Planning Board Minutes

Minutes of 8/3/2023

August 8th, 2023

Town of Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
August 3, 2023
7:00 PM
“These minutes of the Town of Carroll Planning Board have been recorded by its Secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct, they are subject to additions, deletions, and corrections by the Planning Board at its next meeting when the Board votes its final approval of the minutes. They are being made available at this time to conform to the requirements of New Hampshire RSA 91-A:2.”

Planning Board Members Present: Chairperson Alex Foti; Austin Alvarez, Don Jones, Rena Vecchio, Jules Marquis, Selectmen’s Representative; Ryan Peffer arrived at 7:07 p.m.

Public Present: Syed Nuruzzaman, Attorney Andy Sullivan, Cathy Conway, Horizons Engineering, Kevin Leonard, Northpoint Engineering, Joan Karpf, Evan Karpf, Nancy Mitiguy, Cathy Fulkerson

Minutes Taken By: Judy Ramsdell

Item 1: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Foti at 7:04 p.m.

Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance

Item 3: Approval of July 6, 2023 Minutes

We don’t have a quorum to vote on the approval of the July 6, 2023 minutes. This will be continued until the next meeting. (A quorum did occur later in the meeting, and the minutes were approved at the end of the meeting.)
Item 4: Application: Echo Lake Phase II (Continued from May 4, June 1, and July 6) – Third Party Review by Kevin Leonard

Cathy Conway said these are the same plans we looked at during the last meeting. Last week they got a letter from Kevin Leonard with some issues that raised some questions. She said she would like to focus tonight on some of the questions about the road width and curve radius. These are items that really need a planning board decision. Items like easements for the drainage--Andy is working on those. These don’t need a decision, but we know that they have to be done.

Cathy distributed a letter that she sent out this afternoon. These were the items Cathy wanted to discuss related to some of Kevin’s comments. Chair Foti said he read the letter, but if she can give us the easy-to-understand version it would be very helpful.
We know the town has drainage requirements, but we also know that Phase II requires a DES Alternation of Terrain Permit, which also looks at drainage. Cathy said we did have some comments from Kevin on those, but we are waiting to get the comments from the state so we only have to address comments related to the drainage once.
Phase I of the Development had the road that was originally constructed in 2006. A few years ago, we got another site plan approval and have been working to upgrade that road adding some ditches and some of those items that were required as part of this nine-lot, Phase I approval.

We are now seeking approval for Phase II for another 18 lots and what that road does is continue on from the hammerheads and creates a loop. Phase I approval was for nine lots, duplexes, 18 units, 8 trips a day. This road was approved for a 20-foot travel width and two-foot shoulders in Phase I.
Now comes Phase II with another 18 lots, two units per lot is 36 x 8 trips a day plus the original 18 puts us up at 432 vehicle trips a day, which puts us into a different category in the road standards to 24-feet wide travel ways with 4-foot shoulders. What Cathy is asking of the board is for the first 350 feet, as any car that is coming to that subdivision has to travel that section of the road, that section of the road needs to be 24 feet with 4-foot shoulders to meet the town standards. When a car comes to the intersection, they have a decision to make—are they going to go right or left? Most people will go the shortest distance. She is asking the Board to consider that we widen the road to 24 feet from station 0 to station 3+50, but from this point on the traffic splits and 50/50 go each way, and if you take half of the 432 that puts us back to the 20-foot road width with 2-foot shoulders. Cathy is asking the Board to consider that because we don’t have the traffic. We are proposing to put a stop sign in so that is the first point of discussion. Speed limit of 25 is what they looking to sign this for. We can also sign it for no parking. Those are some things we can do. Previously the Board had asked Cathy to speak with the Road Agent and Fire Chief. Cathy could not get a written confirmation, but they talked about the curve radius and the width. The Fire Chief could get his fire truck down there, which was his concern. We made a few adjustments with shared driveways. That is her first question.

Joan Karpf asked can they explain why do they need to have a narrow road? They are asking for it, but what is the real justified reason that you need something less than 50 feet wide? Cathy said you still have a 50-foot right of way. Joan had a concern with delivery trucks making deliveries. Cathy said the regulations state that each home counts for 8 trips a day. Jules Marquis said it costs more money to make a wider road. Alex Foti said a delivery truck would be considered one trip making a loop for the deliveries. Alex would add he is always in favor of doing the least asphalt from an environmental perspective. Alex personally agrees with Cathy that you essentially have two roads serving half the development each. It seems reasonable to narrow the road down slightly, and it is still a very sizable road.
Joan Karpf read from Section 18 of the sub-division regulations. The reason to give a waiver: strict conformance would cause an unnecessary hardship. What is the hardship? Cathy said she does not see this as a waiver. She is seeing it as an interpretation of how much traffic is on that road. There are essentially two roads, so you are not going to have 432 trips where the road splits off. Joan said that is what is required of everyone else to ask for a waiver. Austin Alvarez asked Cathy to explain how she got her numbers. What does ADT stand for? Average Daily Traffic. The bible of road design is called the AASHTO standards, and that is where the town pulled some of their regulations. According to those regulations, each unit is 8 trips per day on average. They have duplexes so we have 27 lots (9+18) x 2 units is 54 units x 8 trips per day is 432. Cathy is saying we have 432 vehicles using the first 350 feet of the roadway, but we have half of that, 216 cars using the other portion of the roadway. The numbers are conservative. Rena Vecchio said she feels they are asking for a waiver. It is what is required, and she is asking for something different than that then it is a waiver in Rena’s mind. They don’t know the traffic they are going to have—they are assuming. Rena said that we have the regulations for a reason and should stick to them. Is the person who lives over here going to travel this road? Rena said it is a good possibility. It happens. Cathy said not every day, 8 times a day. Cathy said in her opinion, we have 216 vehicles a day on the loop. Jules said you could put a barrier at the end of that road and force them to travel one way or another, and you are cutting your traffic in half on that section of the road. People get into their habits. Jules said people are only going to travel half of that road 95% of the time. Alex said personally he sees Cathy’s point. Is it a waiver or is it not a waiver? Can think of this is a road that splits into two roads and each road is serving half the development. Doesn’t see it as a huge deal if the road is 2 foot wider or not. What difference is it going to make?
Evan Karpf verified with Cathy that the roads are going to be gravel so there is no asphalt. Evan said it may benefit the Board to contact the road agent and the fire chief to get their input. The regulations allow this board to treat everyone fairly and objectively. Any deviation from the regulations requires a waiver. Just like a variance, which has its five criteria. You set a precedent for the protection of the people in the town, and any deviation from that is a waiver. Personal opinions have nothing to do with it. The Board has said they personally believe, and that has nothing to do with it. You have to do what the regulations say, and if you deviate from the regulations you have to go for a waiver. Chair Foti said point taken—is it a waiver not a waiver? The more substantiative question is are we ok with a 20-foot or 24-foot roadway? That is the more important question.

Kevin Leonard said one important clarification which is relevant to the discussion: He has been told that there is going to be a stop sign at Geodessy Way or two stop signs at the hammerhead? Cathy said at the last meeting we talked about stop signs. Kevin said if he has the opportunity to go in one direction and hit two stop signs, he wouldn’t go that way. Kevin’s sense is people have their habits, and if it weren’t for the stop signs and it was smooth in both directions at proper speeds, Kevin would agree with Cathy. Cathy said we agreed to put the stop signs in, or does it make more sense not to put the stop signs in? Kevin said it is a 90-degree turn so it requires the stop signs. Kevin said it is relevant because one side has two stop signs and the other side doesn’t have any. Alex said he would rather do the stop signs than travel the further distance. Cathy said it is like the shortest distance between two points. Chair Foti said that there is one stop sign that vehicles traveling in both directions would have to stop at—it is not a four-lane road we are talking about. Kevin feels if people have to stop at two stop signs, there are going to go the counterclockwise direction to avoid the stop signs. Cathy said at the lot that is not buildable, they might be able to put in a curb stop and alleviate the need for that other stop sign. If we all think that will keep people from traveling that way, that is one way to eliminate the stop sign. Kevin said that is a reasonable thought. Chair Foti asked what difference does it make if the road is 24 feet for 20 feet? The regulations must of have been put in for a reason. For the average person traveling in their car, it makes zero difference. Kevin Leonard said he found the town’s regulations curious for rural NH in width variation and other parts, i.e., road base thickness. Kevin spoke to Greg about that and to get his opinion. Greg wasn’t too familiar with the fact that was the case. Odd we have a deeper section for a relatively low threshold in the road standards. Kevin said he does agree that it is board’s interpretation on how to apply it to the development. Kevin follows the idea of the split, but questions the stop sign. What triggers the waiver is the ADT, and she is making a reasonable argument for what the ADT really is. You are applying the situation to the regulations. Austin Alvarez said he likes the idea of the curbing. Cathy said that is pretty easy to do. It is a little extra road work, but it will not affect any of the other lots. Chair Foti said in the long run, it is a more pleasant road structure in general. Evan asked if it was the fire chief who asked for the hammerheads? The hammerheads will still be there. We are not changing any lot lines on the upper side because the sub-division has been approved. We may need a boundary line adjustment. Trying to think about how we can resolve some of the concerns. Rena said she would prefer to wait until we hear from the fire chief in writing--that is what we ask of everyone else. Cathy said that she had spoken to him multiple times asking for something in writing, and he told her he would be at the meeting tonight. What more can Cathy do? We have been at this since May. Cathy has been speaking with both the fire chief and road agent since May, and he is not here and he can’t agree or disagree with what Cathy is saying. He can get his fire truck down there. We talked about the fire hydrant locations, and we talked about the curves. Cathy met with him at this office, and has also had multiple conversations and emails. Cathy understands we want something in writing, but they both said they will be at the meeting tonight. Did he say it was ok if we changed it to the 20-foot? Cathy said she has not talked to him in about a month. When she had the plans, his concern was the curve and that is why we changed some of the driveways to shared driveways. Rather than waiting on him, could the Board give a conditional approval upon fire chief approval? Jules said the width of the road is not the problem for the fire trucks. The width of the road is determined by the amount of traffic. For the Fire trucks, the concern is with the turns not being too sharp so they can make the turns. Jules said he does not see why the fire chief would be objecting to that. In the corner, if you change from a 90 to 45 turn then you could change the stop sign to a yield sign and that would eliminate that extra stop sign. Jules said he has seen plenty of yield signs on turns like that. How can a small development in northern NH with a 20-foot road not be sufficient? Kevin said it is in the town’s regulations. Kevin said the plans that were prepared show a 24-foot road with the 4-foot shoulders. They are both in the plan design and details. Kevin did not realize a waiver request was coming. Cathy said she revised the Phase II plans before she had a conversation with Sayed tonight. Kevin said the whole plan shows 24-foot roads. Cathy said when they started looking at it more closely, they started thinking does this really make sense and is this what we should be doing? Kevin said the plans that have been circulated to the Department Heads may cause confusion—what is being asked for and what is not being asked for? What is on the plan is different than what is being requested tonight. Chair Foti said his sense from what Cathy is saying tonight, is there are still some things waiting to come in before we give a final approval. We still have an opportunity to get a final weigh in from the department heads and make sure that this is ok. Cathy said that they don’t have the state permits. All the state permits are pending. Cathy said Sayed was hopeful that we could get some decisions tonight so perhaps as a conditional approval.

Chair Foti said he would like to get an opinion from the board members. Alex said he would want, given there was a change, the fire chief and road agent to give their buy-in is important. Aside from that, Alex thinks there is a reasonable argument that the reality is that this road will not see that much traffic given you have two options to get to each unit. Also given other information he has seen that 10 feet seems to be adequate for urban roads, Alex personally doesn’t see the need for anything larger than 20 feet. He would like the rest of the board to weigh in: Don supports that; Rena would not vote for it tonight—wants input from the Fire Chief; Jules Marquis said yes, he agrees, pending what the Department Heads want, Ryan Peffer agrees with Jules. Alex said that we are not approving the whole plan. Cathy said she gets the consensus it is fine. Chair Foti said to make sure she has conversations with Greg and the Fire Chief, and Cathy said she will try to get something in writing from them. Alex said he would speak with them as well.
Evan Karpf said that he sat on this board for eight years and was chair. The purpose of doing things appropriately is to keep this board out of court. Any abutter body can bring the abutters together and bring this board to court if you are not following the regulations as they are designed to be followed. The decisions this board makes keep them from going to court by violating a regulation. Chair Foti said we are all well aware of this, and it is in this board’s purview to make decisions on how to interpret certain plans and interpret certain ordinances, and individual members have already weighed in on how they feel.

Joan Karpf said to follow-up on what Evan said, because she sat on the zoning board and served as chair, you are responsible to follow your regulations and under waivers if you take a look at waivers, section 18, by a majority vote you have to show either one or two of the categories and one says strict conformity unless it causes an extreme hardship to the applicant and a waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation. It is not about what you think you like, rather it is about what your regulations say. Under #1, the developer would present to you what the hardship would be so they could not follow the regulations of the road. Alex said the difference here is we are not talking about the regulation. We are talking about the expected traffic flow, and whether that triggers certain requirements. The board has weighed in that they expect, given this design, the reality is that everyone is not going to travel the loop every time. The road standard they will do is a pretty darn good standard. There is no reason to have a waiver because the board agrees with Cathy’s assessment that the traffic pattern on this road is not going to be that of everyone following the entire loop every time that they take a trip.

Cathy said that the next item is the center line radius. The town standards tie the center line radius to the traffic. Cathy has a waiver, but if we have already concluded that we only have 216 vehicles here, then she doesn’t need the waiver. The town regulations say: minimum curve radius for 51 to 250 vehicles per day is 125 feet, and for greater than 400 vehicles per day it is 500 feet. That is interstate design. No one around here has that. If you go back to the AASHTO standards, we typically design a curve radius based on speed, elevation, and some other coefficients. It is not really related to the volume of traffic. Cathy said there are really two things here, and the Board can decide how we want to approach it.
Number One: If we have already decided 216 vehicles per day, then the minimum radius is 125 feet. All their curves are greater than that. If the board chooses to ignore that piece of information and pay attention to how AASHTO design standards are verses the town’s road standards, then this is where the waiver would come in, they would respectfully ask for a waiver to that 500-foot radius due to the proposed speed limit, and again the radius isn’t tied to traffic volume in the horizontal design of road curves. Because we already decided that this is only 216 vehicles, then the 125-foot radius standard applies based on the town’s section 10-10 and based on the speed limit. Cathy doesn’t know what our minimum speed limits are, but she would recommend signing this 25 mph because that is the right speed for a 125-foot curve. Cathy has discussed with Greg Hogan, and this has been a topic of conversation for quite a while because if she had to put 500-foot curves in here, she might get 2 lots. It just doesn’t make sense because you don’t want people going 70 mph on this subdivision road.
Andy Sullivan said that there is a trend today to narrow roads to slow down the traffic in subdivisions. Kevin said most towns have a blanket speed limit unless it is posted otherwise. A lot of times it is 30 or 35 mph. Chair Foti said he did not know what it was. Kevin said it is important that the police are on board with a slower speed limit. It is a good idea to speak with the Police Chief. 25 mph would be plenty fast enough for that sub-division. Campgrounds are 5 mph. If you are approving the road with a speed less than the blanket speed limit, be sure the Police Chief is on board with that. Chair Foti will follow up on that.
Evan Karpf verified that Phase II is an 18-lot subdivision.

Chair Foti said he doesn’t see any issues with curve radius being at least 125 feet. Wanted to get the opinion of the board members: Jules: ok; Ryan: ok; Rena said she has no idea; Alex: ok; Don: ok. Cathy verified that the Board is good with the curve radius as they are and a posted 25 mph speed limit pending agreement from the Police Department. Cathy said if she has to change these curves that is a huge issue, and they would have to go back to square one. It is critical to know that we are good with the curves. Cathy said she did have conversations with Greg and Jeff about the curves. Alex will follow-up with Tad. Chair Foti said we are not approving the application at this time, but we are in favor of keeping the plan as is.
Cathy said most of Kevin’s comments were related to verifying design standards, verifying concentrations used for drainage calculations, which are not really decisions for the board, as long as the standards are met. Alex said he has read the report, a lot of it is over his head, but he is going to look to Kevin to say the team has done what he feels comfortable with.
Andy Sullivan said there is another item about cutting the road. Cathy said going back to the special materials we need to put on the road. There was one comment about cutting out verses adding on top. Cathy thinks we can all agree that it makes sense to add the gravel on top of what is there. Kevin Leonard said that makes sense, but you are not going to be able to do that for the driveway permit. Cathy said we addressed that in Phase I. We do have to dig up the culvert. Kevin’s recommendation for the town is to be sure the contractor plans are very specific about the limits of the work and sections being applied and how it is being applied. If you raise the road, the profile should reflect that, and the construction plans need to show those specifics. Cathy said she didn’t want to draw those plans five times until we knew for clarification. Cathy said she will work with Kevin to be sure the construction plans include the specifics, as long as we all agree that it makes sense to add the material on top rather than digging out. Kevin said that the plans need to specify the widening of the road so what is being approved is clear. That is not clear now, and Cathy said it is not, but we are going to widen those 300 feet. Kevin said the plans need to show everything being widened out, and he just wants to rectify it so everything comes together. We want to be sure what we have agrees with the plans.

Cathy said Kevin had some questions about the K values. The analysis we went through was looking at 30 mph (now we are down to 25 mph so it will be something less). All the vertical crest curves met the K values they asked us to check. Sags needed to be extended a little bit to meet those K values. Cathy explained that when they design vertical curves, you have one grade coming in and another grade coming out, and you can’t have a point. You have got to have a gentle transition. We have AASHTO standards for that too. Length of curve depends on the difference between the percentage in and percentage out, as well as the speed. There is a K value coefficient to put in that formula. Kevin had noted that on a 30mph road some of the sags weren’t long enough.
Chair Foti said they are still waiting for state approval. Is there anything else in Kevin’s report that they feel they can’t address? We want to be sure we are moving toward an end goal for them. Cathy said the only other item, which she feels is for DES to determine, is the Phase I drainage which was designed per town standards because we were under 100,000 square feet. That road was originally put in in 2006, and we have made improvements to that. Cathy said in her opinion we didn’t increase impervious area. We added gravel to an already existing area. Cathy said it was her opinion that we did not do any substantial construction on the existing road. AOT has a requirement if you do a project that is on your property and do another project within 10 years you have to go back and look at the drainage if you are over 100,000 square feet. Cathy said that they have submitted their AOT permit with the assumption that we only need it for Phase II because truly the road construction happened more than 10 years ago. Cathy said in her opinion that is an AOT decision to make. Kevin pointed that out. Kevin said he absolutely disagrees with that, but that is an AOT decision. The Planning Board doesn’t need to decide on that.

Chair Foti said we have a few follow-up Items here as the town. We will continue on to next month’s meeting. Andy Sullivan asked if they could get a conditional use approval and the check list items would be the conditions. Chair Foti said he doesn’t know about that. This is a big development without Greg and Jeff being here and Tad not being consulted. Chair Foti said another 30 days is appropriate. The Board agrees.
Joan Karpf said the Conservation Commission is in the process of addressing the wetlands permit before the state DES and would like to get more information and give the Board some information. Joan distributed a handout on the Commission’s Wetlands Best Management Techniques for avoidance and minimization, which includes wetlands permitting avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.
Joan said that back in 2006, the previous developer had DES look at the wetlands area, which was indicated on the plan. The original developer wanted to develop the entire area back in 2006. He put in a permit, and the Board asked for a third-party review, and after the third-party review came in they got the information and Mr. Vanderheyden, who was working for the developer at that time, stated the design itself addresses the drainage issues, and he also stated that no wetlands would be crossed by this development. That is what you call avoidance and minimization, so they put the hammerheads in. The new developer came in and purchased the property, and by law you have to look at his project and evaluate it. That is what you are in the process of doing. Cathy said we are looking at 9,369 square feet of permanent disturbance and 77 linear feet of permanent in the permit.
Joan said we look at wetlands especially right now it is very important with all the flooding going on in the state of New Hampshire and the state of Vermont. Wetlands help to control flooding by storing excess water during heavy periods of rain and snow melt. That is the concern and why they go with minimization and avoidance of wetlands. Joan gave out a more detailed handout giving details of what is presented to planning boards and how planning boards work with the developer to minimize and avoid the wetlands. You have the right if you look in your sub-division regulations, to look at it and eliminate lots that you think are not avoiding the wetlands. Or if you look at some of the examples in the pamphlet, you have the ability to claim open space. You have the right to change the design of this. Minimizing could be putting in a hammerhead so there is no crossing, and you have a corridor of wetlands that are avoided. Take that into consideration when you look at this. Right now, flooding is a major problem in both states. That costs the towns and the state a lot of money for damage to roads and infrastructure. You should also be concerned about the houses that are going on these lots and abutting lots. As water increases, these wetland areas may increase. Evan would be concerned about water backing up into his airport and destroying his runway. These are some of the things you should consider. These are some of the things the Conservation Committee is submitting to DES looking at this map. Evan Karpf said as of right now his runway has standing water on it, and you can’t even walk or drive on it without sinking in. Anyone is welcome to come look at it. He told Cathy before the meeting that there is so much water there now and it is just going to get worse. Joan wanted to point out those areas in the sub-division regulations: 902 and Open Space Section 13. Please look at those. You can label areas open space.
Cathy said to address some of those comments, one of the things we did when we started this development, we talked to Sayed about how many lots he would need to make this development work for him. He wanted more than we have now. Back in February we had a pre-application meeting with DES wetlands bureau and presented the initial proposal of what our client was asking for and based on that meeting minimizing and avoiding wetlands, we revised our road layout, put in shared driveways, to reduce the wetlands impact. We did have those conversations with DES, and maybe the mistake was not inviting the Planning Board to the table. Typically, they are not involved with those conversations but certainly could be. Within the application there are some meeting minutes of what was covered at that pre-application meeting and how we adjusted the plan to something that reduced the wetlands impact to the numbers that Cathy gave earlier.
Joan read that pre-application letter. Cathy said that plan is not the current plan. Cathy said in the pre-application meeting there was a plan that was presented that is now different. Joan understands that they want this as a business, but the role of the Conservation Commission is to make you understand the importance of trying to avoid this the best possible way you can. It is not about money. That is not why you make a decision. It is about what is best for this land, in regard to the safety and protection of the people buying these lots and the abutters. Is the culvert sized correctly? Has anyone checked that? When you have an impervious surface, there is less area for the water to move into. These are the things you need to consider. Cathy said she can send the original application to the board. Kevin said you have the right to develop your land, and he feels they have done a reasonable job in crossing wetlands. It is the Wetlands Bureau job to assess that.
Chair Foti said that we will continue this application and public hearing until September. Austin Alvarez said we voted at the last meeting to continue this public hearing until the August meeting.
Item 5: New Application: Daniel Shaheen Subdivision, Lot 407-054-000-001

(He has asked for continuation to September 7th as he has not obtained all his documents.)
Item 6: Standard Dredge and Fill Wetlands Permit Application from Kegan and Sade Labonte, Abel Lane, Map 211/Lot 029-000-010
(Just to be reviewed and made aware)
Chair Foti read the cover letter from the Wetlands Bureau to the Town of Carroll that they had received a Standard Dredge and Fill Wetlands Permit Application (RSA 482-A), on July 21, 2023, NHDES File Number 2023-01782, for Abel Lane, Carroll, Tax Map #211, Lot #29. The property owners are putting in a driveway and had submitted an application to disturb the wetlands to put in a driveway. We are receiving this as an FYI. There is nothing for us to do with it. Evan Karpf said he feels that Dave Scalley should look at that to approve a driveway permit. Chair Foti explained that there is no planning board involvement with driveway permits. This is for informational purposes only.

Item 7: Follow-Ups
A. Rehab Facilities – Outcome of Legal Consultation by Selectboard
It has come to the board’s attention that there are problems in Bethlehem with their Rehab facility and having no medical staff at the facility. It can have a significant impact on a town’s resources. The Fire Chief and Police Chief have a concern. They have been called on multiple occasions to assist Bethlehem. This is something we may want to get legal advice on what we can do. What if this wanted to come to Carroll? Could we request they have medical staff onsite to support the residents so they wouldn’t be calling the EMT’s all the time? It is a health care facility. This would be a good one to bring up to legal counsel to prevent what is happening there to happen here. It is a complicated one, and it goes back to the ordinance. Rena said they just drop them off when their insurance runs out, and the PD ends up dealing with stolen vehicles, golf carts, etc. Chair Foti said one option would be to put in our zoning ordinance that rehab facilities are not allowed. Having a consultation with legal about what we can do and how we go about it would be good. It would be a preventative measure.
B. Change of Use from 571 Route 3 South, Lot 207-050-000-000

(It was decided at last meeting for Austin Alvarez to speak with NHMA Legal Services. They advised that this is not a Planning Board issue but rather a ZBA issue, and it should be taken to the ZBA. It was tabled to the August 3rd meeting as both the Chair of the Planning Board and the Chair of the ZBA are the property owners, and they are not available until after July 20th.
This will be discussed at the end of the meeting as Chair Foti has to recuse himself.
Item 8. All Other Business
A question came in at the last meeting about abutter notification. When we reviewed the application for the Quaint Glamping project, a gentleman called, and he came to the last meeting and his concern was why he was not notified as an abutter. He is not an abutter. Chair Foti said that the RSA defines an abutter as an adjoining lot or directly across the street for stream. It was determined that he is not an abutter, and we can’t add him to the list of abutters if he is not an abutter. Dave mentioned something about a non-conforming lot and a 500-foot radius might come into play, but it does not. The planning board did the research, discussed it again tonight, and does not believe that he is an abutter to that property.

Austin Alvarez has been in close contact with Omni for another project, and the interim GM said the corporate ownership of Omni is coming to the hotel to look around and plan what they want to do. They will be here in August. Austin is meeting with him next week and will see if he has any updates. They may need an extension.
Chair Foti said to follow-up from yesterday, the Boards had a good joint discussion. There are a lot of things we would like to address in the ordinance, but we know we can’t address them all. We would like to start with the higher-level items:
--Short-term rentals and desire for some level of regulation for these—we have looked at the spectrum of options that we are seeing around the area, some are light-weight versions verses higher-weight versions. Franconia has a reasonable permitting process. One of the biggest challenges for the PD is who to contact and how to contact them. This is something a registration process could address. Alex thinks it would be a good idea have it be public information. This will require a warrant article to be voted on at town meeting. Alex has started working on creating the registration form, and Jules has put together a draft ordinance, which the Board reviewed tonight. Jules said he wanted to keep it simple. Alex said it was suggested as an interim step that we can make it voluntary until it is approved by the town. If they submit the voluntary form before it is approved, then we would waive the fee for the first registration. Discussed making the permits valid for three years before there are re-inspections. Never going to have 100% enforceability. Push people to do things properly. It is a good start. If we are calling those short-term rentals commercial, it needs to come before the planning board. Possibly have two different applications, one managed by the homeowner and one for a management company. We will review this and bring our comments and suggestions to the next meeting for approval.

Chair Foti said he has reached out to Tara to see if she might be able to help us to put together the warrant articles.


Item 3. Approval of Minutes-July 6, 2023
We now have a quorum for the July 6th meeting minutes. Rena, Austin, Don, and Ryan were present at the July 6th meeting. The Chair asked if anyone has any corrections or errors.

1. Austin said he has one comment on the second page at the bottom under Selectboard meeting request with planning board and ZBA: This will be relayed to Kelly for the Selectboard. Please add Trammell after Kelly.

2. It is Ryan Peffer not Peffers
A motion was made by Austin Alvarez to approve the July 6, 2023 meeting minutes with the above changes. Ryan Peffer second. Motion passed with 4 ayes, and Foti and Marquis abstained, as they were not at the meeting.
B. Change of Use from 571 Route 3 South, Lot 207-050-000-000

(It was decided at last meeting for Austin Alvarez to speak with NHMA Legal Services. They advised that this is not a Planning Board issue but rather a ZBA issue, and it should be taken to the ZBA. It was tabled to the August 3rd meeting as both the Chair of the Planning Board and the Chair of the ZBA are the property owners, and they are not available until after July 20th.
Chair Foti recused himself from this discussion as he is the owner of 571 Route 3 South, Lot 207-050-000-000. He sat in the audience.

Recap where we are at. Alex said they bought this property with the idea that it is a great location to have a billboard for their business and someday we may need additional office space. They currently rent their office space, but that may change sometime in the future. They are currently renovating the interior slowly, and it may this winter be a seasonal rental or short-term rentals for their employees. They have had employees who don’t have anywhere to live and have to move. Now they have a property that could be used for employee housing if needed. That is the primary use. There is also a very nice large garage that is currently storing materials for the construction. We also have an overflow of supplies for our rental properties that will be stored there. It is a nice central location that is accessible for the staff to get supplies they need.

Trying to interpret the ordinance, we submitted to planning board for a change of use with a mixed concept, but he is not entirely sure. The primary use is a rental, but there is the garage for storage. Where do we draw the line with an accessory use? Using garage to store stuff for the rental. Is that a different use from the primary use? Does it warrant a site plan review?
Austin’s understanding from legal was that this is purely a zoning thing and didn’t need to go to the planning board. Alex said he doesn’t get that all because it is not a zoning thing. The question really is, is this change of use, which is a planning board function. Austin said that it is a single-family house with a two-car garage. The garage will not be rented as a short-term rental. The house will be rented as a short-term rental. The garage will be used to store company stuff. Jules said he feels if it is going to be used as a garage, he does not see a change of use at all. Austin said that is what has been concluded. Alex wants to be transparent about what we are doing. Jules said as long as it has garage doors and it can be used to park vehicles that it would be a garage. Alex said it was out of an abundance of caution, he wanted to give the planning board the opportunity to weigh in. Alex said the previous owner used the garage to fix cars. The Board felt he didn’t need to submit an application.
Jules Marquis made a motion that the application for the change of use was deemed not necessary so long as the building can be used as a garage even though items can be stored in there it is still a garage. Rena second. All in favor. Motion passes.
Some other items that still need discussion:

--Definition of alteration – when is a building permit needed?
--501 - one building per property
--Definition of garage
--403.1 – table of uses – not in the table not allowed – should that be changed?
Chair Foti thought we can wait until the next meeting, but we are under time constraints.
Item 8: Adjourn Meeting
Austin Alvarez motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Rena Vecchio second. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.