STRATHAM PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Agenda: The
Town of Stratham, Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on
Old Business:
Map 7 Lots 6 – Site Plan Review for a Retail Site
Development of 26,120 s.f. existing building and new proposed 14,175 s.f.
retail building with related parking areas and infrastructure, located at
Map 2 Lots 27 & 30 – Site Plan Review for the
construction of 145,000 s.f. of new industrial & warehouse space with
related infrastructure, located at
New Business: Application Acceptance & Public Hearing:
Map
7
Map
2
Other:
Conceptual
Consultation for a Subdivision requested by Scott Cornell to be located on
Members Present: Chair Janet Johnson, William Provost, Jeffrey Hyland, Mary Jane Werner, Bruno Federico, Timothy Mason, and Town Planner, Charles (Chuck) Grassie.
Ms. Johnson noted that the
Old Business:
Mr. Grassie noted that Dan Crow from Crow Construction was present. Mr. Grassie apologized to Mr. Crow for any implications he may have made at the last meeting that Mr. Crow did bad work on the Talbot’s site. Mr. Grassie stated that Mr. Crow did a very good job of stabilizing the site. Mr. Grassie noted that there were a few outstanding items that needed to be addressed, but he has not yet been back to the site to see if they have been completed. He said he has photographs of the site. He indicated that Mr. Crow had some comments he would like to make to the Board.
Mr. Crow thanked the Board for taking the time to listen to
him this evening. He said that Mr.
Grassie’s apology was misdirected, he should be apologizing to the Board for
misguiding the Board on what really went on at the Talbot’s site. Mr. Crow stated that Mr. Grassie had told him
that he did not have to go to the
Mr. Mason noted that he took a ride out to the Talbot’s site after the last meeting. Mr. Grassie said he has photographs of the site. Mr. Mason stated that the Board had decided to have Mr. Grassie hold a bond on the property at the last meeting, but after Mr. Mason visited the site on Thursday morning, he no longer feels that a bond is necessary. Mr. Mason indicated that the site has been blanketed and stabilized very well so it can last through the winter. He expressed confidence in Mr. Crow as a contractor, and feels everything will be taken care of in the spring. Mr. Mason questioned whether or not the Town had the authority, on small projects, to go on private property and seed an area using bond money. There was a great deal of further discussion on the bonding issue, the outstanding items, and making sure that this particular property is maintained throughout the winter and completed in the spring. Mr. Crow stated that maintenance of the site is the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. Grassie informed the Board that Mr. Barnes had asked him to accompany him to the Talbot’s site. Mr. Grassie asked for direction from the Board on whether or not they would like to make sure that the owner puts up a bond or not. The Board members do not want a bond placed on this project. The Board members will discuss the matter, at some later date, whether or not Mr. Grassie should do project inspections in the future.
Map 2 Lots 27 & 30 – Site Plan Review for the construction of
145,000 s. f. of new industrial & warehouse space with related
infrastructure, located at One Fine Chocolate Place, by Lindt & Sprungli,
Inc.
Mr. Grassie noted that Lindt & Sprungli has requested a
continuance to
Old Business:
Map 7 Lots 6 – Site Plan Review for a Retail Site Development of
26,120 s.f. existing building and new proposed 14,175 s.f. retail building with
related parking areas and infrastructure, located at 7 Portsmouth Avenue, by
Realty Acquisitions LLC & Seacoast Newspapers, Inc.
Mark Stevens, a member of Realty Acquisitions LLC, and Jonathan Ring from Jones & Beach Engineers were present for this application. Mr. Stevens went over the modifications they had made to the previously submitted plan. They have rotated the building slightly; changed the parking areas to increase the landscape buffer; added a landscape buffer in the rear of the building for shielding the loading docks and the trash compactor; changed the parking in front of the existing facility; and shown two fire cisterns along the property line. Mr. Stevens noted that he had spoken to Fire Chief Bob Law regarding the fire cisterns. Mr. Stevens said Mr. Law was comfortable with the design of the fire cisterns. Mr. Stevens noted that they had made some changes to the landscaping plan. Instead of a number of small planting areas, they will have grass areas with irrigation, and large caliper trees. The screening in the back will be 5’ arborvitae.
Mr. Stevens mentioned that they had submitted a list of waivers for the
project. Mr. Ring noted that they had
received comments from Civilworks on this project, and had responded to those
comments. He went over the waiver
requests in detail. He indicated that
the waivers were listed on Sheet C2, Note 15 on the plan. These waivers were discussed at a previous
meeting. Ms. Johnson asked the applicant
to consider making any future signage look colonial. Mr. Stevens commented that he had been
battling for colonial type signs for a long time. A member of the audience expressed a concern
about the size of the parking spaces.
There was a discussion about reducing the size of the parking spaces
from 10’ x 20’ to 9’ x 20’. There were additional
discussions on the lighting and saving trees on the site. Ms. Werner made a motion to approve the
waiver requests (#1 through #8) as submitted in the letter from Jones &
Beach dated
Map 7
Mr. Grassie stated that the application was complete enough to take under jurisdiction. Mr. Mason made a motion to take the plan under jurisdiction. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mark Stevens, a member of Realty Acquisitions LLC, and Jonathan Ring from Jones & Beach Engineers were present for this application. Mr. Stevens briefly went over the proposed condominium plan. The existing building is one unit and the proposed building is the other. Mr. Grassie stated that the plan meets Stratham’s Zoning requirements. He quickly went over the conditions in his review memo of November 16, 2005. Mr. Mason made a motion to approve the condo conversion for Map 7 Lot 6. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Map 2 Lot 32-3 – Marin Way (Stratham Industrial Part, Lot 3) – by SIP Lot 3, LLC for a Site Plan Review for the development of a 100,750 s.f. Industrial Warehouse with Office Space:
Mr. Grassie stated that this application was complete enough for acceptance for review. Ms. Werner made a motion to take the application for Map 2, Lot 32-3 under jurisdiction. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mark Stevens, a member of SIP Lot 3, LLC, and Jonathan Ring from Jones & Beach Engineers were present for this application. Mr. Stevens briefly described this application. They are proposing a warehouse facility with an office attachment of approximately 100,000 square feet. He noted that they have a tenant who has a very short time frame in which to build, due to unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Stevens indicated that they have used this site as a staging area for many years as various facilities were built in the industrial park. He said that there is a parking lot up front which is smaller than what is required by Zoning, since this is a warehouse facility. He went over the site plan. Mr. Stevens said they originally had a rear parking lot that was 5 feet from the rear property line, because he wanted to save some trees. Stratham has a 25 foot setback from the rear property line in the Industrial Zone. After Civilworks review, they moved the parking lot back to 25 feet. Mr. Stevens asked the Board if they wanted him to keep the 25 foot setback to meet Zoning, or go back to the 5 foot setback and same those trees. He felt that the site should be grand fathered, and thus exempt from meeting the 25 foot setback. An abutter from North Hampton expressed a concern about the light coming from the warehouse facility. He also wanted to make sure there would be a buffer between the warehouse and his property. There was a discussion regarding the pros and cons of Mr. Stevens proposed setback change. Mr. Grassie asked if Mr. Stevens would be willing to make the lighting the “dark star” type of lighting. Mr. Stevens said yes. Mr. Federico asked about deliveries to the building. Mr. Stevens noted that there were some tractor trailers that would make deliveries, but most of the deliveries to and from the facility would be by UPS. There would be no manufacturing on site. Mr. Stevens was asked what would be housed in the facility. He stated that it was a pharmaceutical distribution company. Ms. Werner said it was her belief that the site could not be grand fathered unless there was already a permanent structure on it. Mr. Stevens withdrew the 25 foot setback grand fathering from consideration.
Mr. Ring went through the four waiver requests in the letter from Jones & Beach dated November 16, 2005. The waiver requests were from Section 4.3.1(d) & 4.3.2(a) – existing trees over 6” in caliper; Section 4.3.1(k) – HISS mapping; Section 5.9(g)(i) – parking isle 20’ wide; and Section 5.15 – Architectural Elevations depicting exterior features. Mr. Mason noted that the parking spaces are shown as 10’ x 20’ with a 20’ wide lane in between. He asked if the parking spaces could be reduced to 9’ x 18’ with a 24’ wide lane in between. There was a discussion on the width of the parking lane. Mr. Ring said they would also like to request a waiver from Section 5.9(f)(1) – minimum parking spaces required. He said that the regulations seem to call for 83 plus spaces, but the applicant and tenant have come up with a figure of 63 parking spaces. He submitted a written waiver request to allow the applicant to have only 63 parking spaces. There was a discussion on the reduced number of parking spaces, and the exact size of the parking spaces and aisle widths. The Board stated that they want the waiver request to read 9’ x 18’ parking spaces with 24’ wide aisles. Mr. Federico made a motion to approve the five (5) waiver requests as submitted and amended. Ms. Werner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Ring indicated that they had received comments from Civilworks, and had addressed those comments. He felt that they were ready for approval with conditions. Mr. Grassie stated that he had only received the new plans today. He did not have a chance to review the engineer’s report that came in today, and compare it to the new plans. He said he would make sure all Subdivision, Site Plan Review, and Zoning Regulations were complied with, unless waived or variances are granted, before the plans are signed. Mr. Grassie said one additional condition should be that the plan is in full compliance with the engineering review. The applicant will be required to come back to the Board for their signage, building elevations and lighting plan, prior to obtaining a building permit. This would allow them to obtain a foundation only permit. Mr. Grassie read the eight (8) conditions aloud (see file). Mr. Federico made a motion to approve this application with the eight conditions as read by Mr. Grassie. Mr. Mason seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Other:
Conceptual Consultation for a Subdivision requested by Scott Cornell to be located on Union Road:
Scott Cornell handed out materials showing a traditional subdivision and a cluster subdivision. David Emanuel from Emanuel Engineering was also present. Mr. Cornell did a presentation on the proposed subdivision, and asked the Board for some guidance. He indicated that he has purchased two properties that adjoin his and now has a total of 25.75 acres. He noted that he is a 1/6 owner in Willow Pond through its Association. Currently the pond is a non-functioning fire pond. He said the dam for this pond is also not working properly. With the new lots, the Association will have more members, and thus be able to repair the pond and dam. He stated that currently there are three homes on this combined property. He is proposing six additional lots. Mr. Cornell indicated that they would like to work with the Town to develop a Conservation Cluster. They would like to preserve open land in the front and have the houses in the rear. Mr. Mason asked about the length of the proposed road. Mr. Cornell stated that it would be about 1,050 ft. to 1,100 ft. There were discussions regarding the fire pond; preserving the trees and stone walls on the property; preserving an 1800’s cow path as a pedestrian easement; restoring the pond; and preserving and upgrading the existing horse farm. He said there would be a wetland crossing. He stated that he had called Fire Chief Bob Law, but has not yet been able to set up a meeting. Mr. Cornell acknowledged that his plans still need work.
Mr. Grassie asked the Board’s opinion on whether or not they feel this site would make a good cluster site. Mr. Mason felt that the road should continue as a 60 foot right-of-way left of the Charbonneau parcel (Map 18, Lot 13) on Muirfield Drive. He noted that any project for upgrading Willow Pond by the Fire Department has not yet come up. He said the Fire Department has some money set aside to fix water supplies. Lucy Cushman from the audience said it was her understanding that the original subdivision lots could not be further subdivided. Mr. Mason stated that it was not on the either the deed or the plan. Ms. Cushman noted that Mr. Cornell said he wants to preserve open space in the front of the subdivision, but the area is too wet to be able to put any additional houses in the front. She said that the idea of a cluster is to preserve something that could have been built upon. She felt that the proposed subdivision doesn’t meet the criteria for a cluster. Marty Wool, from the audience, asked if the applicant had an agreement from all other members of the association to add these proposed new lots to the association. Mr. Cornell said not yet, but everyone he has talked to has been in favor of adding new members. He indicated that being members of the Willow Pond Association is not a requirement to build this subdivision. There was further discussion on whether the Board felt a cluster would be better or a conventional subdivision, and which layout that was being presented was the conventional and which was the cluster. Mr. Emanuel indicated that the Conceptual Subdivision Worksheet looks very similar to what their Yield Plan will look like. He gave a brief history of the original subdivision and Mr. Cornell’s property. Ms. Johnson felt that a site walk of the property would be helpful. There was a discussion about setting up a site walk. Mr. Grassie stated that if the Board goes on a site walk with the applicant, or talks to any abutters, they would have to post a meeting. In order to post a meeting, they would need to have a formal application. He said the members could do an informal site walk on their own or with Mr. Grassie. Mr. Cornell was told he should submit a formal application so they can do a formal site walk.
Other - continued:
Mr. Mason informed the Board
that he and Mr. Federico had attended a ZBA meeting the other night, where
there was a discussion about changing the zoning along Portsmouth Avenue to
Office/ Professional. He said that if
the Board hopes to get a zoning change through, they better do their homework,
because there was a great deal of concern about traffic, no center turning
lane, etc. There was a great deal of discussion
regarding the location of where the potential zoning change would be located;
whether or not to change the Master Plan to remove the portion that says to
“expand the Commercial, Industrial, Office/Professional Zones”, if the Town’s
people don’t want any expansion; and a petition that was submitted against
changing the zoning along Portsmouth Avenue.
Mr. Mason made a motion to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Federico seconded the motion, which carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Beaudoin
Secretary Stratham Planning Board