STRATHAM PLANNING BOARD

PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

November 2, 2005

 

Agenda:            The Town of Stratham, Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the Stratham Town Hall, 10 Bunker Hill Avenue, Stratham, NH to consider the following:

 

Approval of Minutes: October 5, 2005 & October 19, 2005

 

                        Ongoing Business:

 

Map 1, Lot 13-12 Site Plan Review for a new automotive sales and service operation to include 19,000 sq. foot building with adequate parking, utilities and drainage, for Nissan of Stratham, located at 43 Portsmouth Avenue.

 

Map 1, Lots 13, 13-11 & 13-12 a lot line revision for W. Douglas Scamman, Jr., located on Portsmouth Avenue and River Road.

 

New Business: 

Application Acceptance & Public Hearing:

 

Map 16 Lots 16-0 & 32  Proposed lot line revision for Jotaph Realty, LLC for property located on Linwood and Lovell Lane.

 

Other:

 

                  Zoning Workshop

 

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

 

Ms. Johnson indicated that the minutes from October 5, 2005 & October 19, 2005.  Mr. Federico made a motion to approve the October 5, and October 19, 2005 minutes as written.  Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

New Business:

 

Map 16 Lots 16-0 & 32  Proposed lot line revision for Jotaph Realty, LLC for property located on Linwood and Lovell Lane:

 

Mr. Mason stepped down because of a possible conflict of interest.  Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Hyland to act as a voting member for this application.  Mr. Grassie noted that this application is complete enough to be accepted for jurisdiction.  Mr. Federico made a motion to take this application under jurisdiction.  Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Tim Phoenix was present to represent himself.  He gave a brief history of this application.  Approximately a year ago a five lot subdivision was approved by the Planning Board.  There had been an issue with a part of his property known as the Piper parcel, which has been straightened out.  He is here tonight for a lot line revision between Lots 2 and 3.  He will also be eliminating the lot line between Lot 2 and the Piper parcel.  He intends to build a house for himself and his family on Lot 2.  Mr. Phoenix pointed out the various changes on the plan he had put up for the Board to view.  Ms. Werner asked if Mr. Phoenix had any plans for subdividing Lot 2.  Mr. Phoenix said he does not anticipate any further subdivision, as there are a lot of wetlands on that lot.  Mr. Wool asked if a soils analysis had been done on the property.  Mr. Phoenix said yes.  Mr. Grassie noted that as part of his approval the Board had required Mr. Phoenix to take care of the issue with the Piper parcel as soon possible.  Ms. Werner made a motion to approve the Lot Line Adjustment for Map 16 Lots 16-0 & 32 as presented.  Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.  Mr. Mason resumed his seat as a voting member.

 

Ongoing Business:

 

Map 1, Lot 13-12 Site Plan Review for a new automotive sales and service operation to include 19,000 sq. foot building with adequate parking, utilities and drainage, for Nissan of Stratham, located at 43 Portsmouth Avenue:

 

Attorney Michael Donahue and Bruce Scamman from Emanuel Engineering were present to represent Seacoast Imported Auto and the Scamman family regarding the two applications before the Board this evening.  Roger Stenbak from Stenbak Design Associates, and Robin Bousa from Vanasse, Hangen Brustlin, Inc. were also present.  Mr. Donahue gave a brief history of this application and the accompanying Lot Line Adjustment application.  He noted that the traffic review raised an issue relating to the access drive to the site from Portsmouth Avenue.  He stated that they have made changes to the plan.  They redesigned the parking consistent with the waiver request that was granted, and made some other minor changes to the plan.  He said they are back tonight to discuss the proposed siting of the drop off valet doors, and the driveway issue.  Mr. Scamman explained how they met the request by the Board to keep five front parking spaces 10 feet wide.  He stated that they had enlarged the island at the entrance to the site from Portsmouth Avenue, at the request of the Police Chief, to try to prevent left hand turns from the siteHe He

e .  Mr. Donahue indicated that they had submitted an additional written waiver request from Section 5.15(i) – vehicle entry doors.  Mr. Stenbak submitted three colored renderings of the design of the proposed building, which show the valet doors.  He said they had tried to achieve the intent of Stratham’s Zoning Ordinance on design, yet meet some of Nissan’s design requirements.  Mr. Stenbak stated that the valet doors sit approximately 25 feet back from the front façade of the proposed building.  He explained that this area is only for pulling vehicles into the building so the customers can be comfortable while someone is doing intake on the vehicle.  The doors will have some landscaping that helps to screen them from view.  Mr. Wool made a motion to grant the waiver request from Section 5.15(i) – vehicle entry doors as submitted.  Mr. Mason seconded the motion.  There was a discussion on: whether or not the Board should grant the waiver request for the valet doors.  Mr. Wool did not feel this fits the criteria of what the Board was trying to avoid when it proposed the ordinance prohibiting garage doors from facing Portsmouth Avenue.  He said the Board was trying to avoid garage doors that would be right up against Portsmouth Avenue, and open when vehicles were in the process of being repaired.  He felt that the waiver request should be granted.  The motion to grant the waiver request from Section 5.15(i) – vehicle entry doors passed unanimously.

 

Mr. Donahue commented that there was a factual error on record that he would like to correct.  He said that in his letter of October 4, 2005 he indicated that the review that was undertaken by Stephen Pernaw was occasioned by Town Administrator Paul Deschaine contacting Mr. Pernaw and requesting him to specifically look at an alignment of Frying Pan Lane.  Mr. Donahue stated that was not accurate.  The request was passed to Mr. Pernaw through the Town Planner.  Both the Town Planner and Mr. Deschaine have assured Mr. Donahue and the applicant that they did not, in any way, order Mr. Pernaw to reach any particular conclusion. 

 

Mr. Donahue stated that they need some direction from the Board tonight as to which way they should proceed regarding the location of the entrance to the site from Portsmouth Avenue.  Mr. Scamman gave a history of the evolution of the plans for this portion of his father, W. Douglas Scamman, Jr.’s property.  Sometime around 2002 Mr. Scamman Jr. come before the Board for guidance with his plans for developing that portion of his land.  At that time, there had been a great deal of discussion regarding the possible realignment of Frying Pan Lane and River Road, with the Selectmen eventually deciding that there would be no realignment of those two roads.  In 2004, Mr. Scamman Jr. came back to the Board with a subdivision plan.  At that time, the Board revived a discussion regarding realigning River Road and Frying Pan Lane.  Bruce Scamman stated that they had done additional survey work for a possible realignment.  Police Chief Michael Daley asked if they could direct traffic into a no left turn out lane.  Now Steve Pernaw wants the entrance from Portsmouth Avenue moved closer to River Road, which would change the whole site.  Robin Bousa from Vanasse, Hangen Brustlin, Inc. stated that she really likes the original plans they proposed.  She went over the traffic impact this use would have on Portsmouth Avenue.  She responded to comments in Steve Pernaw’s review.  Ms. Bousa stated that both she and Mr. Pernaw agree that there would be no need to build the rear roadway, if they move the entrance on Portsmouth Avenue.  Ms. Bousa said that either plan still needs to be reviewed by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT).  She said if the Town prefers the proposal from Steve Pernaw, they would like Mr. Pernaw to come with them when they present it to the NHDOT because it is not their proposal.  Mr. Mason said he was confused because the Town is not realigning River Road, but it seems that Mr. Pernaw’s plan would be creating exactly what the Town was told we shouldn’t do without a light.  There was a great deal of further discussion on this issue.  There were additional discussions about truck turning radii on the site; trucks making deliveries to the site; traffic; acceleration and deceleration lanes; the back access road; and posting some type of sign to help prevent extra traffic on the residential portion of River Road.  The Board members were much more comfortable with the applicant’s original entrance plan to the site.  Mr. Mason made a motion to continue the public hearing on this application to January 4, 2006.  Mr. Hyland seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Map 1, Lots 13, 13-11 & 13-12 a lot line revision for W. Douglas Scamman, Jr., located on Portsmouth Avenue and River Road:

 

Attorney Michael Donahue requested a continuance on the lot line revision also. Mr. Mason made a motion to also continue the public hearing on the lot line revision to January 4, 2006.  Mr. Hyland seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Other:

 

Mr. Mason informed the Board that the Fire Department met last night regarding the new firehouse.  The Fire Department would like do a brief presentation of what they are proposing for a new firehouse, and to get some feedback from the Board on the site and architecture.  Architect Michael Keane gave a presentation to the Board.  He stated that he was hired to do a preliminary design of a stand alone fire station.  He said the goal is to present the preliminary design at Town Meeting in March as part of the Warrant Article that would split the Public Safety Complex into two separate buildings.  He indicated that the plan can only be preliminary until after Town Meeting.  They are only looking for feedback at this time.  Mr. Keane suggested that the Town hold a roundtable discussion with the boards, commissions, committees, and members of the interested public.  He noted that it would need to be a publicly noticed meeting.  He said the proposed footprint is approximately 16,000 square feet, with the total square footage of the building being approximately 26,000 square feet.  There would be a partial basement under the office portion of the building, and a story and ½ over the office portion.  Ms. Johnson asked if Mr. Grassie had a specific date in mind for the joint meeting.  Mr. Grassie stated that they were thinking of November 30, 2005 as a proposed joint meeting date.  There was a discussion on possible dates.  Ms. Johnson suggested that having a write up in the paper publicizing the meeting date would be a good idea.  Mr. Mason announced that an informational meeting at the fire house is scheduled for Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.  It was suggested that the fire department have an open viewing time at 6:30 p.m. then start the meeting at 7:00 p.m.  Mr. Keane indicated that he would be meeting with Mr. Grassie on Friday, and would drop off copies of the plans at that time.  Mr. Grassie asked if the plans could be digital.  Mr. Keane said yes.  Mr. Federico asked if these plans included both the fire department and emergency management.  Mr. Keane said that was correct.

 

Zoning Workshop

 

Mr. Grassie passed out copies of draft proposed zoning changes.  He stated that he made some changes to Section 5.7 - Affordable Senior Housing to include Workforce Housing.  He went over the proposed changes.  Mr. Mason suggested adding MAH Zone as a zone where it would be allowed.  There were discussions on: the number of acres needed before workforce housing could be built; how to make sure that the units would remain affordable housing; the density requirements; the number of units per building; the number of bedrooms per unit; septic systems; having some type of recreation allowed/required on the site; having a mix of market rate housing and affordable senior/workforce housing; architecture and landscaping; type of water system on the site; and minimum unit size.

 

Mr. Grassie indicated that he is proposing to add a new section to the zoning ordinance to authorize the Planning Board to require preliminary subdivision and site plan review.  There was a discussion on this proposed amendment.  The Board wanted to go forward with this amendment.

 

Mr. Grassie went over the proposed change to Section VII: Signs, Section 7.2.7 – Computation of Area.  There was a great deal of discussion on the proposed change to the ordinance.  The Board wanted to go forward with this amendment.

 

Mr. Grassie asked the Board what they would like to do about trying to create more commercial area in Town.  There was a great deal of discussion about the possibility of making more professional/ residential areas along Portsmouth Avenue towards Greenland; whether or not to try pursuing creating more commercial area in Town; and the possibility of creating some kind of mixed use cluster type/village concept zoning.  Mr. Grassie will draft something for the next meeting.

 

Other – continued:

 

Mr. Grassie reported that repair work on the pond was being done today at the Shell gas station.  He said it was his understanding that the as-built was finished, so he can get the elevations of the site.  He stated that he will be going out to the site to check to see what needs to be fixed on the site.  Mr. Grassie noted that Bob Sidiropoulos from Trickett Realty Trust is looking for his Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Shell gas station as soon as possible.  Mr. Sidiropoulos is willing to put up a bond for certain repairs.

 

  Mr. Grassie stated that he went out to the Talbot’s site yesterday, and had a conversation with the general contractor for this project.  He said that the general contractor did not exactly follow the plans for certain things.  The general contractor only recently installed the drainage, which has no vegetation established, at this time.  Mr. Grassie said that riprap had been installed improperly, with no filter fabric underneath.  Yesterday afternoon, the general contractor asked for a CO today.  Building Inspector Terry Barnes had asked Mr. Grassie to accompany him for the final inspection yesterday.  Mr. Grassie stated that he could not approve a CO there.  He and the general contractor had words.  Mr. Grassie asked the general contractor if he was willing to bond the site work.  The general contractor was not interested in bonding the site work.  Mr. Grassie stated that the site work contractor for this site was the same contractor as on the Shell gas station site.  Mr. Grassie explained how the silt fence had been installed, and how the general contractor was going to correct the situation.  Jute mat had been put down in the area.  Those corrections were acceptable, and the general contractor was given a Temporary CO, so Talbot’s can have their open house.  Mr. Grassie stated that there are two other units that will need CO’s.  He spoke to the general contractor again about bonding if he wanted to get the other units opened.  The general contractor wanted to get the matter taken care of today, but Mr. Grassie said there was time to discuss the matter further during the next few weeks.  Mr. Grassie told the general contractor that he would be speaking with the Planning Board tonight.  The general contractor had put down grass mixtures, which Mr. Grassie doesn’t expect to get established before the end of the growing season.  It is something Mr. Grassie feels will need to be addressed again in the spring.  Mr. Grassie also noted that the handicapped access was not built to spec.  Mr. Barnes suggested that the handicapped access be moved, which the general contractor agreed to do.  Mr. Grassie recommended requiring a bond to make sure that any problems created over the winter will be corrected. The Board agreed that bonding could be put in place for the site work for Talbot’s.  There were discussions on: the problems on the Talbot’s site; and correcting the problems.  The Board then had a brief discussion about the possibility of having an engineer do site inspections for compliance with all approved plans. 

 

Mr. Mason made a motion to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.  Mr. Wool seconded the motion, which carried. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Linda A. Beaudoin

Secretary Stratham Planning Board