MEREDITH PLANNING BOARD - 5/28/2013

 

PRESENT:    Bayard, Chairman; Touhey, Secretary; Brothers, Selectmen’s Rep.; Lapham; Gerken; Butler; Sorell, Absent w/Notice; LaBrecque, Town Planner; Harvey, Clerk.

Chairman Bayard called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

The April minutes indicated that Richard Gerken was an alternate on the Planning Board and he was sworn in as a full member early in April.  Status changed to full-time member. 

Gerken moved, Lapham seconded, THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 26 AND APRIL 23, 2013, BE APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE CHANGE. 

APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS

 

PERRY TAYLOR – Proposed Site Plan to construct a 14’ x 16’ retail sales building utilizing existing driveway and parking located on Tax Map S15, Lot 32A

at 473 Daniel Webster Highway in the Central Business District.

LaBrecque – This site is located on Route 3 North just before the Center Harbor Town Line in a little level area by the side of the highway.  The Site Plan, checklist and abutters list are on file, fees have been paid and it’s recommended the application for Site Plan review be accepted as complete for a public hearing this evening. 

Gerken moved, Brothers seconded, we accept the application for public hearing this evening. 

 VLL TRUST – Proposed site plan amendment for a change of use 600 sq. ft. in size from commercial to residential, Tax Map U06, Lot 4, located at 147 Main Street in the Central Business District.

LaBrecque – This change of use is for the purpose of converting an office that’s 600 sq. ft. in size to a studio apartment.  They are using the Village Housing Provision recently adopted at Town Meeting.   The checklist and abutters list are on file, fees are paid and it’s recommended the application be accepted for public hearing this evening. 

Touhey moved, Brothers seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR VLL TRUST AND PROCEED TO PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.   Voted unanimously.

WILLIAM L. FULLER – Proposed Site Plan to create one additional dwelling unit above an existing two-car garage, Tax Map U06, Lot 100, located at 16 Lake Street in the Central Business District.

LaBrecque – Similarly, this application is requesting to have an additional residential unit above that which is allowed by the zoning density or which is grandfathered.  The checklist and abutters list are on file.   The fees are paid.  A waiver has been requested from environmental information because the site’s already developed and it’s a limited scope, there’s no additional building or anything like that, they are just putting this above a garage so it’s recommended that waiver be granted and the application be accepted as complete for a public hearing this evening.  

Touhey moved, Lapham seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN I MOVE WE GRANT THE WAIVER FROM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AND PROCEED TO A PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.   Voted unanimously.

PLANET GREEN (BRIAN DAVIS) FOR WINNIPISEOGEE INVESTMENT PROPERTY– Proposed Site Plan to construct a Commercial Retail Sales building, with related site improvements, Tax Map S17, Lot 17C, located on Northview Drive in the Central Business District.

PLANET GREEN (BRIAN DAVIS) FOR WINNIPISEOGEE INVESTMENT

PROPERTY - Architectural Design Review of a proposed retail sales building, Tax Map S17, Lot 17C, located on Northview Drive in the Central Business District.*

LaBrecque – This application for site Plan and Architectural Design Review is to construct a new 40’ x 50’ building that will be able to house equipment as well as the offices for the landscape design business and the solar panel installation and sales.   The site plan and abutters list are on file, the fees are paid and its recommended both applications be accepted as complete for a public hearing this evening.  

Lapham moved, Touhey seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE ACCEPT BOTH OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PROCEED TO PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.   Voted unanimously.

JOSEPHINE RICCIUTI – Proposed Subdivision and Site Plan to create a 2-unit condominium, Tax Map U03 – 23-1A, located at 24 Massachusetts Avenue in the Residential District.

LaBrecque – This is simply to condo to change the form of ownership.  We are reviewing a subdivision and site plan in order to establish that condominium, it’s for a duplex.  The subdivision and site plan are on file, the abutters list, checklist and waiver is on file, application fees are paid.  The waiver is for environmental data such as topography soils and wetlands mapping due to there being no change on the site.  It’s recommended the waiver is granted and the application is accepted as complete for public hearing this evening.  

Gerken moved, Brothers seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE ACCEPT BOTH APPLICATIONS AND PROCEED TO PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.  Voted unanimously.  

 

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

PERRY TAYLOR – Perry Taylor presenting, I’m here requesting a retail sales building located at 473 Daniel Webster Highway.  The purpose of the building is pretty much as has been described, it is for the selling of farm products, crafts and things along that nature, although this is not a farm stand, it’s a retail sales building.   As you can see on the site plan, I’ve conformed to pretty much 99% of all the requirements on the checklist.  One thing I was not aware of and I’d like to submit it to you tonight anyway is an architectural design of the building.  I was not aware we could have done this all in one step.  With your permission may I pass them out?   LaBrecque – We’ll have to go through the formal application next month but we can definitely review that in connection with this just because we’re talking about the building, we might as well have a look at what it’s going to look like and then we’ll formally do it next month.   Taylor – It’s a very simple design, I have neighbors that are keeping an eye on me.   Again, this location is right across from Real Green Lawn Care for those of you that aren’t familiar.  There’s a level spot of property at one time housed a mobile home that had burned back I believe in 2000 or 2001.  The land is located in the Central Business District  and this seems to be a real ideal spot, I think this will be an attractive building to the Town of Meredith.  I believe it’s going to be beneficial to the Town as well inasmuch that even though we are on a limited scale compared to our rather large brothers and sisters in town that sell vegetables, it still would have a benefit because a lot of people from Route 3 south to the lights will take advantage of this, less congestion through town, less congestion up on Route 25 and so on and so forth and I think again it will enhance the appearance of that end of Meredith.   LaBrecque – I’ll just draw your attention quickly to page 3 of  your packet is Mr. Taylor’s project description of what he wants to retail and following that pages 4 and 5 are some photographs of the area and once you see them, you’ll probably recognize them.  There’s a photo looking north and a photo looking south and actually one was taken from Real Green looking down at the site so there’s a little level area there before it drops off to his residence.   The proposed use of retail sales is permitted in the CB zoning district, the lot coverage is 65% as you can see by the site plan and the lot’s nearly an acre, its well under the 65%.  Setbacks for the district are noted in his application and they need to be brought over to the plan in order to show that the building and the parking is within the setbacks.  Any parking in the setback would require a special exception from the ZBA but without the benefit of the setbacks we’re not sure where that is but I think that can all work out.  Taylor – On the front? Yes.   Again, that’s still in question in my mind, I’m getting some conflicting reports as to the actual setback from the road, from the front of the property to the edge of your building.  LaBrecque – We’ll have to clarify that with Bill.  Perry - I have plenty of room to make my adjustment for the building.  LaBrecque – The building is small, only 14’ x 16’ with a little open porch on the front so the number of parking spaces that are required, four are provided and the size of the building is 224 sq. ft. in size so that will only require one or two parking spaces.   I know you mentioned that no water or sewer connections would be required.   Taylor – No, there’s not going to be any utilities other than electricity.   Access would be from Route 3 so a driveway permit from the DOT would be required, that’s something we’ve confirmed with them, District 3, and Mr. Taylor has actually been in touch with them and has the application to submit.  I did notice when I was looking at the site there is a steep slope that goes down towards the residence so in looking at that; I would recommend some sort of guardrail or something to stop vehicles from rolling over that edge, its possible and it does happen. Taylor – I would prefer to go with some type of low curb simply to keep the aesthetics.  It doesn’t look like any exterior lighting is proposed, snow storage is shown on the plan but I don’t think that’s very relevant giving you’re only going to be open in the summer. Taylor – Eventually, if I did want lighting I’ve seen the diagram requirements for that and I assume I would have to come back before at least Mr. Edney to get that approval, correct?   LaBrecque – No, unless the Planning Board conditions your approval on being seasonal, I think if you’re a retail business and you want to expand your hours or go from being seasonal to year-round I don’t think that’s an issue unless its stated in the decision so that would be up to the Board and on the site plan you can see that there’s a sign location on there so a sign application is required to be submitted to Bill, he reviews those to ensure compliance and when you come in with the Architectural Design Review Application, just a simple sketch of what your sign’s going to look like and the Board will review that at that time.    I think DOT will review the point of access and how cars come and go.   Touhey – There will be only one sign is that correct?   Taylor – One sign is all I’m going to have and will be on the north end of the property next to or near the townline.  Touhey – So the property is all within the Town of Meredith.  There’s a ROW driveway on the north end of my property that abuts my property in Center Harbor, actually that’s my access to my residence down in back.  Gerken – For the time being, there’s not going to be any electrical to the site, is there going be any other utility as far as water and/or sewer or septic or anything like that.  Bayard – I believe you said there is going to be electricity.  Taylor – Yes, there will be electrical.  I’m not at this time anticipating any hookups for sewer or water.  I do have sewer in the street; I do not have water in the street.   Are these going to be locally grown vegetables?   It’s a retail sales building; it’s not a farm stand.   So you’re buying vegetables,  no I’m growing a lot of my own.  It will be a local variety of vegetables, I do not buy from a Hannaford’s and resell, what I don’t grow I purchase from Moulton’s Farm, Person’s Farm in Plymouth, Cole’s Farm in Belmont, Litchfield, whenever I find the need to purchase them.  Bayard – We sort of have a month on this because we need to get the Architectural Design Review finished, does anyone have an interest in doing a site walk on this.  It’s not a large site, it’s not like we’re going to take a half hour to walk the site and all but we can either drive it ourselves if we’d like.  One of the issues is going to be with the DOT and how they want to resolve the parking because I assume it’s not going to be an open parking area, they’ll either use the existing driveway or come up with their own there or something.  LaBrecque – What surface is that going to be, are you going to gravel that or is it going to stay as is?   Taylor – The existing top is going to stay just the way it is.  LaBrecque – So you will have to figure out some way to delineate the parking stalls.   Taylor – Why?   LaBrecque – If I were pulling off the highway, I might park perpendicular to the highway but then again if I see you and decide I’ll just pull in, I might park parallel to the highway and then the next person.

Taylor – I would grant you this much, I will put 4 little signs right at the head of the parking, “park here”.   I don’t really like the idea of delineating a natural looking piece of land.   At the temporary Rite-Aid Pharmacy, they have their parking marked out and people still park right up perpendicular to the store.  Taylor – I will do that, I can do that absolutely to give some direction as to where to park.   Bayard – If you’re going to have ground, we don’t expect you to stripe the ground or the grass or whatever, but some indication would be helpful.    Touhey – Will the sign be illuminated?  Taylor – No, it will not be.   Lapham – I think it’s pretty straight in there, we don’t have a lot of curves that we’re dealing with.   LaBrecque – I actually took photographs right and left to the sight distance.  It doesn’t appear to be an issue but I’m not DOT.  You can see both ways.   Do we have any idea of the size of the sign you’re proposing?  Taylor – It’s going to be 5’ x 7’ or 4’ x 5’ or something like that.  I believe I’m allowed 64 sq. ft. so I’m probably half the size of what’s allowed.  Again, I want to keep this very low profile, I don’t want a big store type of image.   I’m going to leave it up to the Board, but I suppose we could go forward now or we could wait on half of it if we’d like.  LaBrecque – You could act.  Butler – If it were approved tonight, wouldn’t there have to be conditions, there’s the DOT permit, the completion of the other application for this form and description of the sign.  Bayard – It would probably make sense to just continue it to next month and have the whole thing go through all at once.  LaBrecque – We’ll get Bill to figure out that setback thing too.   Taylor – I will lay out the location of the building.   LaBrecque – Is the Board in favor of going on a site walk, if so it’s a meeting and it has to be posted.   Brothers – Mr. Chairman, I’m pretty familiar with the property and if Mr. Taylor lays that out, I’m perfectly willing to take a look at that myself.  Gerken agrees.   Bayard – Now I’m looking for a motion for continuance.  A letter was received in favor of this project.  

Butler moved, Lapham seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE CONTINUE THE APPLICATION FOR PERRY TAYLOR TO OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON JUNE 25, 2013.    Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.

VLL TRUST, VIRGINIA LOVETT, TRUSTEE:

 

Virginia Lovett – This is a 600 sq. ft. unit, it previously was built in 2005 as a barrier wheelchair HC unit.  When the upstairs offices were vacated, I converted the upstairs offices to a residential unit, therefore making this 600 sq. ft. unit commercial.   Since that time the economy hasn’t been very good although it has been advertised, signs have been put up, ads have been published in the newspaper and given to a realtor and I haven’t had any commercial use inquiries so it’s been empty.   I would just like to convert it back to residential and hopefully get somebody in there who needs a handicapped apartment which I think will be an asset to the community.   The front of this is the Community Action Program.  This unit is right behind the Community Action Program on the first floor of this building and then behind that is a commercial garage.   Upstairs there are two 3-bedroom apartments.   That’s the building that houses Community Action.  There is significant parking so there’s no parking issue.   Gerken – Which unit is being converted?  Lovett – It’s Unit 1B.  Butler – This unit is going to be adapted for handicapped.  Lovett – It was originally built in 2005 as a HC unit.   Butler – Are you planning on assigning a HC parking space in front of it or leaving just the one for CAP and everyone.   Lovett – I had thought about signing a HC space if I rent it to somebody with a handicap, I would cite that as a HC space.  I’ll have to wait and see if I get somebody in there that’s handicapped.   LaBrecque – That’s possible because 12 spaces are required, there’s 13 provided so easily one in front of the door could be converted and part of another one given up for that extra space and parking requirements would still be met.   Touhey – Ginny, what’s currently in the studio down?  Lovett – Nothing, it’s carpeted, it has cabinets and has a large bathroom but there isn’t anything in it, it’s been empty.  Touhey – OK it’s approved for office but the extra unit you’re talking about, is that upstairs?   Lovett – No, it’s downstairs, first floor behind the Community Action, it’s a small unit that’s never been used commercially because I haven’t been able to rent it.  Brothers – If that is being approved as a unit, whether its handicapped or not at the present time, then there would have to be no designation of additional HC parking beyond what appears to be set up to service the CAP office, but if this becomes a HC accessible apartment, does she procedurally have to come back in and have the parking spaces reviewed and approved?   LaBrecque – Unless you do it tonight.  Bayard – We could do it tonight because we could say 2 spaces around space 5 could be reserved for potential future HC parking because we already have one.                Brothers – But my question is, typically the space that’s here, there’s going to be another HC accessible, we would potentially only meet the required number of parking spaces so we could actually be eliminating one potentially and still meet the requirements and that could be handled administratively or whatever.  Touhey -  Angela, between a garage and a living unit are there certain requirements for fire code, do you know if these are met in this case.   Lovett – Yes, they have all been met.  When the building was converted upstairs, the garage was all reinsulated, reconfigured and the fire code barriers were added.   LaBrecque – So the separation where an apartment is adjacent to a garage is all fire rated so I think part of the C.O. process is something Bill and the Fire Chief would look at and sign off on to ensure it is still compliant.   As Ginny said, it was previously an apartment so what happened was that use or that density was voluntarily abandoned because it was non-conforming so adding this additional unit uses the Village Housing Provision that was recently adopted.  In order to do that the Board has to make certain findings because in approving this site plan, a Conditional Use Permit is also issued in order for the Board to waive certain zoning requirements, like the density and I will run through them very quickly so the Board can go through the checklist in their minds what’s required in order to issue this Conditional Use Permit.  The provision can only apply to properties in the CB District, this does. They must have Class I utilities and there’s both water and sewer at the site.  Only one additional dwelling unit is permitted, only one is being requested, adequate on-site parking needs to be demonstrated which I believe is shown on the parking calculations on the plan.  The Planning Board has to review it in connection with a Site Plan Review and that’s the application in front of you right now.  The plan has to show compliance with all other ordinances and regulations.  After reviewing this, anything that’s grandfathered is in place and there’s no non-conformity being created or compounded as a result of this application.   It doesn’t apply to subdivisions and obviously that’s not what we’re reviewing.  Bayard – Angela, you put down use, the proposed multi-family use requires a Special Exception from the ZBA.   LaBrecque – The CB district requires a special exception for multi-family.  Bayard – What we’re going through doesn’t negate that, it’s still required for the use?  LaBrecque - This is specifically for density so because the lot is only 3 acres large and you need 10,000 sq. ft. per residential unit so there are 2 grandfathered.   There were 3 at one point but because it was abandoned and converted to office, there are only 2 grandfathered so that would be for density that the Board is waiving as part of this Conditional Use Permit with the site plan approval and then the use is multi-family, that’s what goes to the ZBA.   Public Hearing closed at 7:38 p.m.

Brothers moved, Lapham seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF VLL TRUST  FOR A PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A CHANGE OF USE, ASSESSOR’S MAP U06, LOT 4, LOCATED AT 51 MAIN STREET IN THE MEREDITH BAY WATERSHED, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE CHANGE OF USE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:  

(1)   THE MULTI FAMILY USE REQUIRES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

(2)    THERE ARE NO PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE.

(3)    THERE ARE 13 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED, 12 WOULD BE REQUIRED IF UNIT 1B IS SO DESIGNATED AS HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE, THEN THE APPRO- PRIATE SPACE MUST BE DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AND THAT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. 

(4)     THE  PLANNING BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND AMEND ANY APPROVAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SITE PLAN REVIEW REGULATION NOS.

 6 & 17.

(5)    THE PROPERTY BE INSPECTED AND THIS APPLICATION BE APPROVED  SUBJECT TO  THE FIRE CHIEF OR HIS DESIGNEE INSPECTING AND SIGNING OFF THAT IT MEETS ALL THE NCESSARY LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR AN  APARTMENT USE.

(6)    WE FIND THEY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.    Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion. 

WILLIAM L. FULLER – (Rep. Becky Fuller)

Becky Fuller – I’m speaking on behalf of my husband, Wiliam Fuller, as we are seeking an additional dwelling unit in the space over an existing 2-car garage on the property located at 16 Lake Street in Meredith, Tax Map U06, Lot 100.  The property is located in the CB District.   This property is already developed and consists of a 3-story, two-family or duplex residence and a garage.  The total lot area of the property is approximately 7,605 sq. ft.  The property is currently serviced by both municipal sewer and water with an existing service connection to both the duplex and the garage.  The existing driveway and parking spots on the property are paved.  In 2010, the Planning Board did grant an approval of a Home Occupation of a beauty parlor in Unit 2, since then the use has been discontinued.  We are requesting the additional dwelling unit consisting of a one-bedroom residential apartment to be located on the second floor of an existing garage.  The space right now is currently unfinished and access to this apartment will be via an existing staircase which is already constructed and is located on the southeasterly side of the garage.  A site plan review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Meredith Planning Board are required for this proposed use to allow an increase in dwelling unit density by one as per the Meredith Zoning Ordinance, Article 5, Section D-7.C.   The Central Business District – Village Housing Provision,  The existing use of the property and the building as a two-unit dwelling currently is a grandfathered use as the property does not meet the net density requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit.  The property currently provides for a total of 5 10’ x 20’ parking spaces.  There are 3 parking spaces in the driveway which accommodate the dwellings of the duplex.  There are two bedrooms on each side of that duplex and additional 2-spot parking spaces in the existing garage.  With the proposed dwelling unit above the garage, the off-street parking requirement will be a total of 4 spaces which is satisfied in this circumstance.  No exterior changes will be made to the footprints, the driveway, landscaping or grading as part of this proposal.   This request does meet the conditions and restrictions of the section of the Zoning Ordinance in that the property is located in the Central Business District, Class I municipal sewer and water are in place and do not require any type of an extension.  An additional dwelling unit is being requested above what is allowed as a grandfathered use of the 2 existing dwelling units.  There is adequate parking on-site. Applicable rules, ordinances and regulations are in compliance, there are no proposed exterior changes to the site, including changes and lot coverage or setbacks which are presently grandfathered.  This is the first request under this provision of the Zoning Ordinance and this request does not apply to a subdivision.  We do understand that pending approval of this evening, we do need to go in front of the ZBA to get a Special Exception to change this from a two-family dwelling to a multi-family and we also understand that moving forward if we are to put an apartment above the garage, it is subject to approval of getting a Certificate of Occupancy.    Butler – Will you be removing the Home Occupation?  It’s not being used so I don’t know how that works.   Butler – Well, once its granted, isn’t it there until its removed because the parking would then be an issue if there were a beauty salon and 5 parking spaces and no place for customers to park.   Becky – Is it over a year that it’s no longer applicable?  LaBrecque – I think if somebody came in and wanted to do a beauty parlor, then maybe it would run with the land and they could still use it.  That’s a good question, I don’t know that things expire and go away.   I think once something ceases to be, can it go back?   Bayard – We’ve dealt with it before, I think you’re right, it’s not exactly clear.   Becky – That use has not been used since 2011.   That was actually in Unit 2.  Butler – So the Home Occupation is strictly for the beauty parlor and the area they designated for it.  Any change to it would be an amendment.   If you were to approve a new site plan, it doesn’t show that use anymore so I’m thinking effectively it would go away because it’s not reflected on your plan.   Effectively, if the new plan doesn’t show it, it would be gone.  Lapham – Mr. Chairman, I’m pretty sure I’m correct on this but the access to the proposed one-bedroom apartment, are those stairs outside?   Becky – Yes.   Bill & Ken inspect the property and sign off on a C.O.  Touhey – That’s only a single egress.   Bayard – I’m not sure how that would work with outside egress.   They would need a second means of egress.  LaBrecque – There would have to be an egress window.  Becky – The windows there are egress windows.   Brothers – you can do that with a window but they have to be certain sizes.   Bayard – You might want to contact Bill to make sure about the egress windows.   I think they just handled it with windows.   Gerken – I have a question on the 4 parking spaces or the extra parking space.  I see the 3 here, where is the 4th one going to be.    Becky – There are 2 in the garage on the first floor.   LaBrecque –Becky said it all, I don’t know that there’s anything in the staff report that’s not here.   Brothers – Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure I understood when we were talking about the plan siting as a residential property and it also had current home occupancy, beauty shop occupation, did we determine that because it’s not on the plan as such, that rescinds or revokes so we don’t have to state it in our motion.  LaBrecque – I believe so. It would be latest approved site plan that applies.   Bayard – And if they do want to do a home occupation at some point, they can come back and make the proposal.  We’re not precluding it, we’re just getting in effect what has been approved in the past.   Public Hearing closed at 7:55 p.m.      

Touhey moved, Brothers seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM L. FULLER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 LAKE STREET IN THE MEREDITH BAY, LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE WATERSHED, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, TAX MAP U06, LOT 100, TO APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APARTMENT WITHIN EXISTING SPACE OVER A TWO-CAR GARAGE, SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA SET DOWN IN THE VILLAGE HOUSING PROVISION IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THOSE CRITERION HAVING BEEN REVIEWED AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE CODE   ENFORCE-MENT OFFICER.  THE PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY UNIT ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.   THIS IS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING BOARD DOES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND AMEND ANY APPROVAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SITE PLAN REVIEW REGULATION NOS. 6 AND 17.   Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.

PLANET GREEN (BRIAN DAVIS FOR WINNIPISEOGEE INVESTMENT PROPERTY (Rep. Carl Johnson, Jr.)

Johnson (Advanced Land Surveying Consultants) I am representing the owner as well as Planet Green.  As you may be aware, Planet Green Landscaping was an approved Site Plan at the bottom of High School Hill just north of Circle K and as a result of what’s happening there,  he’s pretty much homeless with the business so this is the spot they have chosen to relocate and if you remember we came into the Board under a conceptual discussion a little while ago to give  you a heads up about this property and that they would be relocating here and we would be applying for a full-blown site plan and architectural design review which we have.  Fortunately, at that time we had basically all of this information so it should be a little bit familiar to you in that we did have pretty much the layout of how the site would be and a landscaping plan that Planet Green has developed and what we have done since then is a topographic mapping of the property to identify some of the grading and slope issues and Erin Darrow of Right Angle Engineering has prepared a grading plan and storm water management plan although there’s really not a lot going on in terms of storm water management on this site just because of the nature of the development.  The property’s located on Northview Drive, just northeast of the existing multi-use commercial building which is the Fitness Edge building and it’s got multiple other offices and things in there.  The unsual configuration of the lot line between the two is a result of a Boundary Line Adjustment that was done and approved by the Planning Board because the original grading of the property below this as you may be familiar has quite a steep rock banking and that was actually constructed over the line which wasn’t an issue at the time because the developer owned everything but since that time because they did not want that wall to be a part of this property there was a BLA and that’s why the boundary is a little bit funky on this side, it just results in the property line now going around that rock wall so there’s no portion of that rock wall that’s now on the property that’s under agreement between Brian and the current owner.  This is a new 40’ x 50’ building; it’s for Planet Green Landscaping Company to be a construction management company to be located there.  They provide solar designs and panel installations in addition to landscaping designs and construction management.  There will be a small area for storage of materials on the site and the office is located obviously inside the building.  This essentially is the same business that was operating on Brian’s residential piece of property which is just up the hill from the Circle K so there’s really no difference in the size, number of employees, configuration, number of vehicles between that site and this site.  The former site being considerably more limited than this site so actually it’s the same operation that’s going to be existing on a site that’s much more able to handle the operation, there is no residential component on this property.   Before you is the site plan which shows the existing topography, the site is sloped gently from east to west with the highest portion of the property being located to the east and then sloping gently down to the west.  There is an existing drainage swale that separates the Planet Green property from the Fitness Edge property and that’s going to be continued as a result of the storm water management plan to be where the drainage is to be handled.  Only about the front 20% of the property is going to be paved and the rest will be natural landscaped area and/or material storage and gravel so there’s really not a lot of potential for any major storm water situations to arise.  What Erin did for the front portion of the property as you’re aware, the town wants to the best of the applicant’s ability to avoid dumping additional water into the town ROW and also into the town catch basins and storm water management system that they have existing on Northview Drive so what Erin has done in the front portion of the plan is to grade it such that the majority of the first one-third of the site is to be slightly graded down towards the landscape area and there’s going to be a rain garden installed there which will capture and infiltrate the storm water into the ground.   This is a structure that’s very similar to the structure that’s located at the Nursing Association and there’s a detailed sheet that comes with this that provides the type of wetland vegetation that’s normally associated with a rain garden and is specifically designed to be flourishing in that type of environment.  There will be a slight swale to the top of the property which will come around to the bottom, take a turn to the southwest and go into another rain garden which is going to be installed at the very northwest corner of the property.  A similar structure to where the drainage is to be captured and infiltrated down into the ground.  This is a major improvement over what the existing drainage is now because right now there is no infiltration of any of the water that’s coming off the site into the groundwater so this will essentially, although there is going to be a slight increase in the peak drainage according to Erin’s plan, there will be a net decrease in the amount of water that’s coming off the site as a result of this.  The other thing is that because of the nature of the Planet Green operation, this does not have to be a flat site so in other words, you’re familiar with the Rite-Aid property, they are taking a lot of material out to get it down because it’s got to be a relatively flat site.  This site is going to continue to be slightly sloped from right to left if you will just as a result of not having to have a flat site.   If you look at Erin’s plan, there’s only about an 18” cut or so that’s occurring on the right hand side and there’s a very small retaining wall which will be an area of fill that will bring up that corner of the property just slightly. The rest of it is going to be gently sloped probably in the nature of 3-4% but that 3-4% over 75 or 100’ means you don’t have a lot of this earth excavation that you sometimes see in some site development and its beneficial in that regard.  You can see we have a fairly well established landscaping plan, the focus of this project is to be presentation. In other words, the people driving up Northview Drive are going to see a nicely  landscaped area in the front, a nice newly constructed building and you do have some architectural renderings of the building and the material storage and the construction vehicle parking will either be in the back basically out of sight from the people coming up Northview Drive and/or inside the building and there are parking spots that are available as you can see on the landscape plan, there are places for at least 2 and probably 3 vehicles inside the building depending on the size of the building.  Brian’s plan is showing some of the larger vehicles inside the building.  In terms of the site, it’s a very simple site with not a lot of grading going on, its serviced by an existing sewer.  The site plan does show a proposed sewer line going out to the street subsequent to the plan being submitted and the town actually going out to the site and locating the sewer stub.   The sewer is located a little bit to the south so that will be an amendment that will show where the sewer stub actually comes up onto the property and the sewer stub actually does go onto the property so one of the comments on Angela’s staff review was in regard to a road opening permit to connect to the sewer.  That will not be necessary as a result of the stub actually going onto the property so it’s one of the conditions of a conditional approval that would not be necessary because that’s a subsequent discovery by the Sewer Department after we had originally submitted the plans so I will just update the plan to reflect where that connection is.   The water service is going to be a well which will be located right next to the building as shown on the plan.   A driveway permit is required by the DPW and essentially this is where there has been a roughed-in driveway to the property for some time and that’s essentially where it is and we want to make sure the driveway is as wide as we can get it permitted by DOT to allow the very occasional access to the property by some larger vehicles that deliver materials.  The frequency of those deliveries are ½ dozen times/year so it’s not like you have these big trucks going in and out of this property all the time.   It’s very rare.  As you know Planet Green is a landscaping company and in a perfect world, they like to have the landscape materials delivered to the site so they don’t have to have them delivered to their property and then pick them up to deliver to the site but because they do buy some wholesale materials, they will have some storage of those materials on this site.   Erin did do the engineering plan which shows the grading, drainage and the rain gardens and one of the requirements the Planning Board normally does when there’s a storm water management plan of this limited nature, instead of having it reviewed by engineers outside the Planning Board review which is really not necessary in this case, what they require is prior to the C.O. the design engineer write a confirmation statement that the construction has essentially complied with the design intent of the storm water management plan so after Brian is done building this site prior to getting an occupancy permit, Erin would have to write a letter to the staff that says the design intent of her storm water  plan has been met.   I mentioned to Brian the easiest way for this to go is that there is communication from beginning to end such that in between maybe Erin can combine doing an inspection so when he gets done, it’s not right out of the blue that she has to come look at it and there’s some connection in between and he thinks that’s a great idea.  The lighting that’s shown on the building of course will be the cutoff light fixtures; there is no real desire to light this thing up.   As you may be aware, there was a variance granted to have some residences at the top of this property as opposed to offices so there are residential units up there and Planet Green wants to be sure this is a presentable building and occupation for those people, although they asked to be there.   This is all about presentation and there are some pictures in your packet, one of which is the sign and I’ll get to it in a minute in the architectural design review but essentially the sign that was on the previous location is going to be the sign used here.  It’s going to be a monument type sign and will be nicely landscaped out in the front with an exterior illumination.   The basic operating hours of the business are 7-5, Monday thru Saturday so it’s a daytime type operation, nothing happening there at night to interfere with those renegade residential units at the top of the property and it’s pretty much for the most part surrounded by non-residential/commercial properties.   The property located to the North is the Senior Housing property and that is residential but it’s a different type residential property and it’s significantly far enough away from where it’s not going to be an issue.   As I mentioned, the Fitness Square, LLC property, Tom Allen’s the abutter to the immediate west of the property, is a multi-use commercial building.  Slightly down and across is the Energysaver’s property and if you remember the Planning Board approved an expansion of the Energysaver’s on the next lot up and they have a storage facility and across the way is the dentist.   We are showing snow storage, landscaping, the signage is compliant, there’s an underground fuel tank, probably a 500 gallon underground fuel tank and that has to be approved and signed off by the Fire Chief prior to a C.O.   We want to make sure before things go in the ground that he touches base to make sure the tank is far enough away from the building, there is a compliance code there and there is plenty of room to locate that.   We’re quite a ways from the property line with the underground tank.    Butler -You said the retaining wall is on the same side of the property as Fitness Edge?   What is the height of the retaining wall that’s being built?  Johnson – It looks like it’s going to be about 2 feet so it’s a very shallow retaining wall.   Touhey – Carl, give me an idea from the parking spaces to the top of that retaining wall, how much distance is there for snow storage?   Johnson – Probably about 25 feet.   Touhey – What I’m concerned about quite honestly is I realize there’s some drainage from south to north there on my plan from right to left to a rain garden which is down by the corner rebar.   That’s going to be somehow sloped.   Johnson – It is already there.   It looks like there’s probably a drop of 6 feet or something of that sort to the rain garden.   I’m concerned about any kind of water that’s going to come off that snow storage that may harm this retaining wall on the abutter’s property.   That’s quite a wall and if we saturate the edge of that lot line there, are we going to have any impact next door.   Johnson – The design intent is actually to have a reduction in the amount of water that’s already going into that ditch as a result of diverting the drainage that’s occurring on the first 1/3 of the property now towards the front of the property into the rain garden that’s there.   LaBrecque – Carl, maybe you can pass around that storm water management plan.   Brothers – I appreciate Ed’s comments on this because when we did the preliminary, the impact to that area was of concern to me. (inaudible)   Johnson – One of the things you have to remember that’s important is right now and this would speak to Mr. Touhey’s concern, right now there is nothing on the upside of this property to affect any of the drainage that’s existing right now and what’s being proposed by Erin’s plan is to have a diversion ditch which is on the upside of the property that takes any of the drainage that’s coming now onto the site, diverting it to the back and down into the rain garden which results in a reduction in the amount of drainage that’s ending up in a ditch that’s existing now between the Planet Green property and the retaining wall so as a result of the storm water management plan, there should be less water going into that ditch as a result of what’s being proposed than what’s existing right now.  LaBrecque – Its not really a diversion swale, it’s an infiltration swale so there’s like ¾” drain rock at the bottom, some specific medium for planting and infiltrating water so the ditch is supposed to be designed to not just divert the water but have some sort of storage capacity and infiltrate the water and then when you have the larger storm events, it eventually flows to the rain garden.   Johnson – Right, that’s a more accurate description.  When I use the term divert, I just meant it wasn’t resulting in the same place but its diverting and infiltrating the drainage, the result of which is less water in the existing ditch between the two properties.  LaBrecque – So the one to the east is catching the water coming off the hill and then the one to the south of the property is basically catching the water that is being generated on-site.   Johnson – Some of the water that’s being generated on-site.   Touhey – But the blue arrows here…    LaBrecque – Is the direction of flow.  Touhey – Where the water is going.   Johnson – The blue arrows are telling you the direction but they are not telling you the amount so all its saying is that is the way its sloped so what’s missing from that equation is the amount.  The only way to stop the water from flowing in that direction would be to put 10’ of fill there and nobody wants that to happen.  The design intent is not so much to change the on-site direction of the flow to the back of the property as it is to reduce that amount of flow so it’s less of an impact to the properties that are to the west.    Touhey – Having not visited the site, we have been up Northview Drive but not having looked at the site for a number of years, I remember some of the trees had been removed.  It appears this is a much larger area here.  How much vegetation is being removed because it looks like everything is going to be gravel here or pavement.   Johnson – There’s a breakdown on the plan of the gravel and the pavement, but essentially it’s the entrance, the front parking up to the portion of the first corner of the building is paved.  The back of it is gravel and then there’s the material storage.   Touhey – What is it right now?   Johnson – It’s undeveloped property so its brush I would say not a lot of fully grown trees on the site.  It’s mostly just scrub brush.   Touhey – Let’s jump to the rain garden in the lower left-hand corner.  What’s the diameter of that rain garden, I’ve gotten kind of specific here and again we don’t know the volume of water.   Johnson – The design engineer runs the basic site through a program called hydro-cad which determines roughly the amount of water that’s coming off of a site and the calculations are the same for gravel as for pavement so the hydro-cad calculations assume that the site, everything that is shown as pavement is gravel will be calculated as pavement because although it doesn’t affect the amount of flow, the pavement affects the rate of flow.  There’s only so much water that goes on and off a site.   When you develop it, the only changes that really occur are the rate of flow with the exception of when you have infiltration trenches like this, the actual amount of post-development drainage is less because of the infiltration so the calculations on a site where there’s only 15,000 sq. ft. of disturbed area are miniscule, there really isn’t a lot of post-development drainage going on.  If they were to pave this whole site and have nothing there, that amount of drainage that’s occurring on 15,000 sq. ft. of disturbed area is not significant enough to warrant any type of major engineering intervention and that’s why the design intent is fairly low impact, that’s why there’s no engineer review required by staff and that’s why the statement that the design intent has been met by the applicant that’s required by the engineer is the only thing required on this type of development.   Bayard – I’m wondering if there isn’t some way we could limit the snow storage by that retaining wall.   The reason is there’s sort of a tendency to go downhill if you’re plowing and yet I think moving a good portion of it uphill would actually probably be better so we don’t run into that concern that I think Ed is saying is we stack all the snow right there.   Johnson – We could put a “no” in front of that snow storage note that says “no snow storage” in this area so they would have to put the snow somewhere other than that portion of the property, I don’t think that would be an issue.  Bayard – It seems to me that might be helpful.  I don’t think you have to have no snow but it certainly should be limited.   Johnson – I think the note and Brian’s sitting here in the audience shaking his head, he understands you’re not going to plow snow into the drainage ditch that just defeats the whole purpose of it.   So let’s put a note there that saysNo significant snow storage allowed in this area”.  Nothing significant happens on this site during the winter months.   There’s nothing else necessary on this site to protect the abutting properties.  Right now there is more drainage coming into that ditch than is going to be as a result of this development.  Brothers is comfortable with the no snow storage note.   Bayard – I think one of the concerns was that it might really pile up and perhaps have some overrun or something with the wall there and all.   Tom Allen has discussed this situation with Brian on how to make this whole thing work to be beneficial to both of them.   This property is quite more significantly altered topography wise than the property up above but as you are aware there is a rock wall there that may be sensitive to some additional drainage on there and that’s certainly not the intent of the applicant or the design engineer.   Touhey – Going back to the site plan, there is to be signage on the building itself and it appears the signage will be directly over the retail building below and that sign is 120 sq. ft. and we also have another sign that’s facing Northview Drive that would be 32 sq. ft.  Correct.  Touhey – And that’s 154 sq. ft.   LaBrecque – The one facing the road is 32 sq. ft. and that’s it, it’s one-sided.   We have another sign on the building of 120 sq. ft.  Johnson – That’s all within the parameters of the sign ordinance.  Touhey – So what we’re talking about for the committee to consider is the sign on the building that could be 10’ high and 12’ long.  I’m very strongly opposed to that; I don’t think you need that.  Johnson – What we’re talking about is a sign that’s allowed by the zoning ordinance.   This is the ** dilemma we’re in and it has happened before at the Planning Board, we are proposing a sign that’s allowed by the zoning ordinance because we have a new building that’s being constructed subject to site plan review and architectural design review.  If there was a 40’ x 50’ building existing on that site right now, the person could march down to the Town Hall and fill out a sign permit and put up a sign 120 sq. ft. with no permission from anybody.   That’s a right that’s allowed by the zoning ordinance and it happens all the time.  We had discussion after discussion on the Family Dollar sign down here about whether it’s going to be internally lit, how big it was going to be, how small it was going to be and when Dave Kutcher moved into his new building down there, there’s an internally illuminated sign with no permission from anybody because it’s a right guaranteed by the zoning ordinance.**   Touhey – As a Planning Board, we can certainly ask that the size of that sign be reconsidered by the applicant.  We’re all concerned about the appearance of Meredith and the sign that you’ve had on Route 25 was excellent and I think’s it’s your intention to use that same sign on the Northview site.  Davis – I don’t have a specific sign, I just put that on there so you all would know that I might put up a sign or I might not put up a sign.  Is it going to be that big, I don’t really know?  Touhey – Carl knows I have an issue with this and Carl knows that I know what the sign ordinance allows.   Johnson – This will not be a lit sign at all.  Bayard – So there will be no internal illumination and there will be no light shining on it at night.  I’m assuming it’s going to have colors that will be somewhat consistent with the building; you’re not planning on putting red against green?  Johnson – If the Board wanted to make it fully noted during that conditional approval that its highly suggested and recommended to make the sign as small as practicable, we would be more than happy to put that on the plan understanding we have a right to put a 120 sq. ft. sign on the building.  Brothers – I agree with Ed and I understand him citing this because I think we do want to make sure things are appropriate.  I guess what I would go on record as saying if you look at what’s designed here, it is certainly coordinated with the window design, the pitched roof, the siding.  Our previous experience with Mr. Davis in terms of what he has done for the new buildings behind the Rite-Aid, I’m not as concerned that this is a runaway train so.   Davis – The idea is for people to know where we are because no one’s aware of where we are.  Touhey – I would prefer to be able to see the size of what would be going up on the building when we consider the architectural design review as well as the whole site plan.  Gerken – My dentist is across the street and I also go to the Fitness Edge and I know that area.   If you’re coming up from the rotary and you’ve got that big thing that says Meredith Bay Colony Club and then you’ve got the big sign for the Fitness Edge and so forth, how do you find Brian on Northview Drive if you don’t have some signage that’s consistent with that so I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt with regard to what’s offered.   Davis – I’d like to reiterate, I only went with the maximum size because visually I’m having a hard time seeing what I would really put up there, it would probably be more like we had office space at the Century 21and really it was just our website just something like that.  I still have that sign and that might be all it is until I actually have a look at where it’s all laid out, it would really be difficult to say this is what I’m going to have and be tied to that.   I guess I’m asking for a little flexibility for that.   Butler – Everybody here agrees that your reputation is excellent and your taste is excellent but just on the off chance and I’m just doing this for the sake of argument, you decide to sell to another landscape company and they want a big 120 sq. ft. sign, can it be done granted to Planet Green Landscape?  They can do that by ordinance anyway, I think the one thing we could ask that it not be internally lit.  He said it’s not going to be and I think we could probably…   Butler – I’m not trying to restrict your sign, I agree with Liz, I’m just saying especially because you have the reputation of doing things tastefully in keeping with the town as does Village Canvas and many other businesses in town but I don’t want it to turn into a honky tonk either.    Johnson - Here’s what the deal is, you can’t penalize the guy whose developing now to the benefit of the guy who developed 10 years ago and because we know what the sign is out front, we put it there but in many of my site plans I tell the applicant if they don’t know what the size of the sign is going to be, put on there what the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance.  The sign ordinance is a very specific part of the zoning ordinance that designates by zone and differentiates between Route 3 here, Route 3 South, and Residential, it is sensitive to where you are in town in terms of how much signage they allow and that’s the operative word, allow.   Touhey –I appreciate the remarks that are shared, I would just prefer to be able to see the size of what would be going up on the building when we consider the architectural design review as well as the whole site plan review.  It’s not here and I’m disappointed it isn’t.   Bayard – Angela, you haven’t commented on this yet?   LaBrecque – Carl went over the whole staff report, they are moving what was on NH Route 25 and the offices that were right next to the Fire Station, that whole thing is being moved over to Northview Drive so it’s kind of the office component as well as what was at the Rite-Aid site.  I think Carl went over all of the points to the staff report; the propane tank conforms with all the zoning.   I missed that note about the building sign but 120 is the maximum, I just looked it up in the zoning ordinance.   Bayard – Why don’t we take a motion on this and we can make it subject to us approving the Architectural Design Review which we will most likely work on but as far as the order goes, I’d like to do this first, then we’ll go into the Architectural Design Review.   Tom Allen – I own Fitness Square, LLC.   I’ve talked to Brian a couple times about my concerns on the property and I have not looked at that plan, but whatever the plan says in real life, this is what has happened over the last 4 or 5 years, this wall right here bleeds a lot of water and it somewhat concerns me that you’re going to be taking all this and dumping it here, is that correct?   Johnson – The portion of the property that’s being graded towards the front is being graded into a rain garden located to the north and is going to take any of the drainage that’s existing on that site and proposed and infiltrate it into the ground.   Allen – This wall bleeds through the middle and through the______so if you’re taking all the water and dumping it right here, instead of right now it’s all grass and earth, the water I would think would be sinking down and going where it is but now you’re moving 1/3 of the property into an area where its known to bleed onto my driveway.   Johnson – The wall is entirely on the Fitness Edge, LLC property, there’s no portion of the wall that’s on Brian’s property.   Allen – yes, but you’re bringing all the water and putting it 15’ from my property line when there’s a known problem with this water so all this water is going to go here.  Johnson – It’s not all the water, it’s only the portion (area pointed out on the plan), the rest is going in another direction.    The amount of water that’s coming from the entrance is coming into the rain garden, the rest of it is being diverted around the property and infiltrated in the infiltration trench here and is picking up all of the water that’s coming from off-site and then it’s being diverted and infiltrated and eventually into the rain garden so the net result for this entire side of the property is a reduction in the amount of water coming off the property. 

Brothers moved, Gerken seconded, IN THE MATTER OF PLANET GREEN FOR  WINNIPISEOGEE INVESTMENT PROPERTY FOR A PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL SALES BUILDING WITH RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TAX MAP S17, LOT 17C, LOCATED ON NORTHVIEW DRIVE, WAUKEWAN WATERSHED, IN THE COMMERCIAL-ROUTE 3 SOUTH DISTRICT, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1)    A DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM DPW PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL.

(2)    CONFIRMATION FROM THE DESIGN ENGINEER THAT THE DESIGN INTENT HAS BEEN MET IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

(3)    SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED, 8 SPACES ARE PROVIDED, ONE OF THE SPACES WILL BE ADA COMPLIANT.

(4)    THE FINAL PLAN SHALL INDICATE THE PROPOSED SIZE OF THE PROPANE TANK TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA CODE. 

(5)    ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE, WHERE THE PARKING SPACES ARE, SHALL BE MODIFIED TO SHOW THAT NO SNOW STORAGE IS ALLOWED IN THAT AREA.

(6)    THE PLANNING BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND AMEND ANY APPROVAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SITE PLAN REVIEW REGULATION NOS.

 6 AND 17.    Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.  

PLANET GREEN – Architectural Design Review 

Johnson – There are some architectural renderings in your packets.   I don’t think the site plan approval should be conditional upon the architectural, I think it should be in and above itself because they are two separate applications running on 2 separate tracks and you may very well approve the site plan and not approve the Architectural Design Review, they have to have both in order to proceed because you may say that’s a great site, you’ve got all the parking, a great building location but its ugly so you may have an applicant come in and get site plan approval but then not get architectural design approval and have to come back.    Bayard – I’ve heard your comment, I’m not sure I agree.   It wouldn’t have to come back in for site plan review though, they would only have to come back in for architectural design review.   Bayard – If its conditional on that if we get the architectural design review approved then that would be a condition.   Bayard – Do you want to present anything about it or is it pretty much self explanatory.  It’s a singular building, you can see the architectural renderings that were prepared by Brian, showing the front of the building with the big doors coming in and then there’s the one access door on the north side of the building, then there are the two other elevations and as you can see the elevation in the lower right-hand corner, that’s the elevation that’s going to be facing Fitness Edge.  Is that correct Brian, the one on the lower right?   Davis – I believe so.   That would be the building elevation that would have the sign on it and you could see in a 40’ long building, he’s probably not going to have a 12’ long  x 10’ high sign and that’s why its somewhat self-controlling but that’s what the ordinance allows.  I think Brian would be the first one to say it would look pretty dumb on that side of the building but that would be the elevation the sign would appear on.   Touhey – Carl, with your finger kind of give us an idea where that sign would be.  Davis – Probably right underneath these windows right here or right above here (pointing to building).   Touhey – But that’s not the south side of the building, now I’m really confused.   Johnson – Don’t get confused by north, south, east, west, but that’s this side of the building.   Touhey – So the sign would go either above or below the windows.   It is self-limiting to a degree.   Gerken – What’s the elevation of that western portion of the building facing Fitness Edge, how high is that above the paved parking area.   According to the drawing, it’s probably more like twentyish.  LaBrecque – The measurements include some of the foundation and then you have cross-hatch that’s white but that looks like it’s part of the foundation.  LaBrecque – The south elevation looks like it’s all solar panels facing southish and obviously the two oversized garage doors for equipment trucks.   I don’t believe it’s going to be this green color, I think this is just a rendering.  It has a horizontal siding, pitched roof and the decorative windows consistent with a lot of the architecture you see in Meredith. Johnson – Sometimes auto-cad doesn’t have the right paint chip available, it will be earth tones.  Davis – I was trying to copy the green on my barn because that’s an historical color.   Public Hearing closed

Brothers moved, Lapham seconded,MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE IN THE MATTER OF PLANET GREEN FOR WINNIPISOEGEE INVESTMENT PROPERTY FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW, ASSESSOR’S MAP S17, LOT 17C, LOCATED ON NORTHVIEW DRIVE IN THE WAUKEWAN WATERSHED, COMMERCIAL ROUTE 3 SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT. THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF MEREDITH, IT HAS HORIZONTAL SIDING, A ROOF LINE THAT’S CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN AND CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND DEMONSTRATES SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO PROPOSED LIGHTING ON THE DESIGN BEING CUTOFF LIGHT FIXTURES, THE PROPOSED SIGNS, ONE IN THE FRONT OFF OF NORTHVIEW DRIVE WILL BE A 4’ X 8’ SIGN, MONUMENT STYLE USING SAME SIGN AS ATTACHED IN THE PHOTO PROVIDED, AND A BUILDING SIGN THAT SHOWS ON THE PLAN UP TO THE MAXIMUM SQ. FOOTAGE AS ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE.    Voted 6-1 in favor of the motion. 

Mr. Chairman, as in the past, I would like to get a general consensus that the plan can be signed outside of a meeting by the Secretary and Chairman.  Board agrees.

JOSEPHINE RICCIUTI (Rep. Carl Johnson, Jr.)

Carl Johnson – I’m here representing Ms. Ricciuti this evening and you may be familiar with this property.  It is located on Mass Avenue in a subdivision that was approved by the Meredith Planning Board a few years back and part of that approval included a two-unit building permitted on this particular lot, the lot being 23,694 sq. ft. so as a consequence of that subdivision and that approval, there is a 2-unit building existing currently on this property.  The unit is serviced by a common sewer line and water line going into the building.   The existing driveway comes in off Massachusetts Avenue to the front of the building with a small turnaround area; all of the existing improvements on this lot are to remain as is.  There are no proposed changes to anything on this site.  The driveway, utilities and building size are to remain the same.  The only thing that’s really happening here is a change of ownership form.  The ownership right now is a single owner who rents out 2 units and would like to convert this to a condominium so those units could be sold.  From a site plan and subdivision standpoint, there really isn’t a heck of a lot going on here because what you see is what you get.  You’re ending up with exactly the same as they are now, only that instead of having one deed for this piece of property with a 2-unit rental building on it; you would have separate deeds for the condominium units.  That involves a declaration of condominium covenants and those are being done by Frank Michel for Mrs. Ricciuti’s benefit.  The two units that are there right now are already part of a homeowner’s association which is the Leia Lane Homeowner’s Assn. also prepared by Frank Michel.   There’s essentially no change to that association as a result of this.   You basically end up with an association within an association.   Although it is a legal wrangling, it happens pretty much all the time.  If you were to look at Southdown Shores and Grouse Point, they have the same situation.   All of the obligations these units currently have for the Leia Lane Homeowner’s Association remain in effect and they will have their separate stack of covenants and restrictions.   A draft of the covenants was submitted to Angela today, obviously she hasn’t had time to review them.  Traditionally, the review of the condominium association documents are handled by the staff and the Board doesn’t get into too much of it.   Generally, the town cares very little about the restrictions with the exception of they want to make sure there’s language in there regarding the commonality of access, parking and utilities.  If the association has restrictions on what you can plant, how you  have to mow your lawn and what hours you can have keg parties, the town doesn’t really get involved in that.   What we have here is a plan that shows the existing conditions and there is really no difference between the existing conditions plan and the proposed plan because everything is already there.  We did ask for a waiver and all that stuff because all of the environmental information was presented during the original subdivision of the property.   Angela would like a plan note added to the plan identifying what the setbacks are, the setbacks are shown on the plan and I do not have my little note that says what they are so I will add a little box that has what the setbacks are on the plan.  She would also like the final plan to cross reference the Planning Board approved subdivision as well as the special exception, Case #2404, to show development within the 75’ buffer of a wetland which was granted at the time of the subdivision circa 2003 and we did submit those documents to be reviewed by the town.  There is a note the surveyor of record shall provide written evidence that all pins have been set but there are no additional pins to be set on this.  The condominium plan shows the common area and the limited common areas.  Essentially, the limited common areas around the building are just to account for the entrances and the decks and those are handled in the covenants and restrictions.   Brothers – I am an abutter of this subject property so I want the record to reflect that I’ve recused myself for that reason.   Gerken – Is this part of Massachusetts Avenue or is it an extension?   Johnson – I think what happened is it used to be called Mass Ave Extension but when the town accepted it as a road, it’s now Massachusetts Avenue.   Gerken – In the pictures, is that the part where the paving ends and it sort…   Johnson - No, the paving continues now.   Gerken – What’s the cross section there, Westview Drive.  Peter’s frontage is on Westview.  LaBrecque – Mass Ave. is right off of Main Street.   Johnson – Technically, its Lower Ladd Hill.  The technicality is that it is Lower Ladd Hill Road.   LaBrecque – Nothing is changing to the site, the only thing being proposed is ownership of the 2 units.  There are some photographs in your packet if you want to see what the building looks like, there’s one from the road and one from up in the driveway unit.  I just wanted the plan to reflect the setback for the stream because it does go over a large part of that lot so any buyer of one of the new condos would be made aware of that as well as the cross-reference to the approved subdivision plan.   A chain of title is going to tell them there are homeowner association documents for the Leia Lane Association that was established but I think having that information on the plan could be helpful.   There are two separate meters already for each of the two units so nothing has to change in the way of that, its just common ownership of that sewer service line and the water.   Bayard – If I’m correct, condominiumization in New Hampshire is not something we really can go and say    LaBrecque – Technically - It’s a subdivision but it’s a change in ownership.   Johnson – The Town of Meredith considers a condominium development to be both a subdivision and a site plan.  This is a little bit different in that we’re not proposing the condominium from scratch, it’s just a conversion of an existing building.   LaBrecque – The Site Plan formalizes what’s on the site and the condo subdivision plan I guess formalizes what belongs to who and what’s zoned commonly.  Bayard – There are some restrictions, I don’t think we can deny something just because they’re turning it into a condo.   Johnson – Condominium Declarations and Covenants cannot trump anything that the town has, it can’t trump a zoning ordinance or whatever.   There are a lot of things in condominium documents the town could care less about.  Gerken – Does Frank Michel have to submit those condominium documents to the Secretary of State’s Office?  Johnson – Yes. 

Gerken moved, Butler seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR JOSEPHINE RICCUITI, TAX MAP U03, LOT 23-1A, LOCATED AT 24 MASS AVENUE IN THE WAUKEWAN WATERSHED, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.   THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION PLAN IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM WITHIN THE EXISTING DUPLEX, NO SITE MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED:  SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS   

(1)  THE PLAN SHALL NOTE THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS PER THE DISTRICT.

(2)  THE FINAL PLAN SHALL ALSO SHOW THE 75’ BUFFER THAT IMPACTS THIS LOT AND NOTE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE #2404.

(3)  THE FINAL PLAN SHALL CROSS REFERENCE THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION PLAN DATED OCTOBER 10, 2003 AND REVISED THRU JUNE 28, 2005, RECORDED IN BELKNAP COUNTY PLAN DRAWER L53, PLAN #7.

(4)  THE CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS MUSTS BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

(5)  THIS CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AT WHICH TIME FINAL APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED OR A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE HELD FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO GRANT ADDITIONAL TIME.    Voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.  

Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Lee Harvey

Adm. Assistant, CD Dept.

The above minutes were read and approved at a regular meeting of the Meredith Planning Board held on _6-25/13__.

                                                                                   ____________________________

                                                                                         Edward Touhey, Secretary