June 7, 2006

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

Approval of Minutes: May 3, 2006 & May 17, 2006

Ongoing Business - Continued Applications:

Map 2 Lots 30 & 37 – Site Plan Review for the construction of 250,000 s.f. of new warehouse space and 7,700 s.f. of manufacturing with related infrastructure, located at One Fine Chocolate Place, by Lindt & Sprungli, Inc.

Map 18 Lots 8, 9-3, 12, 13-1 for Scott Cornell, CC Property Group, LLC of 61 Union Road and David Moriaty of Winnicutt Road for a Lot Line Relocation and Consolidation.

Map 18 Lots 9-3, 13-1 for Scott Cornell, CC Property Group, LLC of 61 Union Road for Single Family Open Space Cluster Subdivision – Approval of Yield Plan for a 8 lot traditional subdivision or a 11 lot open space cluster subdivision.

New Business – Application Acceptance and Public Hearing

Map 5 Lot 21 - Site Plan Review for a Special Educational Facility for children and adults with autism, located at 237R Portsmouth Avenue, by the Birchtree Center, 33 Jewell Court –Suite 2, Portsmouth, NH.

Map 4 Lot 28-3 – A 4 Lot Subdivision with 800 linear feet of town roadway located off Wiggin Way, by DuoGen LLC, Raymond Carye, Trustee, 17 Monsignor O’Brien Highway, Cambridge, MA

Public Hearing:

1. Amend Section 4.4.1 Lot Configuration of the Subdivision Regulations to replace the section with a new Section 4.4.1 providing standards to promote lots which are shaped in a manner that promotes clarity of ownership, access, and the convenient and harmonious development of the land.

2. Amend Section 4.4.6 Driveways of the Subdivision Regulations to replace the section with a new Section 4.4.6 providing standards for the location and design of driveway access on Town roads.

3. Amend Section 2.3.8 Decision of the Board of the Subdivision Regulations to replace the section with a new Section 2.3.8 providing for a definition of “Active and Substantial Development” and providing conditions for the vesting of subdivisions and setting time limits for the completion of conditions when a project is approved.

4. Amend Section 4.5 Board Action of the Site Review Regulations to replace the section with a new Section 4.5 providing for a definition of “Active and Substantial Development” and providing conditions for the vesting of subdivisions and setting time limits for the completion of conditions when a project is approved.

Other:

Members Present: Chair Janet Johnson, Jeffrey Hyland, Gordon Barker, Martin Wool, Bruno Federico, Mary Jane Werner, and Town Planner, Charles (Chuck) Grassie.

Ms. Johnson noted that the May 3, and May 17, 2006 meeting minutes needed approval. Mr. Barker made a motion to approve the May 3, and May 17, 2006 minutes as written. Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Mr. Grassie had distributed copies of his Planner’s Review and a letter from the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) regarding the Regional Impact meeting that was held on June 6, 2006. Mr. Grassie stated that new plans were submitted today which have not yet been reviewed. The new plans were generated in response to the Civilworks’ review. He said the new plans would be forwarded to Civilworks for their additional review next week. Mr. Grassie indicated that a site walk was done on the property two weeks ago. He noted that the Regional Impact Report requests that a traffic study be done for Route 111, and that the applicant meet with NHDOT to discuss possible changes to the intersection of Route 111 and the Industrial Park. Also discussed at that meeting was the proposed secondary access to the site; and the possible connector road in Stratham. It was suggested that the Board not consider the possible connector road, at this time, because of the wetland crossings that would be necessary.

Barry Kimball and Marisa DiBiaso, from the Maguire Group, were present to represent the applicant. Representatives from Lindt & Sprungli were also present along with their General Counsel. Mr. Kimball gave a brief history of this project. He indicated that the only major change to the plans is the location of the conveyor bridge. They are going to be constructing the new building in two phases. The first phase will be 200,000 square feet, and the second phase will be 50,000 square feet. They needed to move the conveyor bridge so it would line up with the 200,000 square foot section. Mr. Kimball stated that the drainage report had been completed. They have added another dry detention pond to the plan. He said they have commenced a traffic study, which they hope to have ready for the next meeting. Mr. Barker asked about the proposed paper street that will go through the wetlands. Mr. Kimball stated that they were showing a potential secondary access which is not a part of their application. He said the necessary land was not all on their property. He described the potential secondary access. He indicated that they were willing to provide the corridor through the Lindt property as long as it doesn’t interfere with their development plans, per se. There were further discussions on the potential access; the conveyor bridge itself; how the conveyor bridge would be supported; what has been approved, but not yet built; and the timetable for when they will be built. Jed Marlat from Lindt & Sprungli said they hope to start building by early August. Additional discussions were had regarding: the width of the service road that goes around the buildings; and whether or not the surface would be pervious or impervious. Abutter Kathleen Breslan asked if the security fencing and lighting would affect her property. She was told that it would not impact her property. Tim Mason, from the audience, asked the Board how the proposed Active and Substantial Development amendment might affect Lindt’s approvals. He was told that it would not affect these approvals, because the earlier approval was in January, 2006.

Attorney Mark Beliveau, representing SIP Lot 5A, SIP, Lot 5B, and Rollins Hill Development, noted that the January, 2006 approval had a condition on it that all the conditions of the approval be satisfied within 120 days. He stated that the 120 day period has gone by. He indicated that the previous plan approved in January, 2006 showed that approximately 100,000 square feet was approved for warehousing, and approximately 45,000 square feet was approved for manufacturing. He said that at the last meeting those figures were flipped. Mr. Beliveau had asked, at that time, if there would be a separate application for that change. Mr. Grassie had indicated that the change would be made as part of this proposal. Mr. Beliveau felt that the change needs to be notices separately from this new proposal. He said it was represented at the January, 2006 meeting that Lindt had an agreement with the Town of Exeter regarding waste water and sewerage treatment. Mr. Beliveau stated that he had spoken to Exeter’s Engineer, Jennifer Perry. She hasn’t heard from Lindt’s engineers since January 6, 2006 when they said they would get the sewerage flow and volume information. Mr. Kimball stated that they had sent the agreement to the Town of Exeter three weeks ago with the required information. He went on to explain the usage figures. He felt that the interior changes to the building in the previous approval did not require new notice, since the changes to traffic, sewer, parking, and fire protection are taken into account with the new application. There was a brief discussion regarding the Exeter agreements. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Grassie if he thought the change of use was a problem. Mr. Grassie did not feel it was a problem, because this approval would make note that things would be changes, that there would be adequate parking, and there isn’t a significant change in the intensity of use on the site. There was further discussion on: the increased total number of employees; the number of employees per shift; sewerage flow; and parking. Town Administrator Paul Deschaine suggested that the Board treat this application, in part, as a Compliance Review of the January, 2006 approval because of the conditions brought up by Mr. Beliveau. He also suggested that a statement of fact regarding conditions of the January, 2006 approval be put into the approval for this application. Mr. Grassie indicated that he has been meeting with Lindt representatives regarding their plans. He conceded that they should have formally extended that deadline. He noted that he has a sentence in all the approvals indicating that all previous approvals would still stay in force unless modified by this approval. He said he would ask the applicant for a letter requesting an additional extension on the first phase they previously had approved for the next meeting. There was further discussion on the extension letter. Mr. Wool asked if a traffic study would be done, if the applicant would talk to the State about the entrance to the Industrial Park, check with the Fire Chief, and submit a copy of the agreement with Exeter before the next meeting. He was told yes. Mr. Kimball said that the new building would basically replicate the look of the existing buildings. Mr. Grassie asked the Board if they wanted the Town’s traffic consultant to do the review of the Traffic Study or have Regional Planning do the review since it has a regional impact. The Board was comfortable with Regional Planning reviewing the Traffic Study. Mr. Federico made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to July 19, 2006. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Map 18 Lots 8, 9-3, 12, 13-1 for Scott Cornell, CC Property Group, LLC of 61 Union Road and David Moriaty of Winnicutt Road for a Lot Line Relocation and Consolidation:

Since the Lot Line Adjustment is contingent upon the Cluster Subdivision, it will not be heard tonight.

Map 18 Lots 9-3, 13-1 for Scott Cornell, CC Property Group, LLC of 61 Union Road for Single Family Open Space Cluster Subdivision:

Mr. Grassie noted that the engineers for Scott Cornell had delivered plans new plans today. These plans were layout plans showing the road layout with the connection to the Carbonneau parcel, the design of the lots, the driveways, frontage locations, and building envelopes. He stated that they did not submit engineering plans. Mr. Grassie said that a list of waiver requests had also been submitted. After the engineering plans get reviewed by the Town’s engineer, there may be additional waiver requests that are needed. David Emanuel from Emanuel Engineering was present to represent the applicants. Attorney Thomas Keane was also present. Mr. Emanuel gave a brief history on this project. He noted that they had completed the test pits, and soils work to show that the lots can stand alone. They also redesigned the road back to a cul-de-sac instead of a through street. The plan shows a 60 foot wide paper street to the Carbonneau property, and a connecting bike/pedestrian path to the Carbonneau property as requested. Mr. Emanuel said they are providing approximately 44% open space for this project.

Mr. Emanuel indicated that they had submitted four waiver requests, and paraphrased the four waiver requests. The first request is from Section 4.4.2.a.i.i. – Streets, Maximum Length. The length of the road was increased to reduce the impact on the wetlands. The seconded request is from Section 4.6.84.6.8 – Roadway Design Criteria and Section 4.4.2.a.i – Dead End Streets. They would like to reduce the outside radius from 100 feet to 88.5 feet. The third waiver request is from Addendum A Table 1 – Roadway Design Criteria, Minimum Centerline Radius. They want to reduce this criteria from 125 feet to 73 feet to promote traffic calming in the residential neighborhood. Mr. Cornell has agreed that the proposed road will be a private road. The fourth waiver request is from Section 4.6.6.e – Open Space Layout for the minimum required open space land. Mr. Emanuel indicated that they are in the process of trying to finish the road design. He asked if they could sent the road design and details directly to Civilworks for review. He was told yes.

There was a discussion regarding the waiver request from Section 4.4.2.a.i.i. – Streets, Maximum Length. Mr. Federico asked if Mr. Cornell planned on upgrading Willow Pond so it can be used as a fire pond again. Mr. Grassie said the applicant has already agreed to upgrade the fire pond. Mr. Federico requested that it be made a condition that the fire pond be upgraded and a dry hydrant installed so the Fire Department can reach the end of the cul-de-sac before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is granted. There was a discussion on the road length and Mr. Federico’s requested conditions. Mr. Barker made a motion to grant the waiver request from Section 4.4.2.a.i.i. – Streets, Maximum Length from 800 feet to 1,350 feet with Mr. Federico’s suggested condition. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

There was a discussion regarding the waiver request from Section 4.6.84.6.8 – Roadway Design Criteria and Section 4.4.2.a.1 – Dead End Streets. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Grassie if he had spoken to Highway Agent Fred Hutton regarding this waiver request. Mr. Grassie said Mr. Hutton was satisfied with this waiver request. Mr. Barker asked about the road width. Mr. Emanuel said it was 22 feet to the cul-de-sac and then down to 18 feet at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wool requested a letter from Mr. Hutton approving the changes for the waiver request. Mr. Wool made a motion to grant the waiver request Section 4.6.84.6.8 – Roadway Design Criteria and Section 4.4.2.a.1 – Dead End Streets, conditioned upon a letter from Mr. Hutton indicating that he is ok with the changes. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

There was a discussion regarding the waiver request from Addendum A Table 1 – Roadway Design Criteria, Minimum Centerline Radius: 125 feet. Mr. Wool asked for and received a clarification of the centerline radius. Mr. Wool made a motion to approve the waiver request from Addendum A Table 1 – Roadway Design Criteria, Minimum Centerline Radius:125 feet down to 73 feet. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

There was a brief discussion regarding the waiver request from Section 4.6.6.e – Open Space Layout. Mr. Federico noted that the Board had encouraged the applicant to change the road layout to minimize the wetlands impact. Ms. Werner mentioned that this had been discussed previously. Ms. Werner made a motion to grant the waiver request from Section 4.6.6.e – Open Space Layout. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Federico indicated that these waivers were granted with the understanding that this would be a private road. He asked if the road would be up to Town standards, if the association requests that the Town takes over the road sometime in the future. Mr. Grassie said that before Mr. Hutton agrees with granting the waiver requests, he looks into whether or not he could maintain the road, if the Town does take it over at some future date. There were additional discussions regarding: the paper street; and how the open space would be deeded.

Mr. Keene stated that the open space lands would be designated as open space, titled in the association name, and dedicated to conservation in perpetuity. There was additional discussion on what uses might be allowed on the open space lands. Ms. Werner made a motion to continue the public hearing on the Cluster Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment applications to July 19, 2006. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

New Business – Application Acceptance and Public Hearing

Jennifer Viarengo, from Appledore Engineering, was present to represent the applicant. Barbara Frankel from the Birchtree Center was also present. Ms. Viarengo indicated that last year a Daycare Facility was approved for this site, with more students and staff. She stated that their proposal includes external site modifications, but the buildings would only have internal renovations and possible external face lifting to make them more appealing. She said the proposed plan is to accommodate a relocation of the existing driveway per the request of Public Service of NH (PSNH), and the construction of parking spaces to support the staff. They are still working on the driveway issue with PSNH. They plan to use the existing house for class rooms, the garage for a gym area, and the apartment as office space. Ms. Viarengo indicated that they would be putting in 500 square feet more of impervious area than what was previously approve, for a total of 10,500 square feet. She said the traffic generated from the Birchtree Center will be less than from the daycare. They would also hold once a month meetings and occasional educational seminars. They would install a stockade fence to prevent headlight glare to abutting properties. Ms. Viarengo stated that she had spoken to Allen Garland from the NHDOT. The State is going to be continuing the center lane from Squamscott Road to the Technical College, so there will be a turning lane in front of the property.

Ms. Werner asked if there would be a play area in front of the main building. Ms. Viarengo said the play area would be at the rear of the main building, where the current pool is located. They will be filling in the pool. She indicated that the greatest number of children in the play area at one time would be approximately five, unless they had a special picnic. The ratio of students to teachers is one to one. The ages currently range from 3 years old to 16 years old, but they have applied to go to 21 years old. The maximum number of students, with the expansion, would be 30. Ms. Viarengo said if they wanted to expand further, they would need to come back to the Planning Board. Mr. Hyland asked if the apartment use would remain. Ms. Viarengo said the apartment use would no longer be there once the school opened up. There was additional discussion on: traffic flow; the septic system requirements; the Police Chief’s comments; a deceleration lane; the children that would be in this program; how the program is funded, and where the children come from. Mr. Grassie stated that the plans are complete enough to accept jurisdiction. Ms. Werner made a motion to take this plan under jurisdiction. Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

There were discussions regarding: proposed lighting (they will be dark sky compliant); the well protection area; the NFPA Code requirement for a fire suppression system; the light at the end of the driveway; the septic system; the height and length of the stockade fence; the traffic; the location of the extension of the center lane on Portsmouth Avenue; and the waiver requests that will be submitted. Ms. Viarengo will be submitting a lighting plan and the location of a proposed sign for the next meeting. Mr. Wool made a motion to continue this application to June 21, 2006. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Map 4 Lot 28-3 – A 4 Lot Subdivision with 800 linear feet of town roadway located off Wiggin Way, by DuoGen LLC, Raymond Carye, Trustee, 17 Monsignor O’Brien Highway, Cambridge, MA:

Jonathan Ring from Jones & Beach Engineers was present to represent the applicant. He noted that Raymond Carye was not present tonight. Mr. Ring briefly described the property and the proposed subdivision. He said this lot is Lot 3 from the Winterberry Subdivision. There is a wetland crossing on the property that will need to be expanded to accommodate the proposed roadway. They met with the Conservation Commission regarding the wetland crossing. Each site will have individual water and septic, and the utilities will be underground. Mr. Ring indicated that they had received some comments from Civilworks, that they will be addressing. Mr. Grassie said the plans were complete enough to take under jurisdiction. Mr. Wool made a motion to take the plan under jurisdiction. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Abutter Phyllis Lurvey asked what type of houses would be built (single family or duplexes). She also asked about run off from the proposed lot closest to her property. Mr. Ring said he was not sure what type of houses would be built. There was a discussion on what type of house that could be put on the lots given their size; how the water would drain from the lots; who might build the houses; when construction might begin; when the existing culverts were installed; the proposed road being a dead end road off a dead end road; possibly reducing the road width from 24 feet to 22 feet for a public road or 18 feet for a private road; and possible waivers. Mr. Federico made a motion to continue this application to June 21, 2006. Bob Goodrich from the audience expressed a concern about the wetlands on the property and the road width. He strongly suggested that wording be added to all approvals that any potential run off be eliminated. There was additional discussion on the road width. Fire Chief Bob Law explained the things the Fire Department needs to take into consideration when requesting the 24 foot wide road width. He said if there is a water supply in the area, it makes a great deal of difference what they need for a road width. Mr. Ring stated that there is a fire cistern approximately 800 feet from the proposed road, and approximately 1,500 from the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Law said that distance was doable from a fire fighting standpoint. Mr. Deschaine expressed a concern regarding having a private road with only four homes. It is his belief that such a small subdivision would be unable or unwilling to maintain the road. Ms. Werner seconded Mr. Federico’s motion to continue the application to June 21, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.

Public Hearing:

Mr. Grassie indicated that the amendment to Section 4.4.1 Lot Configuration of the Subdivision Regulations was ready for approval. He said nothing had changed from what was previously discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Federico made a motion to approve the amendment to Section 4.4.1 Lot Configuration of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

The seconded amendment was to Section 4.4.6 Driveways of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Grassie noted that the only thing changed from the last meeting was the requirement to pave the first 16 feet of the driveway. It was changed to requiring the driveway to be designed to prevent drainage from entering onto the traveled way. Ms. Werner made a motion to approve the amendment to Section 4.4.6 Driveways of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

The third amendment was to Section 2.3.8 Decision of the Board of the Subdivision Regulations to provide for a definition of “Active and Substantial Development” and providing conditions for the vesting of subdivisions and setting time limits for the completion of conditions when a project is approved. Mr. Grassie paraphrased the proposed amendment. Ms. Werner made a motion to approve the amendment to Section 2.3.8 Decision of the Board of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Barker seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

The fourth amendment was to Section 4.5 Board Action of the Site Review Regulations to provide for a definition of “Active and Substantial Development” and providing conditions for the vesting of subdivisions and setting time limits for the completion of conditions when a project is approved. Mr. Grassie stated that this amendment does the same thing as the Subdivision Regulations amendment except it is for Site Plans. He paraphrased this amendment. Mr. Wool made a motion to approve the amendment to Section 4.5 Board Action of the Site Review Regulations. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Other – continued:

Mr. Grassie handed out copies of the invitation to the Rockingham Planning Commission’s annual dinner. He said he needs to know who will be going by tomorrow morning. He also informed the Board members of various conferences that were coming up.

Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Deschaine to give the Board a very brief overview of what is happening with the community water in the Winterberry Subdivision. Mr. Deschaine stated that the Public Works Commission went before the Board of Selectmen this past Monday (June 5, 2006). The Wiggin Farm Homeowner’s Association had contacted the Selectmen about the community well that services part of the Wiggin Farm Subdivision and all of the Winterberry Subdivision. The community water system did not meet the newly established EPA requirement for arsenic levels. Mr. Deschaine said that the problem has been taken care of in some way. He indicated that some of the homeowners had previously been pursuing and are still interested in connecting with the Aquarian Water system on the North Hampton side of the Winterberry Subdivision. The Selectmen have been discussing this issue, with no decisions made. There is a concern that if Winterberry is connected to the Aquarian Water system it would give Aquarian a franchise in Stratham. Mr. Wool stated that both Hampton and North Hampton are having a lot of trouble with Aquarian Water Works about leaks in the system and customer relations.

Ms. Johnson told Mr. Grassie she would like to discuss possible spot zoning for the Vocational Technical School, and landscaping design at June 21, 2006 meeting. Mr. Grassie said he also hoped to have some additional changes to the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations he has already been working on for the next meeting. Mr. Federico asked how the Active and Substantial Development affects the two remaining lots of the Shaw’s approval. Mr. Grassie said that since they have all the roadway and the infrastructure in place, they have some protection. They still have to come back to the Board for anything they want to put in those locations. The Board asked Mr. Grassie for the status of the Shell Gas Station (Trickett Realty Trust/Bob Sidiropoulos). Mr. Grassie indicated that he had a list of outstanding items for the site. He read a letter from Mr. Sidiropoulos’ attorney regarding the bond that was submitted for various items on the list. There was a discussion on the outstanding items on the list; the prohibition on outside displays; the elevations on the site; the monitoring wells; and the storm water drainage.

Ms. Werner made a motion to adjourn at 9:58 p.m. Mr. Barker seconded the motion, which carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda A. Beaudoin

Secretary Stratham Planning Board