Approved January 21, 2008
GILFORD PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 17, 2007
CONFERENCE ROOM A
7:00 P.M.
The Gilford Planning Board met in regular session on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A.
In attendance were: Chair Polly Sanfacon, Vice-Chair Carolyn Scattergood, Selectmen’s Representative Connie Grant and Regular Members: Jerry Gagnon, Richard Waitt, John Morgenstern and Alternate David Arnst.
Member(s) absent: Regular Member Richard Vaillancourt.
P. Sanfacon appointed Alternate D. Arnst to sit in place of absent Regular Member R. Vaillancourt.
Also present were John B. Ayer, Director of Planning and Land Use and Stephanie Verdile Philibotte, Administrative Assistant.
Chair P. Sanfacon opened the meeting, led the Pledge of Allegiance, introduced the Board members, and staff, and read the rules of procedure for the meeting.
P. Sanfacon read a letter into the record from Catherine Broderick, attorney representing Donald Ames C/O Ames Farm Inn requesting the application be tabled until the February 5, 2008 meeting.
Motion made by C. Scattergood, seconded by R. Waitt, to take the application off the table. Motion carried with all in favor.
Motion made by R. Waitt, seconded by J. Morgenstern to table the application until February 5, 2008. Motion carried with all in favor.
P. Sanfacon introduced the first application. D. Arnst recused himself from participating on the application, as he is an abutter to the property.
Rocky and Valerie Bean
Applicants are proposing a two (2)-lot subdivision on Tax Map & Lot #211-024.000 located at 66 Saltmarsh Pond Rd. in the Natural Resource Residential Zone. Subdivision Plan. Application #2005002632.
J. Ayer said the application could be accepted as complete.
Motion made by C. Scattergood, seconded by R. Waitt, to accept the application as complete. Motion carried with all in favor.
Dean Clark, representing the application, gave a brief presentation to the Board. He explained the location of the subdivision. The intention of the subdivision is to provide a buildable lot for a family member. He explained they have submitted an application to the NHDES for a septic system and have added the original subdivision approval numbers and the approval number for the septic system to the plan. He will add a note to the plan providing the new lot has the adequate buildable area. He said the new address will be 52 Saltmarsh Pond Rd. and the new Tax Map & Lot number will be provided by the Assessing Department. He noted there would not be a shared driveway for the new lot as there is an existing entrance.
J. Ayer spoke about there may have had fill brought into the site in order to meet the buildable land area. He spoke about the issue of fill being brought into sites to provide a buildable acre and the Board may want to address this issue in the future.
P. Sanfacon opened the hearing for public input. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
P. Sanfacon introduced the next case. D. Arnst rejoined the Board as a voting member.
ZZZ Associates LLC/Hillside Medical Park
Applicants are proposing to construct a 10,200 SF Medical Office building with associated parking and utilities on Tax Map & Lot #211-002.002 located at 6 Sugar Bush Lane in the Professional Commercial Zone. Site Plan Review. Application #2005001342.
J. Ayer spoke about the application not containing architectural drawings and explained the Board could either table the application until the drawings are submitted or the Board could accept the application as complete and make a condition of approval that drawings be submitted and subject to further review and approval by the Board.
Motion made by J. Gagnon, seconded by C. Scattergood, to accept the application as complete. Motion carried with all in favor.
J. Ayer said he could prevent applications from being placed on the agenda if architectural drawings are not included and the Board agreed that in the future applications should not be placed on the agenda if the application is lacking architectural drawings.
Steve Smith, representing the application, gave a brief presentation to the Board. He said the architectural drawings are not complete because there is a purchase and sales agreement in place and the buyer would like to have the option to decide the architectural drawings. He explained his intention was to accept a condition of approval that they would have to come back to the Board for architectural review and approval. He reviewed the variance approval for the parking requirements the applicants received in the fall of 2006. He reviewed the proposed plan for the Board and explained the location of the underground propane tank, downcast lighting, sand filter drainage system and the grass treatment swales for the drainage plan. He noted the location of the dumpster, explained how the main entrance
has been redesigned according to the Minimum Road Standards and explained the landscaping plan.
J. Ayer spoke about the plan meeting all the setback requirements for parking standards and a note should be added to the plan to indicate that requirement will be met.
P. Sanfacon asked about the easements being shown on the plan and S. Smith explained the plans have been revised to include the location of the easements.
C. Scattergood asked if it was a single story building and S. Smith said yes.
J. Gagnon asked about snow storage and removal and S. Smith explained the location on the plan and said at some point snow may have to be removed from the site.
J. Gagnon asked about using salt on the parking lot due to it being located in the Aquifer Protection District. J. Ayer explained snow cannot be brought into the site but they can use salt on site. S. Smith said he would add a note to the plan explaining the location of the site in the Aquifer Protection District and to use salt sparingly.
J. Ayer asked about the location of the tree at the left side of the entrance and if it would interfere with traffic turning and S. Smith said the tree is proposed to be a red maple and would not hinder traffic.
P. Sanfacon opened the hearing for public input. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
The Board entered into deliberations.
BUSINESS
Rocky and Valerie Bean
D. Arnst recused himself from discussion on the application.
J. Gagnon has concerns about the trailer being described as storage on the revised plan. J. Ayer added the street address and Tax Map & Lot number be added to the revised plan.
Motion made by C. Scattergood, seconded by J. Morgenstern, to approve the application with the following condition(s):
1) Subject to applicant obtaining any other state, local or federal approvals that may be required.
Discussion on the motion.
J. Gagnon wanted the note added that the lots contains one (1)-acre buildable land.
2) Subject to note added to the plan that the lots meet the zoning requirement with one (1) acre buildable land area.
Motion carried with all in favor.
ZZZ Associates LLC/Hillside Medical Park
Motion made by J. Morgenstern, seconded by R. Waitt, to approve the application with the following condition(s):
1) Subject to the applicant obtaining any federal, state, or local approvals that may be required.
2) Subject to Planning Board review and approval of architectural renderings.
3) Note to be added to the plan that the site is located in the Aquifer Protection District and that care in salting the parking lot will be taken.
4) Note describing the 15’ setback requirement for parking is added to the plan.
Motion carried with all in favor.
Minutes
Motion made by R. Waitt, seconded by J. Gagnon, to approve the minutes from December 3, 2007 as presented. Motion carried with C. Scattergood abstaining.
Other Business
PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
J. Ayer introduced the first zoning amendment.
A. Section 8.4.8, Changeable Copy Signs – Amend Section 8.4.8, Changeable Copy Signs, by adding to the existing Section 8.4.8 regulations regarding Electronic Changeable Copy Signs. The proposed regulations limit the frequency of which messages are allowed to change; restrict hours of operation; and prohibit certain display methods including, but not limited to, flashing and image movement.
J. Ayer gave a brief explanation of the amendment and said Town Counsel reviewed the proposed ordinance and suggested that the Board extensively discuss the change in frequency for the signs so it is clear that the 5-minute interval was based on safety and aesthetic reasons and not an arbitrary number. He reviewed the history of how electronic changeable copy signs were first permitted. He noted how the ordinance does not allow flashing so the Planning Board considered a suitable time interval between different messages so the sign would not be considered “flashing” nor would it be a distraction to drivers or aesthetically a problem. The Board determined that a 5-minute interval would be suitable, as it would allow reasonable use of the sign while preserving the safety to traffic and rural
aesthetics of Gilford.
C. Scattergood asked why the change to the ordinance and what would happen if this proposal was not changed. J. Ayer said this amendment would clarify what the rules are for changeable copy signs and would put in the ordinance what is now only a policy. C. Scattergood said she is not for electronic changeable copy signs and suggested not allowing them at all as they are not appropriate for the Town of Gilford. J. Ayer reminded the Board the ZBA suggested that the electronic changeable copy signs be prohibited.
J. Gagnon and J. Morgenstern said electronic changeable copy signs are only allowed in the commercial zones and J. Gagnon believes they are appropriate for businesses.
J. Ayer spoke about the hours of operation for the signs and they are proposing the most restrictive hours of operation and it would only apply to the electronic changeable copy signs. He said the Board could also discuss not allowing the electronic changeable copy signs. C. Scattergood said she would rather see the electronic changeable copy signs only be allowed for time and temperature.
P. Sanfacon opened the public hearing.
Don Chesebrough, ZBA member, spoke about the diode signs being allowed and the ZBA has studied the ordinance and the ZBA has taken the position that diode signs are not allowed. He said the ordinance was never changed and the approvals for those signs would now have to be grandfathered. He said the ZBA has requested the Planning Board change the ordinance to outlaw electronic changeable copy signs and said the ZBA recommended that diode signs be prohibited. He said this ordinance should not be forwarded to the voters. He said if the ordinance is to be clarified it should be that diode signs be prohibited. He said the ZBA’s position is diode signs are prohibited now in the ordinance and the Planning Board should not have been approving the existing signs.
Discussion ensued about changing the ordinance to prohibit changeable copy signs.
Motion made by C. Scattergood, seconded by D. Arnst, to withdraw the proposed amendment and prohibit electronic changeable copy signs in the Town of Gilford.
Discussion on the motion.
C. Grant asked J. Ayer to give the history of how the signs were approved. J. Ayer explained the ordinance allows internally lit signs and changeable copy signs and if the applicant could meet the standards of no flashing, meet the time limit created by the Planning Board, and install diffuser panels the applicant could receive approval for the changeable copy signs.
Discussion ensued if the sign issue should have gone to the ZBA for review and J. Ayer said he and D. Andrade interpreted the ordinance to allow the signs if the applicant could meet the standards and went to the Planning Board for confirmation and input on interval of changing message. There was no appeal to require the issue to go before the ZBA.
P. Sanfacon called for the vote. Motion failed by vote of 5-2. C. Scattergood and D. Arnst voted in favor of the motion. P. Sanfacon, J. Morgenstern, R. Waitt, C. Grant, J. Gagnon voted in opposition to the motion.
Discussion ensued about the alternating message portion of the proposed ordinance.
Motion made by C. Grant, seconded by J. Morgenstern, to table ordinance amendment 8.48 to January 7, 2008, in order to amend the ordinance to say “overlapping” for changeable message and for clarification regarding what happened on the history of the allowing the electronic changeable copy signs and how did this get approved if applicants should have gone to the ZBA.
Motion carried with C. Scattergood voting against any motion relating to the tabling or changing the ordinance except for prohibiting electronic changeable copy signs.
J. Ayer introduced the second zoning amendment.
B. Section 5.1.2, Minimum Lot Dimension – Amend this section by deleting the existing subparagraph (d) which allows lots with smaller than standard frontage, and replacing it with a revised subparagraph (d). The revised subparagraph (d) also allows lots with smaller than standard frontage, but adds restrictions and further clarifies the existing standards. Additional restrictions include, but are not limited to, requiring that driveways serving such lots serve no more than a total of three (3) lots, that lots with smaller than standard frontage have at least twice the minimum lot area required in the zone, and that such lots have a minimum setback from any property line equal to the front setback required in the zone.
J. Ayer explained there is a state law that requires waterfront lots to be created with a minimum of 150’ of frontage on the water, and non-waterfront lots to have frontage on a public street. He explained that Town Counsel reviewed the proposed amendment and made changes to have the amendment meet the legal requirements.
P. Sanfacon opened the public hearing.
Maureen Nix, asked why the Board is allowing a lot to be built with less than standard frontage but twice the land area and larger setbacks. J. Ayer explained that often abutters of so-called flag lots complain that such lots are being allowed in their backyards where such lots would not normally be allowed due to lack of frontage. Staff and the Planning Board are trying to reduce these impacts on surrounding lots by increasing setbacks and increasing lot area. He noted that this helps to buffer adjoining properties while still allowing landlocked property to be developed. M. Nix also thought the word “may” should be changed to “shall” for the driving surface requirements.
P. Sanfacon explained recent cases where abutters were upset with lots being created where they weren’t before.
S. Nix spoke about RSA 674:41 referring to access and said one way of access allowed is through a private right-of-way that the Planning Board can approve, as the old ordinance states.
Discussion ensued about not moving forward with this proposed amendment for 2007 as the changes are significant and it appears other changes are needed. Further, Town Counsel’s opinion appears to invalidate the current ordinance. J. Ayer suggested that the provisions of the current ordinance be reconsidered in the coming year.
Motion made by J. Morgenstern, seconded by R. Waitt, to table the second proposed amendment to be considered for the 2008 zoning amendments. Motion carried with all in favor.
J. Ayer introduced the third zoning amendment.
C. 5.2.1, Island and Shore Frontage District – Amend subparagraph (a) of this section by increasing the minimum setback required from Lake Winnipesaukee, Saltmarsh Pond, Lily Pond, Poor Farm Brook, Meadow Brook, Jewett Brook, Gunstock River, or any other year_round brook, from forty (40) feet to fifty (50) feet.
J. Ayer explained the NHDES is changing the RSA to not allow any town in the state to have a setback of less than 50’ from water bodies. He said the Gilford ordinance will include local ponds and year round brooks.
P. Sanfacon opened the public hearing.
S. Smith discussed the setbacks to streams.
Motion made by R. Waitt, seconded by J. Morgenstern, to recommend the third proposed amendment be placed on the ballot as presented. Motion carried with all in favor.
J. Ayer introduced the proposed Zoning Ordinance Change/Rezone submitted by petition, which is as follows:
A. Amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Gilford by changing from the Resort Commercial (RC) Zone to the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone the area along the southwesterly side of Route 11, a/k/a Lake Shore Road, generally between the Alton town line and Highland Drive. A map and an exact description of the area proposed for rezone are available for examination at the Town Hall as noted below.
J. Ayer provided the Board with copies of a petitioned Zoning Ordinance Amendment submitted proposing to change a section of zoning along Route 11 in the vicinity of Ames Farm from Resort Commercial (RC) to Single Family Residential (SFR). He explained the location of the proposed area. He said the Planning Board will either recommend or not recommend the proposed zoning change but they cannot change the proposed amendment.
R. Waitt said the LRPC and the TAC are still studying the option of expansion of Route 11 and recently the Lakes Region lost a lot of money for highway projects from the NHDOT and it does not look like it would be approved in the near future.
J. Gagnon said the zone should not be changed because of the future potential for the Route 11 state highway to expand and asked what problems would occur by changing the zone in the future for the expansion.
J. Morgenstern asked if a change in zone would make a difference in future expansion of Route 11.
The Board decided that the potential for the expansion of Route 11 should not impact this proposed amendment.
P. Sanfacon opened the public hearing.
S. Nix, spoke in favor of the petition and said the majority of the area consists of single-family residential properties. He spoke about uses that are allowed in the RC zone that would not be compatible to the surrounding single-family uses. He also spoke about the 2004 Master Plan encouraging the maintenance of rural character and this amendment would address that.
Rod Dyer, attorney for the Ames family, said this petition would not be in front of the Town of Gilford if the application submitted by Don Ames to the Town of Gilford for site plan review and the current court case were not going on. He spoke about some signatures of people on the petition not living in the area of the proposed change. He spoke about spot zoning being a factor with this petitioned article and that based on the motivation for this amendment and the lack of input from the residents in the area the Planning Board should not recommend this amendment. He referred to the Vision Statement and Objectives from the 2004 Master Plan. He said the Planning Board should not recommend this amendment if they do not understand the significant consequences and subsequent change of uses that would be allowed in
the area. He said this change would not be in the best interest of the Town of Gilford to add more SFR land to the Town of Gilford. He said the increasing amount of residential properties increases the services and impacts to the Town of Gilford. He said if the Planning Board does recommend this amendment he requests they specify the findings of fact for the recommendation.
R. Dyer gave an update regarding the Ames Farm application and said D. Ames has told the NHDES he will not have fishing derbies unless he can work out the problems the neighbors have cited with the derbies.
S. Nix responded that registered voters submitted the petition and it is not about Ames Farm. He said it is about concerned residents wanting to protect the area around their homes. He is asking that the Board recognize that this petition is for over one mile of land area and it is not spot zoning.
R. Dyer spoke about there is no evidence in front of the Board from residents that live in the zone that they want the zone changed. He said the Town needs commercial development to offset the increasing residential uses in the Town.
C. Grant spoke about Ames Farm being a use that has gotten out of control and thinks maybe the Board should have some more information before they make a recommendation. She asked J. Ayer to research the situation and weight the pros and cons for the Board.
C. Scattergood spoke about the residents in the zone and recognizes their concerns and would be inclined to agree with the proposed amendment. J. Morgenstern spoke about both sides of the issue and how he has seen people move into an area with an existing use and then they want the use to change. He said he also lives in the vicinity (but not within the area proposed for rezoning) and would like to see it stay residential.
J. Gagnon has concerns about losing more commercial property and stated that the Master Plan did encourage more commercial uses for the Town of Gilford.
C. Grant spoke about the safety and congestion factor that R. Dyer spoke about in his presentation and would like some more findings of fact.
D. Ames said Ames Farm owns most of the land there and he has developed most of the land in the area and there are commercial uses in the area.
P. Sanfacon said if there are approved home occupations in the area they will be grandfathered and allowed to continue. D. Ames said the proposal is not fair to existing property owners.
R. Dyer asked if this would be the only public hearing for the petitioned article. The Board discussed continuing the public hearing and they would take further testimony at the January 7, 2008 meeting.
P. Sanfacon closed the public hearing.
Motion made by J. Morgenstern, seconded by R. Waitt to table the Public Hearing for the recommendation on the petitioned zoning ordinance amendment to January 7, 2008.
Other Business
Blue Sky Enterprises- Reclamation of the Gravel pits and they are requesting an extension of two years in order to complete the reclamation until 2009.
Motion made by R. Waitt, seconded J. Morgenstern to approve a two-year extension for Blue Sky Enterprises- Reclamation of the Gravel pits to December 31, 2009. Motion carried with all in favor.
Adjournment
Motion made by R. Waitt, seconded by J. Morgenstern, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried with all in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Verdile Philibotte
Administrative Assistant
| 
