 |
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
January 12, 2009
BEDFORD MEETING ROOM
A meeting of the Bedford Planning Board was held on Monday, January 12, 2009, at the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road, Bedford, NH. Present were: Jon Levenstein (Chairman), Russell Marcoux (Town Manager), Mike Izbicki (Town Council), Jim Stanford (Public Works Director), Harold Newberry, Debbie Ann Sklar, Karen McGinley, Erik Anderson, Rick Sawyer (Town Planner), and Cynthia A. May (Planner II).
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairman Levenstein opened the meeting at 7:00p.m. Paul Goldberg is not here but there are no alternates to appoint to replace him. Mike Izbicki is replacing Bob Young as Town Council representative. Ms May read the agenda.
II. Old Business:
A. Continued Hearings:
None
III. New Business
B. 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. The full text of the amendments is available in the Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and on the Town website at TOWN OF BEDFORD www.bedfordnh.org
2. Richard A. Raff (Owner) – Request for Home Occupation Permit to provide financial planning and insurance agency services. 64 John Goffe Drive, Lot 21-8-31, Zoned R&A.
Coastal Forest Products, Edgemere Realty LLC (Owner) – Request for re-approval of the final site plan for the relocation of site access and new loading docks, originally approved on June 16, 2008. US Route 3, Lot 36-6-1, Zoned PZ.[Marker]
4. Naser Jewelers (Applicant), Naser Realty Bedford NH LLC (Owner) – Request for architectural review of changes to building façade previously approved by the Planning Board on November 3, 2008. 4 Ridgewood Road, Lot 12-5, Zoned PZ.
C. Concept Proposals and Other Business:
5. Camp Allen Inc. (Owner) – Conceptual discussion of a proposed master site plan to include the construction of a new dining hall, cabins, pavilion, parking and circulation. 56 Camp Road, Lots 34-16 & 34-19-1, Zoned R&A.
Ms. May said all the applications submitted are complete, and in the Planning staff’s opinion they are ready for application acceptance. Abutters for each application under New Business have already been notified as required. It is also Planning staff’s opinion that there are no items of regional impact under New Business.
MOTION made by Mr. Marcoux to accept the agenda as written. Seconded by Ms. McGinley. 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. The full text of the amendments is available in the Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and on the Town website at 3. www.bedfordnh.org
A memo from Rick Sawyer, Planning Director, dated January 12, 2009 as follows:
Attached please find the six (6) proposed zoning amendments which have been revised based on the discussions at your last meeting. As you know the Planning Board must hold two public hearings on the amendments as part of the January 12, 2009 and January 26, 2009 meetings. Below please find updates on the amendments:
Amendment #1 – Wetlands compensatory mitigation fee
- New subsection (b) was added as requested by the Board. No other changes were made.
(b) The local compensatory mitigation fee shall be equal to ten (10) times the average value of back land in the town for the previous year.
- The Town Assessor has indicated that the value of “backland” is $8,500 an acre. To better understand the impacts of this fee the Planning Department developed the attached chart which indicates what the 8 projects that went before the Conservation Commission in 2008 would have paid. We were also requested to include in the chart what the fees would have been if the backland value was $12,000 and $15,000.
- The Town Attorney and I are recommending that if the Board moves forward with this Amendment that subsection (b) is removed and that the formula and fee values be adopted as part of the Planning Board regulations as permitted by subsection (e) to provide the Town with the most flexibility in administering the fee in the future.
Amendment #2 – Workforce Housing
- The multi-family density in the AR, CO, OF and SI zones was changed from 10 to 12 units an acre as requested by the Board.
- Our consultant and I are recommending that the words “Ownership and Rental” be added to section 45-4-2(b)(4) to more clearly indicate that both types of housing are to be permitted in those zones.
- Our consultant and I are recommending that the following language be added to the density section so that workforce housing developments would be required to meet the same requirements as market rate housing in the AR zone which limits the maximum number of units in any one building to 12.
“There shall be a maximum of twelve (12) units in any one building in the AR zone and no restriction as to the number of units in one building in the CO, OF and SI zones.”
Amendment #3 – Small Wind Energy Systems
- As requested by the Board requirements have been added so that the applicant will need to state that the system will be compliant with the sound level requirements at the time of application (section C.2.xi) and that proof that the sound level requirement has been met prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued (section D.1.c)
- I am recommending a change to section C which would add a new paragraph 1. Location and would include the language as to where the systems are permitted that was previously listed in the Building Permit paragraph (now renumbered as paragraph 2) and also add that “Only one (1) small wind energy system shall be permitted per lot.”
Amendment #4 – Restriction on large commercial vehicles
- Attached please find a truck classification chart which indicates the types of vehicles that this restriction would apply to (class 7 & 8 heavy duty).
There are no changes to Amendments #5 & #6
Amendment #1 – Wetlands compensatory mitigation fee
Mr. Sawyer said the only change to this item was based on the discussions at the last meeting with the Board was trying to figure out the right language for the mitigation fee amount. That has been inserted in to Item B, which says “The local compensatory mitigation fee shall be equal to 10-times the average value of backland in the Town for the previous year.” After discussions with the Town Assessor, that value in Bedford ids $8,500 an acre. I did a little chart that you should have all received to show what we would have received in 2008. I believe there were eight projects that came before the commission. They ranged for very small PSNH 25 square foot impact, up to the largest project that was for the Preserve, that actually wouldn’t qualify because it would be paying
the State mitigation fee amount. The next larger project was actually a Town project for road realignment. That project had 8,900 square feet of impact and would have paid over $17,000 in fees. The other smaller projects range from several hundred dollars up to $3,000 for the types of impacts that we typically see. So if you took the Town project out, I believe we would have collected a little over $6,000 last year. With the Town project, it would have been almost $25,000. That’s it on that one. Everything else remains the same.
Chairman Levenstein asked when you looked at the projects, did you look at what variances had been granted to allow for building and setbacks also? Mr. Sawyer replied these are the eight projects from last year. This is everything from last year. As you know, the Preserve hasn’t gone forward. The Town of Bedford didn’t do the Gault Road project. All the other projects have gone forward. Ms. McGinley asked wouldn’t the Town be exempt from the ordinance anyway? Chairman Levenstein replied yes.
Mr. Newberry asked is backland defined anywhere? Mr. Sawyer replied essentially it is by the Assessor’s office. It’s that area of land that is beyond the minimum required for the zoning district. So typically in this town that’s 1.5 acre R/A zone. If you have 2.5 acres, you have an acre of backland, essentially. Mr. Newberry asked it is more than just wetlands? Mr. Sawyer replied yes.
Mr. Izbicki asked who decides what the wetland is? Does it have to be a significant wetland? Could it be just a puddle from a culvert? Where is that criteria established? Mr. Sawyer replied the wetland definition is a State definition. Mr. Izbicki asked that’s what we're going by for this ordinance? Mr. Sawyer replied yes. We won’t have any classification of wetlands in this Town.
Mr. Izbicki asked has this type of an ordinance ever been in place in the State or is this basically the first time this type of an ordinance has been up for adoption by a Town? Mr. Sawyer replied it’s the first time that it has been done at a local level. The State has a similar mitigation fee; it is a much higher amount; for projects that have 10,000 square feet of impacts on wetlands and greater. But this is the first time that it is being done locally. It’s certainly the first time it would be for a setback encroachment and not a wetland impact encroachment. Mr. Izbicki asked so it’s never been tested in the courts nor has it been tested with the State law for potential conflicts? Mr. Sawyer replied no, but the original draft was done by our Town Attorney, the
Board has seen his letter on the project. I think you’ll probably note in my memo the Town Attorney and I are both recommending that this new item not be included in the ordinance and that it be part of the Planning Board’s regulations so that you could more easily amend it in the future if you wanted to. But obviously the Board felt strongly that you wanted the amount right out there in the open so that everybody would know what it is. Again, we think your flexibility would be more important. Chairman Levenstein said my feeling was that if the public is going to vote on the amendment, the public should have an input as to the amount that we're talking about. If goes into our regulations, they have an input but they don’t have a vote. I felt that it’s something that they should have a vote on. Mr. Izbicki said I agree.
Mr. Izbicki said we had this person come front of the Town Council at the last meeting, where the culvert that was draining the water away from their property got backed up and over a period of a few years, it became a wetland. Now they want to add onto their house, now the setback that wasn’t there when they bought the property, is now there. This ordinance would still require them to pay a fee if they wanted to build within the setback? Mr. Sawyer replied this wouldn’t change wetland laws in any way, it is just adding another fee if need to develop within the wetland or its setback. Chairman Levenstein said in a case like that, whose responsibility is it in Town to take care of that culvert? Is it the Town’s responsibility or is that the homeowner’s.? Mr.
Sawyer replied only if it’s public drainage easement for some reason, but many of the ones that we see around Town that homeowners’ have problems with, are just private property.
Chairman Levenstein asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Paul McEwan asked why did this new fee come into play? Is there a reason? Chairman Levenstein replied it is a proposal. Mr. McEwan asked what was the idea for putting this on as an amendment? Why did they think of it? What’s the reason for it? We have been all these years without one, why now? Chairman Levenstein replied I think the proposal was brought because there was a feeling that these are important Town resources, and that when somebody comes and asks for a variance to the statute, the only time these issues are raised is when somebody wants to build in a manner which is not in accordance with the Town Zoning Ordinance. I think the thought was is that if somebody is coming in and wants the Town to grant them permission for that, they should pay some sort of fee
to compensate the Town for the loss of that resource, and that with the money that the Town collects, the Town can use that money to purchase other land, which would include land that would be protected so that the water resources are protected in Town. That was the feeling. Mr. McEwan asked this account that would be set up, is it specific to the Conservation Commission or whoever would get it, or does think kind of dump in the general fund and disappears? Chairman Levenstein replied no, this money is earmarked for purchase of conservation land. Mr. McEwan asked the wetland doesn’t have to necessarily be water, it can just be the vegetation that’s associated with wetlands? So somebody could have that type of situation in their back yard, not necessarily water, and they still fall into that category? Chairman Levenstein replied it would be how the State defines a wetland, which doesn’t have to be flowing water. Mr. McEwan
said my understanding is that’s how it is defined; wetland can either be the water, the vegetation, I think there are three categories that fit that.
Mr. McEwan asked I would want to know how agriculture fits in here, because I have some of my own fields that when I work these, I have a buffer zone for my pond, but I’m still working that. That’s a yearly thing that goes on, it’s been going on for the past 97 years with my family, so I want to know if that falls into this or agriculture kind of exempt on this particular case? Chairman Levenstein replied my understanding would be that if you don’t come for variance or come for anything before any Board to ask permission to encroach within somewhere you’re not allowed to go, if you are allowed to go there now and do what you’re doing, then it wouldn’t affect you at all.
Susan Tufts Moore, 27 Bedford Center Road, said I would like to speak in favor of this proposed zoning amendment because I do feel that wetlands are so critical to the future of this Town because they are so critical to the future of clean drinking water, and I feel that this would be a big step forward as far as protecting our wetlands and trying to encourage people not to encroach upon them and risk deteriorating our water supply. I feel that it is so critical to the future of this Town in trying to maintain a really clean drinking supply.
Amendment #2 – Workforce Housing
Mr. Sawyer said the only changes to this were what we talked about at the last meeting. It was a request from the Board to change the density from 10 units to 12 units an acre. That change was made. Roger Hawk and I, your consultant, after reviewing it a little bit more with New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority just had a few clarifications to the language making sure everybody knows what’s going where and in which zones, ownership and rental being added to one section. I don’t know if you remember but the State law requires that you have to provide an area for at least five units in one building as multi-family housing. And again, the next amendment was just to clarify that we're allowing up to 12 units in any one building in the A/R zone, and that’s consistent with what
we currently allow in that zone for market-rate housing. Then no limitation on the number of units in the other districts, commercial, office and service/industrial districts.
Ms. Sklar said I was just wondering because I have this hazy memory of when I think it was the Conservation Commission tried to impose regulation on significant wetlands. Is there a way that we can identify what parcels might be subject to workforce housing and make that available to the public so people can see what areas we are talking about? Mr. Sawyer said the entire ordinance applies to the entire Town except for the Performance Zone. There are elements in the R/A zone, the G/R zone and all the other districts except for the Performance Zone. Ms. Sklar asked wasn’t there a requirement that there be water and sewer? Mr. Sawyer replied there is for the multi-family pieces of it, but let’s take most of the Town, the R/A zone, we have that State requirement that we have to
provide for the reasonable opportunity for workforce housing in the R/A zone, 51% of that, so we have put in here basically the density bonus of 1/3 additional density if you provide 1/3 of your units as workforce housing. The example that I gave at the last meeting is if you had 4.5 acres in the R/A zone today, you could three single-family homes. Under this ordinance, you would get one additional unit, so you would get four units on 4.5 acres and one of them would have to qualify for workforce housing. Ms. Sklar asked what about the areas that are available for multi-family housing? Mr. Sawyer replied that’s where you get this much higher density where we have talked about 12-units an acre. Ms. Sklar asked can’t that information be provided to the public? What areas right now would be available to accommodate that kind of housing? Mr. Sawyer said I could call up the zoning map. Ms. Sklar said I think it is important
information for people to have. Ms. McGinley asked would we include this is in our educational effort that we plan to do on this ordinance? Mr. Sawyer replied we could. We would have discussions on that.
Ms. McGinley said I have a minor change to the actual ballot warrant article. In the lead-in, after the word table of uses, the fourth line, if you put “, all of which are” in Amendment #2 on the warrant article. Chairman Levenstein asked is that just a grammatical error? Ms. McGinley replied it’s clarification that our summary is all of the things that we’ve listed here, not just the table of uses.
Mr. Sawyer said showing on the zoning map posted, multi-family could go in all of the colored districts, commercial, office, service/industrial, and general/residential, as well as apartment/residential, but all that land is built-out, except for the colored Performance Zone along Route 3. We don’t have any workforce housing zoning proposed that would pull the Performance Zone in. That’s where the multi-family could go. Although there are commercial districts further down Route 101, none of those currently have water and sewer, so you could not develop at that higher density. The ordinance calls for commercial zoning or office zoning or industrial zoning or the G/R zoning with water and sewer to do the higher density developments. So you are really looking at the portion of Town I’m indicating on the zoning map posted. Chairman Levenstein said I guess that at some point in time it could be brought down to those other areas, the pink areas. Mr. Sawyer replied it could.
Chairman Levenstein asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Amendment #3 – Small Wind Energy Systems
Mr. Sawyer said the only change I made to that is after reading what some of the other towns were doing, I saw that Hampton had put in a good piece that I didn’t think of when I was reviewing the State’s model ordinance, that is to limit these to one per property. That’s the only change that I’ve made is that someone could put in one small wind energy system on a lot. I didn’t want to have the wind farm discussion for something that is meant for personal use. It really shouldn’t have to have multiple towers, but if someone had a hardship with that, I guess that could always seek a variance.
Ms. Sklar asked is the one-limit per lot applicable just to residential? Mr. Sawyer replied this would be the entire Town. Ms. Sklar asked what if you have a large lot and you’re a large commercial user and you want more? Mr. Sawyer replied these are small wind energy systems, which are only 100 kw. Although a commercial operation could use it to supplement their business, it’s not meant for power generation to the grid. You could do some minor payback to the grid, but these aren’t the same windmills that you see in the Cape proposal, where they are 360’ tall with 100’ blades. These are small residential units. Ms. Sklar asked what if a business just wanted to either supplement to use it as a primary energy source? Mr. Sawyer replied they could,
we're just saying they could only put up one without a variance. Ms. Sklar said I guess I’m not in favor of limiting that to a large lot or a large user for commercial uses. I would support something more flexible without somebody having to get a variance for something that I think as a Town we should be encouraging. I can appreciate in a residential area the aesthetic concerns, the noise concerns, and all the other issues that I think the ordinance covers quite well. But I don’t think you have those same concerns in the other districts, and I think we would want to encourage that. Ms. McGinley said I also would be concerned that there wouldn’t grounds for a variance if we adopt it this way. The applicant wouldn’t satisfy the hardship criteria if they come in and ask for increase usage as Ms. Sklar has described. Chairman Levenstein said one thing we could do, which would cover that, is somehow make it a zoning
ordinance that doesn’t apply to the Performance Zone, then put the Performance Zone in our regulations so that we could control whether somebody could get a waiver. Really the Performance Zone is the only area where I think where Ms. Sklar is discussing really would come into play. Mr. Newberry said the Performance Zone is also adjacent to the airport. Mr. Sawyer said I think the way it’s written you would already have that ability to make that waiver in the Performance Zone, but that’s something I’ll definitely double check between now and then. We certainly can clarify that any variances to this in the Performance Zone would be handled by the Planning Board. You can do everything except the wetlands. Chairman Levenstein said we had that problem over by Macy's in the back. Mr. Sawyer said I believe the home occupation also has come up as an issue that you can’t necessarily make waivers to. Chairman
Levenstein said if you could clarify whether we can not, it might help in some ways.
Mr. Izbicki said you mentioned that you were looking at a capacity of 100 kw. That’s not really spelled out in the ordinance. Mr. Sawyer said I believe it is. Mr. Izbicki said as technology advances, you’re generating power over the years, you would be able to generate more with smaller unit. Are people prohibited from doing that if they don’t exceed the height restrictions of the tower? Mr. Sawyer replied that’s correct. State law would define a small wind energy system as 100 kw or less, and that’s in the bottom of the first page of the Amendment #3. It is in the added text, not the front page piece. Mr. Izbicki asked what about all the associated equipment that goes with this? There are usually cases and control cases. Is that
located in a building? Mr. Sawyer replied this talks about that those have to meet the regular setback requirements.
Mr. Marcoux said in the description where it talks about only one wind energy system per lot, should that be included in the amendment question so that people understand that it is only one per lot. Mr. Sawyer replied we could put it in the descriptive text, but not in the question itself. This amendment is seven pages, so we're not listing the whole thing. Mr. Marcoux said I think in the description it would be helpful. Mr. Sawyer said since that was my recommendation, I wouldn’t change any of that language. Mr. Marcoux said I would suggest that that be added to the description, not the question.
Chairman Levenstein asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Amendment #4 – Restriction on large commercial vehicles
Mr. Sawyer said there were not changes to this. All I did was supply you with a chart that showed what some of those vehicles that would be regulated would be. The second page of that handout, the Class VII and VIII.
Chairman Levenstein asked for comments or questions from the audience.
Paul McEwan said as I look at this I would like to know why this has come about. I have kind of a suspicion of how it came about, but why do we have to have this on as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance? Chairman Levenstein replied it is a proposal, which we're raising as a possible amendment, a possible thing that the Planning Board would support. The history of what happened was there was a Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision as to whether somebody in Town would be allowed to keep a vehicle, I don’t know what size it was, a tractor trailer, at his house. there was a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment; we receive copies of Zoning Board of Adjustment minutes and we had a discussion in the Planning Board whether that should be something
that should be dealt with in the Zoning Ordinance, since it isn’t specifically dealt with there. Essentially we decided to raise the issue, propose an amendment and basically see what people’s feelings are. As with all of these proposed amendments, these are all proposals of the Planning Board that have been brought forward. There are no citizens’ petitions. At our next meeting after the public hearing, the Planning Board will vote on whether it is going to actually bring any of these forward to the ballot. If they do, then it would go further and the people in the Town would get to vote on it. At this stage we’ve raised the issue, we’ve brought it forward to this point, we're looking for public comment, what the public wants. Mr. McEwan said I’m somewhat familiar with the subject that you’re talking about. Have you done any research to see how many new trucks have been in this particular
situation? From what I know, a lot of the fellows that have vehicles have had them for a number of years. I haven’t exactly seen, especially the way Bedford’s community has changed from when I grew up to what it is now, I haven’t seen exactly a pouring of people bringing their trucks home. I guess what disturbs me is the point that the weight limit that you have on this is even somebody with a 6-wheeler dump truck if he is making a living plowing for a town or independent or something, if he comes home at night, he does not qualify according to this amendment. And the community has changed in it’s status, so to speak, from what it was years ago, there are still a lot of people who make a living running trucks and they do own property and they do pay high taxes in this town, and I think they have every right to own a vehicle as long as they are not running any type of a business onsite that involves that vehicle. If it is just
bringing it home and parking it and then leaving, I don’t see a problem with that. Years ago Bedford was made up of a lot of people like this. We have kind of thinned out over the years and the community has changed. I would like to see this amendment disappear. I know there are probably some people that do not like to see a truck in somebody else’s yard, but there are probably other people that probably dislike the color of their house, which they have to stare at every day. In my opinion it’s kind of gotten a little ridiculous especially when some of the situations I’ve seen, I would like to suggest that this amendment be done away with. Chairman Levenstein said in fairness, I don’t believe that issue was raised as an issue of aesthetics, at least by this Board, I believe it was raised as a safety issue.
Dick Perreault, Juniper Drive, said I’ve been a resident since 1971. I believe back in the 1970’s there was a group of people that were grandfathered to operate their business and those businesses did include trucks exceeding the 26,000 lbs., and what are you going to do if this should pass? Are you going to kick all of those people to the curb now? My second issue is I understand from Mr. Sawyer that there is already an existing covenant or stipulation that a gentleman can bring his vehicle home for transportation purposes providing he’s not using it in operating his business out of his residence. Mr. Sawyer said I’m not sure on that last statement. If you have an existing business that’s legal in all ways, this wouldn’t affect that. This is if you
are running a business out of your home and that’s an approved business, this doesn’t affect it. If you are a truck driver who brings a truck home and it’s more than 26,000 lbs., if you’re doing that today, yes you wouldn’t be able to do that anymore. There is no way to grandfather somebody who drives a truck. So you would become non-conforming, you’d have to find a commercial lot somewhere that you could park your vehicle, and you’d have to take your personal passenger vehicle to the lot where you store your truck if this goes forward. Mr. Perreault asked so the gentleman with this tractor trailer that there was a complaint made with regards to him? Mr. Sawyer replied yes. Mr. Perreault asked that complaint is available with a signature? Mr. Sawyer replied yes, it has had a couple of hearings with the Zoning Board. There is a full record on that.
Steven Blais, Joppa Hill Road, said I run a haying operation. I bring hay home, it is agricultural. Now what happens when I resell it out? Is that considered a commercial use? Could you define that? I’m selling my product and it is agricultural. I should be grandfathered as residential/agricultural, but where does this bring me? Chairman Levenstein replied I don’t believe there would be any grandfathering. Mr. Sawyer said we would have to take a look at the State definition on farming. That may be something that the State allows and exempts out farming regulations. We would have to look at if it even classifies how much you can sell and still be a farm operation versus a commercial definition. I don’t believe the State really gets into
that. Mr. Blais asked what about my 10-wheel dump truck to haul manure around? All my equipment is over 26,000 lbs. Mr. Sawyer said again, if you are doing it for personal use on your personal property, no commercial operation, then it doesn’t apply. This is for only if you use a large vehicle in a commercial operation. Mr. Blais said I have a haying operation. I make hay to sell. I don’t make hay for my own animals, I make hay to sell. Mr. Sawyer said I believe farming is going to be exempt, but if it is personal use, it doesn’t apply. It’s only if it is a vehicle used in commerce, not farming. I guess we’ll leave it at that. Chairman Levenstein said why don’t we check for next time of how farming vehicles would be affected. Mr. Sawyer said if it is a vehicle being used on your own farm and you’re not selling outside, if you just need a big truck to go out in the back
field and bring your hay in, there is no issue. You can have all the vehicles you want to have a farming operation on your own property. The thing I would want to look at is there anything that would trigger it to be a commercial operation if he is selling product outside. Certainly there are regulations in the State law about farm stands. You have to grow a certain amount of the product on your own property. Those are the things I would want to look at to look at the full definition of farming. Chairman Levenstein said we’ll get more information for the next meeting. There is another hearing in two weeks, and try and answer those questions for you.
Ms. Sklar asked if the reason for this ordinance was safety, then why would it matter what the vehicle was used for? Whether it was used for personal or commercial? If you’re prohibiting these large trucks because you don’t think they are safe, then there really shouldn’t be an difference, and I’m not suggesting that they be banned for personal and for commercial, but in kind of hearing some of the comments, I’m almost wondering whether this isn’t an overly broad way of trying to deal with what was maybe a very limited situation. I’m wondering about the wisdom of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson said the reason behind it, I think, is that if you have a commercial business and you’re running any kind of truck out of a commercial business, you have an
approval to do that. Every time somebody comes before us with a proposal, their civil engineer has to show us how a tractor trailer or delivery truck or dump truck or fire truck is going to navigate through that site and we get a chance to review that. My concern would be this is talking about a commercial vehicle that size operating out of a residential lot that was not in any way designed to handle that kind of vehicle and whether it is a safety issue having somebody running a tractor trailer in and out of a house. It’s not a question of the commercial site, it is a residential thing. Ms. Sklar said but if you are concerned about the safety, then you should ban all vehicles for all uses, not just if you happen to have one for your business, but its okay if you have one because you like playing on your land in your backyard. Mr. Anderson said it is quite a different thing if I’m operating a tractor trailer out of Macy's then if I’m
operating it out of my 1.5 acre lot. Ms. Sklar said this would allow you to have one of these big trucks on your property, at your house, if you were using it for personal use. It would only ban it if you were using it for commercial use. Is that right? Chairman Levenstein replied yes. Mr. Newberry asked if the prime issue here is safety, I would like to see some evidence that there is really a significant risk there as opposed to a perceived risk. I think that there are commercial vehicles that operate all over Town that have certain inherent risks to the fact that they’re being on the road. If we're going to say that this proposed amendment is a safety based thing, then I think we need to look and see if there is some evidence to support that that’s indeed the case. Ms. McGinley said I agree with what was just said. I don’t think we’ve heard any evidence that there has been a real safety problem within
the Town, and having lived here as long as I have, 24 years, I know just in being around the Town, that there are vehicles like this on people’s property, at their house, and to say that you have to go find another piece of property to park your vehicle that you use in your business while you’re not operating from your house, you do go to and from, I’m not in support of this ordinance unless we can show that there’s been a safety issue and we're trying to address it, not just a perceived safety issue.
Roland Blais, Peabody Road, said I’m not in favor because we buy these trucks, we register them, they are legal, we pay the Town taxes to register them, we pay our taxes on the property, as long as it is off the road, what is the problem with that. you’re saying safety issues; people move in and move out, you have tractor trailers that come in and bring them in and bring them out, they are all over all the roads, you have oil trucks that go to every house. I don’t see any problem with them. All trucks have full insurance; half the cars on the road don’t have insurance. I don’t see any problem of why someone can’t bring a truck to the house as long as they shut them off. I can see an ordinance where you say you can’t let them idle more than five
minutes, have to have a reefer, have to be plugged in, you can’t let them run because they are making noise, and they have to be off the road. I can see an ordinance like that. Chairman Levenstein said they have to be entirely on the property. Mr. Blais said they are dangerous sitting on the road where someone could run into them. They have to be off the road and on their own property. As far as renting a lot to put them on, if they come in with a load, they might have $500,000 to $750,000 worth of produce or something on there and they might want to keep an eye on it. Their trucks cost $200,000 to $300,000 empty.
Dick Perreault said maybe we should see based on safety if we ran up the Police docket in this Town to see that the DWI’s are not the guys with the tractor trailer.
Mr. Marcoux said I agree with the two prior speakers from the Board. We’ve had this discussion now for a while and I am certainly not anywhere near convinced that this amendment needs to move forward. Again, I have not heard anything tonight that has changed my mind that this needs to move forward. I know it is premature to ask to make a motion until the next meeting, but there is no safety issue that has been shown to me that would merit this kind of a regulation. Chairman Levenstein said we will vote on it at the next meeting regardless of whether you make a motion or not.
Mr. Sawyer said I read the State definition on farming and agriculture again and I don’t see how this could apply to the question that was raised here tonight for the harvesting of hay. That is clearly covered in the definition and I don’t think this would apply.
Amendments #5 & #6
Mr. Sawyer said these are two minor amendments on signage. Amendment #5 is just to say that graphics can also be illuminated. Amendment #6 is saying that when a sign is refaced, the panel must comply with the capacity regulation. I saw another sign tonight that just got swapped out that doesn’t meet this brand new refacing. We definitely want to get that one adopted if we can.
Chairman Levenstein said this concludes the first public hearing on the amendments. There will be another public hearing regarding these amendments on January 26, 2009, after which we will vote on whether the Planning Board wants to send these forward to the ballot. I think input tonight was of value to everybody here.
2. Richard A. Raff (Owner) – Request for Home Occupation Permit to provide financial planning and insurance agency services. 64 John Goffe Drive, Lot 21-8-31, Zoned R&A.
A memo from Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 12, 2009 as follows:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Level II Home Occupation Permit at his home at 64 John Goffe Drive to provide financial planning and insurance services. The single family home, which is approximately 2,100 square feet including the finished basement, is situated on a gently sloping partially treed one acre lot at the intersection of County Road and John Goffe Drive. The home has a two car drive-under garage accessed by a paved driveway on John Goffe Drive. There is a second detached garage served by a paved driveway from County Road (please see the attached plan). The applicant intends to use the primary driveway on John Goffe Drive for his clients, and the business will be located inside the house.
The application appears to comply with the requirements of Article 45-4-2(f)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, which permits a home occupation of no more than 650 square feet, to be located within the principal structure, with not more than one commercial vehicle, and no more than 2 non-resident employees. It appears that this business will occupy no more than 200 square feet in the basement of the home according to the application. The applicant does not operate a commercial vehicle, and there will be one part-time non-resident employee. The desired hours of operation are 9 A.M. to 7 P.M. daily. The applicant is requesting a small sign to be incorporated into the mailbox structure at the end of the driveway on John Goffe Drive. The sign would measure
20 inches by 34 inches and have the company name, the proprietor’s name and the phone number (please see the attached image in the packet.)
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant final approval of the Home Occupation Permit to provide financial planning and insurance agency services at 64 John Goffe Drive, Lot 21-8-31, with the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be from 9 A.M. to 7 P.M. daily.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be applied for and issued by the Building Inspector prior to commencing with this Home Occupation.
3. The applicant shall submit a new septic design prepared by a licensed septic designer if required by the Building Department and prior to receipt of the certificate of occupancy.
Ms. May said I want to point out that I passed out a staff report with an additional condition of approval. This has to do with the fact that the ordinance requires that a septic design to be done and we left that part out. Although I did get an email from the Building Department today saying that they may not need to require it if it is less than four bedrooms, but that can be worked out with the Building Department. I would refer to that memo as we move forward.
Richard Raff, 64 John Goffe Drive, said I’ve been at this location since 1984. I’ve been in the investment business the whole time with an office located on South River Road. My children have grown quite a bit, my son is out of the house, my daughter is rarely there. I have a lot of room in the house and I have decided it would make more sense if I could have the office in the basement. We don’t entertain a lot of people in the business and most of my business is done over the telephone, most of my appointments are done out of the office, but occasionally I have people come to the office several times a week. There wouldn’t be a lot of traffic flow at all coming into the location.
Chairman Levenstein asked how many employees will be at the site? Mr. Raff replied done part-time employee. She has worked for me for 20 years doing secretarial/clerical work. Mr. Stanford asked the hours of operation you plan to be open? Mr. Raff replied people call all the time, but mostly the market opens at 9:30am and closes at 4:00pm. I would continue to work into the night different hours, clients can come to my office up to 7:00pm after work. I would maintain the same type of hours. Chairman Levenstein said I see on your application that you’re proposing a sign? Mr. Raff replied yes. The regulators of my industry require signage. I need to mark the office location with a sign with the name of the business, my name, and the compliance department is
probably going to request a few other bullets be put on there besides what I listed, but that’s up to them to give me the final breakdown. In general it will be a very bland-looking sign. Nothing large, nothing fancy, just meeting the requirements of the law. Chairman Levenstein asked you’re proposing a 20” X 34” sign? Is that going to be big enough? Mr. Raff replied I was looking at different signs around Town like for real estate agents where they are selling a home, something of that nature, it’s primarily my residence and I don’t want a large sign on the property. I’m just looking for something on the mailbox area so if someone is driving by trying to find me, they will see it. Chairman Levenstein asked nothing internally lit? Mr. Raff replied no. I do have a lamppost and I’m planning on keeping that in the same location.
Mr. Newberry said you have hours of operation as 9:00am to 7:00pm daily. Is that Monday through Friday? Mr. Raff replied market hours, Monday through Friday, but if a client wanted to meet me on a Saturday morning, I’m fine with that if they want to come over. Most of my clients are my friends; they might come over and see me on a Saturday or a Sunday, but it’s not really business. The markets aren’t open during that time. Mr. Newberry asked your official business hours are Monday through Friday? Mr. Raff replied correct.
Mr. Stanford said the existing mailbox, how far back is it from the road. I only have issue from the plows, I don’t have any issue with what you’re planning on doing. I just want to make sure that if you’re going to be installing a sign such as this… Mr. Raff replied I’m planning on using the existing mailbox post location. I didn’t measure back from where it is now, but I always have to keep it clear for the mailman and the plows seem to be fine for the last 25 years. Mr. Stanford said okay, that’s my only concern.
Mr. Marcoux said I’m in favor of this and I applaud you for coming forward. I can’t imagine how many other businesses today are moving out of offices into their homes for a variety of reasons. My only concern, and a minor one, is that are your neighbors aware of what you’re trying to do so that we don’t find out at some point that they’re not happy about this? Mr. Raff replied I believe they were all notified with certified letters. Mr. Marcoux asked you’ve heard nothing? Mr. Raff replied no. I know my neighbors well, we have great relationships and I don’t think there are any problems there at all.
Chairman Levenstein asked for questions or comments from the audience.
MOTION made by Mr. Marcoux that the Planning Board grant final approval of the Home Occupation Permit to provide financial planning and insurance agency services at 64 John Goffe Drive, Lot 21-8-31, with the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be from 9 A.M. to 7 P.M. daily.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be applied for and issued by the Building Inspector prior to commencing with this Home Occupation.
3. The applicant shall submit a new septic design prepared by a licensed septic designer if required by the Building Department and prior to receipt of the certificate of occupancy.
Seconded by Ms. McGinley. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
Chairman Levenstein asked that proposed garage is not there? Mr. Raff replied no. I had gone in front of the Zoning Board requesting a variance to replace a structure that was there and unfortunately that didn’t happen. I didn’t get the variance. Chairman Levenstein asked is that driveway paved off County Road? Mr. Raff replied yes, that has been there for many years going to the existing garage that is there, 2-story barn/garage.
4. Coastal Forest Products, Edgemere Realty LLC (Owner) – Request for re-approval of the final site plan for the relocation of site access and new loading docks, originally approved on June 16, 2008. US Route 3, Lot 36-6-1, Zoned PZ.
A memo from Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 12, 2009 as follows:
The applicant is requesting re-approval of the site plan for the Coastal Forest Products site resulting from the exchange of several land segments between the NH DOT and Edgemere Realty, LLC, the property owner, for the construction of the Airport Access Road. The 180 days to finalize the conditions of approval lapsed on December 13, 2008 (please see a description of the site and the conditions of the original approval in the attached minutes from the June 16, 2008 Planning Board Meeting.) All of the conditions of approval have been met, with the exception of executing and recording the Certificate of Lot Merger; however, the process to finalize the merger is still moving forward (please see the attached memo from Mark McLeod dated December 10, 2008.)
The exchange of land and lot consolidation will be recorded by the applicant at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds as a Certificate of Lot Merger form to be signed by the Planning Board.
WAIVERS
The Planning Board approved the following waivers to Article 45-9 of the Route 3 Performance Zone Requirements on June 16, 2008 as part of the original plan approval, and staff recommends re-approval:
ARTICLE 45-9 U.S. ROUTE 3 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE ZONING DISTRICT
Article 45-9-7(a) Table of Performance Dimensional Requirements to allow an 8’ high fence in the front, side and rear setback.
Article 45-9-7(a) Table of Performance Dimensional Requirements to increase the maximum impervious cover from 75% to 80% (existing condition).
Article 45-9-7(a) Table of Performance Dimensional Requirements that the westerly portion of the new parking lot will not be paved.
Article 45-9-8(e)(5) Exterior Pavement Landscape Strip.
Article 45-9-8(e)(6) Interior Pavement Landscape Strips.
Article 45-9-10 Performance standards for screening refuse, material storage, loading/receiving areas and utility infrastructure.
The Planning Board needs to vote on whether or not to grant the waivers from Article 45-9 of U.S. Route 3 Corridor Performance Zone District Ordinance as noted above and as previously approved, because the waivers requested are reasonable for this site plan amendment, and are not contrary to the spirit and intent of the Performance Zone Ordinance.
The Planning Board approved the following waivers to the Land Development Control Regulations on June 16, 2008 as part of the original plan approval, and staff recommends re-approval:
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS
Section 322.1.9 Parking or circulation drive set back a minimum of 30 feet from the
property line.
Section 32.2.1 The parking lot shall be paved to the maximum extent possible.
Section 325.9 Minimum three feet of soil cover over storm drains.
Section 325.10 Storm drains shall be constructed with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) or high density polyethylene pipe unless otherwise approved by the Planning Board.
The Planning Board needs to vote on whether or not to grant the waivers from the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations, Part III – Site Plan Regulations, Article 300, as noted above, because the waivers requested are reasonable for this site plan amendment, and are not contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant re-approval of the Site Plan Amendment for Edgemere Realty LLC, 451 South River Road, Lot 36-6-1, prepared by The HL Turner Group, Inc., dated February 15, 2008, last revised December 10, 2008, with the following conditions (to be fulfilled within 180-days and prior to signing of the plan by the Planning Board):
1. Plans shall be signed by the property owners;
2. The applicant shall execute and record a Certificate of Lot Merger signed by the Planning Board;
3. The applicant shall update the plan to show all waivers granted.
Mark McLeod said I’m with the HL Turner Group. The reason we are asking for the re-approval is we had met most of the conditions, the engineering ones, and it got a few days prior to the expiration of that conditional approval and I realized that there was one outstanding condition and that had to do with the Certificate of Lot Merger between the client and the Department of Transportation. That has since been agreed to and executed and signed off on. It was done at the end of the year, either the 30th or 31st of December. The expiration of this happened on the 13th of December, so we went through the re-approval. I wanted to make sure that we got that in prior to that expiration. There were two reasons that it took so long for that to occur.
Initially there was a hold up over negotiations between the exact limits of the parcels that were going to be exchanged and also reaching agreement on acceptable compensation to both parties. Once that was agreed to, there was a slight issue with the drainage discharge that we had to reach agreement on. The State did accept our drainage design, the underground storage chambers, but they were looking to put a cap and somehow regulate the discharge that could be allowed to come from this site, something less than what we calculated as currently draining out of their detention pond. We did reach resolution to that and it had to do with just changing a pub size in the DOT system to ensure that going forward in the future there would be no problems with flooding on the site, that their system would be adequate to handle what may be coming out. we didn’t change the amounts that we were discharging or anything like that, because this site is essentially
enclosed in a fishbowl type configuration, we just wanted to make sure that there would not be any kind of bottleneck at any point in the future.
Chairman Levenstein asked does any of this affect anything that we approved? Mr. McLeod replied nothing whatsoever. We didn’t change the plan at all. We only had to change the date to reflect the date of re-approval.
Chairman Levenstein asked for questions or comments from the audience.
MOTION made by Mr. Marcoux that the Planning Board grant re-approval of the site plan amendment for Edgemere Realty, LLC, 451 South River Road, Lot 36-6-1 prepared by the HL Turner Group Inc., dated February 15, 2008, first approved on June 18, 2008, and last revised December 10, 2008, with the following conditions to be fulfilled within 180-days and prior to signing of the plan by the Planning Board:
1. Plans shall be signed by the property owners;
2. The applicant shall execute and record a Certificate of Lot Merger signed by the Planning Board; and,
3. The applicant shall update the plan to show all waivers granted.
Seconded by Mr. Newberry. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
5. Naser Jewelers (Applicant), Naser Realty Bedford NH LLC (Owner) – Request for architectural review of changes to building façade previously approved by the Planning Board on November 3, 2008. 4 Ridgewood Road, Lot 12-5, Zoned PZ.
A memo from Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 12, 2009 as follows:
The Planning Board approved the site plan and architectural amendments for Naser Jewelers on November 3, 2008, which will become their newest freestanding jewelry store at the intersection of Ridgewood Road and South River Road. Naser Jeweler will occupy the first floor of the retail building and Martin’s House of Cloth will move to the second floor. The renovation is currently under way, but the contractor encountered problems with material costs and the constructability of the façade glass details. Since the Planning Board approval, the applicant retained a local project architect who has designed modifications to the building exterior, particularly related to the second story faux windows and cultured stone trim (please see the attached
elevations.) The applicant is requesting approval of the elevation changes that include a reduction in the amount of cultured stone and adjustments to the placement and design of the windows, primarily on the second story. The applicant is also requesting a review of the proposed ground sign as required by the conditions of the November 3rd Planning Board approval (please see the attached signage plan).
Architectural Changes
Starting at the main entrance elevation (please refer to the attached elevation plans for the previously approved architecture and the proposed changes), the architect eliminated all vertical applications of cultured stone and replaced them with colored EIFS with scoring and cap detailing. The entry tower base retains the cultured stone. This elevation also shows the side view of the new entrance facing CVS, and cultured stone is proposed for that base below the windows. Staff has no issues with the proposed modifications to this elevation.
The new entrance elevation (south side facing CVS) indicates elimination of the windows on the existing structure adjacent to the new vestibule, which is currently under construction as approved. Cultured stone has been eliminated from the entire façade, with the exception of accents at the entrance, and at the base of the gable end segment. The other changes include placement of a third window with an awning, the same size and shape as the other two, in place of the up and down windows to the left of the gable detail. The architect detailed the expanded EIFS surface with a v-groove scoring pattern and the use of two colors. Staff is generally satisfied with the proposed changes, but recommends that the cultured stone base continue from the South
River Road end to the break in the building where the roof line changes between the windows. This end of the building is visible from South River Road, and should have more distinctive detailing. The cultured stone is also carried in the base of the proposed ground sign (to be discussed later), and is an important unifying detail that should make a bolder statement on the building.
The main road elevation has changed significantly from the original proposal which was to build a bump-out with a glass face to house an oversized sign. This new plan repeats the new south entry detail with columns supporting a gable roof, a similar sign, and a cultured stone base across the length of the façade. This detail will be constructed flush to the building, and is not a doorway. The Planning Board did not approve the waivers to height and area requirements for the first sign, but the new sign appears to meet all Zoning requirements.
The side road elevation has been modified to eliminate the large false windows on the second story, to be replaced with smaller window treatments on each gable detail. The façade incorporates the patterned EIFS and limited cultured stone detail along the base, but staff would recommend that the cultured stone base extend from the South River Road end to the break in the building at the roof line change, between the third and fourth windows.
Freestanding Ground Sign
The applicant submitted a revised freestanding sign for Planning Board approval (please see the attached sign design.) This proposed sign appears to meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for signage, including height, area, and illumination. The address is also included as required. The cultured stone base should match the building detail, and staff recommends that the Planning Board approve this sign as presented.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant approval of the architectural changes for Naser Jewelers at 4 Ridgewood Road, Lot 12-5, as shown in the elevations prepared by John S. Jordan Design, Architects + Planners, dated December 8, 2008, and the proposed ground sign prepared by Barlow Signs, dated December 16, 2008 with the following conditions (to be fulfilled within 180-days and prior to signing of the plan by the Planning Board):
1. The applicant shall not operate the jewelry business until all site improvements have been completed and approved by the Town, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued;
2. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit through the Bedford Building Department.
Chairman Levenstein recused himself from this application. Mr. Newberry was appointed Acting Chairman.
Ron Berry, said we are proposing adding the cultured stone around the whole bottom perimeter of the building. Acting Chairman Newberry asked you’ll have that reflected in the final elevations? Mr. Berry replied yes. I have been running around trying to get the pricing. I talked to the owners and I said why don’t we try to give you what you want. I agreed it looked better, they agreed it looked better, and we got the numbers to work. We do plan on doing the whole band on the whole lower perimeter of it.
Acting Chairman Newberry asked what is labeled the main road elevation, which I guess is the east elevation, lower left, I saw a note somewhere in the staff description that this is flush. Mr. Berry replied I’m going to have to bring it out a little bit, but it will just be flat stock around the building. It won’t need a foundation or anything. If anything, it’s probably going to come out maybe six inches. The upper part roof design will all be done in the efface work. It is basically flush. Acting Chairman Newberry asked it looks good in 2D, how is it going to look in 3D? Mr. Berry replied I think it will look pretty good. Acting Chairman Newberry said I would suspect that it would need a little bit of depth to it. Mr. Berry said the reason why we
got rid of that is when that the Planning Board first absolutely hated that glass design, but it was a blessing because that little bump out was really expensive, to say the least. That was the alternative. We can bump it out a little bit that we had planned on it. When I spoke to the efface contractor that we're can bump it out a little bit so that it’s not exactly in the same plane. Acting Chairman Newberry asked so it will have a little bit of dimension to it? Mr. Berry replied yes. Probably 6” or something, just enough to turn the stone around.
Tim Sullivan, Barlow Signs, said as you can see we have done a total redesign of the originally proposed sign. It actually worked out fairly well because Naser Jewelers changed their name, changed the logo to Naser Diamonds, so we were able to incorporate the new logo into a smaller scaled down design that’s within code. It’s a 30.1 square foot design, opaque design, so the background will not light. The only thing that is going to light is the copy. We're going to utilize a push-through technique where it will actually be a 3/8” clear Plexiglas that pushes through the aluminum face and then we apply the blue color to the letter’s face. Because blue doesn’t light well light at night, so by pushing it through that 3/8” it gives a little bit of a halo around
it to kind of trap the blue letters and make them illuminate nice at night. The sign will also have a tenant panel for the Martin’s House of Cloth. Again, that will have an opaque dark blue background and only the copy will be illuminated on that. The whole sign will be mounted on a stone base that will tie into the stonework that’s going to be used on the building to make it an attractive design that ties into the entire structure.
Acting Chairman Newberry asked is the color rendering as you’re showing it here accurate or fairly accurate to what the final is. Mr. Sullivan replied yes, it is fairly close.
Ms. Sklar said I think it is much improved. I do have a question about the illumination. I don’t know if anybody else on the Board feels this way, but with the diamond itself being illuminated. I can understand the name being illuminated. I kind of question that. Mr. Anderson asked are those LED lights surfaced mounted or are those behind it. Mr. Sullivan replied those would be behind it. Mr. Anderson asked what is the finish of the aluminum? Mr. Sullivan replied typically we paint them as a semi-gloss. It is a matter finish. It’s not a bright gloss. It is a painted finish. Mr. Anderson said I agree. I think it looks much better. Ms. McGinley asked how much is the diamond illuminated? I’m not sure I’m opposed
to that. I just don’t want it to stand out above the rest of the sign. Mr. Sullivan said I think from an illumination standpoint it is a fairly thin letter stroke. It’s not going to be real bright. The Naser is obviously the most important thing on the sign and that’s a larger percentage of the sign, but unfortunately being lit with blue, it’s not going to be real bright. So that’s why we kind of went with the lighter stroke for the diamonds and that lock line between the two. I think from a balance standpoint it’s definitely not going to be bright than the word Naser just because of the size and the stroke weight. Ms. McGinley said I think it’s so much better than the sign we were looking at previously.
Acting Chairman Newberry said maybe you mentioned this, but the diamonds line, will that be illuminated also? Mr. Sullivan replied yes. Acting Chairman Newberry asked what happens with the tenant sign? Mr. Sullivan replied the background will be opaque and only the copy will be lit. Acting Chairman Newberry asked in the example the letters would actually be lit? Mr. Sullivan replied correct. It would just be the tenant’s name that will be lit. Acting Chairman Newberry asked there will be nothing illuminating the address, the 4 Ridgewood. Mr. Sullivan replied no. We have to put the address on the sign, but I just want the Board to understand that this sign is going to be on South River Road with a Ridgewood address because that’s actually the address of the
site. If there is any concern about a type of confusion issue happening on that location, I just want the Board to be aware of that. You have a sign on South River Road with a Ridgewood address. Mr. Marcoux said my only question about that was, and you just answered it, is it doesn’t say Ridgewood Drive or Ridgewood Road, it just says 4 Ridgewood. So I don’t have a problem with it saying 4 Ridgewood. I think if it said Road or Drive or Lane, then I think it would be confusing. Acting Chairman Newberry said it actually might be a question worth asking emergency services to make sure that they don’t have an issue with it. Mr. Sullivan said my concern is you have someone traveling down South River Road and they are counting the numbers and then all of a sudden they come up to a 4 that just doesn’t make sense on South River Road. Ms. McGinley said it does say 4 Ridgewood, not just 4. Mr. Sullivan said I have
no problem putting it on the sign, it just wanted the Board to be aware of that. Mr. Marcoux said the current sign doesn’t say anything about the address. Ms. May said the ordinance requires an address is why they have put it on there.
Acting Chairman Newberry asked for comments or questions from the audience.
MOTION made by Ms. McGinley that the Planning Board grant approval of the architectural changes for Naser Jewelers at 4 Ridgewood Road, Lot 12-5, as shown in the elevations prepared by John S. Jordan Design, Architects & Planners, dated December 8, 2008, and the proposed ground sign prepared by Barlow Signs, dated December 16, 2008 with the following conditions to be fulfilled within 180-days and prior to signing of the
plan by the Planning Board:
1. The applicant shall not operate the jewelry business until all site improvements have been completed and approved by the Town and a Certificate of Occupancy
has been issued; and,
2. The applicant shall apply for a sign permit through the Bedford Building Department.
3. The cultured stone base be extended around the building as described in the hearing tonight.
Seconded by Mr. Marcoux. Vote taken – all in favor. Motion carries.
Ms. McGinley asked if a building has frontage on two streets, what determines the address? Mr. Sawyer replied the Fire Department.
Chairman Levenstein returned to the meeting.
6. Camp Allen Inc. (Owner) – Conceptual discussion of a proposed master site plan to include the construction of a new dining hall, cabins, pavilion, parking and circulation. 56 Camp Road, Lots 34-16 & 34-19-1, Zoned R&A.
A memo from Cynthia May, Planner II, dated January 12, 2009 as follows:
The attached application is for the conceptual review of proposed upgrades for Camp Allen situated on Camp Road off Back River Road. Camp Allen is a residential summer camp for individuals with disabilities and encompasses two adjacent parcels totaling 58 acres, with all the improvements centrally located on Lot 34-19-1. The existing site is wooded with cleared areas for activities and parking on gently to steeply sloping terrain. There are approximately 25 structures including a central dining hall, care taker’s house, pavilion, chapel, store, office, health center, sleeping cabins, shower houses, an accessible swimming pool, laundry, and various maintenance and storage sheds. The site is accessed from the north on Camp Road, with a driveway to
the core of the camp terminating at a small parking area between the office and dining hall. There are accessible paved walkways throughout the camp that also provide access for maintenance and emergency vehicles. The camp also enjoys access to the pond for boating activities over an adjacent parcel to the north owned by Camp Foster.
Camp Allen was established in 1931 and over the years they have made physical improvements to the camp, adding structures through 1999. On February 16, 1999 the ZBA granted the application of Camp Allen, Inc. seeking appeal of an administrative decision denying a building permit to build a home without frontage on a Class V road. Receipt of a building permit for the caretaker’s house was subject to an agreement with the Town of Bedford where Camp Allen would retain sole responsibility for year round maintenance of Camp Road. The agreement was subsequently executed and recorded at the Registry of Deeds. In 2007 Camp Allen retained True Engineering to prepare a boundary and topographic plan (please see the attached existing conditions plan.)
The purpose of the Conceptual Plan is to show a proposed master plan and layout for future improvements to include structures to remain in place, the demolition of several buildings, the relocation of others, and the construction of new facilities with improved circulation, access, and adequate parking to service the camp (please see the attached color keyed plan.) The structures to remain where they are include the pool, the caretaker’s house, the health center (currently the office), the activities office, and two nearby cabins. Structures to be demolished include the food shed, the pavilion, the dining hall, 4 small buildings east of the dining hall, and several cabins south and west of the dining hall. There are 7 buildings to be relocated,
including the chapel, the screen house and 5 cabins. Structures to be constructed include a new dining hall with office, kitchen, general store, and laundry, a new pavilion, a new screen house near the small cabins, a new shower house, and 2 large cabins with central flexible lavatories. They are also planning a new maintenance building near the entrance and a new playground near the pool. New facilities will be constructed individually as funding becomes available for each project. The site is served by a private well and several on-site septic systems.
The Conceptual Layout plan shows the proposed location for Camp Road to be realigned by the Bedford Soccer League as previously presented to the Planning Board on December 1st. The road will reconnect at a T-intersection on Camp Allen property with a new two-way driveway. The improved driveway will provide access to the new dining hall by way of a one-way loop with a drop off and fire lane, connecting back to the main driveway and 8 newly defined parking spaces. The two way road will also continue to the south, with access to a 30 space parking lot on the west side, and a new 21 space parking lot on the east side to serve the lower level of the dining hall/office building. The driveway extends to the caretaker’s house, and
a logging road continues beyond that toward the south and on to the next parcel.
Tom True, True Engineering, said I’m here on behalf of Camp Allen. I have with me Mary Constance, Executive Director, Camp Allen. For those of you who don’t know Camp Allen. It is a non-profit that works with people of all ages with specific abilities. It has a long history of making due with a small budget. If anybody has been to this site, I think it is apparent that what’s happened in the past is they have used donations of time, money and labor whenever they have arisen. What this plan represents tonight that we have before you is kind of a vision for the future. There are a number of different colors on the plan posted, and I will point out to you what they are. The yellow showing two buildings are buildings that are in good shape that we plan to keep
around. There are some blue colors that are buildings that will be relocated to fit better with the new scheme. There is also a green color are new structures. The largest of them all is the dining hall that we hope to build in the future. There are some additional cabins, some cabins in other places that will be built in the future, a new pavilion, also a maintenance building. We have shown on this plan the relocated driveway as proposed by the Bedford Fields folks, but we haven’t talked to them since they were here last. That kind of accentuates part of the issue that we have with the camp is to be ready for anything that comes about. I said somewhat jokingly that the dining hall we have shown in this shape because it works very well, but it’s not unheard of that McDonald’s might come forward and say we will build it, but it has to be shaped like an M. Stranger things have happened. Mr. True posted an aerial
photograph of Camp Allen.
Chairman Levenstein asked do people sleep over at the camp? Ms. Constance replied it is a residential and day camp. Mr. True said if you look closely at the plan, you can see some existing buildings.
Mr. True said we are trying to come forward with a site plan that the Board can approve and that has some flexibility in the future. The dining hall, as mentioned, is probably the focal point. The existing dining hall is in area I’m indicating on the plan, and at some point the biggest challenge is to when you bring an old building off line and you bring a new building on line that you don’t lose any functionality, whether it being dining or resident’s halls or functioned areas and that’s kind of the mix. We’ve tried in this long buildout is have a pedestrian area and once the existing dining hall is gone that area would be a wide open area and have kind of a campus facility, particularly since the ball fields are expanded there’s not going to be a whole lot of
landscaping in that direction. We want to try to have the camp circle around itself and have a main focal area. Some things that we know are quite likely to happen are the maintenance shed and two cabins will be built most likely in the upcoming season. Obviously if the fields haven’t decided where they’re going to put the road or if they are not going to do the road, we’ll have to adjust this location. When we come back to the Board for the final hearings, we are going to show the areas where we don’t know that the buildings are going to be built yet, we're going to show where septic systems could go and an approximate size. With the buildings indicated we will make sure that there is full septic setup for them. There is a community well indicated, and one of the things just off the sheet is we are going to add some drainage through the indicated area long the existing driveway to collect it and shed it away from the
buildings. That is the majority of what we have ahead of us. Mr. Newberry asked that drainage will be piped not just graded drainage? Mr. True replied yes. I might also add that ultimately the total square footage out here might change, but it might increase, but part of that is to get more current with the building codes and part of the plans that we will submit will have a breakdown of current functionality and then the change in functionality per the phases that we anticipate at the moment.
Mr. Anderson asked there’s not a whole lot of grading going on here? It doesn’t look like it. Mr. True replied there will be around the dining hall. This plan envisions that as being a 2-story structure. You will have the ability to come up and drop people off on the top floor for the dining, and then the bottom floor will have direct access from the rear and there will be function ability and that sort of thing. Mr. Anderson asked you’re beyond the real steep slope to the southeast of that? Mr. True replied yes. If you remember part of the reason we ask the soccer fields people to move the roadway up the hill, was to improve upon the grade through the entrance to the camp. Mr. Anderson said you can work through whatever issues you’re going to have,
you might have separation distance issues and things like that that you can work out with the Planning and Building Department, but it looks to me like the buildings have really good access and looks like a good plan. Mr. True said now all we need is money.
Ms. Sklar asked what is your total population of campers and staff? Ms. Constance replied we have residential campers up to 60 a week, staff that live at camp probably right around 50 and then day camp that comes in, 15 campers currently, with 15 staff. Mr. Newberry asked will this development when it is complete change your total residents significantly? Ms. Constance replied no. This plan won’t. My dream is that we would never go above 75 campers ever and the same amount of staff. It is a nice size; it’s more homey that way. We could take on more day campers at some point. Mr. True said the day camp happens in the buildings I’m indicating on the plan. The idea is to group them together so that there is a little more functionality. Another
thing that has been mentioned as we’ve kind of circulated the plan is the ability of the dining when built to serve as a function hall for other folks, seniors or other groups that might need large gathering areas. The majority of the buildings that will be built will be insulated and ready for year-round use, although there is no intention to do that at this time.
Mr. Newberry asked do you have a preferred order that you’re going to phase these buildings? Mr. True replied it is kind of the opposite of build it and they will come. They are coming now, so we're trying to circulate the plan, get some support and see how it goes. The dining hall is what is needed the most, but it’s also the most expensive. There are some commitments; there’s money available for the maintenance shed and there are some verbal commitments to build two cabins, so most likely those will be the first phase. But as often happens with this type of project, once there is some momentum, maybe not so much in this economy, but still people hop on board and see some movement. I’m thinking at the moment these will be the first signs of activity and the
moving the buildings around so it all starts to look different, and then make the final decisions afterwards. Another thing we have thought about that’s not shown on here, is maybe an outdoor amphitheater by taking advantage of the grade and the walkways so that folks in wheelchairs can be on the paths, a little bit more mobility can be on the hill, and there are performances almost every night. There are evening activities that can range depending upon how well the equipment works that evening. We have thought about maybe a minimal stage and then the amphitheater around it. That would be cheap to build as well, so we could do that. They have the material for the playground but it is not constructed, so we’re trying to fit that all in.
Chairman Levenstein asked do you envision having an outside contractor and building these things or are you going to just try and get volunteers to build them. The cabins in particular and things like that. Ms. Constance replied it is a combination of both. Mr. True said the dining hall would certainly need professional construction. The others without giving too many details, the cabins at the bottom of the plan there have been proposals for professional builders to come work in conjunction with their suppliers to build those. Ms. Sklar asked are you actively seeking volunteers to help you build some of these facilities now? Mr. True replied I think the difference between where the camp has been and where they are going, is that the answer has always been yes. If someone says I
have 10 gallons of purple paint, we will take it. Ms. Sklar said you could now use this forum to get the message out that Camp Allen is looking for volunteers. Mr. True said absolutely, and Ms. Constance can tell you first hand that one of the biggest challenges is organizing all the volunteers more than happy to come forward. This is kind of the big picture and this is what we want and then figure out where to plug everybody in. They are certainly suffering from an identity crisis and people really don’t know what they do out there. Ms. Sklar said it seems Bedford is a great community for people getting together and helping people with building projects when they are in need. You never know, some might be looking for another project to help on.
Mr. Newberry said you touched briefly on septic. You expect that you have enough room and soils out there that you can get properly designed septic, including handling the kitchen? Mr. True replied the soils here are fantastic, if anything they might be too good. They might perk too fast, but I don’t think that’s an issue. It’s now shown on the plan, but we have got the drawings that they have thrown on here so we have our best guess of where the existing systems are and that’s probably the largest engineering challenge in this. The real challenge with this project is the funding and getting the word out. We have laid out where we believe the septic systems are and then we're trying to pull together a system to take one off line and bring one online. At the
end of the day, there’s plenty of room for everything shown. It is just getting from here to there. One plan shows moving the chapel over, which is great, that’s easy to do, that’s a small building, but you take the laundry facility offline, and then you’re without laundry until the laundry is online in the other place, so that could be a season. That’s kind of an example of the intricacies we have to work out. The long answer to the short question was there is plenty of septic capacity.
Mr. Marcoux asked the residential units are all going to be replaced from what they are now? Mr. True replied not all of them. Mr. Marcoux asked the ones that are in green are new? Mr. True replied yes. Mr. Marcoux asked the ones that are in front of where the dining hall is now, those are new ones? Near the new pavilion? Mr. True said the pavilion is new and we're trying to keep it within the setbacks. Chairman Levenstein asked what are you doing about that activities office that is in the setback? Mr. True replied nothing. I don’t know if we have an agreement specifically on that one, but when we did the survey several years ago, we found buildings like this and some that weren’t even on the setback of the adjacent lot. There is a written agreement
and there’s a great relationship between the two camps. The agreement is that that can continue as long as needed but the intent is to get it within compliance as they step forward. Back to the residential thing, the residential cabins I’m indicating on the plan, the green on the back is new bathroom facilities with ADA compliant. Then we have talked to the Fire Department about what they would like to see. Chairman Levenstein asked do they want sprinklers? Mr. True answered that hasn’t been determined yet. More importantly to start thinking about running conduit on alarming so if there were an event, they would know which building. This maintenance facility is going to have small office that could house the alarm and provide some security as people come into the camp. Chairman Levenstein asked I assume that that driveway is adequate for a fire engine or whatever you’re going to need? Mr. True replied the
new driveway, yes.
Mr. Marcoux said I know you talked about it a little bit earlier, but where is that relocation with the soccer people. You made a comment about the discussion, but isn’t that really intricate to what you’re trying to do? Mr. True replied only as it relates to the maintenance building. One of the thoughts I had is maybe you rotate the maintenance building 90 degrees and it can fit whether they move the road or not. But part of what they want to maintain with the new layout, wherever the road might be, is to have some sort of security that people don’t just come and go. They want the maintenance building there so people see there are people and you can mount a security camera or anything along that line.
Mr. Marcoux asked what is your timing to get started? When will you be back to the Planning Board? Mr. True replied we are revved up and ready to go, so whatever the next submission timeline is. Mr. Marcoux said my point is that I think that road issue needs to be somewhat resolved before you come back, because that is going to be a questions with the soccer league as well as Camp Foster because it affects them as well. Mr. True said for the time being, and this is another example of what we talked about at the onset, is that we need to plan, see what the general idea is of what we're trying to do, but have some flexibility in it. We can easily rotate that building or slide it for now, and then hopefully between now and the spring when they are ready to build it, there will be some conclusion
on the ball fields and the driveway and that sort of thing. Chairman Levenstein asked do any of these buildings have foundations? Mr. True replied they are mostly sonnet tubes. That’s another thing with the new buildings they are going to try to have more stable foundations and so forth. If you’ve been out there it probably doesn’t surprise you, but some were discards from other camps and they threw them onto here.
Mr. Marcoux said I think it’s a great plan. I’ve been out there since I first got here and am impressed that it’s finally reached the point that it has. For anybody here who has not seen it or been there when it’s in action, it is very impressive. I think it is a great plan.
Mr. Sawyer said if the Board doesn’t mind I’d like to be able to work with them to get some notes on the plan that does allow us flexibility maybe for minor changes that can be approved by staff so that they don’t have come to back and that there is basically early vesting of this project. Once the first phase is done that they don’t necessarily have to come back unless there is a major change. Chairman Levenstein said I don’t think that’s going to be an issue. Mr. Marcoux said I’m fine with that.
Chairman Levenstein asked for questions or comments from the audience.
IV. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings
December 1, 2008 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 2008 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Ms. McGinley requested amendment to Page 3 of the December 15, 2008 Planning Board meeting minutes, first full paragraph, first line, “if it” should read “if it is”; Chairman Levenstein requested his name be corrected from “Jon” to “John” in both sets of minutes.
MOTION made by Mr. Marcoux to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2008 and December 15, 2008 Planning Board Meetings as amended. Seconded by Ms. McGinley. Vote taken – motion carries, with Mr. Stanford and Mr. Izbicki abstaining from the December 1, 2008 minutes vote; and Mr. Izbicki, Ms. Sklar and Mr. Stanford abstaining from the December 15, 2008 minutes vote.
V. Communications to the Board
VI. Reports of Committees
Chairman Levenstein said we had these discussions about this plan or a program called C-TAP, associated with the I93 widening. They are providing various services to the towns and grants to the towns for planning purposes, sort of nebulous planning purposes. We had a meeting last week with representatives of them and we discussed the possibility of applying for and hopefully receiving a grant for $15,000 to be used as part of the master plan for the purpose of doing a townwide survey to see what people think. Did we decide at the end that it was going to be a telephone survey or combination online and telephone survey? A survey with regard to master plan type issues. Mr. Marcoux said people could phone in or online. Mr. Sawyer said the critical need is that we have to apply for it and
expend these funds by April 30th. Ms. McGinley said I thought we decided that we could expend that money on costs already incurred and then have the additional funds so that we could do this in an orderly fashion. I also think it is very important that we publicize it and give people an option to go online and answer the questions, so that we don’t have to take those irritating phone calls. Mr. Sawyer said as part of that program the Regional Planning Commission is required to come and present a road map for the C-TAP funds, which they will be doing at our first meeting in February. I believe it is our community assessment report. Mr. Newberry asked the survey idea was to try to get input from people who might not otherwise be motivated enough to come forth with their ideas and that sort of thing? Mr. Sawyer replied absolutely. Mr. Izbicki said pretty much the whole Town. Ms. McGinley said I don’t think
it’s a question of motivation, there are parents with younger children or older people who don’t want to go out if the weather is inclement. Chairman Levenstein said just to get a broader cross section of people involved. Mr. Newberry said I think that’s a good idea. Ms. McGinley said there is some way the people who do this all the time can make sure that it is not stacked. That you don’t get 10 responses from one person.
Chairman Levenstein said as part of the master plan goings on; initially we had a committee set up to review the various proposals that had been sent in and make recommendations as to who we would be using to do the work. That has all been done and, as you know, we have chosen VHB to do the work. The next step is VHB and the people on that committee, and VHB specifically asked, to have a steering committee formed so that they would have somebody to report to on an interim type basis as opposed to coming to the Planning Board and reporting everything that they’ve been doing. Somebody to give them some guidance. Rick Sawyer, Russ Marcoux and myself have discussed what we felt would be appropriate as far as a steering committee. We have tried to get various people from different walks of
life in the Town and we’ve come up with a list of people who we have discussed it with and would be willing to serve on the steering committee. It comes out to 11 people. We have two Planning Board members, Ms. McGinley and myself, Town Council representative, Bob Young, Historic District Commission, Laura O’Donnell, Conservation Commission, Greg May, Bedford Senior Connections, Barbara Salvatore, assume someone from the Bedford Land Trust but we don’t have an answer who it will be at this time, Andre Garon, he is planner in Londonderry but lives in Bedford and he was on the selection committee, he is very active in sporting groups in Town and we felt that his opinions and aid in that areas would be of help, Doug Pearson, business owner of NCCS, small business located on Kilton Road, John Lariviere, one principal in RG Morrow Builders, to get someone from a development standpoint, and Dave Danielson who was former Town Council member, member of
Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission and is our representative from the Town to C-TAP. If anyone has any other thoughts or any groups that we missed or feels they think should be added, let us know. Mr. Sawyer said the only thing to point out is that the Planning Board will always be invited and copied on all of the communications. This would just be the steering committee that would try to formalize what will happen at each session as we go forward. Mr. Newberry said it sounds like a good committee to me. Chairman Levenstein said we tried to get some people who haven’t been involved in other things before. I think we did. We will probably be having our first meeting within the next two weeks.
Mr. Sawyer said there was one regional impact notice from the Town of Bow. They are proposing a PSNH clean air project, which is a desulphurization building, which includes a 445’ tall chimney, as well as several other towers and tanks. There is 145’ tall flue, there are two 160’ tall limestone silos, but certainly the 445’ chimney I imagine some people will see that certainly when you’re driving the highway. Ms. McGinley said this was presented at the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission meeting, and if you watched the news a couple of weeks ago and the sludge spill that happened, a TVA maintained earthen dam that broke, the sludge that was being dammed up, which flooded into a lake that has contaminated the late, is the type of thing that this cleaning will prevent. You won’t end up with sludge from coal burning. With this technology they burn limestone with the coal and it comes out with an actual usable product. Mr. Izbicki said that is jimson and you bring in
limestone, which is great because it’s on the freight line we're talking about, and then the byproduct is jimson, which I guess will be shipped to Portsmouth and taken out by tanker. Ms. McGinley said although I don’t think there’s a big lake of sludge up in Bow as there was in Tennessee. Mr. Sawyer said there is a hearing scheduled for January 22, 2009 at 7:00PM in Bow’s Municipal Center. Chairman Levenstein said do you think we count on Hooksett and Concord to protect our interest. Mr. Sawyer said and Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission also will be there. Ms. McGinley said and Manchester. Understanding though that this is a mandated change. Mr. Izbicki said it is about a $600 million project right now. It has been in the plan for about four or five years. Ms. McGinley said I think the deadline is in two years.
Mr. Sawyer said one other update is the Greenfield Farms subdivision appeal of this Board. The hearing was held last week. Chairman Levenstein said when we approved the last phase of Greenfield Farms there was a lawsuit brought by Scott Brooks. It has been in limbo because he had appealed our decision. Mr. Marcoux said because he didn’t want it to move forward. Chairman Levenstein said I assume what happened was that there was a lot more lots than he envisioned when he sold it. Mr. Marcoux said I went to represent the Town and he did not show up. Judge Abramson ruled in our behalf as a result, for the final time, and also awarded us legal fees after requesting them. Mr. Izbicki said there is still a 30-day appeal process. Mr. Marcoux said but if you listen to her
at the hearing, I don’t think she’ll be too kind if there is another appeal. Mr. Izbicki said the approval of this Board was in July of last year, at the last minute he appealed it, and that was in August, and we just heard it in December. That was an expedited hearing. Ms. McGinley said the appeal from this hearing would be to the Supreme Court. Mr. Marcoux said they anticipate that there perhaps will be another option, that he will appeal it to the Supreme Court.
Chairman Levenstein asked will we get our baseball or soccer fields built over there? Mr. Marcoux replied that’s the plan. Bob has always taken a very keen interest in the subject and where he’s away, I suggested to him in an email and I copied the Chairman, when he’s back in February, by then the 30-day period will have expired, and that the Town Council should have discussion at that meeting on the 11th, non-public discussion, about moving forward with that transfer and getting it rolling. The transfer has already taken place, but actually getting this project rolling. That is the plan.
VII. Adjournment
MOTION made by Mr. Izbicki, and seconded by Mr. Newberry, to adjourn at 8:50PM.
Submitted by Valerie E. Fysh
| |
