 |
TOWN OF BEDFORD
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2007
BEDFORD MEETING ROOM
A meeting of the Bedford Planning Board was held on Monday, January 8, 2007 at the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road, Bedford, NH. Present were: Chairman John Levenstein, Vice-Chairman Harold Newberry, Michael Scanlon (Town Council), Debra Sklar, Michael Burns, Neal Casale (Alternate), Chris Riley (Alternate), and Karen White (Town Planner).
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairman Levenstein opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Levenstein said we are missing some members this evening so I will appoint Mr. Burns to vote for Mr. Young, Mr. Riley to vote for Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Casale to vote for Mr. Drahnak.
Chairman Levenstein asked Ms. White to read the agenda for this evenings meeting.
II. New Business
A. Application Acceptance and/or Public Hearings on Applications:
1. The Planning Board will hold the first public hearing on proposed zoning amendments submitted by the Planning Board and by citizen petitions. The full text of the amendments is available in the Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and on the Town website at www.bedfordnh.org.
2. Charlene Cassidy – Request for a Change-of-Use site plan approval to convert an existing home into a retail kitchen cabinet showroom for Cassidy Kitchen Cabinets. Approximately 305 sq. ft. of the home will be demolished to make room for proposed parking & septic system, leaving approximately 850 sq. ft. for the showroom, 366 South River Road, Lot 35-18, ZONE PZ.
B. Concept Proposals and Other Business:
3. Riley Investment Properties, LLC –Proposal to modify the architecture of an existing building located at 21 Commerce Park North, Lot 24-19, ZONE PZ.
Ms. White said it is my understanding that we do not have a quorum of five who can vote on Item 3 tonight, so I suggest that the Planning Board request that the applicant postpone until the next meeting, which would be January 22, 2007. Chairman Levenstein said Item 3 will be postponed until the January 22, 2007 and this will serve as notice.
Ms. White said the last item which is to let the audience and the view public know there was a DOT hearing scheduled for this Thursday night, January 11, 2007 regarding proposed traffic signal and intersection improvements at Route 101 with Hardy and Jenkins Road. That meeting has been cancelled and it has been rescheduled to February 21, 2007. Chairman Levenstein asked does Item 2 have any regional impact? Ms. White replied it is staff’s opinion that it does not have regional impact, either traffic, use or based on its location it is not near any Town boundary.
MOTION made by Mr. Burns to accept the agenda. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Newberry. Vote taken - all in favor. Motion carries.
1. The Planning Board will hold the first public hearing on proposed zoning amendments submitted by the Planning Board and by citizen petitions. The full text of the amendments is available in the Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and on the Town website at www.bedfordnh.org.
MOTION made by Vice-Chairman Newberry to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Burns. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
Amendment No. 1
Proposed by the Planning Board: To amend Article 45-5 WETLANDS CONSERVATION ORDINANCE of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 45-5-2 by deleting the term “certified soils scientist” and replacing it with the term “New Hampshire certified wetlands scientist”.
Amend Section 45-5-6(a) through (f) by deleting the term “certified soils scientist” and replacing it with the term “New Hampshire certified wetlands scientist”. Also delete the terms “High Intensity Soils Map or HISS Map” and replace it with the term jurisdictional wetlands delineation map”.
Ms. White said this is simply a housekeeping amendment to make Bedford’s Town Ordinance match some changes in the State of New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services Administrative Rules.
Chairman Levenstein asked the Board and members of the audience for comments regarding this proposed amendment.
Amendment No. 2
Proposed by the Planning Board: To amend Article 45-9 ROUTE 3 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE ZONE, Section 45-9-14 MINIMUM LIGHTING STANDARDS, subsection (c) (1) and Figure 45.23 by deleting the words with a strike through and inserting the words in bold italics of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
(1) In order to minimize glare and other adverse effects associated with exterior lighting all exterior lighting fixtures shall be of a design that provides for luminaire cutoffs with a total cutoff at an angle of seventy-five degrees (75°) from the vertical. Full cutoff luminaires. A full cutoff luminaire shall mean a luminaire light distribution where zero candela intensity occurs at or above an angle of ninety degrees (90°) above nadir and the candela per 1000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 100 (10%) at an angle eighty degrees (80° ) above nadir. This applies to all lateral angles around the luminaire.
Ms. White said this is because 75 degree cutoffs are not available anymore commercially. You have to construct them individually with custom made light shields and so now the Institute of Electrical Engineers is recognizing what they call the full 90 degree cutoff. So we are trying to stay in keeping with the times and to what products are readily available.
Chairman Levenstein asked the Board and members of the audience for comments regarding this proposed amendment.
Amendment No. 3
Proposed by the Planning Board: To amend Article 45-12 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 45-12-2 DEFINITIONS, by adding or modifying the definitions for New Construction, Violation, Area of Special Flood Hazard, Development, Flood Insurance Study, and Regulatory Floodway. Delete the definitions for Area of Shallow Flooding, Breakaway Wall, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map.
Amend Sections 45-12-4, 45-12-5, and 45-12-6 by deleting all references to Flood Zones
A1-A30, AO, and AH because these zones are not applicable to Bedford, and replacing the term “Wetlands Board” with “Wetlands Bureau”.
Amend Section 45-12-5(c) by inserting the following bold italicized words:
Along watercourses with a designated Regulatory Floodway, no encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development are allowed within the floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practices that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the base flood discharge.
Ms. White said this is a series of changes that the Federal Emergency Agency is asking all the towns in New Hampshire to change in their ordinance. They are mostly housekeeping items, but FEMA will be adopting a new, digitized flood plane map for New Hampshire this coming spring, so they wanted to make sure that all the towns in New Hampshire had their ordinances up to date. For Bedford that means very few changes. They wanted us to add some definitions for new construction, for violation, for what area flood hazard means, to define the flood insurance study and regulatory flood way. They are asking us to delete some definitions that don’t apply to Bedford and also to delete some flood zones, A1 through A30, AO and AH, which don’t apply to Bedford because we don’t get title
flooding conditions or other types of floods that these zones describe. The final part of FEMA’s request change is that the ordinance for years has said you that you can not encroach or put fill into a flood way, now FEMA is proposing that there should be a engineering methodology to appeal that decision, so they are changing the ordinance to say that you could encroach or put fill in flood way if you can demonstrate through hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standards engineering practices that the proposed encroachment would not result in an increase in the flood level. It is kind of like an appeal or methodology process. This amendment is pretty much a housekeeping item.
Chairman Levenstein asked the Board and members of the audience for comments regarding this proposed amendment.
Amendment No. 4
Proposed by the Planning Board: To amend Appendix 45-A TABLE OF USES of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Retail Sales Establishments, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, footnote (7) by adding the words in bold italics as follows:
(7) Limited to the selling of groceries, meats, produce, drugs, stationary, hardware, baked goods (outlet only), floral arrangements, and household appliances.
Ms. White said there are only nine pieces of property in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and two of them are existing florists that have been there for 30 or more years. It seemed time to legitimize those two florists, that is Dixieland Florist and the Flower Cart, by allowing flora arrangements to be sold in that zone.
Chairman Levenstein asked the Board and members of the audience for comments regarding this proposed amendment.
Amendment No. 5
Proposed by the Planning Board: To amend Appendix 45-A TABLE OF USES of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Delete the Use Category “Public/Private Recreation and Open Space” from the Table of Uses. Add “Commercial Recreation Facility” as a “P” permitted use in the Civic & Institutional zoning district.
Ms. White said we have several categories of recreational uses that are listed, including public parks and playgrounds, commercial recreation, golf course and country club. But this one has caused some confusion because last year somebody called and said I see from your uses that open space is not allowed in the residential zones. I see no need for a Planning Board to try and regulate where you can and cannot have open space. I think that is something we want to encourage as much as possible in whatever zone. I am proposing that we just delete this redundant use.
Chairman Levenstein asked the Board and members of the audience for comments regarding this proposed amendment.
Amendment No. 6
Submitted by citizen’s petition: ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF BEDFORD ZONING ORDINANCE as follows:
“To amend Article 45-3 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS, Section 45-3-2, Location of Districts, as follows: To amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Bedford, New Hampshire by Rezoning Tax Map #1, Lot #19 from the Service Industrial Zone (SI) to the General Residential Zone (GR). Said Tax Map #1, Lot #19 is a four-sided irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of 20.00 acres, with existing building thereon with street address of 54 Rundlett Hill Road, Bedford, New Hampshire, and with its entire frontage running in a southwesterly direction along the western line of Rundlett Hill Road. The property is currently bordered on three sides by residential zoning. The owners of record are Steven, Alan, and Gary Chartrand (trustees). The building on the property is a 1,572 square foot
ranch style house.”
Ms. White said as far as the Planning Board analysis, the property is located on the west side of Rundlett Hill Road just north of several of the industrial uses along Cody Lane, Wise Potato Chips and that area. The property is zoned service industrial so it continues that service industrial zone that it abuts to the south, but on the west side and the north side and across Rundlett Hill Road to the east, the area is zoned general residential. I understand that the gentleman that submitted this petition lives directly across Rundlett Hill Road from this property and is trying to be pro-active to make sure that in the future he doesn’t have to deal with a proposal for industrial development. It is also my understanding, I did check the list of signatures on the petition, and there are no Chartrands
listed a petitioners and Mrs. Grace Chartrand, the mother of Steven, Alan and Gary, who lives on the property, did call the Planning office and was quite concerned because she felt the land was being zoned out from under her. At least from what I know, the Chartrand’s are not supportive of this proposed petition.
Mr. Riley said I had the opportunity to meet with Alan Chartrand last year to discuss the use of the property and what their goals were and what their objectives were with their property. All the Chartrand boys grew up on that property, their mother still lives in the property, and at that time after doing a fairly extensive analysis of the parcel, it was determined that they were going to kind of sit tight for a while. It is zoned the way it is because for years it was a chicken farm. It was their intent from my personal meeting with them that they leave the property zoned the way it was and discuss issues of how to go about a zoning change if that was their intent in the future and they decided that they just wanted to leave it the way it was. They thought about potentially doing something with
it from a housing standpoint and they just felt that their mom was going to stay on the property for a while and that they weren’t going to do anything until the property was vacated by the mom or she passed on. That is my personal experience with it. I can understand why an abutter or neighbor would look at that piece across from their property and want to protect the value of their property feeling that something zoned to the contrary of what they were zoned would be a potential negative impact on the area, but I would suggest to the Board that we do have to remember there aren’t a lot of parcels left in Bedford zoned as this property is. We should consider that whether we support this amendment or not.
Chairman Levenstein asked members of the audience for comments regarding this proposed amendment.
Brian Nolan said I am the organizer of the petition and I live across the street from the lot. I don’t know if any of you have had a chance to take a look at the plot plans, but this 20-acre lot is surrounded on three sides by residential. I’ve lived in my house for about ten years and until about three or four months ago I had no idea this was zoned service industrial, nor did any of the neighbors I talked to. When I bought my house I saw a similar family house there. It is my lack of due diligence ultimately, but this is news to all of the neighbors that this was zoned service industrial. I suspect that when it was zoned service industrial originally there were probably no other houses on the road. Most of the houses are 20 years old or so, so I suspect that back then
there were no ramifications to put in an industrial or commercial type of building in there, but now there about seven abutters directly across the street, one directly across the street, who are in direct view of that property. I suspect the neighborhood has changed a lot since it was zoned that way and would have a negative impact to the surrounding people if it were developed with an industrial building.
Gary Dickson, 47 Rundlett Hill Road, said like Mr. Nolan I live directly across the street from the property. Grace Chartrand is a very good friend of ours and we are sorry that this request is coming without her approval, but it is our understanding that if the request is approved that neither the property with her sons’ home, which she lives on, would suffer, nor would the Town suffer because the attractiveness of the property lies primarily in the residential character of that whole area until you get all the way over to the former Clark’s farm. But between there the end of Rundlett Hill Road on my side of the street, it is all residential and were the industries to expand into that area as they could legitimately right now, I believe it would significantly reduce the attractiveness of the area
as residents and I think there might well be an outflow of people and I think that that would be a negative impact on the Town. The Town’s attractiveness is generally to residences and to simply preserve the opportunity to make this a future industrial activity in that location, I don’t think is an adequate reason to ignore the request of the many. I believe that when it went to the Town many would support the idea of expanding the residential opportunities in the Town. From a personal standpoint I am very much in favor of the proposal and would be very disappointed if it were Grace’s house to be removed and replaced by an industry that I would be practically driving into with my driveway.
Philip Mahoney, 43 Rundlett Hill Road, said I would agree with what I’ve heard so far. Part of the concern of course is having more industrial or business in the area. I understand I am one that doesn’t believe people need a lot of direction on what to do on their land, but we also have to protect the value of the area and the people who purchased homes in the area. Dealing with the existing industrial businesses there, the entrances of Silver Springs and any other businesses are before these homes, so that also does help protect some of the value of homes because we don’t have to deal with any excessive traffic coming up from those business. Traffic is another concern. Those who have been in Town for years know what it used to be like when it was an access up to St. Anselm’s. There is still a cut through but it keeps it a little quieter in the area and as you all know that traffic is a major concern throughout this whole Town. I think those are several things that people
need to be aware of. We have a lot of people that don’t go that way. When Clark’s closed down it at least temporarily it seems like fewer residents that would frequent that area go up that way unless they are cutting through. There are several issues. I would rather look at homes if the trustees decided they wanted to do something with the land, it would be much better served as a residential area, I think, than maybe a 40 foot tall warehouse or listening to the trucks coming in and out at night. You can hear that from Yellow Freight, that was there. It is far enough off and there are enough buildings in the way that it doesn’t interfere with the peace of the area. But I think it’s very important to keep it, as we stated earlier, that residential would appeal to the area. As far as the lack of industrial space, we still have the performance zone, so we still do have some areas where business are welcome into. Again, this is a very sore subject for some people that live
down that way and it is understandable, but that is what it was decided for and developed for and as we have seen this whole Town grow, the zoning applications that were set out years ago of course have to be addressed because of the future of the Town and how it has changed. Hopefully we don’t overgrow, but we are running out of home spaces, so this would be a good spot for residential.
Ms. White said interestingly enough some years ago the Board and voters did vote to allow independent elderly housing in the service industrial zone. So that is one thing other than industrial uses that could go on the property.
Mr. Riley said I respect Mr. Nolan, Mr. Dickson and Mr. Mahoney’s points in trying to protect the value of their homes. I think my biggest concern with the petition is that the current landowner did not sign or come forward to change this zoning of their property and I think it just comes down, for me, to personal property rights and don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I live in that area. I’m in that area as well, I know what is happing at that corner of Route 114 and Donald Street, but my real issues is that the Chartrand’s didn’t come forward to do this and speaking with them personally I know that they have a bunch of ideas on what could go on over there and I don’t want to divulge what they were talking about, however, they are looking at
all types of different options when they decide to do something with their property. I think for us to put something on a ballot that a homeowner that has lived there for years, didn’t support or originate, I just think is contrary to what we want to set as a precedent.
Mr. Dickson said I’d like to respond to that comment. The simple fact is that the property for all of those years has been effectively a residence. It is a 20-acre, beautifully open, residential area and consequently to believe that technically could be a residence is almost a misnomer. It is also almost misstating the purpose of the land and the fact that people come into the area now believing that that is a residential area, makes it unfortunate that it is misleading by bringing people into an area where they would expect, if anything, the one home could be replaced by a dozen. But to think that one home could be replaced by something as unattractive as the industries that have been named, and there certainly is no assurance that it would be turned into something as benign as senior
citizen homes, while that may be allowed, there certainly is no way of assuring that that could be the application. Therefore, it seems to me that the prima fascia issue is that to all intents and purposes, it is now and has forever been a residence and I think what were asking is that it simply be solidified in that condition.
Ms. Sklar asked the use prior was a chicken farm? Mr. Riley replied yes. Ms. Sklar asked is there any category that would just allow independent elderly housing? Ms. White said no. Mr. Burns asked when was this first zoned service industrial? Ms. White replied I don’t know that, but I will look it up for the next meeting. Ms. Sklar said it is always a question of balancing interest and I don’t start out with the philosophy that the owner of the property has an absolute exclusive right to do anything that they want to on their property, otherwise obviously we would have no zoning and have no protections. It is a difficult decision because I think the existing homeowners on three sides of the property are all residential and I think that they also should have their
interests protected, their fair enjoyment and the use of their property, and their property values. It is easy for us to say they should have known that it is service industrial, but the reality is people don’t think to ask that question when they move into a place and live in it for years and years. You look at the place and say it’s a home, it’s got a beautiful open space and you just kind of assume that’s what it is. I don’t know where I’m coming down yet, but there are valid issues and concerns.
Mr. Dickson said it is fairly well known in real estate law that a buyer has the right to come to nuisance. The property is not a nuisance by any means, but the zoning is. So the buyer has the right without doing due diligence to come to an area that does have a negative factor attached to it and then to make a request that negative factor be removed. So that is a right in real estate law and I think that that would perfectly appropriate and consistent with what we are asking in the petition. Ms. White said if that were true, we wouldn’t have any commercial or industrial property in Town. Mr. Dickson said that right to come to a nuisance does not mean that automatically that has be acknowledged, but it does mean that the existence of the industrial zoning does not automatically preclude
the right of the abutters to request the change and to expect that the Town would be given the opportunity to make the decision.
Mr. Nolan said regarding the Chartrand’s feeling on this matter; on three occasions I sat down with Grace, I live right across the street from her and know her well, we had long discussions about this and I know this is just hearsay on my part but, she was completely non-committal as far as whether she favored this or not. She is currently in Florida, as I understand. Her children who are the trustees of the property are not residents of Bedford, so they wouldn’t have qualified to sign the petition, but I did give all my contact information to Grace three times and pleaded with her to have her kids call me to discuss the matter and I never heard from any of them. So I can only deduce that they don’t feel terribly strongly about it one way or the other, because I never heard back from
any of them. I wanted to thoroughly discuss this with them ahead of time before I actually got the signatures for the petition, but I never heard from them. They all live out of town, two of the three live out of state, and I did make a good faith effort to discuss this with them.
Amendment No. 7
Submitted by citizen’s petition: ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF BEDFORD ZONING ORDINANCE as follows:
To amend Article 45-5, titled WETLANDS CONSERVATION ORDINANCE, sections as indicated below:
1. Section 45-5-1, PURPOSE:
Add sub item (i): “To recognize the unequal and unique burden of wetland property owners and minimize restrictions which may be placed upon such properties.”
2. Section 45-5-3, Applicability:
MODIFY sub item (a) as follows: “All applications for a building permit, subdivision, or site plan approval shall be subject to the provisions of this Article and Section 45-14-4(b): Variances, except that notwithstanding Section 45-1-4(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to any setbacks or buffer areas in excess of the 03/11/97 fifty foot (50’) set back specified in this Ordinance shall not apply to developed properties or to those properties currently under construction or which have received all appropriate building permits as of the effective date of the amendment, or to the reconstruction, alteration, enlargement or relocation of buildings thereon, or the addition of accessory structures thereto. Any subsequent (after the effective date of the amendment) subdivision of
exempted properties shall comply with the more recent amendment(s).”
3. Section 45-5-5, Specific Provisions:
Add sub item (e): “Any set back or buffer established in excess of the 45-5-5(a) requirement of fifty feet (50’) shall exempt those properties as specified in 45-5-3(a), APPLICABILITY, as modified.”
4. Section 45-5-6, Procedural Requirements:
Add sub item (g): “The Town shall make reasonable effort to identify and notify by mail the owners of all properties that would be affected directly by a proposed set back or buffer amendment to the Wetlands Conservation Ordinance. Notification will be made as soon as possible after initiation of work on proposed ordinance changes.”
Ms. White said there are four sections in this petition. Section 1 asks that it be recognized that people who own property on which there are wetlands have a unique and unequal burden; Sections 2 and 3 would exempt people who have wetlands on their property that there already a house or other building, commercial or residential on the property, they would be exempted, and they would be able to make additions, add out-buildings, all adhering to just a 50-foot setback with no increase; and, Section 4 would require that if there is a proposed change to the wetlands ordinance, that people who own wetlands properties be given notice by mail.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked these proposed amendments by petition have to be submitted to the voters exactly as the applicant submitted them? Ms. White replied that is correct. There cannot be any amendments.
Chairman Levenstein asked for comments from the Board and member of the public.
Mark Dell’Orfano, 20 Fairlane Drive, distributed written comments to the Planning Board (attached to minutes). Chairman Levenstein asked could you please summarize what is in this letter. Mr. Dell’Orfano replied basically it sets out a case by which I am asking the Planning Board to actually vote in favor of this citizen’s petition. For those of use who live in or near wetlands here in Town, there have been efforts over the past year by members of the Conservation Commission to increase wetland setbacks by 50 feet creating a no-build zone, a no tree-cut zone. Most of the homes that would be affected by the any sort of increase in setback are homes that have been existing here in Town as far back as the 1940’s. Really what you’re doing is you’re looking at
retrospectively all terrain, current lot lines to account for potential wetlands setback needs that the Conservation Commission feels are necessary in Town. The Conservation Commission has not done a very good job of presenting a case to the community as to why these are needed. They have more or less told the Town that we need these and vote for them because this is what we want. They haven’t really had any outreach, they haven’t invited any potentially affected property owners to any sort of Town meeting that would describe in detail exactly why this is needed, or in fact, which properties are even affected. I think some of you may remember last year we didn’t even know whose homes would be affected. In fact, I didn’t even know my home was going to be affected until probably about two or three weeks before Town meeting last year. Is that my fault? Maybe, maybe it is all of our faults because we didn’t have
the right procedure in place to deal with this. This citizen’s petition clearly puts an exemption in place for properties that are preexisting, with homes on them or have businesses on them. Secondly it recognizes the fact that if you look in a wetland we understand that you are already regulated by three separate sovereigns, the town, the state government, and the federal government. With the state and federal government you don’t have much say, but at least here in Town you have the ability to make a case and get your points heard. Lastly, the ability for people to actually get some kind of notification when the Town is thinking of amending wetland setbacks. For lots of folks like me who didn’t know right away that I was affected, of course, I didn’t think much of it until one of my neighbors luckily came by and said do you know that your property abuts a wetland that is of significant value. I actually looked up in the
state statute what significant value meant, and there is no definition in state law as to what significant value is. In fact, there is no definition in any of the Town ordinances of what significant value is. Again, we are creating a definition that didn’t exist, nobody knew about it, nobody took the time to explain to anybody what significant value meant, and consequently the vote last year was almost 80 percent against expanding wetlands setbacks. The Conservation Commission is now going through the process of putting together a sub-committee to study the wetland situation. I think that is a great step forward, however, I think that step forward should focus more on education in getting homeowners to know that they are near a wetland and things that they can do to protect that wetland. I don’t think it is about figuring new ways to draw lines. This particular amendment to the zoning ordinance would protect people’s
homes. That’s really what this is all about; about protecting where we live and what we can do in our own back yards.
Chairman Levenstein said I would like to address the merits of what you spoke about. I do know that they tried very hard to get the public involved last year and they held many meetings, they set forth what the meetings were going to be about, they were all posted, etc. It is unfair to say that they didn’t make an effort to let people know. Mr. Dell’Orfano said I don’t think I said they didn’t make an effort, that maybe it wasn’t enough of an effort because again, when you post something about a general topic, people who are potentially affected…let’s call a spade a spade here. If you take a look at the way the zoning ordinance the way it is written now, most people don’t know whether they are affected by things or not, and unless you’re a big
commercial business that has lots of money to hire scientists and environmental engineers and people to come out and delineate and put nice flags and things like that, the average homeowner really doesn’t know what affects them and what doesn’t. And who sees things in the newspaper and just saying we are going to talk about wetlands, doesn’t mean a whole lot to people when they don’t understand what is going on. I went to graduate school and there are things that I don’t understand in the zoning ordinances and I think I’m a relatively well-educated person. I can read at a 10th grade level, I’m okay, I think I can figure this out. But there are lots of folks in Town that really feel as if they were getting rooked last year. I hate to use that word but that’s what it was. I think what this amendment does is it tries to say look Town we understand that you want to do some things, but if you
are going to do them, remember that there are people who have homes that are in and on these properties, that abut these properties, and we’re demanding some protection for out homes and notification should you decide to change the law. Maybe that’s not fair, but I think it is.
Bill Dermody, Birchwood Circle, I also had a hand in the development of this petition. I’m not going to belabor it, I think Mr. Dell’Orfano has done a marvelous job of stating what it believe is a position of 650 some odd landowners. Ms. White I might ask you though, did you give a copy of that memo that you were kind enough to give to me to the Planning Board. Ms. White replied I did. Mr. Dermody said Mr. Young is quoted in Karen’s memo as saying that he wished Mr. Dermody had come before the Conservation Commission and maybe the Conservation Commission could have worked with him with respect to this petition. Mr. Young after he was aware of my petition, walked right past me, never offered me or afforded me an invitation to come to the next Conservation Commission meeting. Also and more to the point, the Conservation Commission sometime prior to March of last year, was told by the Town Council, the Town lawyer, that they, the Conservation Commission, could not grandfather the
change that they had made or developed to the ordinance. I’m a little bit confused by Mr. Young means with that comment that he wished I had come to him. The Conservation Commission knew full well they could not grandfather it; it had to be done by a petition, by a citizen petition. That is in the record of the last meeting of the Conservation Commission. I didn’t make this up.
Mr. Scanlon asked Karen, any current structures in the setbacks are grandfathered? If you wanted to expand or add a structure, you’d have to conform to the ordinance. Ms. White replied correct. Mr. Dermody I didn’t understand what you said, but I want to make sure that it is clear that last year when the information was brought forward that people were not grandfathered; that was incorrect. If a structure is within that setback, that that structure is grandfathered. You just couldn’t put an addition on a house or put another structure within that setback. Ms. White replied that’s right. Mr. Scanlon said anything that is currently there, is fine and that was a misunderstanding that went on last year and arguably partly our blame or the Town’s blame
that bad information was put out there. Mr. Dermody said I was at the meeting. You were certainly there last year at the Town Council meeting, when there was a big deliberation about whether it was grandfathered or not or whether you could mow your lawn after the ordinance. Mr. Scanlon said I just want to make sure we are giving good information. The clarification is, that anything that is currently there, lawns, gardens, structures, anything, would not be affected by this ordinance. If your house burned down, you’d be able to replace your house. If you wanted to put an addition on your house or put in a new structure, that would have to come forward. Ms. White said that’s the way the ordinance change was proposed last year. Mr. Scanlon said I’m not talking about this, I’m just saying, if without this petition we had made changes… Mr. Dermody said I could still live in my house but I couldn’t
put a screen porch on it. Mr. Scanlon replied that’s correct. Last year people that were talking saying whether my house would have to be torn down, I won’t be able to mow my lawn, which was not the case. I just want to make sure that we’re clear. Mr. Dermody said we didn’t know that. Mr. Scanlon said well we do today and I just want to make sure. Mr. Dermody said I was told last year that I couldn’t put another row of peas in my garden. Ms. White said I was the one who told you that because I didn’t know that you could grandfather or vest vegetation, I thought you could only vest and protect structures and I was corrected on that and I called Mr. Dermody and apologized and did correct that.
Mr. Dell’Orfano said we hear a lot about grandfathering and people are confused about grandfathering. I think that’s another reason why we put this citizen’s petition, because we want to make it really clear. We don’t want to be grandfathered, we want to be exempted. We want to be exempted from further setback requirements. If the Town chooses to pass a setback in the future an extra 50 feet, that is great, but we are exempt from it. That’s what this petition looks to do and before you could pass an additional 50-foot setback, you’d have to change this law first and that would be a double challenge. I think what we’re looking to do is we are clearly looking for an exemption here not a grandfathering. Mr. Scanlon asked just out of
curiosity, why didn’t you make this exemption for all changes. Why did you just specifically go after wetlands? Sometimes we might have somebody who wants to rezone somebody else’s piece of property. Do you support that? Zoning affects peoples’ property and what you want to do and my concern with your petition is two things. One it is very inclusive of a certain type of change and even your notification is a requirement to only if we change wetlands. In a way I kind of said it would be very difficult for the Town to notify anyone affected if there is an ordinance change, but at the same time I figured that’s probably not a bad thing to do. If we’re going to change the nature of somebody’s property, what they can do on their property, sending them a letter is probably not a bad idea. I guess I’m not understanding why. Mr. Dell’Orfano said to your first point Councilor, I’m not
going to take a position one way or another on Item 6 and I think it’s kind of unfair to ask me what my position is. But to answer your question in regards to Item 7. Since 1997 and even before that, 1995 because I think that’s when the first discussions of changing wetlands zoning in this Town began. We are talking about 12 years of trying to change wetlands zoning here. A 50-foot setback was added in March of 1997 and then in 1998 at the Town Meeting, somebody tried changing it to 75 feet and I think that lasted for a year and it was changed back in 1999 to 50 feet. Ms. White said actually at one point in time it was 125 feet. Mr. Dell’Orfano asked but isn’t that for prime wetlands. Ms. White replied no. We’ve never had prime wetlands zoned in this town. Mr. Dell’Orfano said we’ve never had a prime wetland actually determined in this town. Ms. White said that is not
correct. Last year that is what the consultant study was about. The wetlands were mapped and ranked according to functional values, which are the steps one less to go through in order to get them determined as prime wetlands through the State of New Hampshire. However, a designation of prime puts them into the state’s jurisdiction, so you can no longer get a local waiver or variance, you have to go to the State of New Hampshire Wetlands Bureau, which is much more onerous than keeping it local and that’s why the term wetlands of significant value was formed. Using the same methodology as the state uses for identifying a prime wetland, but making the burden for relief and special circumstances less onerous. Mr. Dell’Orfano asked but isn’t it true that most of these wetlands would qualify as prime wetlands under state statute? Ms. White replied no, that’s not true. Mr. Dell’Orfano said maybe what I’ll
do is when I come into the next meeting I’ll bring in the research that may rebut that. Ms. White said it is not for this meeting. There is no prime wetlands ordinance, there is no ordinance proposed by the Town. The only thing that’s proposed this year is your petition. So bringing in to talk to this Board about the merits of prime wetlands, I think is outside their jurisdiction. You should be joining the sub-committee and working with the Conservation Commission. They could use someone just like you. Mr. Dell’Orfano said getting back to the point of this particular zoning amendment. Really what we’re looking for is an exemption because last year’s amendment was clearly written badly, and the people that really needed to be notified about this weren’t. I think that’s why we’re here looking for this sort of relief.
Ms. Sklar said I have one comment to the point where wetland property owners feel they have an unequal and unique burden of being of being a wetland property owner. I’m on the Historic District Commission, come to one of those meetings. Mr. Dell’Orfano said with the Historic District you aren’t regulated by three sovereigns. You are regulated with the Town and if you want to get back to the unique and unequal burden, is the fact that we are regulated by three sovereigns, that you can’t just come to the Town and say Town can we do X. It is only if you go to the state and if the state says no you can’t do it, then you can’t do it and there are situations, although no likely here in Bedford, that the state can tell you it’s okay to do something and then the
federal government comes in and tells you that you can’t do it through the Army Corps of Engineers.
Michael Major, 32 Birchwood Circle, said I want address Mr. Scanlon’s question. First of all when we are looking at notice, the one big difference is that if you put out a zoning amendment that says residential zones or if it affects the industrial zones, people know if they are in a residential or an industrial zone. When you are talking about wetlands, most of the people only dealt with the petition back in March, most of the people who were affected had no idea that they were affected. We’re on the top of a pretty steep hill. That is one of the reasons. One of the comments by the Planning Director had to do with why this and not ledge, steep slopes, or power transmissions lines, which I find kind of interesting. People buy their property and if it’s got ledge, they know it; if it has a steep slope, they know it. We did not hear any public body talk about the great public good that is done by wetlands. Nobody is out trying to protect or expand protections for
steep slopes. Ms. White said they are indeed and in fact our Planning Board a couple of years ago just passed stricter requirements for development on steep slopes. And you will find all over New Hampshire towns passing ridgeline ordinances, to protect steep slopes. Mr. Major said then I would think people affected by those kinds of rules, that where you have a certain protection, and then what you’re doing, and you’ve got to remember what is being asked here. Nobody is saying that we don’t want to have restrictions. What we’re saying is, we have what we have and we don’t want further restrictions that are going to affect our ability to use our vast majority of single-family residential properties. When you go to put a porch on, you’re dealing with this, and contrary to what was said before, this was dealt with specifically with the Conservation Commission, if you wanted to put in a garden in your buffer zone,
you were not going to be able to put that garden and that is whether you had your house already or not. So there were uses that were going to be restricted by the last proposed 100-foot buffer, but it got voted down four to one. I believe if you want to look at power transmission lines, my guess is the power companies all paid for those easements a long time ago perhaps, or not so long ago, but they probably all paid for them. I will say one more think, in terms that I might thank Mr. Dermody for all the work he has put into this. I don’t know, because I haven’t really be active until this came up earlier this year, but I look at the legal notice that came out for this meeting and I compare it to a legal notice that referenced the very drastic change in wetland protection that was to be voted on in the last Town Meeting, and the notice for this meeting is so vastly superior and stands out and actually tells you something. So maybe
we’ve already accomplished one thing.
Chairman Levenstein said I think that people do have the opportunity to know if they want to pay attention and look. Every meeting here is on TV, the Conservation Commission meetings are on TV, the Planning Board meetings are on TV; the zoning public hearings are on TV. I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of people last year felt that they were surprised that their property was affected. I think on the other hand you also have to look at the Town’s perspective and what is the Town supposed to do. They can’t go from door to door necessarily and tell everybody this is what we’re doing. We try and make everything public, we certainly make every effort to keep everything out in the open and let people know. Mr. Major said it’s hard to know when you’re up
on a steep hill. It’s hard to know you’re in a wetlands when the wetlands delineations aren’t even that solid. It’s hard to know that you’re in a prime wetland when you have an engineering study that proposes several areas… What doesn’t actually say these are the ones we recommend as being prime wetland areas. Those are hard to know. You are right, people have to be diligent, but I think we also have a point when we’re saying you don’t know what to do for notice, there’s some case law that deals with notice and it involved the Town of Bedford. There are some circumstances where you have to go beyond the norm. That was not done last year and we’re saying we will make it easy, we’ll tell you how to do it, here’s how to do it, which is in Part 4 of the petition.
Amendment No. 8
Submitted by citizen petition: ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF BEDFORD ZONING ORDINANCE as follows:
1) Are you in favor of the adoption this [sic] Amendment as proposed by petition of the voters of the Town of Bedford, to amend the Town of Bedford’s Zoning Ordinance to allow Congregate Care Housing Facilities as follows:
By amending Article 45-4 Use and Dimensional Regulations, Section 45-4-2 (b) Uses Permitted by Right With Conditions Imposed, by adding the following: Congregate Care Housing Facilities shall be allowed in the U.S. Route 3 Performance Zoning Districted provided the following conditions are met: Facility must be served by municipal water and sewer, units may have no more than two bedrooms, and shall comply with all regulations of the performance zone except parking. Parking requirements for congregate care housing shall be not less than .5 parking spaces per unit and 1 per employee on the largest shift.
By amending Article 45-9 U.S. Route 3 Corridor Performance Zoning District, Section 45-9-5 Definitions by adding the following: Congregate Care Housing Facility – A shared one to two bedroom living environment reserved for those who are 62 years of age or older, designed to integrate the housing and service needs of elders to increase self-sufficiency through the provisions of supportive services for there [sic] daily living activities in a residential setting. Minimum services to be provided include: facility based transportation, on site meals served in a common dining room a minimum of two times a day, house keeping services to all residents, daily planned social and recreational activities and 24 hour on site management.
By amending Article 45-9, U.S. Route 3 Corridor Performance Zoning District by amending Section 45-9-6 Permitted Uses by adding Congregate Care Housing Facility as a Permitted Use.
By amending Appendix 45-A Table of Uses, subsection Public/Institutional, by adding the following use: “Congregate Care Housing Facility” and noting a “P” in the “Performance Standards (PZ) column.
Chairman Levenstein asked for comments from the Planning Board and members of the audience.
Mark Fugere, Fugere Planning, said I am here for the petitioners. It was the feeling of the petitioners that this type of new use is justified and needed in the community. The goal to include congregate care is to allow uses to provide intermediate living arrangements that are not presently allowed in the community. The first sheet I showed it showed the increase in age restricted, older citizens in the community since the 2000 census. I don’t think I need to tell you that the older population in the community is growing and is not only growing in Bedford, but in the nation and in the state. Ms. White said in the year 2050 40 percent of Bedford’s population is estimated to be 55 and older. That will be the peak and then it heads down from there. Mr. Fugere said the
difference between this particular use and the uses that are allowed in the district now; congregate care is very close to assisted living, which is presently allowed in the Performance zone. The major difference between congregate care use and assisted living is nursing. A lot of times people as they grow older like a social setting with like peers, like activities planned, like have meals available but don’t need and don’t require nursing care of help getting out of bed or washing and things like that, which you will tend to find in assisted living and the further assistance is the nursing home environment. I also included sort of an outline showing the different services and different things that provided for elderly, which used to be allowed in the Performance zone. Congregate care, which we would like to become available and assisted living. It goes down through the different types of dining facilities and the congregate care would be
as noted by Ms. White. That would be two to three meals a day, there would be a main dining room, a full kitchen, there are kitchens inside the units, there would be housekeeping services, these are typically rental units that are available to people, we would include transportation, but the biggest difference between congregate care and assisted living is the nursing and medication and things like that. As soon as you get into any sort of medication, that’s when the state steps in and says you need to be assisted living. To address some of the issues raised by the Planning Director, one of the issues was density. Assisted living and nursing is not regulated by density and congregate care typically is not regulated by density either. The use does not specify whether units will be rental or ownership. What the type of use is, if it’s a rental or ownership is typically not mandated or even mentioned in the zoning ordinance, and we didn’t think it was necessary to do that here.
It does not require security services. In congregate care there is 24-hour onsite personnel available to help residents. Each unit does have emergency pull chords available for people if there is an emergency. There is somebody there every day, 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. It is not like independent living where people can come and go, there is some oversight and there are services and security available for the people living there. The other issue was an affordable component. Obviously we would like the Planning Board’s support for this amendment. I have been able to visit a number of these facilities. They are very attractive, they are very vibrant, people come and go, some have given up their cars, some haven’t, mostly they are retired, they are not working, it is a god tax base and not a drain on municipal services and there are services within these facilities for these residents. I know that was a
significant issue for the board the last few years when we were debating to keep or amend or remove and ultimately remove the over-55 housing. I know you’ve had quite a few struggles with proposals that came before the Board on what services to provide and how big the kitchen is going to be. These facilities have those services and have those facilities for the residents that live there.
Ms. Sklar said just for clarification about security. Is there somebody onsite 24/7? Mr. Fugere replied yes. During the peak hours from 7:00am to 11:00pm there is staff in the facility working at the front desk, there is kitchen staff, there is maid staff, and there is a facility manager there, and at night there is always somebody who lives there who is available if someone needs help and would be the main contact in case of an emergency, if someone pulled one of the chords, that person would be notified that there is a problem. Ms. Sklar asked it is somebody who lives there and is kind of a caretaker? Mr. Fugere replied yes.
Ms. White said since we tried introducing elderly housing into this town I’ve just been beaten to a pulp by developers. We would craft an ordinance, we would get developers to come in and they want to change this and they want to change that and they don’t want to provide a dining room and they don’t want to do the kitchen the way our ordinance says and they don’t want to have the onsite transportation service, which our ordinance clearly says is required even for independent elder. And then we decide we’ll go to 62 and over to the people who really need it and we have a bunch of developers who come in say I can’t get financing because you have limited the market so severely. How many times have we heard this; they say please bring it back to 55 and we say okay, but
what we’d really like is something more than glorified apartments. We want services. We want people to be able to age in place, when they sell their big home, please let them buy something where they can get the facilities and services to stay there for another 20 years and not make their family run over to change very light bulb. So we redrafted our ordinance again and we said that even for independent living you had to provide dining facilities, housekeeping services, security services, group transportation and personnel response and we’ve been nickled and dimed and whittled down on that stuff. We have recommended denial on one proposal because they didn’t want to provide more than 12 dining room seats. We’ve fought and fought to require seating for at least half the residents there. We fought for personnel response. Yes, Riverwalk has it offsite, but it to the nursing staff across the street at their Alzheimer’s facility. I don’t see what congregate care does for the
community that we aren’t already doing. We asked to remove independent living last year form the Performance zone because we felt that for the time being we had enough housing, we also asked for it to be removed from the commercial zone and the votes split the difference. They removed it from the Performance zone, but they left it available in commercial, office, service/industrial and apartment/residential. I find this comparative service analysis, it is generalized, and it doesn’t apply to Bedford. For example, they show that assisted living usually has only a microwave and a small refrigerator. In general that’s true, but this Board approved an 85-unit assisted living, Bentley Commons, that’s got the microwave, the small stove and the refrigerator; kitchenette style. With dining facilities, the two independent elderly housing we’ve proposed have seating for half of their residents in a dining room. With
housekeeping services; yes, we finally agreed to allow them to be a la cart but the manager has provide them to those who want them because so many developers said that their residents want housekeeping services. I find it amazing though that someone shopping for a rental unit would prefer to pay a fee for an activities and social director, then to pay a fee for medication reminder and for a nurse to be there for emergency response rather than an onsite manager who is making sure that the deliveries to the kitchen get made and that the dining room is cleaned and set up for meals. Where are we placing your value judgments here? It seems to me that that the way we have our assisted living you get more ability to age in place than you do with congregate care. And if you want to do congregate care, we have three zones in which you can do it now. Why do we need to introduce it into the Performance zone when the votes just removed independent living last
year?
Ms. Sklar asked what is the density in the other zones for this use? Is there a density? Mr. Fugere replied this use isn’t allowed right now. Ms. White said it is allowed. Mr. Scanlon said 28 units per acre. Ms. White said you could build congregate care in the office zone, commercial zone, or service industrial zone as long as you limited yourself to 28 units per acre and were willing to make some of the units affordable to persons earning less than 80 percent of the Manchester median income and ask the Planning Board for a waiver on the parking. You could do it in three zones right now. Mr. Fugere said the problem with this is typically in a congregate care facility that many services available usually don’t have an affordable housing component. The Town doesn’t regulate density now in assisted living, they don’t say how many units you can have at an assisted living facility and why should people pay for a nursing staff and medication reminders when they are not
necessary. There is an in-between stage there for people who are still independent, don’t need that extra care that assisted living provides and don’t want to pay for it. This isn’t a new use; it has been around for a long time. Ms. White asked so you’re saying you want more than 28 units per acre and that’s why you can’t do it in the commercial, office or service industrial zones? Mr. Fugere said they are basically self-regulated anyway because in most cases these types of facilities are in the 75 to 125 unit range. There has to be enough room to build a facility, to park, you’re not going to get ones that try to get 500 units or something like that. Ms. White said why you’re saying is you don’t want to be regulated by the number of units per acre? Mr. Fugere replied we didn’t treat it any differently than the Town currently treats assisted living. Ms. White said but
it’s not assisted living because you don’t provide any medical services.
Ms. Sklar asked is congregate care something new that’s happening with the industry? Mr. Fugere replied no, it’s been around for quite some time. Probably the closest example although on a larger scale is they have from independent through nursing home with the Hunt Home, Nashua has a congregate care component to it. I’m not familiar with a lot of them up here in New Hampshire but they are very common in other states.
Ms. White said I tried to educate myself on the terms and Justin Biligas with very helpful in educating me too. On the Internet the Google search turned up this definition of congregate care facility. “Congregate care is an industry segment between independent living and the health related services of an assisted living facility. Congregate care facilities provide social activities, security, and non-health related services, such as meals, housekeeping services, and transportation. The target population is typically persons age 75 to 82.” Would you say that’s a fair definition? Mr. Fugere replied yes. Ms. Sklar said I know a lot of people in that age range who are healthy and… let me ask a different question. Is it less expensive typically to live in
a congregate care facility than an assisted living facility? Mr. Fugere replied I don’t have numbers to quote you. Ms. Sklar asked how does the cost compare congregate care to assisted living? Justin Biligas replied it would be less because they don’t need to have 24-hour nursing staff available. Ms. Sklar said if I’m 75 and I’m healthy and I want to live in a place where I can hang out with other people my age but I really don’t need medical assistance, I don’t want to have to pay for it, what is wrong with having these places available? Ms. White replied there’s nothing wrong with that and they can build them in three zones in Town. Mr. Biligas said one of the reasons for the Performance zone is most of your 55 and over housing is in the Performance zone. Your best access to medical services is in the Performance zone; most of your medical is concentrated on South River Road. The distance or
time to get to most of the major hospitals is easier in the Performance zone and would be even easier when the new access road it built. So the Performance zone has an awful lot going for it. And there is a natural progression 55 and older needs a certain type of house, usually smaller, with at least one bedroom on the first floor. As people get older and their needs change, they may not be as inclined to go out do their shopping in inclement weather. If one of the spouses dies and the statistics for congregate care facilities that we are familiar with and that Mark has visited, approximately just under 80 percent of the resident will be female and what happens when one of the spouses dies and that person is living alone even in a 55 and older housing complex, their nutrition, socialization skills, their needs, etc. change significantly. What a congregate care facility does is it enables people to live independently in a facility that addresses as of
their needs but not their medical needs because those can be taken care of in an assisted living facility. The reason for the full-size appliances is to provide a link back to a former lifestyle or an existing lifestyle and it is a large psychological boost to go in and see something other than the microwave and the small refrigerator. As far as the bundled services, it is impossible to make a dining room a self-sustaining operation if you allow people to opt in and opt out because you don’t know who is going to be available for what meals. So congregate care facilities do bundle their services, the elderly don’t have to go out and contract or sub-contract for all of the basic needs. They get one bill a month; frequently that bill is paid by someone other than the resident. The decision as to where the elderly family member may reside is usually made by the elder daughter or daughter-in-law, and they usually want to in closer proximity to
where the people they’ve known and grown up with or where their family members are. So rather than getting numerous bills during the course of the month, trying to keep track of multiple bills, there is one monthly fee that provides for the cable, the heat, the light, the air conditioning, the housekeeping, the social services, the transportation, the food, etc. and it really is providing a higher level of service rather than forcing someone to choose between A and B, we now would have an A, B, C and D. The Performance zone has all of the characteristics that we would be looking for if we were to develop congregate care facilities and most of your 55 and older housing is in that particular zone right now. Those are just some of the reasons for the petition and the way it is written. One other thing is that we think it addresses all of the concerns that the board has had over the years as to how these things should be built and the services in the
petition are pretty well defined, to have a dining room where somebody is there and somebody is not there, is not going to encroach the socialization skills. This we think addresses all of the needs and I know the town is going in a lot of different directions but I think this is a direction that is something that should be given strong consideration and we hope that the Board will support it and I think it will serve the needs of the residents. It certainly will not be a burden on services and it certainly is a significant tax. As regards to financing of these, I can’t speak for others, but we are in the process of working out these facilities in several states and have the financing committed to do some services.
Chairman Levenstein asked are there other towns in New Hampshire that deal with congregate care facilities? Mr. Biligas replied we are in the approval process in Keene for a facility that has been well received by the planning staff. Hillcrest Terrace, of which I was the chairman and was built back in the 1990s, has a congregate care component as well as other components. Mr. Fugere said I believe Nashua allows for them, but I’m sure about Manchester. Ms. White said the Hunt Home is a graduated care facility and you can start out in detached units on the grounds; you can graduate into garden style apartments with more services, they have a short-term rehabilitative wing so if you break a hip you can go there and recuperate and come back to your unit and then have a skilled nursing care
facility on the grounds also. So if you end up needing nursing home care, you don’t have to leave. Mr. Biligas said with that you have to move within the complex, but Riverneed in Peterborough, there are several in the area and there are facilities that take care of everything from the 55 and older needs right through nursing care and even hospitalization.
Mr. Scanlon asked Mr. Biligas, you kind of give us an idea of one of the concerns Ms. White has with the units per acre, saying this is one single larger building. Mr. Biligas replied what you want to do is not force these people to go outside to utilize the services of the facility. So 30 to 40 percent of the facility is usually in a common area to encourage people to come out of their apartments and to take advantage of the socialization that’s available. Twenty-eight units to the acre is a fairly dense development, and your ordinance doesn’t allow you to go up beyond four stories. Ms. White said eight stores in the Performance zone and four stories in the other zones. Mr. Biligas said I would say 28 units an acre is tough to do. Mr. Scanlon asked but in that ballpark
range? Mr. Biligas replied yes. Ms. White asked you really don’t think that’s over restrictive? Mr. Biligas replied no, but if it was 29 that made sense, market conditions are going to dictate the size of the unit, the number of the units, things of that nature. But no, to answer your question Karen, 28 units is not really restrictive. Mr. Fugere said the facilities that I walked though last month were in the same vein as is Riverwalk, that type of building. Maybe a little bit larger.
Mr. Scanlon said my second question is with the target market. I think you said earlier it was 75 to 82. Ms. White said that is the generalized definition, but I think that meets what you would need. Mr. Biligas replied yes, the residents in the facilities that Mark visited the average age is probably 79 to 80. There are some people in their 90’s, there are some people in their late 60’s, it depends on where they are and what their needs are. But if a husband and wife are living in a home they’ve been in for years in Bedford and all of a sudden one of them died, they may not want to sit there and wait until they are in their late 70’s to move into a facility of this nature. Mr. Scanlon said I guess my question was I’ve always been a staunch supporter of 55
and older, only because this way not both people have to be 62, is that true of this, that both residents would have to be 62. Mr. Biligas replied we scanned all of the units that we had access to and that’s not an unreasonable description. Mr. Scanlon said just to clarify the last thing, this is just clearly in between an elderly housing, which is just basically designed for somebody 55 and just to kind of fill that niche in between. Mr. Biligas replied yes, and I think there is even an interim step and that is your independent housing that you have. What you’re doing is you’re giving someone a menu of choices rather than saying this restaurant has two entrees, this other one has four. Mr. Fugere said again, the major difference is assisted living provides an on-site nurse, they can assist you with prescriptions, give you reminders and you cannot do that in this state unless you are in assisted living. So that is the biggest
difference. If you were to walk into a congregate care facility and weren’t told it was assisted living, you probably couldn’t tell the difference. But the big difference is that and the level of care; getting help out of bed, maybe help with bathing and things like that. Mr. Scanlon said but as your description shows, you’ve designed this in such a way that if you wanted to become an assisted living facility you could. Mr. Biligas replied as a prudent matter, having a facility that we would be involved in, is designed to morph to an assisted living facility. Mr. Scanlon asked that would be required? Mr. Biligas replied it’s not required but any kind of big development, one of the biggest things in ecological development is not so much the content of the materials in the building as it is once the building is designed. We are always looking at the long-term horizon with facilities, so yes, we have designed the
buildings that we’re involved in to go to the next step. When and if they go, is minor decision.
Ms. White asked why do you feel that you couldn’t build these currently in other zones? Mr. Biligas replied we probably could, but we know from a market standpoint that that Route 3 corridor with all the 55 and older housing, it is a better location and we’re always looking for ways to increase your chances of success, and that is the best place to do it. It has the water, it has the sewer, it has the access to medical, and most important, it has the access to the people that will be candidates to move in. Ms. White asked from the independent units around? Mr. Biligas replied correct. We would be doing everything that we could to encourage those folks to come over and visit with us.
MOTION made by Mr. Scanlon to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Riley. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
The Planning Board took a 10 minute recess.
Chairman Levenstein said we will take approval of the minutes out of order before starting with Item 2.
MOTION made by Vice-Chairman Newberry to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2006 Planning Board meeting as written. Vote taken – all approved. Motion carries with Ms. Sklar and Mr. Burns abstaining.
2. Charlene Cassidy – Request for a Change-of-Use site plan approval to convert an existing home into a retail kitchen cabinet showroom for Cassidy Kitchen Cabinets. Approximately 305 sq. ft. of the home will be demolished to make room for proposed parking & septic system, leaving approximately 850 sq. ft. for the showroom, 366 South River Road, Lot 35-18, ZONE PZ.
A memo dated January 2, 2007 was received from Karen White, Planning Director, as follows:
This is a change-of-use site plan to convert an existing single-family residence at 366 South River Road (just north of Harvey Road) into a retail kitchen cabinets showroom. No goods would be sold from the property – it would be a showroom only. Lot 35-18 is a tiny lot consisting of only 3,241 square feet with 86 feet of frontage directly on Route 3. A portion of the existing house is to be removed, leaving 850 square feet of building for the new showroom. Four parking spaces are proposed, including one handicapped space.
In the Performance zone Standards of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance, a newly subdivided lot on Route 3 would be required to provide 3 acres with 300 feet of road frontage. The Cassidy tract is an existing lot of record, so the parcel is “grandfathered” or protected from the requirements as to lot size and lot frontage. However, this parcel is NOT grandfathered from the standards found in the Performance zone section of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance and the site plan standards in the Land Development Control Regulations for developing a new commercial business. The challenge to the Planning Board and to the Planning staff now is to decide whether such a small lot can reasonably meet the criteria necessary for
conversion from a residence. At the concept meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy stated that they knew there are plans to widen Route 3 that might result in condemnation of this property, but they want to utilize it as a commercial site until that time. There was discussion about the NH DOT widening the road; but, Planning Director Karen White pointed out that the D.O.T.’s plans for widening stop at Technology Drive South, and that the burden of completing the widening northward to Hawthorne Drive would probably fall upon the Town of Bedford.
On September 11, 2006, Charlene Cassidy came before the Planning Board for a conceptual site plan discussion. Mrs. Cassidy and the Planning staff pointed out to the Planning Board that numerous waivers would be needed to convert this very small lot into a commercial site. The Board decided that they would be willing to entertain some waivers, although the number and extent of necessary waivers was not known at that time (see attached minutes). Now that the plan has been fully engineered, 6 waivers are being requested.
· LDCR Sec. 322.1.6 – Waiver of parking lot aisle width from 24 feet required to 21 feet. The Planning Director does not support this waiver. The existing highway right-of-way width from centerline is only 36 feet. Therefore, when the Town widens Route 3 to a 5-lane section (as has been planned since 1984), the new highway pavement will directly abut the paved parking lot, which will result in cars backing out into highway pavement. If the Town needed a 50-foot easement from the
centerline of the highway (as has been requested from other properties along Route 3), that easement would intrude 6 feet into the existing building.
· LDCR Sec. 322.1.9 – Waiver of parking setback to lot line from 30 feet to 0 feet. The Planning Director does not support this waiver, since pavement and parking spaces within 1-3 feet of the side and rear lot lines could have a negative impact on the abutting property and deprives the site of any realistic snow storage capability.
· LDCR Sec. 326.2.1 – Connection to municipal (public) water supply. The Planning Director supports this waiver, since there will only be one sink and one toilet, and the well is in working order.
· Zoning Ord. 45-11-1-(a) – Waiver of sign setback from 10 feet required to 0 feet. The Planning Director does not support this waiver because a wall sign could be placed on the building that would not require a waiver. The applicant argues that a wall sign might not be visible; however, the building is only 8 feet from the front lot line. Therefore, the wall sign would be as close to the highway as free-standing signs on other properties along Route 3.
· Zoning Ord. 45-9-8 – Waiver of front, side, and rear landscape strips. The Planning Director does not support this waiver. Landscaping is a critical component of the “performance standards” for which the PZ zone was created. Landscaping insures that each tract of land has the benefit of an adequate buffer in order to protect surrounding property values and to reinforce the visual image of Route 3. In addition, the “alternative” landscape plan includes
placing 4 arborvitaes in the 3-foot wide snow storage area on the plan. It is impossible to both store snow and grow arborvitaes in the same 3-foot wide area.
· Zoning Ord. 45-9-7 – Waiver of maximum impervious surface coverage from 75% maximum allowed to 82% proposed. The Planning Director does not support this waiver because there is no useable open space for snow storage or landscaping to mitigate the increase in impervious coverage.
Now that the site plan has been fully surveyed and engineered, other issues have become apparent that also concern the Planning Director, as follows:
Ø The leachfield for the septic system is located within the State highway right-of-way. Rich Radwanski of District 5 of the DOT has stated in a telephone call that the leachfield may remain until such time as the right-of-way land is need for road purposes. A new Septic System Design and Construction Permit has been approved by the NH Dept. of Environmental Services to be located underneath the parking lot; however, if/when the new leachfield is constructed, the NH DES is requiring that a public water line be extended to the
site;
Ø Full access, including left-turns, is proposed for entering and exiting the site. These turning movements could have negative impacts on the flow of traffic on Route 3. The applicant points out that the ITE Manuals indicate that a single-family home typically has approximately 10 vehicle trips to and from home each day, and that the vehicle trips to and from this site will probably be less on a daily basis. Therefore, negative traffic impacts will be no greater for a commercial use on this site.
The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Board deny this site plan for the following reasons:
(1) Six waivers of the Land Development Control Regulations and the Performance Standards of the Bedford Zoning Ordinance are requested to convert this lot to a commercial site. Connection to public water is probably not a necessity for such a small site, and a free-standing sign can be omitted; however, the plan fails to substantially conform to the parking setback requirements, the landscaping requirements, and the impervious surface ratio that are inherent features of the framework of the
performance zoning standards;
(2) The full ingress and egress pattern will cause problems with traffic flow on Route 3 as vehicles attempting to make a left turn to enter the site will block northbound traffic. There is no center stacking lane proposed. This access pattern does not conform to Bedford’s access management plan for Route 3;
(3) Performance standards measure the quantifiable “impacts” of each proposed development, rather than prohibiting certain classes of land use. This site could generate significant negative impacts due to its inability to meet the Performance Standards, including: a) lack of a vegetative buffer to screen its building and parking lot from abutting properties; b) complete inability to store snow even from a mild snowfall, resulting in a high probability of snow being pushed onto adjacent properties before it can be hauled
away; c) poor access management to a State highway; and d) failure to extend public sewer (500 feet away) and public water (across Route 3).
If the Planning Board decides to grant final approval to this site plan for a retail kitchen showroom, then the Planning Director recommends that the following conditions (to be fulfilled within 90 days and prior to signing of the site plan) be fulfilled:
1. The Board should vote on whether to grant the 6 waivers listed on page 2 of this memo;
2. All of Steve Keach’s remaining comments in his review letter of Nov. 20, 2006 shall be corrected, and a letter of satisfactory completion be provided by Mr. Keach;
3. The notes on Sheet 3 should be revised to state that this will be a retail kitchen showroom but no inventory will be stored or sold from the premises;
4. The notes on Sheet 3 should be revised to state that all snow will be hauled off-site, and the impervious surface coverage corrected to state that 82% of the site will be impervious;
5. The proposed exterior lighting fixture should be changed to a fixture that will provide approximately 0 footcandles at the property lines;
6. The right-of-way width from the centerline of Route 3 to the front property boundary should be delineated;
7. The type of siding for the building and the colors of the roof and the siding should be identified on the building elevations on Sheet 9.
Chairman Levenstein said I will step down from this item. Vice-Chairman Newberry will chair this item.
Tom True, True Engineering, said this house is located on South River Road and it is just before you turn right onto Harvey Road. I have distributed pictures of what is existing on the site now. The picture on the top shows the existing fence and in the bottom picture it shows that the fence is removed, which is only step one. The other thing that you’ll notice in the pictures is that we would be knocking out the outbuilding and breezeway to make room for parking. As you can see it is a very small parcel, 3,400 square feet. The Cassidy’s came before the Board in September and were discussing their intentions to open a showroom on this site. They currently have limited customer traffic, there are not going to be a lot of walk-ins or customer visits to the site and Mrs.
Cassidy is here to describe that if the Board has interest in that. There is an existing well and septic system on the site. This use of kitchen cabinets would be less traffic and as far as septic, less than a residential home. We obtained the DOT driveway permit and the septic permit. There are a number of waivers that we are requesting as part of this application. As a result of the memo, we’ve taken a look at the plan, and there are a couple of things that we might be able to change. The first thing would be the removal of one of the parking spaces and that would allow us to meet the impervious area and give us some ability to add an additional wetland buffer. One of the other items that was discussed was an island that is here (referring to plan). The other item was it was my belief we can cut down the island to 21 feet and allow more snow storage and landscaping opportunity. We are requesting a waiver setback for
parking from 30 feet to about zero feet and that is why the island was important. We are also requesting waivers for connecting to the municipal water supply and the other item that was discussed is that we are showing the proposed free-standing sign, we are going to move that the building to get rid of the waiver for the sign. The landscaping to the side and front of the building.
Ms. White said this is a tight site. Vice-Chairman Newberry said the Planning Department has a number of concerns with this. Ms. White replied yes we do because it is the smallest site in the world and I’m concerned because there’s really no place to store snow. You can’t both store snow and have four arbors survive there. It seems like even in the most minor snow, I don’t know how they are going to even plow off of there without piling it somewhere, so it is going in the state right-of-way or in their neighbor’s yard until they can get a bucket loader and a dump truck and haul it away. What it boils down to, and there’s two ways of looking at this. Do you want to look at a kind of dilapidated single-family home for the next five, maybe even up to ten
years, until the Town has enough money to widen this area of Route 3 between South Technology and north of Hawthorne Drive? Because the state will leave it to the Town. As soon as they finish building the airport access road and widening Route 3 up to South Technology and then widening the bridge, they’ve already said they’re turning over to the rest of the Town as urban compact. You can look at a rather dilapidated single-family dwelling, or you can grant a bunch of waivers, most of which we would never even consider this many waivers on another site, to spruce it up, make it look a little better and then have to pay a lot extra because of the improvements to condemn that it to widen the road. I can understand both points of view. I just wanted to make sure the Board is very aware that the site really doesn’t perform in accordance with our performance standards in my view. It is not their fault, the site started out so small. Vice-Chairman Newberry said then the alternative
then would be to do it as a residence. Ms. White replied yes. Mr. True said if this stayed to be developed as a residential use, that would be a higher intensity as far as the sewer volume, the traffic, trips per day. Right now whoever who was formerly living there was backing out into the right-of-way in order to get in and out of their driveway. This doesn’t address all of the concerns by any means, but it goes a long way. I think with looking at the goals in your Performance zone and I think this does meet it is that it is less of an intensity and that is in keeping with what the Performance zone is.
Vice-Chairman Newberry said saying that business is good, what are you anticipating as the worse case traffic volumes? Mrs. Cassidy said we did do a traffic analysis for two months at the business we now have on South River Road, and it averaged three per week. We don’t sell any retail, there’s no impulse traffic.
Mr. Casale asked why are you moving from one spot to another spot that seems pretty undesirable and may not be existing in seven to ten years? Mrs. Cassidy replied when we purchased it I didn’t know how undesirable it was until we owned it. Mr. Casale said it just doesn’t seem like good business…you may end up having to move a third time. Mr. Cassidy said we’re only right down the road, so it is not like we’re moving to a totally different location. A lot of our traffic goes by both locations anyway and right now we rent and the rent is more than my mortgage. Mr. Casale said but again, you know that this place may not be in existence, you have acknowledged that, but my question is, why would you pick this spot. Ms. White said they will get paid for
it. Mr. True said the other thing to keep in mind that the other thing that’s happening with home furnishings and cabinets, there is a lot of online business, so their business could double and triple and you might not feel it on the site. Mr. Casale said again, this is a showroom that apparently is important and it may not be there in a little while. Mr. True said it doesn’t necessarily have to grow with the business, which is my point. Mr. Scanlon said I think you could relate this to the lumber company. Ms. White told them the same thing and they are still there. Mrs. Cassidy said I think it’s been 22 years they’ve been talking about widening the road and when I bought it I really didn’t know some of things I know now, but I do own it.
Ms. Sklar asked this is for wholesale only. Mrs. Cassidy replied it is just a showroom. We don’t have any retail sales. Ms. White said it is classified as retail; I got that clarified with the engineers. They are not limiting their trade to wholesalers only. It is open to the general public. Mr. Cassidy we don’t have merchandise, everything is ordered. Ms. White said at first at the concept meeting we thought it was for contractors only, but it’s not, it is open to the general public. Vice-Chairman Newberry asked will the building have just samples? Mrs. Cassidy replied it has our kitchen displays. Ms. Sklar asked how often do you change the displays? Mrs. Cassidy replied I have added a couple and right now it is to capacity so it might be a
couple of years before I would switch one out.
Mr. Riley asked Mr. and Mrs. Cassidy what is your intended use of the property should this Board deny your request? Do you have a backup plan for what the property would be used for and how many bedrooms are in the building? I would assume you’d probably rent it? Mr. Cassidy said would probably sell it as a residential home or rent it. I don’t know at this point. Mr. Riley said my question leads back to what Ms. White has mentioned in the beginning. As a Board do we want to approve something and then ultimately we end up taking back and if you improve the property, paying more for something when we could buy it. Mr. Scanlon said you can’t anticipate what we’re going to do ten years from now. Mr. Riley said my point is that if they decide to rent the
property, there may be more value in that as a rental property than if she is saying I’m moving here because my rent will be less than where I am now. The value, to me, may be more as a rental property, so I don’t we should look at the potential value is where I was going with it. We should look at it as it stands. If someone wants to put in a business in a property she has bought.
Ms. White said one other thing I would like for you to consider there are a bunch of tiny lots up on Route 3 north of the Bedford Mall that face out onto Route 3 that with six or seven waivers could also become commercial sites.
Ms. Sklar asked which waivers did you remove? Mr. True replied the sign is removed. Ms. White said if you provide just three parking spaces instead of four. Ms. Sklar asked have you changed any of the others because of that. Mr. True replied I don’t think so. We still need a waiver, but if we were able to make this island down to where it is needed, we would still need a waiver, but we would still need landscaping. Mr. Casale asked what do you plan to do with the façade? Are you changing it in any way? Are you putting in large windows in this so the kitchens can be seen? Mr. Cassidy replied make it look a lot nicer, as much landscaping as we can. There is already a large window in the side that we would work with. We do have to add an emergency
exit, and the door you see in the plan will be moving to the side. Mr. Casale said the reason I ask that is if it is going to attract attention to the public on that road, then you more likely end up with more retail than you anticipate. You are adding windows? Mrs. Cassidy replied no, I’m not adding a window to the front. We will probably put a display on the wall and you could probably see in if the lights are on you would be able to see it but in our showroom now you can’t see in the window.
Ms. Sklar asked if you drive in, do you have to back out onto South River Road? Brian Pratt, True Engineering, replied you pull into any of the spaces and back out like that (referring to plan). If you are in this parking spot, you can back out this way and the same thing goes for this side. Ms. White said just not quite as wide as we usually require. Mr. Pratt said there’s only parking on one side of the parking lot, which really meets the isle, but you don’t really need the full 24 feet. Vice-Chairman Newberry said you’re showing handicap access cross-hatched, is that level or is there a ramp. Mr. Pratt replied that is level, that is actually less than the maximum slope requirements for ADA. I think it is one or two percent cross-hatched.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked Karen if you take out the one space that was indicated, does that address some of the snow storage concerns? Ms. White replied if gives them a 9’ X 18’, an area to scoop a little snow. It is better than nothing. It is a balancing act with the Board though. Considering there will always be one employee and they use a parking space, do you want just to have two spaces for the public. Mr. Casale said or do we start to have people parking on the side of the road because there is no space. Ms. White said it is true, I don’t think cabinet showrooms generate much traffic. It is a tough trade off.
Mr. Scanlon asked do you own just to the edge of the parking? Mrs. Cassidy replied yes. Mr. Scanlon asked is there a possibility of them moving snow off site? Ms. White replied
yes, I’m just wondering where they will pile it until removal. Mr. Scanlon said if they are willing to give up a space and then temporarily pile it in a space and if need be you could move it off site. Mr. Burns said personally I’d rather have the parking space, so nine months of the year you’d have the extra space and if you had to use it for a couple of months for snow removal and some years you get twelve months having the extra space. What they are doing takes a lot of courage and I think that if we could work with them. Right now the building is an eyesore, but I’d like to see what they would do with the building. Ms. White said they put an architectural drawing in the back, but it leads to more questions than it answers. It doesn’t tell you what kind
of siding. Mr. Cassidy said I would probably reside it. Ms. White said you are supposed to include that drawing on the last sheet of your plan set. Mr. Scanlon said could part of the motion say that the exterior of the building has to meet the Planning Director’s approval? Are you just going to paint the building? Mr. Cassidy replied no, I probably would reside it. It currently has vinyl, but I would probably want cedar siding or something. Ms. White said I think they should probably amend their elevation drawings to specify roofing and siding and window treatments so we have that for the record.
Ms. Sklar said going back to the parking setback, which does trouble me to go from 30 feet to 0 feet. If you get rid of that lip, does that reduce the amount of the waiver request? Mr. True replied we would still need a waiver. It could slide it towards the right-of-way. It would probably go from 21 feet to 16 feet. Mr. Pratt said the problem is the lot itself is only 41 feet deep on that side. Ms. White said you still have to have a back-out space, so you won’t gain anything measurably in the setbacks. Mr. True said we might get a couple of feet. It is probably less than a foot. Ms. Sklar said I have a problem with having zero feet to the abutting property. Mr. Pratt said the current parking, that partly gravel and partly grass, but that is where the car
parking is and is where the parking would remain to be. Ms. White said I thought you said right now they’re backing into South River Road. Mr. Pratt replied they were before they took the fence down, but beyond the fence, which is where the other portion of the lot line, that is where some of the cars were parking, some of the cars were parking in front of the fence and backing out onto South River Road.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked Karen, if this is approved as retail, then at any time retail could come in, in the future? Ms. White replied anything except convenience stores or fast food, which are categories unto themselves. Yes, it could be a women’s clothing store, it could be various retail uses. Mr. Pratt said but it would clearly have to be a low impact retail use. Realistically no retail show that would have a high traffic pattern would be interested in purchasing this. Ms. White said unless they could convert it to a convenience store.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked for comments from the public.
David Francoeur, TW Bridge Associates, said I own the southwest parcel that abuts this property. As an abutter I would ask that the Board not approve the change in use. We feel that the setbacks would create a hardship on our property, which is just under seven acres. We have a covenant for two parcels that are connected that we have to build brick and glass buildings, so we’re looking at a multi-million dollar building that we would have to build and I just can’t a little building like this being used as retail, with vinyl siding or clapboard or whatever the case may be in front of an expensive building. Certainly the Town of Bedford, which we’re trying to have a nice appearance with reception in Town. Also to get to Ms. White’s comment abut the north end of South
River Road, there are a number of small parcels that do create traffic problems and there is a ridge that comes right over from One Commerce, so traffic is coming up, it is ramping up from the light and to have a curb cut. I’d be very surprised if I were to go the Board looking for a curb cut on my property on South River Road. I would ask that the same standards that you would hold me to for my property, that you would hold to this property owner too. I’m also concerned about the buffer zone; snow storage. I don’t know what the area is of the parking lot, the four spaces plus the isle, what the gross area is, but to have a 300 square foot snow storage just seems very inadequate to me, and certainly with a small budget for the renovations that are being done, I’m hard pressed to believe that the snow is going to be removed after each snow storm. And if it isn’t, there is zero feet to my lot with this proposed parking lot. Where is the salt going to run to, where is the water,
what about the snow, is it going to be pushed over onto my property. Again, I’m looking to have an upscale building. We’re currently marketing this to attract national and regionally headquartered companies and it is not for sale it is a built to suit type of property that we’re looking at. We’ve had a number of people looking at it over the years and I would just ask you to consider the greater hardship that would be presented if this property were allowed to be changed in its use. When Mr. Pratt was talking about the parking going back onto the grass, well that is just it. It is a home and they’re parking on the grass. There are one or two cars over the years that have been there. I looked at possibly buying it. I bought the property that I own from Ray Colby of Ricardy Construction and he had indicated to me that he had put some money put into the Town to have a right-turn lane on the southbound lane
over there that would eventually be placed there. We’ve always viewed that property as it is going to be taken away and it is just going to create a hardship for me if I try to attract a national or regional headquarters there. They are not going to want to have a little house in front of it. I can possibly give you an example, the Town of Merrimack how they had a little house in front of the condos that right near the Shaw’s plaza and for years they were holding that property hostage. They were letting it get run down. They weren’t doing any more work to it until somebody had to give them over $1 million just to get rid of them. Not to say that these find individuals would do this, I’ve spoken to Mrs. Cassidy, she seems very nice, but I’m very concerned about the overall upkeep. If they change their business for this property, what goes in there next? Is it an ice cream shop? Are we going to have a
ton of cars, rubbernecks trying to stop and having accidents there? I would ask you not to approve this in light of what the goal is of the Performance zone that you’ve worked so hard to work on over the years and also due to the hardship that I believe this would cause me. I do realize that they have purchased this property without doing all their due diligence and I feel bad about that, but again, I have a business investment near as well and it is not just my investment, it’s the investment of all of the taxpayers in the Town of Bedford when this thing has to be taken down and the Town has to foot the bill and pay for the improvements, the taxpayers pay for this. I would ask for your consideration that you do not approve this change of use. Mr. Casale said I appreciate your concerns but the one thing that I disagree with is though is when you mention your glass and brick building and how this would detract from that, but whatever they will do
will probably improve it.
Mr. Francoeur asked where are they going to put trash storage? What about the light that goes onto my property? There are not a lot of evergreens on my property, so it is a bit barren during the winter months and so where is the overspill of the light that is going to happen there. I’m not trying to be nitpicky, I’m trying to present it as if you were to own my property and you were going to spend millions on putting a brick and glass building and you’re going to have a little property like this that you’re always going to have to worry about; are they pushing the snow over there again, are they keeping that up, are they going to hold me hostage. If you were to work in a headquarters, would you feel comfortable going to your office knowing that there is a little building in
front of it? Mr. Casale said there is still a little building in front of it. Mr. Francoeur replied there still is, but it’s a house right now and who knows what that could turn into be at some point if this does get approved. That is the concern. Mr. Riley asked Mrs. Cassidy, did you purchase the property from a for sale sign that was in front of the property? Mrs. Cassidy replied yes. Mr. Riley said so it was available for anybody to purchase who was interested in it. Mrs. Cassidy replied yes and in fact he was notified that it was for sale, but he didn’t want it. As far as what it will look like, I understand what he is worried about…I’ll do it in stone, I’ll do it in brick. I’m going to use materials that are going to make it look as nice as possible. I’m trying to sell kitchens; I can’t have a run down building that I’m selling kitchens out of. Ms. White said
you need to tell us that on your elevation sheet then. You haven’t told us anything about what you’re using for materials for the building. Brick is considered the most desirable for the Performance zone, unlike Route 101, which is mostly clapboard. Mrs. Cassidy said we will do brick. And with the snow, it is small, there is not going to be a lot of snow. We can haul it away. It doesn’t have to sit there and just beyond the parking lot to the right, there is probably about 30 feet there, which I believe he owns that kind of runs around us, and I had called him to ask if he’d be interested in just selling that little 30 feet just so I could have a little bit more room, but he indicated that he wasn’t interested in that because he doesn’t want anyone in front of him and I understand business, but I own it now and I’ll make it look as good as possible and I just want to make showroom out of it. I don’t agree that it is going to take away from his property. I would never do
that. With the lighting, there are a ton of trees behind it. Ms. White said but here won’t always be. Mrs. Cassidy said I don’t know what the site plan is, but from what I think it was set back a ways from my building. Ms. White said he doesn’t have a site plan, that’s the whole point. He has a right to develop his property up to within 30 feet of your property. Mrs. Cassidy said after the parking there I can do big trees that you can’t see through. Ms. White said you have no room to plant trees along your back property line. Mrs. Cassidy said the showroom closes at 5:00pm, so really most of the year I won’t even have lights out there because it is light out. I am open during the day and then on Saturday. Vice-Chairman Newberry said I think we need to look at this proposal on its merits and its merits alone and not whether it may or not be adjacent.
Mr. Riley said I’d like to see what the applicant proposes for the look of the buildings. Specifically materials that they would plan on using and we could possibly table this until we can see a list of the materials. Mrs. Cassidy asked would brick be preferred? Mr. Casale said I don’t want to lose site of the fact that anything they do is probably going to increase the beauty of this house, but I don’t want to lose fact to the site that there are a lot of waivers that need to be granted and the Planning Director has expressed a lot of reservations about this property. Ms. White said I’m just worried. You see Second Street and what it looks like. There are numerous small properties on the north end of Route 3, old houses, with their driveways out onto Route 3,
that are of about the same size, 3,000 to 4,000 square feet, and I worry that we will start to see them come in to ask for change of use and waivers of all kinds, the parking setbacks and waivers of all of the landscaping. Mr. Burns said just to speak of those properties, they are worth so much money that someone is going to buy them and combine them. They are just too valuable. Mr. Riley said I don’t think there are that many properties left. Most of them are either businesses now or few of them are abandoned or run down or have been taken down to allow for consolidation for a larger development project.
Ms. Sklar said I would support tabling this item until we see the architecturals. Mr. Scanlon said could we just deal with the waivers tonight. Vice-Chairman Newberry said if we are going to take the waivers we should do them one at a time. Ms. White asked could I ask a question. You are reducing the impervious surface, but the trade off is having one less parking space, so the Board needs to think about which of those two things they would prefer. You may prefer to give them the waiver on the impervious service and they have that fourth parking space, and let them pile snow there in the winter. Mr. True said I think I’d like to take this back to the drawing board and get your architecturals and look at how we might narrow this down and come back. If we can narrow this isle
down, we would still need waivers for landscaping and snow and all of that but it would make for a whole better site. Vice-Chairman Newberry said it sounds like maybe we are premature then to consider the waivers. Mr. True said it will give us a chance to look to make the isle smaller even if it is four or five feet, that gives us a lot more opportunity for buffering.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked how does the Board feel about the waivers if they are able to do a little more there? I don’t think we want to send them off if there is no intention of supporting the waivers that they are looking to get. Ms. Sklar said I’d like to assess the package as a whole. I have a problem with going from 30 feet to zero 0 for that waiver. The parking comes right up the property line abutter and I have a real problem with that. I wish I didn’t, but I do. Going from 24 feet to 21 feet I’m okay with that one, the sign we took care of. Mr. Pratt said if we could reduce the isle width to 18 feet we could get at least two feet between the parking and the abutter’s property line. Ms. Sklar said there is no room for
landscaping. Mr. Casale said you couldn’t even snow blow this parking lot without throwing snow on the abutter’s property.
Mr. Scanlon said this is a pretty unique piece of property. It is surrounded on three sides by larger pieces of property. The owner of one piece of property has demonstrated that he was not interested in buying it, so if he had, I’m sure he would have done it, so now you have somebody that has a piece of property that has…if I was an abutter, I’d be begging you to spruce it up. I agree there are other smaller properties but the difference is there is the ability to probably consolidate those and this one there doesn’t seem to be that option. I’d rather have something that was decent.
Ms. Sklar asked would you be willing to put up a fence? Mr. Cassidy replied I’m willing to do whatever you want me to do. Ms. Sklar said my concern always is if you grant this kind of a waiver, and when the next guy comes in and he says that I need it otherwise I can’t design, etc. Mr. Scanlon said he’s got to demonstrate what his circumstances are. Ms. Sklar said but the circumstance is that he has a small lot. Mr. Scanlon said unfortunately in this town with the amount of redevelopment that occurs, I think we are going to be seeing more and more of this. Ms. White said I think we are too. Mr. Scanlon said we changed zoning in that area, and each time we looked at the zoning down there… Ms. White said we have addressed this. We said you cannot
convert to commercial if you don’t have the room on the lot to do it. That’s what our zoning ordinance says. You must have 30 feet, you must have this, and you must have that. We’ve addressed it. We’ve said lots this small can’t be developed for commercial. Mr. Burns said there are no other lots like this. Ms. White said there are; there’s Hall Road, there’s Waiton Road, there’s Eastman Avenue, there’s Park Street. Mr. Scanlon said we give waivers away like candy some times. Vice-Chairman Newberry said I’m not sure that we should either. Mr. Burns said what I’m saying is that from the bridge down, this is a very unique piece of property.
Vice-Chairman Newberry said we could move forward on the waivers and see if the application passes the test tonight. Ms. White said you could do a straw vote to give them a sense of where you are. Vice-Chairman Newberry said the only concern I have with that is the degree and the number of waivers may change as a result of further work on the applicant’s part. I don’t know if there will be enough change. Ms. Sklar said another thing that can happen for me is seeing the architectural and I see what improvements are going to be made and may affect my vote to grant a waiver or not. Vice-Chairman Newberry said the applicant is in here tonight looking for an approval and if we are not going to give them the approval… I don’t want to do a straw vote item by item, but
in general if the waiver requests are no worse than what we’ve seen in front of us and possibly improved, how many think they would support the waivers? Mr. Scanlon said I would support, Mr. Riley said I would support, Ms. Sklar said I might if the architectural was beautiful and maybe if there was a fence and maybe if there was some landscaping done in front of the building, but right now the way it is presented, I would not support it.
Mr. Pratt asked if you did vote on the waivers and some of them got denied could we then change to try to address the concerns and reapply for the waiver as it is changed? Vice-Chairman Newberry said I don’t know if we want to get into let’s try this six ways to get it. Mr. Pratt said I personally prefer the layout that I have now; I think I prefer leaving the fourth spot and I like Mike’s idea of temporarily store the snow there. Vice-Chairman Newberry said I’ve heard clear sentiment that there is interest in trying to support your proposals and the application, but I’ve also heard some significant concerns, so I guess I would like to state something that it appears that you have support, but I think going forward you are not without risk.
Vice-Chairman Newberry said I think to the extent that you can address some of the concerns that have been voiced tonight it would help the Planning Board to support the waivers in such a way that we’re not setting precedence in committing ourselves to supporting three pages of waivers on every uniquely small parcel that may or may not exist in Town. Mr. Pratt asked could I get the Board’s feedback about reducing the isle width down to 18 feet, therefore leaving enough room for a fence and some possible small plants in the back. That would give us a couple of extra feet in the back and give us enough room for a fence right at that stone wall and also possibly some room for small plants. Ms. White said you can back an SUV out and do a three-point turn and go out in 18 feet.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked will there be any large trucks coming to the business? Mr. Cassidy said nothing larger than a UPS truck. Mr. Casale said if you are shortening that room and you have somebody backing out and somebody is trying to get in from Route 3. Mr. True said there is enough room now to stack one car.
Vice-Chairman Newberry asked how does the Board feel about narrowing that isle? Is that a deal killer with anybody? Mr. Scanlon said maybe they’ll just have to fence the whole property so it protects any snow being pushed on the abutter’s property. Vice-Chairman Newberry said I think the message is to the degree that if you think you can address the concerns that have been raised this could be tabled.
MOTION made by Mr. Scanlon to table the application of Charlene Cassidy – Request for a Change-of-Use site plan approval to convert an existing home into a retail kitchen cabinet showroom for Cassidy Kitchen Cabinets, 366 South River Road, Lot 35-18, Performance zone, to the February 5, 2007 meeting and this item will be the first on the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Burns. Vote taken – all approved. Motion carries.
Ms. White said this will serve as notice to abutters.
Mrs. Cassidy asked is there anything that I should keep in mind should we need it at the next meeting. Vice-Chairman Newberry replied check with Ms. White and she should be able to help you.
3. Riley Investment Properties, LLC –Proposal to modify the architecture of an existing building located at 21 Commerce Park North, Lot 24-19, ZONE PZ.
Chairman Levenstein said this item has been postponed and will be heard at the January 22, 2007 Planning Board meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40PM.
Submitted by Valerie E. Fysh
Docs #21914
| |
