November 3, 2004

Agenda: The Town of Stratham, Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., at the Stratham Town Hall, 10 Bunker Hill Avenue, Stratham, NH to consider the following:

Approval of Minutes: August 18, 2004 & September 1, 2004

New Business:

Presentation by Ad-Hoc Conservation Bond Subcommittee:

Map 4 Lot 5 – Conservation Easement Plan for the Sanderson Property located on Bunker Hill Avenue.

Application acceptance and public hearing:

Map 18 Lot 50, 51 & 55 – Application for Subdivision for David Batchelder, Located at 3 Barker Lane.

Map 9 Lot 17-2 - Site Plan Application for a proposed expansion for Meadowview Plaza, located at 64 Portsmouth Avenue.

Other:

1. Requested meeting with Board from True North Development (the Hills at Crockett Farms)

2. Planning Board Rules and Procedures

3. Continued 2005 Zoning Workshop

4. Any other business which may be proper to bring before the Board

Members Present: Acting Chairman Tim Mason, Frank Catapano, Janet Johnson, Bruno Federico, Kirk Scamman, and Town Planner, Charles (Chuck) Grassie.

Mr. Mason stated that Mr. Cornwell was unable to be there, so he asked Mr. Mason to act as Chairman for tonight. Mr. Mason indicated that the August 18, 2004 and September 1, 2004 minutes need approval. Mr. Federico made a motion to approve the minutes from August 18, 2004 and September, 2004. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Presentation by Ad-Hoc Conservation Bond Subcommittee - Map 4 Lot 5 – Conservation Easement Plan for the Sanderson Property located on Bunker Hill Avenue:

John Hutton, Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Conservation Bond Subcommittee, gave a brief presentation of the Sanderson Conservation Easement. He put up a plan so people could see it. He stated that they were before the Board as a courtesy. He said the Town has a closing on this Conservation Easement at the end of the month. Parcel B is outside of the conservation easement. Mr. Scamman asked if Parcel B is a buildable lot. Mr. Hutton was not sure if it was a buildable lot or not. He indicated that the parcel had been perk tested, and he believes that it will take a septic system. Mr. Mason asked about the location of access and frontage to Parcel B. Mr. Hutton stated that Rodney Sanderson had come before the Planning Board a few years ago. The frontage and access were issues at that time. Mr. Hutton said that the Board had steered him towards hiring an engineer to work that out. Mr. Sanderson did not follow up on the Board’s suggestion. Town Administrator Paul Deschaine stated that this was an easement plan only, it does not create new lines of ownership, and is not a subdivision. The present owner, Sally Sanderson, made the request that those two acres be excluded from the easement. Mr. Deschaine said Ms. Sanderson’s purposes for doing so are her own. If they request a subdivision at some future date, the 2 acres would need to meet the zoning requirements of that time. No warrantees are expressed or implied. Mr. Hutton described the parcel in detail. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the 2 acres not in the conservation easement, and public access to the conservation easement land from Autumn Lane.

Mr. Mason asked what the Board needed to do regarding this plan. Mr. Grassie stated that the Board just needs to review the plan, make a motion to accept and approve the plan as presented, and sign it. He noted that there were a few notations that still needed to be added to the plan. He stated that since there is a deadline on this easement, the Subcommittee would like the Board to give permission to have the Chairman sign the plan sometime between now and November 19, 2004 so it can be recorded prior to closing. Mr. Scamman made a motion to accept and approve the plan with the amendments to be made by the Town’s attorney, and to authorize the Chairman to sign the plan before November 19, 2004, outside of a Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Mason asked Mr. Federico and Mr. Catapano to act as voting members. Mr. Catapano seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Map 18 Lot 50, 51 & 55 – Application for Subdivision for David Batchelder, Located at 3 Baker Lane:

Mr. Grassie stated that there was a letter in the file from the State Office of Energy and Planning regarding this application. He paraphrased the letter. The applicant had requested a continuance November 17, 2004 to review the State’s letter and Mr. Grassie’s comments with his attorney. Mr. Catapano made a motion to continue the Batchelder application to November 17, 2004. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Map 9 Lot 17-2 - Site Plan Application for a proposed expansion for Meadowview Plaza, located at 64 Portsmouth Avenue:

Mr. Scamman was not sure if he was an abutter to this property. He was notified that he was not an abutter. Jonathan Ring from Jones & Beach Engineers was present to represent the applicant. Pat Bedford from Talbots, and Architect Michael Keane were also present. Mr. Ring indicated that Talbots occupies the current 7,500 square foot space. They are proposing to add another 9,000 square feet (6,500 retail and 2,500 storage space). They currently have 44 parking spaces. The plan requires 75 parking spaces, and they are proposing a total of 77 parking spaces. There would be 4 handicapped spaces. Mr. Ring briefly went over the expanded landscaping plan; the proposed lighting; and the proposed sloped granite curbing at the rear of the parking spaces. He said they had extended the sloped granite curbing as requested by Civilworks. He stated that they had also addressed Police Chief Michael Daley’s concerns about traffic flow, which necessitated a location change for the dumpster. Note 12 on Sheet C2 addresses fire protection. Both Hurlbert Toyota and Dreher-Holloway BMW have existing fire cisterns. Mr. Ring noted that he had received a copy of a letter from Fire Chief Robert Law indicating that he has no concerns regarding the proposed expansion plan for this applicant. Mr. Ring briefly went over the snow storage plan; the proposed septic plan; drainage; and the wetland buffer zone. He stated that they were in the process of addressing other concerns mentioned by Civilworks. Mr. Ring passed out copies of the waiver request letter. They are requesting waivers from Site Plan Regulations Section V, Subsection 5.9(g)(ii) – Parking Space Dimensions; and Subsection 5.16 – Open Space Setback. The applicant is would like to reduce the size of the parking spaces from 10’ x 20’ to 9’ x 20’ to match the existing parking space size. The second waiver is from the 25 foot side setback. Mr. Ring explained the reason for this waiver request. Mr. Keane went over the architectural plans in detail. The proposed expansion will look the same as the existing building. The only change is the small tower in the back corner. The existing end wall of the Talbot’s store will be used as a firewall between the existing and proposed buildings.

Mr. Catapano asked if the applicant was proposing a right-of-way to the abutting property. Mr. Ring stated that there is a 25 foot wide driveway easement to the property on the north, and a similar easement to the south into the Windy Knoll shopping center. There was a brief discussion regarding the easements. Ms. Johnson was concerned about signage on the proposed tower section. Mr. Keane stated that the signage would comply with Town Zoning Requirements. Mr. Bedford indicated that there is one remaining open space on the freestanding sign. If they replace the upright sign supports to bring it up to the allowed 24 feet height, they would have enough space for additional panels. Ms. Johnson wanted to make sure that the look of the building remains the same. Mr. Federico asked if Talbots shares a driveway with the adjoining property. Mr. Ring said it does. The Windy Knoll Plaza does not have its own exit onto Portsmouth Avenue. Windy Knoll uses Talbot’s driveway and Hurlbert Toyota’s driveway. There was a brief discussion regarding traffic, and fire protection. Mr. Mason stated that he did not like reducing the width of parking spaces. He said that full size vehicles do not fit in the narrower parking spaces. He mentioned that various applicants along Portsmouth Avenue have donated money in lieu of putting in a fire cistern. He suggested that the applicant check with Fire Chief Bob Law to see what may be needed, such as money for fire hoses to be able to reach the site, etc. Mr. Keane said he had spoken to Mr. Law, who suggested a donation for either improving or creating a water source somewhere in town. Mr. Mason said a note regarding any donation should be included on the plan. There was additional discussion regarding parking space size. Both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Mason would prefer a waiver request for the total number of required spaces to make sure that the spaces are full sized. Mr. Ring said he would check into the matter. Mr. Grassie indicated that the applicant still has several issues from Civilworks review that need to be addressed. Mr. Scamman made a motion to take the plan under jurisdiction. Mr. Catapano seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Federico made a motion to continue this application to the November 17, 2004 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Other:

Requested meeting with Board from True North Development (the Hills at Crockett Farms):

Architect Michael Keane was present to represent the applicant. He said he had a couple of housekeeping issues that needed to be addressed, and put up a plan showing the proposed layout of the subdivision. He mentioned that there were two building permits being held up for Site 2 because of some modifications the applicant has made in the layout of the subdivision. Mr. Keane stated it was his understanding that the applicant had retained flexibility in terms of each of the individual lots. He said that the approved plans do not show any building footprints, they only show the developable areas. A draft plan had been presented, at some point in the approval process, showing the proposed layout. Site 2 had shown three attached housing units with two bedrooms each. Because of the topography of Site 2 and building setbacks, it became apparent that the site would best be developed with two detached houses with three bedrooms each. Mr. Keane said that when the building permits for those units were submitted, Building Inspector Terry Barnes questioned if this was an amendment to the approved plan. Mr. Keane stated that he had spoken to both Mr. Barnes and Mr. Grassie on this issue. Mr. Keane said it was his understanding that they wanted the Board to be informed about changes to the plan as they expected to see them. He indicated that there is one additional site where the applicant plans on changing from three attached units to two detached units. They plan on building a total of 73 units instead of the approved 75, with the understanding that the 73 units will max out the approved number of bedrooms. They are forfeiting the ability to build three units on those two building site, because they would not be able to meet building setbacks. Mr. Keane asked the Board if they were comfortable with the applicant working administratively with Mr. Grassie, and keeping the Board up to date with any modifications.

Mr. Mason said he seems to recall that when this application was presented, there were suppose to be some affordable units and some stand alone units. By reducing the number of triplexes, the number of affordable units is also being reduced. Mr. Keane indicated that even the triplexes were selling for $300,000 plus. Mr. Grassie said he had reviewed the approval, which talked about single family units on one side, and mixed use on the other side. The mixed use units would have x number of 2 bedrooms and x number of 3 bedrooms, but no restrictions on how those would be put together. He stated that he had seem some plans with footprints, but there were no footprints on the recorded plans. Mr. Grassie explained the discussions that took place between himself, Mr. Barnes and the applicant’s representatives. There was a great deal of further discussion on this matter, and whether or not an amended site plan is necessary. Some of the issues discussed were: the number of units vs. the number of bedrooms; the possible need to make changes to the street numbers; changes that might need to be made to the Homeowners Association fees; the type of homes on the sites; and the building permits that were being held pending this meeting. Mr. Mason said he would like to have the applicant provide the number of sites they wish to change, the scope of the effect on 911, what it does to the condo documents, and whether or not the Town’s Attorney needs to review them. Three of the five Board members indicated that they want the applicant to come back for a minor Site Plan Amendment. Mr. Keane asked if they would only be discussing any changes to the plans at the Public Hearing. He was told that was correct. Mr. Grassie noted that there was nothing in Stratham’s regulations regarding a Minor Site Plan Review.

Mr. Keane indicated that he had a set of plans and mylars with a change in the title block changing the title from “Subdivision Plan in the Town of Stratham” to “Condominium Plan in the Town of Stratham”. He submitted those plans to Mr. Grassie. Mr. Keane indicated that Attorney Malcolm McNeill would get in touch with Mr. Grassie to discuss that change. Mr. Grassie briefly explained this issue to the Board. He suggested that the applicant make this administrative change to the amended site plans they will be submitting. The Board said that the two building permits that are on hold can be released.

Other:

Mr. Grassie mentioned that he had received a plan for a condominium conversion for Stratham Plaza for recording purposes only. He did not believe that it had been before the Board. If it hasn’t been before the Planning Board, it would need to do so. He said that under State law, the Board would not be able to deny it, but they can require a review to make sure it meets Town Zoning and Regulations. Mr. Mason said he remembers the applicant coming before the Board. After a brief discussion, Mr. Grassie said he will check into this issue further. There was a discussion about the process of creating a regulation regarding Minor Site Plan Reviews, and how a Minor Site Plan Review would work. Mr. Grassie mentioned that a perfect example of a use for a Minor Site Plan Review is the situation that happened at the old Shaw’s Plaza as part of the rework of the roadway to Portsmouth Avenue. They started to do construction on the entry to create a turning lane to exit the plaza. They call Mr. Grassie and asked if he wanted a copy of the designed plans. Mr. Grassie said he would like one for his file. Building Inspector Terry Barnes drove by and saw them working on the entry. He did not know anything about it. Mr. Barnes felt they needed to go to the Planning Board because they were eliminating some parking spaces. Mr. Mason felt that since the Shaw’s building is currently vacant, there was no need to come before the Planning Board. When there is a new tenant, they would then need to come before the Board to make sure they have adequate parking for that use. He suggested that one of the criteria for a Minor Site Plan Review should be that it needs to be shown to the Planning Board, possibly informally. Shaw’s will be coming in for a minor site plan review.

Mr. Mason mentioned that he had been approached, outside of a Planning Board meeting, regarding the money that has been donated/contributed over the years for off-site improvements. He suggested putting together a list of the donations/contributions to have available. He also suggested not putting restrictions on how the money is used, so the Selectmen have flexibility on where to use the money. There was a brief discussion regarding Mr. Mason’s suggestion on the flexibility of where to use donations/contributions from developers.

Mr. Catapano made a motion to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda A. Beaudoin,

Secretary Stratham Planning Board