May 17, 2006

Agenda: The Town of Stratham, Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Stratham Town Hall, 10 Bunker Hill Avenue, Stratham, NH to consider the following:

Approval of Minutes: April 19, 2006

Old Business:

Requested meeting on Cornell & Carbonneau Road issues.

Continued Public Hearing:

Amendment to the subdivision regulations to add a new Section 4.7 Affordable Senior Housing in accordance with the authorization present in the Affordable Senior Housing, Ordinance Section 5.7 of the Stratham Zoning Ordinances. These regulations are required to administer and regulate the flexibility to provide a more affordable housing option for our senior population. This amendment sets forth the procedure and standards for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for Affordable Senior Housing.

Other:

1. Sub & Site Review Workshop

a. Lot Configuration & Driveway Regulations

b. Active and Substantial Development Regulations

c. Digital Submission Requirements

d. Landscaping Regulations

e. Low Impact Development Regulations

f. Other

Members Present: Chair Janet Johnson, Jeffrey Hyland, Mary Jane Werner, Martin Wool, and Town Planner, Charles (Chuck) Grassie. Gordon Barker arrived late to the meeting.

Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Hyland to act as a voting member for tonight since Mr. Federico is not in attendance. Ms. Johnson noted that the minutes from April 19, 2006 needed to be approved. Ms. Werner made a motion to approve the April 19, 2006 minutes as written. Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Old Business:

Requested meeting on Cornell & Carbonneau Road issues:

Gordon Barker arrived late to the meeting. Mr. Grassie indicated that Scott Cornell and Albert Carbonneau had requested a meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Grassie said it was his understanding that Mr. Cornell and Mr. Carbonneau do not want to connect the two subdivision projects. Mr. Cornell would like to do a cul-de-sac at the end of his subdivision. Mr. Grassie was not sure if Mr. Carbonneau wanted to put in a cul-de-sac or a T/hammerhead intersection. Mr. Cornell stated that the Board had requested that the roads for both subdivisions be connected. He said that the two roads would not line up without major restructuring of both subdivision plans. He had a drawing showing the possible connection. Mr. Cornell gave his reasons for not wanting the connection. He stated that he was willing to make this a private road in exchange for keeping the cul-de-sac, with a paper road connecting to the Carbonneau project for a possible future connection. He said he had spoken to the Fire Chief and Highway Agent, who indicated that they had no problem with his roadway design, if it remains private. There was a discussion regarding what tree buffer and stone walls would need to be removed if the connecting roadway was built.

Scott Gove was present representing Mr. Carbonneau. Mr. Gove noted that they had been before the Planning Board for a preliminary discussion at the last meeting. He stated that Mr. Carbonneau was also willing to put in a paper street for a possible future connection. Mr. Grassie asked where the applicant was planning on putting the house on Lot 10. Mr. Gove said the location would be on the plans when they are submitted for their formal application. Mr. Grassie stated that Mr. Cornell’s project has been before the Planning Board for some time. He felt that any connection should match up with the location of Mr. Cornell’s proposed road. Mr. Gove said it didn’t make sense to connect a public road with a private road. Mr. Barker indicated that when Mr. Cornell was at the Conservation Commission meeting, he had suggested to Mr. Cornell eliminating the roadway from Union Road and connecting his project to Mr. Carbonneau’s. Mr. Cornell had stated, at that time, that there was no road proposed to Mr. Carbonneau’s property. Mr. Grassie said that the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Highway Agent had told him they would like the two projects connected. There was a great deal of discussion on: the length of the roadway; whether or not to connect the two subdivisions; how the two roads could be connected; if a paper street would be a good alternative; problems with the connection between Roby Jewell and Smith Farm Road, and how to possibly correct the problems; possibly having a pathway or sidewalk between the two subdivisions; and road widths the Town would prefer. Town Administrator Paul Deschaine said that homeowners associations with under 10 members don’t have sufficient number of members to maintain the infrastructure of the privately owned roads in the development. Lucy Cushman, from the audience, stated that having a connection between the two subdivisions would provide for an internal bus stop for children. Mr. Barker made a motion to require the applicants to come to the Board with a plan showing a connection between these two subdivisions. Ms. Werner seconded the motion. Tim Mason stated that his plans for the Carbonneau Subdivision and Mr. Cornell’s plans for his subdivision are ready for submission. He said that the roads would not line up smoothly. There was more discussion on the connection, and why they can not connect smoothly. The applicants need to know what the Board wants them to do before they submit their plans. Mr. Grassie pointed out that if Mr. Cornell has to change his plans significantly, he could lose the approval for his Cluster Subdivision or his bonuses because of certain presentations made to the Board. Mr. Barker’s motion failed with a vote of one in favor, two against and one abstention. Mr. Barker asked if the paper street would be required. Mr. Mason stated that both he and Mr. Cornell were willing to providing a deeded 60 foot right-of-way. Ms. Johnson stated that she would also like to see a note in the deeds for the lots in Mr. Cornell’s subdivision that the road would remain a private road. There was additional discussion on: the right-of-way/paper street; having a pathway or sidewalk between the two subdivisions; and the rights of property owners to petition the Town to change a private road to a public road. Mr. Mason and Mr. Cornell agreed that they will provide a 60 foot wide deeded right-of-way between the two subdivisions and some type of hard packed bike path up the middle of the right-of-way.

Mr. Grassie stated that he had made the requested changes to this proposed amendment. Ms. Werner asked if it should be added to Section E(ii) at the end “as defined by ------“. Mr. Grassie stated that it was already in the Zoning Ordinance. He did not feel it was necessary to add it here. Ms. Werner made a motion to add Section 4.7 Affordable Senior Housing to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Barker seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Other:

Subdivision & Site Plan Review Workshop:

Draft Lot Configuration & Driveway Regulations:

Mr. Grassie noted that this one had not yet been sent to Public Hearing. He went over the requested changes he had made to the proposed Lot Configuration and Driveway Regulation. There were discussions on: whether or not a driveway should be required to be paved for the first 16 feet. The Board decided to take out the requirement to pave the first 16 feet of a driveway. Mr. Wool made a motion to send the Lot Configuration and Driveway Regulations to Public Hearing. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Draft Active and Substantial Development Regulations:

Mr. Grassie indicated that a copy of this proposed regulation was in the Board’s books at the last meeting. He said it hasn’t changed from that time. He read the proposed regulation aloud. He explained that this regulation was prompted by a Supreme Court decision. Mr. Grassie said he had drafted one for Site Plan Review and one for Subdivisions. There were discussions regarding: the 120 day time frame to meet precedent conditions; what would be considered active and substantial development; how the Site Plan Review and Subdivision regulations differ; how to get an extension on approvals; the numbering of these regulations; and whether or not the draft is ready for public hearing. Ms. Werner made a motion to send the Active and Substantial Development Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations to Public Hearing. Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Recording of Plats:

Mr. Grassie had drawn up a section regarding recording of plats. It basically states that approved boundary plans will be recorded with the Rockingham County Registry of Deed within seven (7) days of the date of signature by the Board. Mr. Deschaine stated that this proposed regulation has been a standing policy of the Town. He did not think it needed to be put into the regulations. He said he felt that something should be drafted covering applicants who hold up the recording of plans for one reason or another by not bringing in mylars to be recorded or checks for recording fees. There was a brief discussion on this proposed regulation, and Mr. Deschaine’s suggestion. Mr. Grassie will work on drafting a regulation encompassing Mr. Deschaine’s suggestion.

Draft Digital Submission Requirements:

Mr. Grassie stated that this draft amendment is for both Subdivision and Site Plan Review. He paraphrased the proposed amendment. He said the meat of the amendment is that when the mylar and paper plans are submitted, they are also submitted in digital format. He explained the reasons for this proposed amendment. There was a discussion on this proposed amendment, and what data is needed to be able to submit plans digitally. Mr. Grassie will check into the necessary data. Mr. Deschaine questioned the necessity of requiring two mylars. There was a discussion on that question. The Board did not feel that two mylars were necessary. There was also a discussion on the number of required paper copies and the disposition of those copies. The Board will continue to require six paper copies of the plans.

Other:

Mr. Grassie indicated that the Landscaping Regulations, and Low Impact Development Regulations are not finished yet. Ms. Johnson asked the Board members to take home the draft Landscaping Regulations to review for the next meeting. The Board decided that they would not meet on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 because of the holiday. The second meeting in July would be a Public Hearing instead of a Workshop.

Mr. Wool made a motion to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda A. Beaudoin

Secretary Stratham Planning Board