Minutes of the Meeting November 14, 2013

Transcription

1 Academy Building 503 Province Road Gilmanton, New Hampshire Phone Fax Approved: December 12, 2013 Desiree Tumas, Administrator Mark Fougere, Certif. Planner Wayne Ogni, Chair Marty Martindale, Vice-chair Don Guarino, Select Rep Roy Buttrick, Member Kevin Farquharson, Member Bill Mahoney, Member John Weston, Member November 14, 2013 Attending Members Attending ZBA Members Wayne Ogni, Chair; Marty Martindale, Vice-chair; Don Guarino, Select Rep.; Kevin Farquharson, Member; Bill Mahoney, Member; John Weston, Member; Desiree Tumas, Planning Administrator. Elizabeth Hackett, Chair; Nate Abbott, Vice-chair; Paul Levesque, Member; Perry Onion, Member; Mike Teunessen, Member. Attending Public (As signed in) Vinnie Baiocchetti, Kristie Owens, Kenneth Lantz, David Vincent, Zannah Richards, Raymond M. Daigle, Candace L. Daigle, Glen Lines, Jeff Green, Doreen Green, Bruce Marshall, Esq. Open Meeting Call to 7:01 pm Introduction of Board Members Explanation of Meeting Procedures W. Ogni explained the first public hearing was a joint hearing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Following the presentation, both Boards will have opportunity to ask questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the will deliberate on the Boundary Line Adjustment application. It was noted that the decision is conditional pending a favorable Zoning Board decision. Public Hearings PLANNING BOARD & ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PB #0513 Property owners Kenneth Lantz (Tax Map 110, Lot 45), Robert Green (Tax Map 110, Lot 44) have applied for a Boundary Line Adjustment in which they seek approval to adjust the property boundary by conveying.22 acres from the parcel shown as (110-45) to (110-44). Said property is located at 45 & 49 Justamere Lane, Gilmanton Iron Works, in the Rural Zoning District. Case # David Vincent, applicant & Robert Green, owner: request a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV, Table 2 to permit the creation of a more non-conforming lot by reducing the frontage on a class V road from to Property is presently.39 acres located at 45 Justamere Lane, Map/Lot# 110/44, in the Rural Zone. Case # David Vincent, applicant & Kenneth Lantz, owner: request a variance from Zoning Ordinance Article IV, Table 2 to permit the creation of a more non-conforming lot by reducing the acreage from.52 acres to.30 acres. Property is located at 49 Justamere Lane, Map/Lot# 110/45, in the Rural Zone. W. Ogni opened the public hearing and D. Tumas provided the staff report. W. Ogni recognized David Vincent, Land Surveyor and authorized agent for the applicants. Page 1 of 10

2 D. Vincent explained the lot configuration changes that occurred created a cloud in the title of ownership in The cloud in the title was created as a result of the bank not releasing the land sold from the mortgage. The cloud in the title was not discovered until Mr. & Mrs. Lantz attempted to sell their property. D. Vincent went on to explain that the only way to clear the title that would allow Mr. Lantz to market and sell his property, is to convert the property to the original lot configuration as it was before acquiring the 11,107± sq. ft in 2009, as well as the adjusted road frontage with Mr. Green. It was noted that the previous changes were approved by the and ZBA in D. Vincent went on to explain the Variances requested are due to the more nonconforming frontage on the lot owned by Mr. Green (110-44) and the more nonconforming acreage on the lot owned by Mr. Lantz (110-45). Existing Lot 44 = 17,070 Sq. Ft or 0.39 acres with feet of road frontage Proposed Lot 44 = 26,481 Sq. Ft. or 0.61 acres with feet of road frontage Existing Lot 45 = 22,544 Sq. Ft. or 0.52 acres with feet of road frontage Proposed Lot 45 = 13, 133 Sq Ft. or 0.30 acres with feet of road frontage W. Ogni called for questions from the Board; M. Martindale requested clarification of the land exchange. It was explained that the Lantz will lose acreage and gain frontage and the Greens will gain acreage and lose frontage. D. Guarino questioned the septic location and well radius on the Lantz property. It was explained the septic was installed before State requirements and is believed to be contained within the original lot configuration. The septic is located in the NW corner of the lot and the well is located off of the SE corner of the dwelling. It was noted that the septic was installed before Mr. Lantz purchased the land. W. Ogni called for further questions from the. Hearing none; called for questions from the ZBA. N. Abbott questioned the timeline of events and the subsequent lien issues due to the original sale of the property from Mr. Ferland to Mr. Green and then from Mr. Green to Mr. Lantz. At the time of the conveyance from Mr. Ferland to Mr. Green; Mr. Ferland did not obtain the necessary mortgage release on the conveyed property in It was further explained the sales were private and the legal counsel obtained did not make mention of title or having a title search done prior to the sale of the property. W. Ogni recognized Zannah Richards who clarified the mortgage company would not provide release of the conveyed property due to the current status of the mortgage holder, as well as consideration of the loss of land value and the total of the mortgage note. M. Teunessen questioned if a real estate agent was involved with the sale; it was explained that neither party utilized the services of a real estate agent. Board Members revisited the adjustment nonconformities. N. Abbott noted there is no effect to the density, and believes the approval is good for the Town to allow the properties to be reconfigured to the original lot configurations before the 2009 boundary line adjustment. E. Hackett questioned how the property would be conveyed back to the original mortgage holder; it was explained that a deed with encumbrances would need to be executed. Page 2 of 10

3 E. Hackett stated she recalled the previous application and questioned the location of the shed that at the time of the 2009 application was directly on the property line. It was explained that the shed was located such that it meets the setback requirements. W. Ogni called for further questions from either Board. E. Hackett noted the ZBA would not be deliberating on the cases this evening and will instead continue the deliberations until the regular ZBA meeting on November 21, W. Ogni questioned why the ZBA was continuing the deliberations until next week adding such action defeats the purpose of the joint hearing. E. Hackett explained the ZBA s Rules of Procedures affords the option to continue deliberation until a date certain and in the absence of the ZBA Clerk it would be best to continue the deliberations. D. Tumas noted for the record that she was unaware of the scheduling conflict with the ZBA Clerk and was not informed of the ZBA Clerks absence from the meeting until end of business day on November 12, 2013; the day before the scheduled joint meeting. Prior to scheduling the joint hearing, D. Tumas asked the ZBA Clerk if scheduling the joint hearing on the meeting night was a problem, no problem or conflict stated. W. Ogni called for further discussions. Hearing none E. Hackett entertained a motion to close the ZBA public hearing and continue deliberations until Thursday November 21, M. Teunessen moved to close the public hearing and continue deliberations until the ZBA s November 21, 2013 meeting, Paul Levesque seconded the motion as stated; the motion passed with a 5-0 favorable vote. K. Farquharson moved to close the public hearing and render a decision, M. Martindale seconded the motion as stated; the motion passed with a 6-0 favorable vote. Following brief discussions, the Board agreed the best remedy for all parties involved would be to approve the boundary line adjustment which would clear title and allow for the sale of (110-45). M. Martindale moved that the application be accepted as complete and granted conditional approval as it appears to meet all of the technical requirements of the ordinances with ZBA approval of the nonconformities resulting in the boundary line adjustment and regulations of the Town of Gilmanton with the following conditions: Conditions to be complied with or secured (as appropriate) prior to the plan being signed and recorded. No Site improvements shall commence and no building permit shall be issued until the plan is signed and recorded. 1. Any required Town, State or other agency permits shall be provided to the Planning Office before the final plan can be signed and recorded. a. ZBA Approval & passing of the 30 day appeal period without an appeal filing. 2. Submission of final plans in accordance with Town Ordinances and Regulations 3. Applicant is responsible for any fees required by the Belknap County Registry of Deeds for recording the approved Site Plan and/or any Conditions of Approval. Page 3 of 10

4 General conditions to be complied with subsequent to the plan being signed and recorded: 4. No changes shall be made to the approved plans unless application is made in writing to the Town. The may allow minor changes following review. The at a public hearing may allow major changes after review and abutters shall be notified. 5. The shall have the power to modify or amend its approval of a Site Plan upon its own motion to do so. 6. Approval is subject to expiration, revocation and changes in the Ordinances under Town Regulations and the State RSA s. K. Farquharson seconded the motion as stated; the motion passed with a 6-0 favorable vote. It was explained that the had approved the Boundary Line Adjustment pending the approval of the ZBA on both Variances. It was additionally noted that the ZBA has a 30 day appeal period that must elapse without an appeal filing for the approval to be final. At that point D. Tumas will be able to record the Mylar plan and Decision Notice at the Belknap County Registry of Deeds. Having no further business, discussions were concluded. PLANNING BOARD - PUBLIC HEARING PB #0613 Property owners Stephen & Kristie Owens (Tax Map 127, Lots 12 & 13) have applied for a Site Plan Review in which the seek approval to develop a barber shop/shave parlor in the existing building. Said property is located at 396 NH Route 140, and is in the Light Business District. W. Ogni opened the public hearing. D. Tumas provided the Staff Report. Noting that K. Owens had concerns regarding an response she had received and it was requested that the be provided a copy. D. Tumas confirmed that the Chair and Vice-chair received a copy at the time the was sent and the Regular Board Members were provided a copy with the meeting information and agenda. It was explained that there is adequate space for the proposed development of a barber shop/shave parlor with related services. Several construction upgrades including new doors, roof, heating system are planned. Reviewing the floor plan, Board Members questioned the addition of tanning and massage as neither uses were previously discussed. V. Baiocchetti explained it was suggested that he include all aspects that he would like to have approved moving forward to avoid having to apply for an amended site plan at a later time. D. Tumas confirmed she had suggested V. Baiocchetti include the additional aspects of the proposal to avoid applying for an amended site plan at a later time. M. Martindale questioned the original 3 chairs and the proposed floor plan has 4 chairs. V. Baiocchetti reiterated the inclusion of possible expansion at a later time. K. Owens and Board Members discussed the existing septic. It is the Boards understanding that the State has a 300 gallons per day requirement for three barber chairs and 50 gallons per day for each employee. Page 4 of 10

5 V. Baiocchetti explained they intend to attach a water meter on the line to the barber shop to collect daily usage for a year. A better assessment of the septic needs and requirements would be assessed at a later time. There was some disagreement regarding the state septic requirements. Discussions concluded that the State requirements pertaining to septic would have to be in compliance for operation. It was noted that the septic requirements would be addressed during the building permitting process. Addressing the parking and traffic flow; it was agreed that safe guards in front of the building would be used. All agreed not to allow parking in the paved area between the bay doors and the roadway. It was additionally noted that No Parking signs would be installed as well. It was noted that the final plan would show the ingress and egress as well as the direction of traffic flow on the property. It was confirmed that the previous plans to construct a wholesale bakery in the building have since been cancelled. It was determined that the location was not central enough to accommodate the delivery locations. W. Ogni recognized M. Daigle who suggested using flower planters to indicate the driveway area. K. Owens noted that due to plowing concerns, any object used would have to be removable. K. Owens was agreeable to posting the front of the building with No Parking signs. M. Martindale suggested including a condition of approval prohibiting parking in front of the building. D. Guarino stated concerns with traffic entering and exiting the property. D. Tumas confirmed she had received a copy of the State DOT approval for both the previously proposed wholesale bakery and the barber shop. Briefly revisiting the septic requirements; W. Ogni recognized M. Daigle who noted the site would be suitable for a Clean System septic system. W. Ogni called for further questions or discussions. Hearing none; the public hearing was closed. Following brief discussions, W. Ogni entertained a motion to accept the application as complete and grant approval. J. Weston moved that the application be accepted as complete and granted conditional approval as it appears to meet all of the technical requirements of the Ordinance and Regulations of the Town of Gilmanton with the following conditions: Conditions to be complied with or secured (as appropriate) prior to the plan being signed and recorded. No site improvements shall commence and no building permit shall be issued until the plan is signed and notice of decision recorded. 1. Any required Town, State or other agency permits shall be provided to the Planning Office before the final plan can be signed and recorded. 2. Submission of final plans in accordance with Town Ordinances and Regulations. 3. Appropriate parking signage, landscaping and/or screening shall be shown on the final plan in accordance with the Site Plan Regulations and at the Boards discretion. Page 5 of 10

6 4. All fuel tanks and/or waste oil produced, used or stored on the property shall be kept within a bermed area on an impervious surface; the location of which shall appear on the final plan. 5. A compliance hearing may be held by the Board prior to signing the plans and prior to the approval becoming final to determine if any conditions of approval are beyond administrative in nature or would require discretion on the part of the Board or Staff. 6. Applicant is responsible for any fees required by the Belknap County Registry of Deeds for recording the approved Site Plan and/or any Conditions of Approval. Construction conditions to be complied with subsequent to the plan being signed and recorded: 7. Property owner shall install all required traffic control; fire, life safety and health facilities and systems required by the Board and/or by other applicable Codes and regulations. i. State Septic Approval ii. Ingress and egress according to NH DOT Permit # A, Dated; 8/7/ All dumpsters shall be located on a solid cleanable surface such as concrete, shall be of sufficient size to contain all materials, shall be kept closed, and shall be appropriately screened. 9. The use of the property is limited to those indicated in the applicant s testimony at the public hearing and submitted documents. 10. All exterior lighting shall be shielded, pointed downward to avoid abutters and traffic. 11. All signage must be in compliance with the Town Ordinances and Regulations. 12. Landscaping shall be maintained not allowed to deteriorate. 13. Compliance with State Septic Requirements. 14. Compliance with Building Permit Requirements. General conditions to be complied with subsequent to the plan being signed and recorded: 15. No changes shall be made to the approved plans unless application is made in writing to the Town. The may allow minor changes following review. The at a public hearing may allow major changes after review and abutters shall be notified. 16. The shall have the power to modify or amend its approval of a Site Plan upon its own motion to do so. 17. Approval is subject to expiration, revocation and changes in the Ordinances under Town Regulations and the State RSA s. M. Martindale seconded the motion as stated; the motion passed with a 7-0 favorable vote. Taking the Agenda out of order; W. Ogni recognized Jeff Green and Bruce Marshall. Discussions 1. Jeff Green and Bruce Marshall to discuss the Boards action to Void Approvals on May 16, 2013, for failing to comply with the conditions of approval granted on November 8, Page 6 of 10

7 Bruce Marshall provided background information and went on to explain he is in attendance on behalf of Jeff Green. B. Marshall briefly discussed information regarding parking requirements unrelated to matters concerning Jeff Green. B. Marshall went on to provide a brief history of the proceedings pertaining to the boundary line adjustments and subdivisions that were conditionally approved on November 08, B. Marshall continued to explain J. Green was caught off guard by the 120 day requirements and noted the 30+ s and phone calls. It was also noted that J. Green and his wife were involved in a motor vehicle accident. When J. Green contacted B. Marshall, he advised J. Green of his rights. J. Green was advised to contact the and attempt to conclude a resolution. B. Marshall continued to explain that based on the regulations, an applicant has a year to complete the conditions of approval. Yet another section requires submission of the plans in 120 days of approval. Referring to the s, the Board was not able to extend past March 29, 2013 due to tax requirements. B. Marshall is unaware of any such regulations. B. Marshall requested the Board upholds the 1 year compliance with conditions of approval. B. Marshall referred to the s related to the continuance information and the lack of response. o copies were included with the correspondence sent to the. B. Marshall referred to the extended period of time between the approval and receipt of the Decision Notice it was noted that 21 days had elapsed. B. Marshall stated J. Green requested information pertaining to the number of plans needed and recording costs on November 30, J. Green claims he did not receive a reply until February 21, o D. Tumas adamantly disputes this claim and refers to an dated; December 3, B. Marshall revisited J. Green s want to request a continuance back in April and May and due to a conflict in scheduling was unable to attend meetings in Gilmanton on the night the Board voted to void the approvals. Further adding that it was perceived that Staff responded in a rude manner in response over the telephone and a perceived animosity in the s. B. Marshall requested reimbursement of application fees for the 2 nd applications submitted following the original plan s conditional approval being voided and waiver of the remaining application fees for the pending subdivision application submission; on the premise of bad communication. B. Marshall asked if the Board had any questions for J. Green. D. Tumas submitted for the record all s and documents relating to the J. Green applications. B. Marshall questioned the capacity for which D. Tumas was speaking and questioned if the Minutes would reflect the statements made by D. Tumas. It was additionally asked if the documents would be attached to the. Page 7 of 10

8 D. Tumas confirmed the Minutes would reflect the discussions and the documents would be available with the approved. It was additional noted the submissions are part of the public record. D. Guarino, question if B. Marshall thought a conflict existed within the regulations. B. Marshall explained the issue is with the way the regulations are worded. Noting the difference between conditional approval and final approval. Based on B. Marshalls experience throughout the state that an extension is almost always granted through the winter to place the bounds. o It was additionally noted that upon placing the bounds, the property owner requested a change to the type of monument used to delineate the bounds of the property. B. Marshall began to discuss Staff conduct and W. Ogni explained that matters pertaining to Staff were not to be discussed in a public meeting by either party and should be addressed by the Town Administrator and the Board of Selectmen. B. Marshall stated he has come to the Board requesting action based what they see as needless delays. It is believed the acted on the premise that it was the Applicants fault based on the s noted in the staff report. W. Ogni stated that the Board previously stated that they do not buy the Applicants claim that replies were not in sent a timely manner. This is based on the continuous and ongoing communication from the Planning Office to the Board and others. B. Marshall reiterated he provided s for the Boards consideration stating the following: The Board conditionally approved the application then voided a conditional approval. It is believed that the Boards action to void the conditional approval was a mistake and J. Green should not have had to pay the additional $700-+/- to reapply following the Boards decision to void the approvals. Request to waive the application fees for the remaining application still to come before the Board. B. Marshall went on to state he does not see where J. Green, did anything wrong based on the regulations and there was no bad faith effort on behalf of the applicant; nor do they see the added cost to the Town for J. Green to finish the process. W. Ogni called for further discussion from the Board. B. Marshall requested opportunity for J. Green to speak. J. Green explained he does not print the Mylar until he receives a copy of the Decision Notice. The Bounds were set and property owner requested a different type of monument. Winter set in and J. Green was unable to replace the monuments. J. Green reiterated that he and his wife were injured in a motor vehicle accident as well as his claim that it took three months to receive a reply to his November 30, 2013, request for information. J. Green noted that when he inquired about the recording fees for the subsequent applications; the reply he received was that the recording fees had been paid. J. Green reiterated comments regarding the April & May meetings being changed and his conflict with meetings in another town. B. Marshall stated he didn t believe it fair to charge J. Green for additional application based on the reasons stated. Page 8 of 10

9 W. Ogni disputed the claim that pricing information was not sent in a timely manner. Referring to an dated, December 3, pm; clearly states the cost amounts by application. It was further explained that the Board would not be making a decision on the matter tonight to allow time to address the comments made and reiterated the number of years working with D. Tumas and there has never been an issue with the timeliness of s and communication. B. Marshall reiterated the Boards decision was based on 10 s and is requesting reconsideration of the fees paid and due to be paid with the remaining application to be submitted; suggesting the Board review the s and timeline. B. Marshall went on to explain he received a phone message on November 8, 2013, requesting a call back. When the call was returned, the request was for an address to send the agenda. B. Marshall noted his was on the letterhead. B. Marshall reiterated the request to reimburse the second application fees paid and waive fees for the remaining application. B. Marshall thanked the Board for their time. M. Martindale asked Arthur Capello, Town Administrator, if he wished to add further comment. A. Capello stated that he was in attendance at the meeting when the waivers of fees were discussed. When J. Green was asked if paying the applications presented a hardship; J. Green stated there was no hardship. W. Ogni called for further discussion. Hearing none; explained the Board would not be making a decision tonight. B. Marshall and J. Green thanked the Board before departing. The Board briefly discussed the claims made by B. Marshall without conclusion. Discussions will resume at the December 12, 2013 meeting. Having nothing further; discussions were concluded. Public Hearing The will conduct a public hearing to approve, adopt and certify the amended Rules of Procedure for s. Copy of the approved draft of the proposed Rules of Procedure for s will be available for public inspection at the Selectmen s Office as well as the Town Clerks Office beginning on Friday November 1, W. Ogni opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present for discussion. It was noted for the record that the had amended the Rules of Administrative Procedure using the NH OEP Model. The hearing was noticed in the Laconia Daily Sun as well as the Town Website and both post offices. Copies of the amended document were available in the Town Clerks and Selectmen s Offices. W. Ogni called for discussion. Hearing none; entertained a motion to approve the amended Rules of Procedure for s. Page 9 of 10

10 M. Martindale moved to approve the proposed Rules of Procedure for s, K. Farquharson seconded the motion as stated; the motion passed with a 7-0 favorable vote. Approval of Minutes October 10, 2013 M. Martindale moved to approve the October 10, 2013 as submitted, K. Farquharson seconded the motion as stated; the motion passed with 6- favorable votes and 1-abstained vote by D. Guarino who was not in attendance on October 10, Old Business Correspondence No Old Business came before the Board. 1. Cheryl Sanborn reply to concerns discussed at the Change of Use discussions regarding expanded hours of operation for the wood processing operation of Ralph Lavin-753 NH Route 140, Tax Map 414/Lot 5. Copy of the reply was provided to the Board Members. D. Tumas noted the minutes reflect the same information as was provided in the response to Mrs. Sanborn. W. Ogni called for further discussion. Hearing none; discussions were concluded. 2. (FYI) Forest Laws for Municipal Officials Workshop on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 in Peterborough or Wednesday, November 20, 2013 in Campton. Provided for informational purposes, there were no discussions on the matter. Unscheduled Business No Unscheduled Business came before the Board. Adjournment Having no further business to come before the Board, M. Martindale moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:16 pm, K. Farquharson seconded the motion as stated; the motion unanimously passed. Respectfully submitted, Desiree Tumas Planning Administrator NOTE: All referenced documents are available for public inspection through the Planning Department located at the Academy Building, 503 Province Road. (Planning Office Business Hours: M-W-Th-F 10:30 am to 4:30 pm) Page 10 of 10