ATKINSON PLANNING BOARD

Atkinson, New Hampshire

Planning Board Meeting

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Present: Sue Killam, Chairperson; Paul DiMaggio, Vice-Chairman;

Tim Dziechowski; Mike Fletcher; Joe Guischard

Alternate: ; Harold Morse

Ex-Officio:

Sue Killam opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.

Ms. Killam reviewed the incoming and outgoing correspondence.

Harold Morse made a motion to move the minutes to the end of the meeting. Mike Fletcher seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.

Sue Killam opened the meeting to the public at 7:45 p.m.

SEC & Associates Engineering for Robert and Pamela Perreault Submission of an Application for Formal Consideration and Approval for Proposed Commercial Site Plan for Expansion of Building on Property Located at 12 Main Street, Map 5, Lot 45, C Zone: Sue Killam reads the abutters list. Harold Morse recuses himself as he is an abutter (Lewis Builders). Terry Tridell of SEC & Associates presents to the Planning Board that there is an existing residential home where a dentistry is run. The Perreaults would like to expand the residential dwelling for the dentistry and office space. There may be a need for a special exemption because of the nonconforming use. There has been no review done by Stantec because SEC must first go before the Zoning Board. The property is residential in the front, and the side structure is where the dentistry is located. The Perreaults would like to raise the side structure to a 2-1/2 story building with the same roof line as the existing building, expand the parking on Robie Lane and provide the required landscaping. The property is in a C Zone and abuts a residential zone with 100 ft residential buffer. The expansion of a nonconforming use requires a special exemption. Eric Steltzer would like the Board to take this under jurisdiction. There is a clause stated in Section 530 that if there is parking in the front lot, then there must be a 75 ft setback rather than 50 ft setback. The building is built within the setback, and therefore, a nonconforming use, not because of the use. Since it is a nonconforming use, a special exemption will be needed. A variance may be needed to build in the setback, since the lot is nonconforming because it encroaches in the setback. Under the special exemption process, it will be reviewed if the building can be expanded. When the ZBA decides, they will take into effect whether the building is in the setback, and they will not need a variance because the issue is being dealt with in the special exemption. The ZBA may want a variance and a special exemption. Paul DiMaggio feels the stricter rule should apply, and his option would suggest a variance as well as a special exemption. Sue Killam does not think it needs a variance because the building is already nonconforming because of the setback. Ultimately, it is the ZBA’s decision, but both should be applied and let the ZBA decide. Mr. Steltzer feels the Board should make a recommendation on the variance to prevent delays. Mr. DiMaggio feels they should apply for both and let the ZBA decide what is needed. Harold Morse questions the nonconforming use and feels they will not meet setback which needs a variance, not the building being a nonconforming use. Mr. Steltzer reads the nonconforming use definition which defines land, building and structure, and Mr. Steltzer feels the building meets the nonconforming use definition. Mr. DiMaggio agrees with Mr. Morse that a special exception may not cover and only needs a variance, but Mr. Steltzer feels the variance is needed to build in a nonconforming use. Tim Dziechowski feels the ZBA will consider both. Mike Fletcher agrees. Joe Guischard feels the ZBA will want both. Sue Killam and Paul DiMaggio both feel the they both should be applied for. Mr. Steltzer feels the Board should make a decision to prevent delays and clean up the process. Ms. Killam explains the process to the abutters.

A question regarding landscaping buffering was raised regarding the tree street strip which needs plants or to protect the existing trees. There is no room for a front landscape strip. Does the Board want the applicant to meet the front landscape strip, because the parking lot prevents this. The lot has two frontages and needs a tree street strip on Robie Lane and Main Street. The parking lot is on the original plan and was approved, but was never completed. Mr. DiMaggio feels other options are available rather than on the entrance to Main Street or Robie Lane for a parking lot. He suggests behind the building. An access on the front land would have to be run which would destroy the trees. Dr. Perreault explains that his landscaping and parking lot would be behind the trees and shrubs in place. Dr. Perreault’s goal is to leave the landscaping looking the way it does and not creating a parking lot on the land. He is trying to minimize the impact on the land, and this plan allows for less pavement and not destroying the existing landscaping. Mr. Weatherbee, an abutter, is concerned that his view will now be of a parking lot. Parking now has 11 spots and is entered from Robie Lane. Dr. Perreault is looking for less impact on the land and the landscaping. Mr. Steltzer’s issue is the front landscape strip and the parking lot being in the 100 ft buffer. This is the preliminary stages, and the plans must be presented to the ZBA before they present the site plans to the Planning Board. Jerry Fortin of Stantec suggests the site distance at Robie Lane and Main Street for landscaping. He feels parking is encroaching the trees and will have to consider this. Dr. Perreault says the plans will be changed removing the parking spots from around the large Maple tree.

Harold Morse returns to the Board.

SEC Engineering Submission of an Application for Formal Consideration and Approval of a Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision of Land (8.41A) to Create a New Building Lot 6.38A off Birdsall Lane. Existing Dwelling to be Left With 2.03A, Property Located at 32 Maple Avenue, Map 9, Lot 59, TR2 Zone: Sue Killam reads the abutters list. Stantec has written a letter stating the review fees are in order. Stantec states that the right-of-way would be dedicated to the Town proposing cutting the lot for a residential lot. A 700 ft driveway to the buildable area is proposed. There is a gravel driveway with two wetland crossings which have been signed off by the Conservation Commission. State is reviewing for dredge and fill. The stormwater has been completed and reviewed by Stantec and complies for jurisdiction and recommends consideration be on approval of dredge and fill and state permit approvals. The erosion plans are completed, utilities taken care of, guardrails added to the culvert, safety bars removed from plan, iron pin demarcation, drill hole cleared up, NFPA guidelines met, and Chief can make comments on the driveway once the plan is taken under jurisdiction. The number of bedrooms was questioned, and will it is determined it will be a 4 and under bedroom residential dwelling. Jerry Fortin of Stantec received the revised plans, and he verifies that all of his comments and concerns were addressed. The only outstanding item is item #8, the driveway approvals and permit approvals. Mr. Dziechowski presents to the Board that the Conservation Commission’s concerns that the driveway and dredge and fill were just over the requirements for minor impact. They are comfortable with the plans, and the Conservation Commission has no concerns. They have requested that the driveway shall have no salt used on it because of the wetlands, but this is not an enforceable request. Mr. DiMaggio questions the area in the middle of the lot which is not buildable for a driveway. This area is not available through Kelly Lane because of the strip of land owned by the neighbor.

GIS Buildout Analysis Discussion – Guest Speaker Rob Pruyne: The CTAP program revolves around the I-93 expansion. The Town would be second after Hampstead’s buildout. Mr. Pruyne presented the map to the Board for their review. He is asking the Board to mark up the maps. The worse case scenarios shows every space where building can occur. The purpose is to find the density in Town and tighten up and clean up the zoning ordinances. This will show the Town where they do not want to build, taking the smart growth approach. The community scenario shows where the Town wants the building modeled. Mr. Pruyne will take the base buildout projections and number of residents and will be able to project whether the Town utilities can handle increase (i.e., fire, police, school, etc.). The deadline is March 31, 2008. The maps are specially inaccurate and outdated which the Board needs to review to get a better understanding. The Board needs to mark up any and all maps handed out. The wetlands maps show definitions that are very similar types of wetlands. Mr. Pruyne can get specific definitions. The maps are outdated, and Mr. Pruyne will get the Board an updated map.

Building Codes: The Board discusses the building codes regarding putting them in the zoning ordinance, but the lawyers disagree that they should not be put in zoning if the State already requires these building codes which only becomes duplicative. The Planning Board is asking the Town to adopt State building codes. NFIP was cross-referenced and current new ordinances would replace old ordinances with the new references. This only pertains to the flood plain ordinance and what is in the flood plain. The definitions must be added.

The Board reviewed the minutes of the October 3, 2007 Planning Board meeting.

The Board reviewed the minutes of the November 28, 2007 Planning Board meeting.

The Board reviewed the minutes of the December 5, 2007 Planning Board meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Raelene McBride