PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AGENDA: CONT. SITE PLAN: CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MANCHESTER, 17 W. Shore Road, #111-005 ATTENDING: Dan Paradis (Chairman), Elizabeth Seeler (Vice Chairman), Don Milbrand (Sel. Rep.), Murray Campbell, Janice DellaCroce, Denice DeStefano. OTHER: Alan DeStefano (ZBA Alternate) The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. It was noted that Mr. Dingman may be late due to another meeting. There were no alternates in attendance but a quorum was still met. CONTINUED SITE PLAN: CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MANCHESTER/REV. LEO LEBLANC/ Father Leo stated that they will look into the stability of the cottage as they want to keep it. The trees could be a liability to both the Guidi’s and to the Church; therefore, they are looking into the tree situation. There are 2 on the Guidi property but the owners do not have the budget to take these down. It was determined that waivers are being asked for #16 Wetlands delineation and #18 A detailed landscape plan on the first checklist. E. Seeler made a MOTION, second by J. DellaCroce, to WAIVE #16 AND #18 AS THE REASONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. The motion CARRIED. -2- CATHOLIC BISHOP SITE PLAN continued: Second checklist: Waivers asked are for #6 Minimum building requirements (determined to be included on plan in note #10), #21 Provisions for off street loading facilities, #23 Landscape buffer area (determined to be existing and on the plan), #31 Drainage calculations, #32 Cost estimate or performance bond for work, #33 Known plans for development of adjacent lots, #34 Erosion or sediment control plans (determined that a silt fence is shown), and #36 Provisions for snow removal (felt that this would remain as in the past). Ms. DellaCroce asked about the landscape buffer on West Shore Road. Mr. French explained that it will basically stay as it is. Ms. DellaCroce asked, if the trees are removed, will there be a buffer there. Mr. French answered that this would be done on the abutter’s property; stumps will remain to sustain the banking. This will have to be worked out with the abutter. Mr. Paradis read the Zoning Ordinance that addresses landscape buffer strips. His take is that, where they are just replacing the hall that was there, this may be grandfathered. Ms. DellaCroce was concerned about the fact that trees are to be removed. Mr. Paradis agreed that it is a different use to the rear but the house there is 20’ down hill. Father Leblanc agreed that the Guidi home is below and the Lannon’s will still have standing trees that are left. Mr. Paradis summarized that we need to address conditions for the trees, non-resident use and basement storage, and DES. Mr. French stated that they have applied to DES and it is still under review. Mr. Milbrand brought up #36 again and asked that the plan show the area of snow removal. Ms. Morrison stated that the Morrison’s do the plowing and always pushed it to the pine tree with the light and, if there was too much snow, they move the extra to the other side behind the Church. Mr. Milbrand decided that, with this explanation, we can leave it as a waiver. D. DeStefano made a MOTION, second by D. Milbrand, to APPROVE WAIVERS FOR #21, 31, 32, 33, AND 36 AS THE REASONS ARE ON THE PLAN. The motion CARRIED. Mr. Paradis then asked that the cottage be addressed. Ms. Seeler felt that a condition should be made to have the cottage examined to be certain of its stability. -3- CATHOLIC BISHOP SITE PLAN continued: Ms. DeStefano asked the size of the proposed ramp shown on the plan. Mr. French was not sure. He said that it is for a future handicap ramp to the basement; it would need to be at least 4’ wide. Mr. Paradis added that it will be like a sidewalk; an impervious surface. Ms. DeStefano asked if there will be any additional lighting and was told that there will not be. Mr. Campbell stated that his main concern is the cottage as he finds the foundation is questionable. Father Leblanc stated that they will look into this for both personal safety and for maintaining the cottage. E. Seeler made a MOTION, second by J. DellaCroce, to APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MANCHESTER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The motion CARRIED and the Board signed the Notice of Decision and plans. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT: LAKARI & ALEXANDER/ALAN BARNARD
-4- LAKARI/ALEXANDER BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT continued: At this point, Mr. Paradis read the letter from the Sunset Heights Association as well as Ms. Bonsteel’s dated Sept. 17, 2009. Mr. Barnard pointed out that the Board should look at the map (that looks like a hammerhead). He explained that this was conveyed to Prestige Development so as to develop the Sunset Heights subdivision. This is all in the deed, #1599 pages 119 and 120. The rights are reserved for the landowners (Lakari/Alexander) and their heirs, successors and/or assigns. Mr. Barnard again stressed that they were given the right to use the private way. There is also an addition regarding the right to access the present drive. Mr. Barnard submitted a copy of the deed wording. Mr. Barnard stated that there is no additional liability at this time as the same people use the private way only with two driveways instead of one. There is no driveway curb cut on a right-of-way, he added. He suggested that a condition be added that a curb cut be built to town specifications to insure integrity. Mr. Campbell asked about the possibility that the deed was changed at a later date. He added that Sunset Heights pays for the maintenance and plowing of the right-of-way now. He asked what the developers show. Alan DeStefano, ZBA and landowner in Sunset Heights, stated that he has not found anything different but he did not look into any conveyance from Prestige to Farley. Mr. Barnard stated that the only way there could be a legal change would be by the Lakari’s and he searched this and found nothing. There is no other document. Ms. DeStefano agreed, saying that it would have to have been between Lakari and Farley. Mr. DeStefano felt that, in the spirit of this, only a small portion of the Lakari property was conveyed. Mr. Milbrand felt that they can’t really tell that as there is a specific clause for the existing driveway plus this other clause allowing use for the whole area. Mr. Barnard stated that this was all done with Ray Prudholm. Mr. Campbell asked about making it 100’ frontage as the regulations call for. Mr. Barnard explained that there is a special rock in the way which the Lakari’s wish to keep. Based on Mr. Barnard’s experience, this is not a subdivision and therefore comes under making a non-conforming lot less non-conforming. Mr. Barnard continued by explaining that the water rights are in a note on the plan and that they have town furnished water. Mr. DeStefano stated that this water is part of the Association. Mr. Milbrand stated that they gave the easement for the pipes. Mr. Barnard has added the easement; the water was previously installed and used and is underground. Again he mentioned that this is not a subdivision. -5- LAKARI/ALEXANDER BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT continued: Mr. Paradis asked if the Board was okay with the change of frontage. Ms. DellaCroce and Mr. Campbell did not feel it to be hardship to do the 100’. Mr. Barnard reminded them that this is not a variance. Mr. Paradis agreed stating that we need to remember the difference of a subdivision versus an individual case. Mr. Barnard explained that if the whole thing was non-conforming, he would have to have done like for like. In this case, he is making the one non-conforming lot more conforming. Mr. Paradis added that it is now less non-conforming. Mr. Barnard reminded the Board that these lots are existing lots. Mr. Milbrand added that some of the questions the Board has pertain to a subdivision. Mr. Barnard asked the Board to read the plan note in regard to access and stated that there is no intention to subdivide the Lakari property today. He then thanked the Board for what they had addressed at the PCC so that he could address them all for tonight. The Board felt that Ms. Bonsteel had missed the back side of the deed which accounted for her concern. Mr. Paradis stated that, unfortunately, we do not have a checklist for boundary line adjustments. The square footage calculations are simple to do from the acreage. Ms. DeStefano asked if the driveway cut should be a condition. Mr. Campbell felt that it should and the others seemed to agree. Mr. DeStefano added that, if it is a snowy day, it is difficult not to slide down that hill. He feels that the driveway should meet town standards. Mr. Barnard felt that this is more than right to do. The Board could ask Mark Bucklin, Highway superintendent/road agent, to approve it as it is a safety and liability issue. That is only fair, especially as the original private way was asked to be put in per town standards at the time of the subdivision. D. DeStefano made a MOTION, second by D. Milbrand, to APPROVE THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR TAX MAP AND LOT #106-059 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CURB CUT FOR THE DRIVEWAY MEET TOWN STANDARDS AND BE APPROVED BY THE HIGHWAY SUPERVISOR/ROAD AGENT. The motion CARRIED. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2009: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2009: -6- CORRESPONDENCE: REPORTS: Selectmen: Mr. Milbrand stated that Mr. VanDerven was replaced by Jeff Shackett at last Thursday’s Selectmen’s meeting. He is also to be the Budget representative. The secretary stated that Mr. Shackett was very good when he was chairman of the Budget committee. The Selectmen continue to pursue the cell tower; the easement problem is to be worked out as the lady does not want her current use to be in jeopardy. The towers are to be located at two sites: one on Corey Johnston’s property on Route 104 E and one on North Main St. by the water tower. Sunsar Towers will bring to the Planning Board for the Site Plans. Ms. DellaCroce asked if this will be coming in a month or a year. Mr. Milbrand answered that he expects it will be months though, originally, they had wanted to get them in this year. Mr. Milbrand continued with the Central Street bridge, stating that the final top coat has been put on. There is no date yet as to the grand opening. Ray Burton, the Army Corps of Engineers, and someone from DOT is to be there. Paul Weston and Mr. Milbrand walked the old road bed along the Pemigewasset River and found that it is fairly accessible in the beginning (near Profile Falls end) but the old railroad bed has a lot that has been washed out. They found mile markers along it. The Army Corps of Engineers is behind the project so long as it remains a foot and bike path only. Mr. Paradis stated that there should be grant money for this. Mr. Milbrand stated that they are about ready on the Borough bridge. As to sewer to the lake, they have Bright and Pierce and are looking for stimulus and grant money of about 50%-75%. Typically, towns put up 5%. This is for Phases 1 and 2 for approximately $17 million. -7- REPORTS continued: NEW/OLD BUSINESS: ----- NEXT MEETING: Our next meeting will be held October 28th. Besides the presentation of the CIP, Mr. Paradis stated that we need to talk about Zoning. He asked that the members bring in their ideas. One issue to deal with is the one on sheds, which has been mentioned as being unreasonable in an overcrowding law. We may want to deal with steep slopes, also, and possible building codes. Mr. Milbrand suggested that we look to update allowed uses. Ms. DellaCroce asked how outdated is the cell tower ordinance and Mr. Paradis was not sure but did not think that it is too bad. He also mentioned that Don Martin attended the NLRA meeting. With no other business, E. Seeler made a motion, second by J. DellaCroce, to adjourn at 9:40. Respectfully submitted,
|