanted to change the length of the Special Promotional permits, it would have
to be done in two parts. The sign
portion which allows Special Promotional signs, and a separate portion
regarding the special sales themselves.
The second portion could not be done until next year. After a brief additional discussion, Mr.
Federico made a motion to approve the changes to Sections 2.1 Definitions
and Section 7 Signs of the
Zoning Ordinance and to recommend them to the voters at Town Meeting in
March. Ms. Werner seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously.
Day-Care
Facilities: To add a new Section 5.11 Day-Care Facilities to the
Stratham Zoning Ordinance to address the location of Day-Care and Childcare
facilities with the Town of
Mr. Grassie indicated that there had been a few changes to the proposed
ordinance since the last meeting. He
briefly went over the changes. The main
changes were to the lot sizes. Ms.
Johnson noted that there had previously been a lot of discussion on this
proposed ordinance. Anne Sloan from
Mr. Grassie gave a history of the reasons for this proposed
definition. He said that if the Board
wants to change the Farming Ordinance itself, it can be done next year. Mr. Barker objected to the reduction in the
requirement that only 35% of the produce has to come from the farm. He felt that it should remain at 50%. Nate Merrill from the Stuart Farm spoke in
favor of approving the definition of farming this year, and working on a
farming ordinance next year. He felt
that there could be circumstances where the 35% produce from the farm made
sense. Caroline Robinson from Berry Hill
Farm also spoke in favor of approving the definition, but felt that it should
be 50% produce from the farm. Town
Administrator
Historic Review for Demolition: To
add a new Section 16.5 Historic Demolition Delay To require that prior
to any demolition of any home, barn or other structure, which is assumed to be
over 50 years in age, be reviewed by the Heritage Commission prior to any
issuance of a permit to demolish such structure. The new section would provide for an expedited
review with an extended review period for structures within the town, which
were found to be historic, or of significant importance to the heritage of the
community:
Mr. Grassie stated that this is
the first time the Board has seen this version of the proposed ordinance. He said this proposed ordinance is based on
both
Ms. Johnson did not feel this
proposed ordinance was ready for a recommendation to the voters. Mr. Grassie stated that tonight is the last
night the Board can make any changes to the proposed ordinance before they make
a decision, at the
Expansion of Industrial Zone To
amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Stratham to correctly show the
boundaries of Map 2 Lot 30 and to add Map 2 Lot 26 to the Industrial Zone:
Mr. Grassie put the map on the
wall which shows the corrected boundaries for the current Lindt & Sprungli
and the Breslin properties, which were recently combined. He said the map is not exactly correct. He has the survey data, but it is not yet
digitized. He will be getting the survey
data to Regional Planning so the maps can be updated and corrected. Mr. Grassie indicated that the Co-op Middle
School is currently zoned Industrial. He
would like to get that rezoned to Residential/ Agricultural or some zone other
than Industrial. There were discussions
on: how taxes might be affected on the former Breslin property, if it is rezoned;
and the extent of the expansion towards
Expansion of
Retirement Planned Community Zone To amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of
Mr. Grassie put the map on the
wall which shows a proposed expansion of the Retirement Planned Community
Zone. He said that he should be getting
corrected maps from Regional Planning soon.
He went over the incorrect portions of the map. Mark Stevens, who owns some of the above
properties, had a survey map of the property, which is suppose to contain the
correct data. There was a discussion on
the discrepancies in the maps and surveys.
Ms. Johnson said she was disconcerted that they were looking at
incorrect maps. Mr. Deschaine explained
that the Tax Maps are continuously changed when the Town obtains new information,
and thus are not always exactly correct.
There was a great deal of discussion on the discrepancies on the Tax
Maps. Mr. Federico felt that a
Retirement Planned Community Zone for these lots along the lines of a cluster
development with open space, was a good use of this particular property. There was further discussion regarding: the
type of retirement homes that would be built; traffic flow on
Mr. Federico made a motion to
continue the discussion on the Expansion of the Industrial Zone and the
Expansion of the Retirement Planned Community Zone to
New Business:
Map 6
The applicant, Mark Stevens, was
present to represent his company.
Richard Westergren from Poyant Signs was also present. Mr. Stevens went over the individual signs
and their locations. He had spoken to
Code Enforcement Officer Terry Barnes regarding the size of the signs. Mr. Barnes had indicated that the size of the
signage was according to code. Mr.
Stevens stated that Seacoast Newspapers had a pylon sign on the corner of the
property. He said that Seacoast
Newspapers wanted the sign so they dug it up and took it with them. He would like to be able to put up a similar
sign that meets code with a directional arrow to whoever occupies the back
building.
Ms. Johnson asked if it would
have the same motif as the building. She
was told yes. There were discussions on:
the internal lighting of the pylon sign; the letter board portion of the sign;
the height of the sign; and putting “Welcome to Stratham” on the sign. Mr. Federico asked Mr. Barnes if putting
“Welcome to Stratham” on the bottom of the sign would be considered additional
signage for CVS. Mr. Barnes said it
would not be considered as part of CVS’s signage. Mr. Federico requested having “Welcome to
Stratham” added to the bottom of the CVS sign as a condition of the signage
approval. Mr. Barnes asked if Mr.
Stevens knew where the pylon sign for the Seacoast Newspaper building would be
located. Mr. Stevens said it would be in
the same location as shown on the existing conditions of the site plan. There was a brief discussion regarding the
allowed size for the rear building. Mr.
Stevens said the sign that was
previously there for the Seacoast Newspaper building was be 4’ x 10’ (according
to Jones & Beach Engineers). Ms.
Johnson was concerned about what might be put on that sign. Mr. Stevens said he would bring in signage
information when he comes in for a new tenant in the rear building. Mr. Federico made a motion to approve the
signs for CVS as presented with the addition of adding “Welcome to Stratham” at
the bottom of the sign; and the 4’ x 10’ replacement sign for the rear building
subject to review by the Planning Board.
Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Map 7
Jonathan Ring from Jones &
Beach Engineers was present to represent the applicant. He gave a brief history of this
property. The lot size is 33 +/-
acres. There is a substantial portion of
wetlands on the property. The applicant
would like to obtain permission for a driveway access to the upland portion of
the property for recreational use. It
would be a 10’ wide gravel driveway with a 40’ wide, 180’ long gravel parking
area. Mr. Ring stated that there is no
house on this property. They are
proposing two 15” culverts. They have
been working on the Wetlands Permit Application. They met with the Conservation Commission,
but the Commission has not seen the amendments to the wetlands
application. Mr. Ring said that there
would be approximately 4,900 square feet of wetland impact, and
approximately12,200 square foot impact to the wetland buffer. He indicated that they submitted a request
for a Conditional Use Permit for the impacts.
Mr. Federico asked if the
property had a house on it. He was told
no. Mr. Hyland asked if the land was
buildable. Mr. Ring said it was
buildable for a gravel driveway, but he doesn’t know if it would be buildable
for a house. He was asked if the
applicant was planning on using the property for private recreational use. Mr. Ring said yes. He noted that the Conservation Commission had
asked for a gate to prevent public use of the property. Mr. Barker indicated that the Conservation
Commission had also requested that they reduce the width of the side slopes to
reduce the impact to the wetlands and the wetland buffer. Mr. Ring mentioned that they had also made
the driveway narrower. They will use
silt fencing during construction to protect the wetlands. Mr. Ring read the request for a Conditional
Use Permit aloud. Mr. Barker stated that
Conservation Commission had concerns regarding distu
Ms. Werner stated that the Zoning
Ordinance allows the Planning Board to require an applicant to submit an
environmental impact assessment, at the applicant’s expense. She strongly suggested that the Planning
Board require an environmental impact assessment. Mr. Grassie said he would need to meet with
Mr. Ring to decided on what would need to be included in an environmental
impact study. Once the study is done, it
would need to go out to the Town’s consultant for review. Mr. Grassie suggested continuing the public
hearing to either February 21, or
Map 1
Mr. Federico asked how long it had been since the
applicants had been before the Planning Board.
It was approximately a year. Mr.
Grassie indicated that they received their Site Specific Approval last
week. He said they were mostly ready to
have the plans signed. There are a few
notes that need to be added to the full set of plans, and they need final sign
off from Civilworks. Mr. Grassie
explained why it has taken the applicants so long to get ready for final
signing of their plans. Mr. Wool made a
motion to grant the applicants the requested 45 day Extension of Site Plan
Approval and Lot Line Relocation. Ms.
Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Other:
Ms.
Werner made a motion to adjourn at
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Beaudoin
Secretary Stratham Planning
Board