STRATHAM PLANNING BOARD

PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

November 15, 2006

Agenda: The Town of Stratham, Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 15, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Stratham Town Hall, 10 Bunker Hill Avenue, Stratham, NH to consider the following:

Approval of Minutes: October 18^th & November 1st

Other:

Zoning Workshop – NH Community College – meeting with Subcommittee and review of draft ordinance.

Continued Public Hearing:

Map 2 Lot 2, a 2-Lot Minor Subdivision for Claudia White located at 17 Apple Way. The applicant is proposing a 2-lot subdivision with a common driveway.

Zoning Amendments Public Hearing:

1. To add a new Section 5.11 Day-Care Facilities to the Stratham Zoning Ordinance to address Day-Care Facilities within all zones. The new section will address staffing and site populations which would require larger lot sizes, additional buffering and would determine when a Day-Care Facility was a home occupation and when it could be considered a school or business.

2. Real-Estate & Contractor 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 and other off-site signage issues. The amendment would prohibit 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.

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

Ms. Johnson noted that they did not receive copies of the minutes to review, so they would not be voting on acceptance.

Zoning Workshop – NH Community College – meeting with Subcommittee and review of draft ordinance:

Copies of the draft ordinance had been distributed to the Planning Board members. Ms. Johnson gave a brief history of this proposed ordinance. She then read the draft ordinance aloud. Barbara Mann asked for a clarification on the meaning of flexible performance standards. Mr. Grassie said it means that the Board has some flexibility in interpreting certain set standards. Ms. Mann also asked about the meaning of new urbanism. Mr. Grassie said it was a traditional New England style development built to be a more walkable type project. There were discussions on: the size of the parcel and the amount of wetlands on the site; the proposed uses; the difference between primary and secondary uses; making sure the zoning is not too restrictive; removing the TC Zone from section “j” under Allowed Uses; adding veterinary hospitals into the secondary uses section; changing the term “New Urbanism” to “Compact Village Style”; making sure a survey is done of the property that would show the wetlands; setbacks; and whether or not the Town would be putting together a committee to work on recruiting a specific type of use. Ms. Johnson informed everyone that this proposed ordinance would be going to Public Hearing on December 6, 2006. The Board members thanked the Subcommittee for all the work done on this proposed ordinance.

Continued Public Hearing:

Map 2 Lot 2, a 2-Lot Minor Subdivision for Claudia White located at 17 Apple Way. The applicant is proposing a 2-lot subdivision with a common driveway:

Ken Berry from Beals Associates was present to represent the applicant. He noted that jurisdiction of this application was taken at the November 1, 2006 meeting. He said there were a few issues that have been addressed. The lot numbers have been revised to reflect the correct lot numbers. He indicated that there had been a question about any possible restrictions on being allowed to subdivide this lot. After research was done on that question, it was found that there are no restrictions on further subdividing this lot. Mr. Grassie stated that the only restriction found was that the homes have to be single family homes. The applicant had previously submitted a written Waiver Request from Section 3.3.3 – Plan Scale. Mr. Barker asked about Mr. Grassie’s suggested condition indicating that bounds would be set or bonded. Mr. Berry explained the way bonding normally works, but indicated that in this situation, Mr. Grassie is going to want a certificate of monumentation before the mylar is recorded. Mr. Barker asked what type of monumentation would be used. Mr. Berry stated that usually it is granite bounds on primary corners and a #5 rebar with an identification cap on secondary corners. He said this plan specifies all granite bounds. Building Inspector Terry Barnes indicated that no Certificate of Occupancies would be issued without foundation certifications showing the bounds.

Ms. Johnson indicated that the Waiver Request from Section 3.3.3 – Plan Scale needed approval. After a brief discussion on the Waiver Request, Mr. Federico made a motion to approve the Waiver Request from Section 3.3.3 – Plan Scale to allow the applicant to submit their plan at 1” = 100’ instead of 1” = 50’. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Wool asked about the purpose of the protective well radius. Mr. Berry said the protective well radius is to keep anything away from the well that might harm it, such as overflow from the septic. Mr. Grassie said he will be working on the wording about the protective well radius in the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Wool made a motion to approve the 2-lot subdivision for Map 2 Lot 2 as presented, with the conditions in the Planner’s Review of 11/14/06. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Zoning Amendments:

Day-Care Facilities: To add a new Section 5.11 Day-Care Facilities to the Stratham Zoning Ordinance to address Day-Care Facilities within all zones. The new section will address staffing and site populations which would require larger lot sizes, additional buffering and would determine when a Day-Care Facility was a home occupation and when it could be considered a school or business.

Building Inspector Terry Barnes stated that the proposed ordinance would help the Board of Adjustment, because the current Zoning Ordinance does not adequately address day care facilities. June Brewster from Kid Stop, Inc. asked how this proposed ordinance would affect her application to the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment. She stated that she had spent a lot of money and time on her application. She said she did not learn of the proposed Zoning change until yesterday. She felt that was unfair. Mr. Wool asked if this application would be exempt from the proposed ordinance. Mr. Grassie said, unfortunately, no. She would have to already have her application before the Planning Board. There was a great deal of additional discussion on Ms. Brewster’s situation, and how to possibly help her. Mr. Grassie stated that the Board could vote against this proposed amendment, and ask him to come back to the Board with another proposal. Mr. Federico made a motion to disapprove this proposed amendment on Day-Care Facilities. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Grassie will review the proposed amendment, make any changes requested, and put it on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. It would then be posted for Public Hearing in January. There were a great deal of additional discussions on the minimum lot sizing; whether or not a day-care facility can be in a detached structure; increasing the buffers; possibly having a requirement that the day-care owner must live on the property; relating minimum lot sizes to the number of individuals in the day-care facility; and traffic into and out of a day-care site.

Real-Estate & Contractor 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 and other off-site signage issues. The amendment would prohibit 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. Grassie stated that this proposed ordinance is before the Board tonight because of the concern that the portion of the ordinance about off-site signage would discrimination against farm uses. He said that currently those types of signs are illegal on both State and Town roads. This ordinance is to provide some type of enforcement mechanism for the Code Enforcement Officer Terry Barnes. Mr. Grassie had called the Town’s attorney about allowing those types of signs (seasonal agricultural signs) on Town roads, but had not yet heard from him. There were discussions on: allowing seasonal agricultural signs on Town roads; agricultural signs the State puts up on State highways; illegal banners; the fact that the Town has no jurisdiction over State rights-of-way; and what size sign should be allowed. The Board members wanted to include seasonal agricultural directional signs as an allowed sign. The allowed size would be the same as temporary real estate signs.

Ms. Werner made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda A. Beaudoin

Secretary Stratham Planning Board